As much as I disagree with Paul Krugman, I've come to respect him more than most on the left because he sticks to his guns and actually seems to believe what he says and willing to stand firm. Krugman has not veered from his insistence our economic problem is one of insufficient demand and that the stimulus was too small. There's the possibility Krugman knows he's incorrect and simply promotes statism for the sake of power and control, and that he's being stubborn beyond reason, but he appears to believe his Keynesian position. The problem with his position is that it doesn't answer some important questions -- the first question being that if the stimulus was too small, how can this be determined if it hasn't all been spent?
The second question has to do with stimulated, short-term demand and is a two-part question -- will an infusion of money into the economy give consumers confidence to buy big ticket items and businesses confidence to expand and hire? It seems to me that consumers and businesses are looking for long-term confidence that government actions will not interfere with long-term plans and contracts. If the mid-term elections create a split government, this might give businesses the confidence that regulations and policies, interference in general, will slow to a crawl, and consumers might feel more secure about going into debt, although they will probably be cautious for quite a while.
Where I think Krugman is wrong is in his insistence that demand is the answer. Short-term stimulus will likely be used in ways that help some but do very little to create an environment of confidence and enthusiasm for long-term prospects --- by long-term, I mean 5-10 years down the road -- and although Keynes said that in the long run we're all dead, for those in their 20s, 30s and 40s, they will be likely be quite alive, and they don't want to be in bankruptcy begging government for a few bucks to get a bowl of soup.