Donald Trump Defeats Nikki Haley in South Carolina Primary
Despite holding out against a seemingly inevitable Trump nomination, Haley lost in her home state.

In a seemingly inevitable march to the Republican nomination to challenge President Joe Biden in November, former President Donald Trump won the South Carolina Republican primary. The New York Times reported less than 30 minutes after polls closed that Trump had defeated former Gov. Nikki Haley, his only remaining challenger, in her own home state.
Haley's defeat should come as no surprise: Going into the primary, polling aggregator FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 64 percent polling average compared to Haley's 33 percent. Notably, that number was the highest Haley had polled in her home state since at least April 2023.
But the defeat will likely still come as a blow to Haley, who reiterated this week that she intended to stay in the race "until the last person votes." To that end, she has planned over $1 million in ad spending in states that vote on "Super Tuesday," March 5. But with the resounding loss on her home turf signaling her increasingly uncertain path to the Republican nomination, it's less clear than ever what hopes she actually has of preventing the Trump-Biden rematch that voters do not want.
Despite framing her campaign as an alternative to both Trump and Biden, Haley did not win over her state's conservative base. In a recent CBS/YouGov poll, 76 percent of respondents said that Haley was not "part of the 'MAGA' movement," which nearly half of South Carolina Republicans consider themselves a part of.
Ironically, in the same poll, nearly 90 percent of respondents felt that Trump "might" or "would definitely" beat Biden in the general election, while only 75 percent said the same about Haley. A recent Quinnipiac poll found Biden leading Trump by 49–45, while Haley leads Biden 46–43 in a head-to-head matchup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The walls are closing in?
For Haley anyway. She should have dropped out before this happened. Now she will be remembered as the one who lost her own state by over 20 points. And it’s an uphill climb from there. It also doesn’t help that it’s widely reported that her campaign is being propped up by billionaire democrat donors.
She’s done in politics. At least as a Republican.
I feel sorriest for Charles Koch, he bet the farm on Haley.
Koch Political Machine Vows to Fight to Deny Trump GOP Nomination in 2024
On the plus side for our Reasonistas, he'll be handing out brown envelopes for Trump hit pieces like they're Halloween candy. Sullum will be able to get a new roof for the garage, and Lancaster will be able to get that Key West time share.
From what I read Chuck is backing out.. er.. giving up on Dick Cheany in 3 inch heels.
Yes, final numbers show about a 20pt loss. As for her "increasingly uncertain path", let's not quibble on this. She has zero chance in the upcoming states to beat Trump. Haley is being bankrolled by big Democratic donors to stay in the race and beat up Trump trying to ease the path for senile Brandon. She is sealing her own fate as a non entity in the future for Republicans. It seems Nikki didn't learn a lesson from Lizzy Chaney. Cavort with the Dems to get on camera and when they are done with you, you are left with nothing.
The Useful Idiots are always the first against the wall.
You think losing to "none of the above" would do it.
And she lost to "None of the above" in Nevada.
Maybe she can get ‘none of the above’ to make her his running mate.
HAVE WRITTEN AN FULL ARTICLE ON TRUMP CHECK ON MY WEBSITE https://theglobalhues.com/
Is it written in all caps?
That's a pretty safe bet.
Haley [said] that she intended to stay in the race "until the last person votes."
Or "until those geezer candidates self-destruct".
“until those geezer candidates self-destruct”
Or are destroyed.
They can "self-destruct" but that doesn't automatically make her the party choice. DeSantis suspended his campaign, he didn't end it. If Trump is unable to continue he can re-enter just before the convention and force a vote on the floor in a brokered or contested convention. I doubt Haley would win that one either. In fact, if it comes to that I'll bet good money she doesn't win.
Even then, DeSantis or Vivek would be the replacement. Not her.
Both are better than she is that is for sure.
"Better" in the sense of beating Biden? Or better in the sense of being more of a mini-me of Donald Trump?
Simply put, the voters do not want anyone. Don't pretend there's a matchup out there that voters actually seek. Trump actually has many voters enthusiastic about him, which hardly any other candidates can say, but really, let's not pretend there's any consensus. Give them any matchup, most will say they want others.
And there's no magic election system which leads to a consensus, although occasionally some might produce the false appearance of one.
Fortunately it seems not many commenters here fall for the hope that, if only the voters knew more, or more about, explicitly libertarian choices, they'd go for them. American voters basically know enough to reject all ideologies. The very idea of ideology is off-putting to American voters, more so than elsewhere in the world. I think they've taken to heart RAW's observation that convictions make convicts.
That said, although Trump is no Milei, he's by far the closest we've gotten for major candidates for major office in the USA in my lifetime. Libertarians are fools to reject him, because we won't get better.
No one has ever said there was an election system that leads to a consensus. For offices like the President and state Governors there is only one possible winner, but even there ranked choice voting can lead to a much clearer outcome than the two-party system can achieve. Ranked-choice at-large proportional representation elections lead directly away from "consensus" in the right direction: near one hundred percent representation in the state legislatures and Congress. Our current two-party system disenfranchises as many as 49% of all the voters after every election, while as many as 22% get Republican representation and 33% get Democratic representation, so nothing ever changes and the political elite controls everything.
Our current two-party system disenfranchises as many as 49% of all the voters after every election
Why do people cite this as though it matters?
That 49% is never actually united enough to affect the outcome, largely because they don't have any real interest in politics, so no shit they feel disenfranchised. They only have themselves to blame.
PoPuLaR vOtE!
I'm hoping, desperately, for Trump to win the popular vote to watch that Popular Vote Compact thing self-destruct.
No way NY gives its electoral votes to Trump if he wins popular vote.
Don't bet the farm on that, sparky.
Did you forget that the elections are all rigged?
That’s not only false, but you surely know that it’s false! The two-party system makes it impossible for as many as 49% to ever get the representative of their choice. Anywhere up to 50% minus one vote may be disenfranchised even though they were actively involved with the losing party in their election district. Plus gerrymandering aggravates that problem frequently. At-large (as opposed to district-based) ranked-choice multi-pass balloting guarantees that almost 100% of the voters will get the representative of their choice (first, second, third, etc.) after every election and encourages third-party support.
> Our current two-party system disenfranchises as many as 49% of all the voters after every election
Stop. Losing an election does not mean you were disenfranchised. That's not what that word means.
Losers?
What about yourself?
It certainly DOES mean that. All libertarians in America have been disenfranchised. They have the right to vote for someone who has NO CHANCE to win. The difference between single party nations and two-party nations is one party. Even in Europe third parties have some representatives in the legislatures after every election. In the U.S. we have Democrats, Republicans and Bernie Sanders. If ten percent of the voters are libertarians, libertarians should have ten percent of the representatives. "No taxation without representation" was a slogan concerning disenfranchisement.
In the past blacks and women sought to gain the franchise of the vote. They previously didn't have the franchise and thus were disenfranchised. When they got the vote they were no longer disenfranchised.
What people who voted for the guy who lost are isn't disenfranchised, they got to vote. Also since most ballots have a number of candidates and issues on them odds are they chose the winning person for offices down the ballot, which are actually going to affect their lives far more than who is in the federal government.
It certainly DOES NOT.
You have not been denied a right or legal course of action simply by picking a losing candidate.
It means you picked a loser. No "disenfranchisement" has occurred.
By this measure, every time Rand Paul doesn't get the nomination (not that he's even running this time, mind) I am personally disenfranchised.
Which is, of course, absolute nonsense.
No it doesn't mean that, but perhaps you are just being sarcastic ... or idiotic. It depends on HOW you lose an election. If you lose the election because the election is rigged so that a Republican or a Democrat always wins almost every time, then everyone else who is not a Democrat (in some districts) or a Republican (in other districts) has been disenfranchised. Proportional representation election systems are easy to design, easy to implement and end up with as close to 100% representation as it is possible to achieve.
False. Find a dictionary and stop making foolish statements.
You have not been denied your right to vote when you vote for a loser.
Libertarians are fools to reject him, because we won’t get better.
You're a fool to believe that your vote matters enough to be worth investing any rationalizing effort.
At least I’m not as big a fool as JFree.
That would be quite a task.
Herculean effort.
And I simply don’t have that much energy.
Oh lay off the paranoia. If you're right then no one should bother to vote at all.
It's also annoying to pretend that there's any confusion of what she's waiting out for. She's waiting for Trump to drop dead, go to jail, be ruled ineligible, or possibly even jettisoned by the GOP apparatus. It's been shown repeatedly that GOP establishment and democrats are who she is getting support and votes from
Well, duh. She's gotta be in it to win it.
Which she isn't going to do, regardless. 40% is about the best she can expect, and that was her home state. And if Trump isn't the nominee, it will be DeSantis or Vivek; the GOP base doesn't trust her to not stab them in the back like every other neocon has the last 35-plus years.
She’s made that painfully obvious.
If the lefturds succeed in torpedoing Trump, she still won't be the nominee. The Republicans will draft DeSantis or something.
-jcr
Trump's a Rock Star. Haley's a fake. Everyone sees it for what it is. Haley's just a RINO plant. An Authoritarian. Bad on every idea. Trump isn't much better in many respects when it comes to his blind spots but he's not bought and paid for. People see his authenticity.
Heh! An authentically bad President.
Yes, but still the best since Coolidge.
An authentically bad candidate is actually preferable to a candidate who is disingenuously bad.
With the first, you get exactly what it says on the tin. On the second, they piss on your head and tell you it's raining.
That is perhaps not a good thing, on that I would probably agree, but it is the least bad thing which is about all we can hope for.
The people bitching the loudest about Trump don't seem to notice that Biden is actually a worse option. We have a 4 year term from both of them to compare, and Biden does not look good in that comparison.
Well, at least not to me and many others. I'm sure there are people who think a guy that can't find the stairs is an excellent choice for President. Lets not quibble though, in Biden's case it's absolutely the (D) after his name that people are voting for, not that man himself. In Trump's case, the (R) after his name is incidental to his appeal for many people who will vote for him.
That's a good point. I voted for Bush Sr. Absentee when I was in the army. That's the last republican I voted for until Trump. I don't care what letter he has after his name. I care that the people in government I can't stand get appaleptic every time Trump opens his mouth.
She also sounds increasingly shrill and delusional. It’s not a good look.
“…..increasingly shrill and delusional…”
Chicks who are past their prime get like that a lot.
Lol, you mean she's not delusional enough.
To get you to vote for her? No. She’s not quite that awful. You have morons like Newsom, Kamala, and every other rabid Marxist.
"Trump’s a Rock Star."
Trump's a has-been loser who couldn't defeat senile Joe Biden, and still hasn't conceded the 2020 election. He's also ineligible to run in 2028, so he's a strategically terrible candidate for 2024 as far as the RNC is concerned.
Haley's far from the ideal candidate, but of the three she's easily the best choice. And she continues to outperform her polling. Trump lost 40% of the vote last night, and many of those voters will stay home or vote third party in November if he's the nominee.
Trump has lost to Biden once, and he will again. Trump loses to Newsom or any other candidate that might replace Biden. More importantly, he's absolute poison to downticket Republican candidates. If the RNC wants to retake the White House, the Senate, and state governments they need to jettison him as quickly as possible.
Haley’s far from the ideal candidate, but of the three she’s easily the best choice.
No, she's absolute shit. The only issues she's taken hard stances on have been expanding the surveillance state, which makes her absolute persona non grata to the majority of the party. On every other issue, she's demonstrated that she doesn't have any actual principle other than conflict avoidance with the left, which is why the neocons love her so much.
And she continues to outperform her polling. Trump lost 40% of the vote last night,
More copium inhalation. This was Haley's home state, AND SHE COULDN'T FUCKING WIN IT. Spare us this desperate effort to make her shitty showings look better than they are.
Even in the event that Trump is locked out for whatever reason, she STILL won't be the nominee. Because the majority of the base will not accept her under any circumstance. If she's the nominee, all the independents in the country aren't going to save her campaign. She'll roll over and show her stomach just like Romney did.
"Even in the event that Trump is locked out for whatever reason, she STILL won’t be the nominee. Because the majority of the base will not accept her under any circumstance. If she’s the nominee, all the independents in the country aren’t going to save her campaign. She’ll roll over and show her stomach just like Romney did."
This is why McCain and Romney lost. Ridiculous purity tests that no one can live up to; letting perfect be the enemy of good. Biden's a disaster. Trump's not much better, and he can't win the general. You want to get Biden and the proggies out of the White House, at this point she's the best shot at that. Even if you're right and she isn't the ultimate nominee, she's the only candidate who has any shot at keeping Trump from winning the primaries.
A vote for Trump in the primaries is a vote for Biden in the general. If Biden steps aside, any other Dem candidate mops the floor with Trump in the general.
No. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. Win, lose or draw 100% of his votes are ones he won.
Major party types use the "A vote for a minor party candidate is a vote for our opposition" all the time. It's bullshit.
In the 1920s the Socialist Party of America won over 10% of the popular vote for President. After that the DNC absorbed the Socialist Party platform and endevoured to make it mesh with theirs.
Everyone who voted Socialist achieved their goal by getting a major party to adopt their ideas.
Those who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 didn't waste their votes. They made it clear that the GOP needed to look over their platform and their people to change their ways to earn the votes of Trump voters.
The party is at war with itself because of that. When it settles out maybe Rand Paul will have a real shot at the nomination to be the GOP candidate for President. Maybe the GOP will stop sending up NeoCons and RINOs and instead find real conservatives with values more in tune with their base.
Then Trump voters will really win big. They will restore the GOP to a small government party and even Libertarians will win if that happens.
"No. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. Win, lose or draw 100% of his votes are ones he won."
In a literal sense, of course. This isn't the same as voting for a third-party candidate though....This is about determining which member of one side of the duopoly is going to challenge the other side in the general election.
This isn't 2016 when the thought of a disruptor candidate had enough appeal to entice general election voters to give Trump a shot. This is 2024, and Trump's carrying all the baggage he's accumulated over the past 8 years. Policy-wise he's a hard candidate to argue against (other than his mishandling of Covid), but the masses rarely vote on policy. Emotion plays a massive part of that, and the fact is that enough of the country finds him so distasteful that even though he's the better candidate based on policy and results, they can't stomach voting for him.
“This is why McCain and Romney lost. Ridiculous purity tests that no one can live up to”
No. McCain lost, mostly, because of the Great Recession. He also had a shit campaign strategy, the incumbent Republican President being Dubya, and the misfortune to run against Obama, the media’s new “Kennedy”. Republicans were probably doomed in 2008 regardless of who they put up. Though McCain didn’t do himself any favors with his famous antagonism towards conservatives.
Regarding 2012. Romney had difficulty maintaining conservative support because he was the former Governor MA who appeared to have flipped flopped on most of his previous stances including Romneycare. No purity test needed, voters just had to look at his record and statements during and before the campaign.
Blaming voters for noticing your guys’ faults, while easy to do, ignores the whole picture. It reminds me of progressives who complain about Hillary losing in 2016, they blame everyone accept the candidate.
"Blaming voters for noticing your guys’ faults, while easy to do, ignores the whole picture. It reminds me of progressives who complain about Hillary losing in 2016, they blame everyone accept the candidate."
Hillary ran a shit campaign, is the most unlikeable person in politics, and had the misfortune of running against Trump.
But again, people voted out of emotion rather than, "it's either her or their guy". We got 8 years of Obama because Romney didn't pass the purity test, and for many conservative voters having 4 more years of Obama was preferable to voting for an imperfect Republican candidate.
I live in a tossup state, so everyone's vote here actually counts. Anti-Trump Republicans are not going to vote for him, even knowing how badly Biden's bungled things. Same with Independents. Same with Blue-Dog Democrats.
Haley in 2024 is not dissimilar to Biden had he run in 2016. Not perfect by any stretch, but a passable alternative for people who can't stomach voting for either of the other two.
Let me guess. You work for the Haley campaign?
Might as well move along. No one here is buying what you’re selling.
At this point in a campaign, when it's pretty clear who's won and who's lost, it's worth seeing what entities have completely wasted their influence money and what entities have profited. Open Secrets is a great website for transparency.
76 percent of respondents said that Haley was not “part of the ‘MAGA’ movement”
Well, yea. She’s a conservative. And the GOP "MAGA movement" has made it very clear that conservatives are no longer welcome among their ranks.
Nothing says conservative like requiring everyone to register their true name to use the web.
Period.
Yeah, I never got anything that said "conservative" from Haley.
She seems pretty in to all the things I disliked most about the 21st century major parties, in fact. Definitely not small government, not about individual liberty, or anything conservatives would be after.
Definitely not small government, not about individual liberty, or anything conservatives would be after.
What makes you think that?
What? You think progressives and establishment "liberals" are for small government and individual liberty?
AT doesn't think anything. He's just sealioning.
I never said they were.
Again, this is an illustration of people falsely equating MAGA with conservatism.
MAGA isn't conservative. Period. They're populist, and as such far more in the corner of progressives and establishment liberals than their conservative opponents.
And this is evidenced by how much more MAGA (and in particular, Trump) openly despises conservatives, and targets them for destruction - than they ever do progressives and establishment liberals.
I suspect you're concern trolling, so give us your definition of conservative then.
What beliefs constitute 'conservative' beliefs?
They never answer this question. Just vague talking points fed to them by corporate media and the Lincoln Project.
Pedo Project.
This is a red herring, in an attempt to put yourself in a "well that's just your opinion" position. Nope.
The real question is, why does MAGA so badly want to hang onto the moniker of "conservative" when Trump/MAGA consistently attacks conservatives, flat out ignores conservative approaches to governance ("fire with fire, play by their rules!"), and only kinda sorta supports conservative policy goals (though never with any effort to secure them in a way that can't be immediately undone by the opposition).
My guess - and this is speculation, admittedly - is that the undeveloped, rudimentary proto-brains that seem to be the dominant feature among MAGAs and other Leftists are so primitive and simplistic that they can only see things in a binary. MAGA/Marxist, Republican/Democrat, Red/Blue, Conservative/Liberal, Capitalist/Communist, Patriot/Traitor, etc.
They (think they) know which one they're not, which to them means they must therefore be the opposite. Even though they're clearly and demonstrably not, and the terms usually aren't even opposites in the first place.
Kinda like if you went down to some inbred yokel watering hole and asked some toothless guy in overalls (and nothing else), "Are you a conservative or a liberal?" His reply might be, "Well I definitely ain't no baby-killing queer-loving commie that wants the gubmint pissing away my hard earned money. I love me my guns and my God, so I guess that means I'm a conservative. And I'm with Trump. Make America great again!"
Even though Trump/MAGA has clearly defended abortion, LGBTQ, and ridiculous to the point of reckless spending - and his support of gun rights and Christianity is wishy-washy at best.
Is that conservative? You tell me.
There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that precludes a populist from also being a conservative. Those are not mutually exclusive things.
And no, Trump isn't a conservative but since conservatives are literally the devil to you and your fellow travelers it would seem you would believe that's a good thing, right?
Haley is, of course, not a conservative at all unless you mean she's a social conservative which is perhaps the worst kind of conservative...especially to you and yours.
Can you compare and contrast between ‘populist’ and conservative’?
I already did. The short version is that "conservative" is a branch of the Individualist tree; whereas "populist" is a branch of the Collectivist tree.
The longer version is that Conservatism wants what's best for the individual, and seeks to conserve (usually under a moral framework, likely defined by the same Judeo-Christian ethic the Founders relied upon) what had traditionally best served the rights of the individual even when its interest is contrary to their own. Populism wants what's best for the collective - specifically their collective - and will try to assert it by brute force, with no moral framework considerations taken, and declaring that anyone who doesn't like it can go choke on a sack of crap and is undeserving of their oh-so-benevolent ambitions.
If the latter sounds familiar, it's because it's also the approach of pretty much all other Collectivists - from socialism to despotism to fascism.
Conservatives value self-governance, independence, and accountability.
Populists crave benevolent dictatorship. Depending on their definition of "benevolent," of course.
If you want to be a sexual freak then yeah, the Democrats are small government. If you hate guns then the Democrats are pro freedom.
It's like Republicans on Drug Legalization. Suddenly big government solutions are the proper response. Sexual freaks want the Christians to leave them alone, the democrats promise laws to do that.
Small Government and Individual Liberty are personal views. Want to own guns, Republicans seem small government. Want to do drugs, Republicans are a bunch of big government Nazis. Want to be Chrisitan in public, Republicans are your team. Want to be a sexual Freak, Republicans are monsters.
Her record for one. Most every word to ever come out of her mouth for two. The people backing her play for third.
Don't forget bombing everyone.
Nikki is for bombs.
Bombs and censorship. She’s the perfect Republican candidate for 1996.
That doesn’t do her any good without Grover Cleveland’s Presidential Time Machine.
Huh...this is especially hilarious to me since Trump is a Democrat from around 1996.
I'll admit, this made me laugh more than I thought it would.
So was Reagan. The party moved too far to the left for those moderate guys
Also look at where they come from, Reagan was from California and Trump from New York. It's hard to be a "somebody" and not be registered as a Drmocrat in those places.
Remember when MAGA was creaming its pants every time Trump used the term "MOAB?"
And then used a MOAB?
But, again, this is what I'm talking about.
Trump + Bombs = Good.
Not Trump + Bombs = Bad.
It's not about the bombs. It's about the demagogue.
Retaliatory attacks are different than preventative or preemptive ones.
Don't let your TDS dictate your worldview.
No MoRe FoReIgN WaRs LOL
Which is it? Islamic terrorism is bad and needs to be bombed to the stone age to stop its spread, or Islamic terrorism isn't America's business also here Islamic terrorists would you like a whole country?
Don't let your TDS dictate your worldview. The other strain.
Are you being deliberately retarded in pretending you don't know the difference between retaliation and wars?
I think it comes naturally to him.
Droppin' bombs is droppin' bombs. American military involvement in other nations.
We for or against that?
Taking military action overseas to stop the festering spread of Islamic terrorism, we for or against that?
I know - you have no idea. You haven't given it any more thought beyond, "Yay Donald! My life for you!" Even when it's a cognitive dissonance like, "Boo ISIS! Yay Taliban!" MAGA isn't really known for its acumen in the brain thoughts department. It's all unhinged Outrage Brigade, like their Leftist cousins.
"Droppin’ bombs is droppin’ bombs"
Yes, but "droppin’ bombs" isn't necessarily war. You set the topic here. Remember this? "No MoRe FoReIgN WaRs LOL"
Stop being disingenuous.
What is it?
What's a term to describe the kind of group/nation that we would drop bombs on?
Nationalist foreign policy is don't get involved, but fuck up those who get us involved.
MOAB is consistent with that.
We weren't "involved in" anything by ISIS. Their brutality and expansionism didn't meaningfully harm (or even affect) America or Americans. Yea, they targeted Coalition forces in Iraq - which we were basically in charge of - but Trump, MAGA, and other Leftists don't believe that the Coalition should have even been there in the first place. So... I mean, explain the cognitive dissonance of your position. We should retaliate - with MOAB level force - against the people who attack us because of something you agree with them on?
NGL, bombing the crap out of terrorists was one of the things I really thought Trump deserved kudos for. Great, great move. But it's kind of hard to keep up the praise when he then says, "No more foreign wars," and hands terrorists a nation to assert dominance over and immediately oppress.
It's like the brain-addled pukes who convince themselves that supporting Palestine isn't supporting Hamas/Iran. Like, who the f are you kidding?
Your mistake was thinking this was a post about Haley. It wasn't. It was a post about the MAGA GOP.
See, this is the problem at its most basic level with brain-addled knee-jerkers like MAGA and other Leftists who spend more time being outraged than thinking clearly, and are easily taken in by demagoguery. They find one thing they kinda sorta don't like about anyone else (because they were actively searching for it, I might add - which is why you mischaracterized her position on the subject), and suddenly ignore literally everything they'd otherwise support about them.
For the record, I'm not planning on supporting Haley. She wasn't my favorite in the beginning, she's got a few red flags I don't care for. But I defy anyone to show me how Trump has a better track record than she does on say... abortion, or gun rights, or spending, or education. She's no RINO, like say Romney or Murkowski - Haley's track record speaks for itself. And it's clearly conservative.
All prejudices and partisanship aside, she is - objectively - far more conservative than Trump. I mean, pick your subject. Any subject.
But it's not really about Conservatism in the first place with the MAGA brood, is it. This is just DeSantis, or Cheney, or Pence all over again, isn't it. The Trump bloc doesn't want tried and tested conservatives with established track records of success. They want echo chamber populists who bend the knee to their godking and never second-guess him or anything he says or does.
Which is why I said: the GOP “MAGA movement” has made it very clear that conservatives are no longer welcome among their ranks.
So just own that already. MAGA is not a conservative movement. It's a populist movement that utilizes left-wing/socialist approach to governance in order to achieve right-wing policy aims. And it seems to actively despise conservatives even more than it does leftists, all the way to Trump himself who spends more time trying to destroy conservatives who won't take a knee than he does anyone on the left. Or even the far/insane left.
I don’t think that assessment is even close to entirely correct.
Copeium. Lots of copeium.
Which part and why?
The beginning, the middle and the summary.
You fling a lot of accusations at the Deplorables, and then declare Haley is more conservative but you provide no examples of either. You cite her track record but again no examples for your assertions, nor do you provide examples of Trump's failures.
Also, the fact you're treating 'populism' like a dirty word tells me you're a Bill Kristol Democrat.
The only accusations I fling at "the Deplorables" are those consistent with Trump's policy and governance positions. If they support Trump, it's fair to accuse them of supporting those positions.
What examples would you like, specifically, about Haley? Even though I've already made it clear that Haley isn't the topic of discussion, rather that the point is that MAGA is vehemently to the point of rabidly anti-conservative.
Also, the fact you’re treating ‘populism’ like a dirty word
Well, it's a branch of the Collectivist tree. Unlike conservatism, which is a branch of the Individualist tree.
So... yea... I do usually consider the Collectivist tree the more "dirty" rotten one.
How Bill Kristol or Democrats play into that (when they're ALSO of the Collectivst tree), I don't know - but it does kind of suggest some TDS in your thinking.
“Well, it’s a branch of the Collectivist tree.”
The fuck it is. What kind of cheap sophistry are you trying to pull here? You don’t even know what ‘populism’ means, do you? You’re just using it as a pejorative.
“Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of “the people” and often juxtapose this group with “the elite”.[1] It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.[2]”
Seriously, if you want to troll "MAGA" here, you better learn what the words you're using mean first.
You don’t even know what ‘populism’ means, do you?
I suspect you’re concern trolling, so give us your definition of populism then.
What beliefs constitute ‘populist’ beliefs?
*smirk*
Yes, why don’t YOU back up your claims first.
This should be good.
I asked you first. Don't chicken out of your position.
You're the one that made the dishonest assertions without any evidence in the first place.
No, you didn’t. You puked out a bunch of claims about how KAGA isn’t conservative and that Haley is somehow the conservative candidate.
So back that up, and be specific.
I never said that Haley was "the conservative candidate."
I said that Haley is more conservative than Trump. And that Trump/MAGA isn't conservative in the first place.
Because they're not. I've already articulated examples why that is - from the intentional targeting of conservatives (against leftists, no less), to the anti-conservative approach to governance, to policy "wins" that provide no long-term gains for conservative goals.
You're right. Haley is "conservative" in most or all of the ways I dislike "conservatism". Trump is both more populist and more libertarian.
The main good thing about "conservatives" in the USA has long been that they're against the "liberals". The "liberals" are now so awful that they're beyond the pale. "Conservatives" are now to a large degree actually conservative, opposing change, and since most of the changes on the table are what "liberals" want, being "conservative" is attractive. But it's possible to be better than that while still being politically viable, and the MAGA movement is.
Finally, someone honest. Thanks Roberta.
Though I will disagree with you that MAGA is as anti-liberal as you claim, given that its tribal chief is willing to acquiesce to them in order to remain "politically viable." Conservatism's largest criticism of Trump is his willingness to trade "what's right" for "what will win."
For example:
Conservatism: Don't kill the babies.
Liberalism: Kill the babies.
Trumpism: OK, just kill some of the babies.
Conservatism: WHAT THE FUCK!?!
Liberalism: Good. Now let's talk about killing more of them.
Oddly, Trump is why abortion is now a state issue.
Also, Haley is not exactly a pro-life lion by any means.
Roe was a piece of shit that was bound to come down eventually when people needed more confidence in the judicial system. Too bad that's all been blown now, but not Trump's fault except in the sense that the Jews made the Holocaust.
Oddly, Trump is why abortion is now a state issue.
No he's not. That's stupid. You're stupid for even thinking it.
That's like saying Reagan is responsible for Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. No, that's retarded. Don't be retarded or say retarded things.
I'm for legal abortions, more so than the "liberals", so that cuts no ice with me. And I'm not against concessions for the sake of electability either. We're not going to get a Milei unless things get so shitty that getting halfway back to where we are now looks attractive.
a scary but probably accurate hypothesis
And it seems to actively despise conservatives even more than it does leftists, all the way to Trump himself who spends more time trying to destroy conservatives who won’t take a knee than he does anyone on the left.
When have those "conservatives" ever actually conserved anything? By most of their own admission, their purpose is to keep leftism from happening faster--to "apply the brakes so that it slows down"--not actually stop it.
What possible motivation would a populist Republican have to vote for these people, if they say they only want the car to hit the wall at 40 mph, rather than 100? You're still going to total the car.
Dude. It's grey box time. You take up too much screen length with your delusional rants. Makes it hard to scroll along getting an idea what folks think when you cut and paste War and Peace into the forum.
And having your primary campaign propped up by democrat mega donors.
Haley is a RINO and a neocon. Case closed.
Wait wait wait - which is it? RINO or Neocon?
See what I'm saying? It's like you don't have any objective take on the woman or her political career. It's all just some infantile "Trump or Not Trump" take on the subject.
Like the entirety of the position is "Haley Not Trump. Haley Bad. Goo goo ga ga."
Neocons were always RINO dumdum. They vote for every major government expansion and spending increase. They bow the knee yo the DNC when the NYT gets upset. They are curated opposition. People like Kizinger, Romney, etc. Campaign as a conservative, ensure liberals win the power. Sorry your war mongering neocons are so badly thought of.
Neocons were always RINO dumdum.
So pick a term. Why distinguish them? It's like calling someone a gay fag. It's redundant. Unless you feel like articulating what distinguishes "gay" from "fag" and then explaining why one doesn't go hand-in-hand with the other.
For the record, there's a substantial body of opinion out there that says "MAGA was always RINO." Which, actually, makes a whole lot more sense than saying it about Neocons. Hence why people tend to speak of Trump/MAGA as "taking over" and/or "redefining" the Republican Party. They make no effort to hide their disdain for any Republican that doesn't bow to Donald.
Being that they're populists instead of conservatives, this makes more sense. At least on the assumption that "Republican Party" and "Conservatism" mean more or less the same thing. Which, admittedly, is a big assumption.
Anyway, you're still missing the point. MAGA, being a populist movement, is necessarily anti-conservative. And they make no effort to hide it. What's weird is that MAGA is so desperate to hold onto the "Republican" brand. When they seem to hate everything about the Conservatives that defined it.
"So pick a term. Why distinguish them? It’s like calling someone a gay fag. It’s redundant."
No it fucking isn't! Learn what words mean, FFS.
Neoconservatives promote militaristic interventionism and "peace through strength.
A Republican In Name Only is a Democrat who caucuses with the Republicans because that's the only way he can get elected.
You can be both or only one, but they're definitely not the same thing.
If you want a place you can bluff your way through with bullshit have you tried Huffpo?
neocons are global trotskites period. They support massive deficit spending via central bank money printing, foreign wars to avenge old world grievances, tribal elitism, and often non-traditional social values. They scream for tolerance for their ideas and have zero for anyone else's. Most are Israeli firsters which explains their obsession with Ukraine (Trotsky again and the Czar) and the middle east. They should all take the first flight to Eastern Europe where they can join the Irving Kristol Trotsky Brigade and fight for the coke head.
Who decided there can be only one descriptor if any group of people? You and other sophists desperate to elect bad candidates that ultimately help the left advance??
You are, in fact, a gay fag.
But is he a top, or a bottom?
Populism isn't necessarily anti anything except elites.
Which, notably, the Democrat party is now officially the party of the self-styled 'Elites' in America. They are the party of the rich and connected, made up of the rich and connected.
It's notable that Trump was one of the rich and connected...but then he became a Republican and had the temerity to beat Hillary for President and all his former pals immediately threw him under a bus. That says a lot.
And that somehow made him less elite?
You’re not very good at this.
You always say that when you're losing.
Stop sockpuppeting.
Except I’m not losing. He just makes wild claims, without any specifics. And he would need to back up the missing specifics.
But I can see how an incredibly stupid individual, such as yourself, might make that mistake.
You make a lot of mistakes. Like disputing me in regards to the phony Trump fraud verdict. Are you now prepared to refute the the things I said about that?
Or will you run away from me again?
If I see an answer worth answering, I will answer. Don't think you're worth any more of my time than that.
She's a neo-con.
Most people don't realize, the 'neo' in 'neo-con' stands for 'Not Even Observably'
Nice.
This shows how bad Biden was.
And getting worse.
So, uhm, like Trumps been, uh, failing since uuuhhhh 2016 (when he became President) and generally, like, been failing while in office (when the economy was pretty good and bureaucracy was reduced by him) and he’s also been failing while he was not in office after that (when everybody still talked about him more than they talked about the vegetable in chief and many fruitless charges were pressed against him).
He’s, uhm, also clearly failing right now (as he is winning all the primaries, which is indicative of exceptionally high levels of failitude). Let’s see if this failing streak, this utter emberrishment, is gonna end in, uhm, November. Uh…
Holy shit, I must’ve eaten a Hank for breakfast. Or was it a squirrel? Do you remember, Jill? Im getting a little forgetful these days...
Oddly, your compatriots insist that Trump's first term was wrecked by all the RINOs the Rs forced him to hire into his cabinet and who went on to betray him one by one. And that's why his second term will be "different".
"Trump’s first term was wrecked by all the RINOs the Rs forced him to hire into his cabinet and who went on to betray him one by one."
Name one who wasn't.
He won’t. Spamtard never backs up his bullshit claims.
You have dutifully missed the point. Well done!
Venezuelan illegal migrant kills girl in GA
“Ibarra, 26, illegally crossed into El Paso, Texas, in September 2022 and was released from U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody, according to three ICE and DHS sources cited by Fox News. ICE said it had no official comment on the matter, Fox News reporter Bill Melugin posted on social media Saturday morning.
After police arrested the Venezuelan national on Friday, Ibarra was charged with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, hindering a 911 call, and concealing the death of another. Ibarra neither attended UGA as a student nor knew the victim, authorities said.”
You just lit the Chemjeff Signal.
But she was much more likely to have been murdered by a citizen! /Jeffy
He uses the same argument to justify welcoming known child rapist illegals too.
The exception proves the rule, as they say.
This is the first election where I’m really proud to say I won’t be voting. Am I really supposed to think Trump is the best thing for libertarians? If anything, he’s made it worse by emboldening progtards to push for ever more loony ideas in states where they dominate, and social conservatives to do the same. Nothing libertarian about that.
It's Trump's fault the Democrats are acting retarded.
Sure, if you only look at his achievements he was the most libertarian president since Coolidge, but he drives the uniparty mad and we can't have that.
It’s Trump’s fault the Democrats are acting retarded.
It kinda is. Hear me out.
The progressive press went completely fucking apeshit over him. Mostly because he wouldn't kowtow to their way of doing things (because being civil in the face of increasingly, blatantly, partisan coverage since the 90s just led to shit like the R always being crapped on and the D being deified, sending a thrill up a reporter's leg) and, instead, trolled them.
Once he beat Hillary, whose turn they had said it was, and the gloves came off, they had their complete meltdown. With press covering their backs, the Ds had been getting away with all kinds of shit for years, but at that point they could go nuclear and the media would back them, not call them on their bullshit. And they did. Woah, yeah they did! So it was Trump's fault that Ds went completely demented. *
Anyway, if your retarded toddler starts throwing hissy fits every time you say go to bed, or don't buy him a toy when you're shopping, or any other time he doesn't get what he wants, the LAST thing you do is to reinforce that behavior. Nothing good comes of that.
I will never, ever, for the rest of my life, ever, ever vote for a Democrat while the democrat-media complex is in existence. Half out of spite, but also because they are no longer doing the job of a free press. That's how you end up with the Democrat front runner not answering questions for weeks on end then, when finally holding a press conference, the first question is "What's your favorite ice cream flavor."
* not really. If they weren't about total war they wouldn't have been led by Pelosi for all those years. But, still.
All Trump did was shock them into dropping their masks. Anyone that says otherwise must have been in a coma since Clinton.
So Trump's made things worse for libertarians in the USA by flushing out the authoritarians, "left" and "right". Notice that Milei's aroused opposition in Argentina too. What did you think? That you could advance liberty by pleasing authoritarians so they wouldn't authoritarian up the place?
It seems like the economists and business leaders are actually starting to turn the corner on Milei's policies.
If anything, he’s made it worse by emboldening progtards to push for ever more loony ideas in states where they dominate
Trump is not responsible for the left's ever-increasing lack of self-control. If anything, he just made them reveal what they actually are.
^This. Exactly.
Ya, this. He made them comfortable with taking their masks off and going full retard mode.
It just highlights the authoritarians and makes it clearer who really should not be anywhere near power.
I highly considered not voting, but will be throwing in a very petty Trump vote as a fuck you to a very dangerous, out-and-proud authoritarian insane left wing that is slowly making everything worse.
I dont like the guy and wish he wasn't the nominee, but fuck the left. They have to be as far away from power as possible
Comfortable? No, but he made them feel like they had nothing left to lose — which is amazing considering how formidable their overall political position looks. Must be a house of cards. What else could explain it?
I like the idea of a vote for Trump is a Fuck You to the powers that be.
Amd have you noticed that the more they get what they want, the angrier and more shrill they become?
Democrats are rabid creatures, and should be dealt with as such.
People sometimes mistake Trump's incompetence or his rhetoric for libertarianism and it is not. Trump is a self-serving populist and a long way from a libertarian.
Parody.
Anything that hurts "moderates" is automatically good.
"Trump is a self-serving"
So? Name a president who wasn't.
"populist"
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being anti-elite right now. We currently have the worst Western political class since the French revolution.
"and a long way from a libertarian"
Yes indeed, but still the most libertarian president since Silent Cal.
" the most libertarian president since Silent Cal."
No, there is nothing to suggest anything like this. He spent more money, created tariffs, issued more EOs, opposed free trade and opposed immigration. This idea of Trump being a libertarian is a hallucination.
Yes, there is everything to prove it, except to TDS-addled Shit4brains.
You know that’s a comparison to every president from Coolidge to Biden. I challenge you to name one who was more libertarian.
(Gets popcorn. This should be good.)
I'm hoping he says Jimmy Carter like Buttplug once did.
opposed immigration
You do realize the 1920s had some of the strictest immigration laws in its history during that time, right?
The idea that you have the slightest idea what you’re talking about is a delusion.
Trump wasn’t a libertarian, but compared to his predecessors he certainly comes closer to being one. He signed into law the First Step Act, criminal justice reform, something that Obama failed to do. Pursued and signed the Abraham Accords. Pursued a peace deal with North Korea that was opposed by much of the GOP Establishment and the Democrats.
Contrasted with Obama who expanded the surveillance state, raided more Marijuana Dispensaries then Dubya, took us into Libya without Congressional Authorization and then left it a disaster. Or Contrasted with Dubya who gave us a whole new government agency: Dept of Homeland Security. Also gave us Medicare Part D, and the War with Iraq.
No Trump wasn’t a libertarian, but you can’t blame libertarians for seeing some good compared to the all the crap that came before him.
What is it I'm missing about Trump that makes him so unbelievably appealing to so many voters? Frankly, I can't say I've ever been so repulsed by a human being. He's the single reason I no longer identify as a Republican. And yet, here we are, with a ton of voters backing him. Nikki Haley can't even beat him on her home turf, and she's the only primary candidate still bothering to even try. Why? What exactly is the appeal? I really want to know.
Weird way to admit youre a neocon.
Reduced regulations, tax cuts, no new wars, first step act... oh but he says mean things.
Weird how people prefer a daddy while ignoring the policies that actually effect them.
Bet you voted for Obama too because only words matter, not actions or policy.
What is it I’m missing about Trump that makes him so unbelievably appealing to so many voters?
He's not Hillary.
Next question?
A lot of people aren't Hillary, not to mention we're currently on our second Hillary-free election. And yet. I'm serious - I want to know the appeal.
I would vote for either you or Jesse - sight unseen, policies unknown - before I would vote for Biden or any other Democrat ever again.
I didn't ask about Biden or Democrats. Guess I came to the wrong place seeking a serious answer to a sincere question.
The serious answer to your question is that a lot of people are not voting 'for' Trump, per se. It's just that he's the alternative to a lot of really bad stuff. In their view. And mine.
Kind of like how Biden got 81 million votes campaigning from his basement. People can vote for a guy, or against their opponent.
They don’t have one.
Because Trump isn’t their President. Never has been. He’s their empty suit.
He’s President “Not The Other Guy.”
They don't vote for Trump. They vote for Candidate Default.
Somehow you missed i actually answered. Weird. Must have been inconvenient.
Neocon defenders like yourself criticize using the nirvana fallacy to seemingly always defend the side you pretend you are not part of.
There were plenty of good things in Trumps 4 years, so you retreat to he wasn't perfect. No shit. The 3 branch governmental system makes it that way. He didnt act as an authoritarian dictator so he was constrained. You use this as both an attacking point against him while also as a warning against a 2nd term.
The worst people ever say against Trump centers around his behaviors. We don't elect father figures. At least intelligent people don't. They understand the policies that get enacted and vote for the person that aligns most with what policies will effect them.
Neocons and dems utilize policies that create the most harm. But do so with flowery words to trick idiots like yourself into ignoring said policies.
We see many people here that act in the same manner. They would rather discuss temperaments, words, etc. While ignoring the policy.
"...There were plenty of good things in Trumps 4 years, so you retreat to he wasn’t perfect..."
There was a TDS-addled shit here several months back whining that after Trump lost the re-election, it was almost like he'd never been POTUS, ignoring, for instance our new, improved SCOTUS. But more importantly, don't you sincerely wish the same could be said of the last 20 PsOTUS? That the country was no worse off for them being POTUS?
As I mentioned to brandyshit, I'm not holding my breath for the 2nd coming; I'm hoping for a candidate who will not be a total disaster, and Trump is the only one visible.
Jesse, what do you think the odds are that these new neocon commenters are all socks of the same turd?
If they're not all socks of the same turd, they're at least all cut from the same turd.
He's not Hillary or Biden.
If the Democrats ran a good candidate this wouldn't be a discussion.
1: He was elected president as an underdog.
2: His policy preferences have less of what I dislike about the "right" than is typical, and goes farther in the areas I do like than is typical.
3: He delivered on several promises.
What is it I’m missing about Trump that makes him so unbelievably appealing to so many voters?
Probably the fact you guys pussed out on the culture war, bailed out the banks, shat the bed in overseas wars, and biggest of all, refused to restrict immigration.
Bailing out the banks was the right thing to do, and ended up costing the US taxpayer almost nothing. The alternative was to "let the chips fall where they may", and risk a complete meltdown of the economy--a choice only a completely irresponsible person or a child would take.
Letting the banks crash the economy in the first place was what the Rs did wrong.
"Bailing out the banks was the right thing to do, and ended up costing the US taxpayer almost nothing."
I've seen some enormous lies posted here before, but damn that's impressive.
Bailing out the banks was the right thing to do,
Oh, I see. You're an idiot.
-jcr
ObviouslyNotSmart is a brainless twit.
Judgement Day cannot be stopped. It can only be postponed.
The alternative was to “let the chips fall where they may”, and risk a complete meltdown of the economy–a choice only a completely irresponsible person or a child would take.
Economies “melt down” when there are vast structural problems and misallocations of resources created by government policies. The only way to correct these is for people to lose their jobs and companies to close. In a free market economy, that happens gradually and over time. However, when the government tries to “prevent meltdowns” through subsidies and bailouts, the misallocations don’t get fixed, they accumulate. Once they accumulate beyond the point where the government can paper it over with bailouts, you end up with catastrophic failure.
The situation in 2008 was already bad due to decades of government interfering in the free market for political reasons. But the bailouts in 2008 just delayed the inevitable reckoning, and it will be worse next time.
The government should have let these institutions fail in 2008; it should have limited itself to ensuring an orderly shutdown of these institutions. But it didn't want to do that because (1) the government and the Fed are in the pocket of the billionaires running these institutions, and (2) it's politically preferable to push off such disruptions until after your term as a politician.
ended up costing the US taxpayer almost nothing
The reason you think that is because you don’t recognize that these institutions are being bailed out every year. They cost the US taxpayer vast amounts of money every year. And that will continue until the US is bankrupt and we do have a complete meltdown of the economy, and that is going to happen sooner or later.
The government should have let these institutions fail in 2008; it should have limited itself to ensuring an orderly shutdown of these institutions. But it didn’t want to do that because (1) the government and the Fed are in the pocket of the billionaires running these institutions, and (2) it’s politically preferable to push off such disruptions until after your term as a politician.
Bingo. And that same stupid game continues to this day.
As I said, letting the banks crash the economy in the first place was what the Rs did wrong, specifically: creating the conditions in which that did occur, and was likely to occur. (Of course, the Rs don't enjoy 100% of the blame for that.)
Which "vast amounts" of US taxpayers' money are used to bail out failed financial institutions every year? Are you speaking of actual bailouts, or is this a subsidy argument you're making?
You don't say why you don't think it would have been irresponsible to let the banks fail in 2008. How much do you think would have been an acceptable price for the US economy to pay to go through this rejuvenation process you seem to want to have happened in 2008?
Bailing out the banks was the right thing to do, and ended up costing the US taxpayer almost nothing. The alternative was to “let the chips fall where they may”, and risk a complete meltdown of the economy
This is a false dilemma where you're admitting that the banks would deliberately crash the economy if they didn't get what they wanted.
Guess what? The crash happened anyway, and it was worldwide. We should have let them go down and let the ones that didn't indulge in that nonsense scoop up the pieces.
This explains so much about your posting history here.
Ok, thinking that bailing out the banks was a good thing is grey box fodder for certain. I doubt the most TDS addled Reason Editor would agree with that. Bye bye.
Should I be happy or sad?
Ashamed and silent come to mind.
money is neither created nor destroyed the "bank" problem was caused by the Fed and the Federal Govt's moronic policies. The best thing was to allow the maleinvestments to occur and move on. Short, painful but over. Just like the Great Recession of 1920. Now we have $35T in debt, $8T coming up for roll over and inflation which means rates are such that rolling over and the added trillions of debt this year and next and so on will ensure interest payments will start to be a serious problem for the vote buyers in DC. JC...stop this crap that allowing Goldman would have been the end of humanity. Hell GS deserves to be put out of business along with all the primary dealers at this point.
What is it I’m missing about Trump that makes him so unbelievably appealing to so many voters?
Last time, it was not being Hillary Clinton. This time, it's not being Joe Biden.
Trump's a mixed bag, but I have to admit I will enjoy the vast deluge of lefturd tears that will flood the world if he wins this time.
-jcr
What is it I’m missing about Trump that makes him so unbelievably appealing to so many voters?
He isn't "appealing", he is simply better than the alternatives.
Frankly, I can’t say I’ve ever been so repulsed by a human being.
Blowjobs in the WH, dragging the US into wars based on lies, destroying race relations in the US, flooding the country with millions of illegals, poisoning Americans with bad food and drugs, persecuting political opponents with the legal system, universal surveillance and speech controls, castrating gay kids, none of that repulses you. But when a brash New Yorker makes some mean tweets, you are repulsed. You're either dumb as a rock or a psychopath.
He’s the single reason I no longer identify as a Republican.
Well, maybe there is hope for the GOP. Maybe it can recover from the Bush/Romney/McCain years yet.
Well said!!
Yup.
Because the people HATE the political establishment and Trump sends those people into conniptions. IOW, Trump has all the right enemies. When Trump took Jeb Bush out behind the woodshed in 2016, for a certain number of people they became fans of him for life. For life. Watching the Bush family get the humiliation they've deserved for half a century was precious.
He's a thin skinned braggart and blowhard without an ounce of self awareness, but apparently that's what it took to find somebody to publicly fart in the face of the establishment. And while he's not a libertarian by any stretch, Javier Milei and Rand Paul certainly are and they seem to find the guy at least useful. I'm voting LP again (unless they nominate Kennedy for some stupid reason), but any libertarian who prefers Biden to Trump is insane.
He’s a thin skinned braggart and blowhard without an ounce of self awareness
We call that a "New Yorker."
but apparently that’s what it took to find somebody to publicly fart in the face of the establishment
More importantly, he's the kind of politician who manages to keep going even when he's dragged into court on false charges and falsely accused of being a white supremacist and Nazi. Most other GOP politicians would give up at the first sign of trouble.
Orange supremacist, surely, and dictator "only for one day".
Anyone whose vote counts who does not vote for Trump is an ignoramus of the highest order.
The LP will never get a POTUS elected.
No, but then my vote will never get anyone elected either. I also live in a state where it's unclear as to whether the popular will is used to determine the outcome anyway. I will remind that when push came to shove, Trump did very little to halt the COVID authoritarianism that came down the pike. And he could have fired Fauci any time he liked, and didn't.
In 2016 I was TDS’ed as anyone. (Though election night tears were pretty funny).
Then the media lost its goddamned mind and went full on Soviet. So that by 2019 it was clear they were the enemy. And anyone who stood up to whatever that was was the good guy. By the time the cultural revolution kicked off in 2020 there wasn’t even a contest. Especially since reason and the LP collectively crapped themselves when we needed them most. And Biden getting into power hasn’t disabused me in any way that Trump was the only choice.
For better or for worse he’s the only guy who’s gonna fight this thing. I don’t expect much. But the alternatives are terrifying
Yes! ^This^
its so bloody obvious I'm always amazed we have to find 30 different ways and times to repeat the same common sense.
I know a number of people who are like this. Trump rubs them the wrong way, but they finally figured out that they don’t have to live with the guy, and he was actually an ok president.
Haley would be just another disciple of the Nixonian wing of the party. Another Romney, Jeb, etc..
"...Frankly, I can’t say I’ve ever been so repulsed by a human being..."
Right here is TDS; the juvenile focus on personality. Assholes like this will forever be 13-going on whatever age.
Hint: Look at what the man did, compare that to any POTUS for the last hundred years, and perhaps you might grow up.
Emotional voting is what is driving this nation into the poor house. People FEEL like the government should do SOMETHING about the poor, racism, sexism, rational responses to the Alphabet Mafia, school shootings, etc...
Anyone who has ever said "I feel like the government..." needs to have their voting franchise revoked. I'd rather a guy in.prison for life for murdering armored car guards vote than any idiot who feels their way through politics.
Haley's 33 percent. Notably, that number was the highest Haley had polled in her home state since at least April 2023.
Damn. Go home. 2/3 of voters in your own state say you should.
Only the 2/3 that voted in the Republican primary. The 33% that voted for Nikki Halley will still be in the SC in November. Some will vote for Trump, some will stay home, and a few will vote for President Biden. In all the talk about the 2020 election what gets the fewest mentions is that Trump underperformed in his own party.
Republican in key states voted straight Republican tickets except for the Presidency. Brad Raffensperger (GA) and Ron Johnson (WI) both noted this fact. The 2020 election was a referendum on Trump and he lost. Nothing suggests 2024 will be different.
Parody.
Dems had an active vote cross over campaign.
I assure you, if it’s Biden vs Haley, a lot of Republicans and independents will just stay home. Haley has no chance of winning.
I am curious why you included independents. Independents seem to be among least Trump friendly. Why would they stay home? Also, it is true that hard core MAGA will stay home but she gets "Never Trump" vote and the rank and file Republicans will go with the nominee. Polls for Trump and Biden see-saw but Halley dominance in the general election seems to be a consistent trend.
Romney won independents in 2012 and still got his ass kicked.
Haley can't win an election without Trump voters, no matter what post hoc copium you choose to inhale.
The problem for Republicans is that a percentage will only vote for Trump and another percentage will not for Trump at all. The rank and file will vote for the nominee whoever. The loss of the “MAGA Trumpers” or the “Never Trumpers” presents a challenge. Nikkie Haley can win because she can get rank and file, Never Trump Republicans and independents. Trump get only the MAGA Trumpers and rank and file.
As for Romney in 2012, Mitt Romney split the independent vote with Barrack Obama. Romney 45% and Obama 50%.
Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
Romney 50, O 45 on independents.
Completely wrong, as usual.
You are correct. I used a different source which I cannot find now, so I will assume I reversed the results. I will stand by that it was a split for Romney Obama with the edge to Romney. My point stands that I do not think Trump will get as good a split with independents in 2024.
I will stand by that it was a split for Romney Obama with the edge to Romney.
You're standing by it because that's what "moderates" do even when shown right to their face that they were wrong.
50 > 45, which means he won independents, not split them. Your sophistry doesn't trump mathematics.
The problem for Republicans is that a percentage will only vote for Trump and another percentage will not for Trump at all. The rank and file will vote for the nominee whoever.
Not if the nominee is Haley. The Trump voters will vote for Biden out of spite or stay home. She has no path to victory whatsoever.
Nikkie Haley can win because she can get rank and file
Nope.
As for Romney in 2012, Mitt Romney split the independent vote with Barrack Obama. Romney 45% and Obama 50%.
No, Romney won them 50-45, according to Roper.
Lol, Trump voters will vote for Biden...
I am curious why you included independents. Independents seem to be among least Trump friendly.
If the choice comes down to a theocratic neocon (Haley) and a socialist neocon (Biden), I suspect independents will just stay home. I certainly will.
Have you met Biden? Trump looks like a golden god compared to Biden. Even to ‘independents’.
A good chunk of Haley's vote here were not Republicans.
No, they were voters and voters that will be needed in the general.
Voters that would not vote for her in a general.
Mod really never gives up the con, even when it’s obvious everyone is on to him.
Do you imagine Democrats who vote in Republican primaries to fuck with the system are going to not vote for Biden?
Not even shrike is that stupid.
And why would any Democrat want Nikki Haley. Trump is a sure victory for Democrats. Nikki Haley not so. If you look at the Washington Post breakdown of voters by party affiliation, you see that Nikki Haley got Never Trump Republicans, Independents and a small amount of Democrats. Estimated that 5% of Democrats voted for Nikki Haley. Trump cannot win on the MAGA Trumpers and the rank and file Republicans alone.
And why would any Democrat want Nikki Haley
Because she's unlikely to win, and because she's ideologically much closer to Biden and progressives.
It’s been widely reported that democrats voted for Haley in the primaries to derail Trump. They can do that, because outside of a convention floor challenge or his death/coma, Biden will be coronated as the democrat candidate.
Haley has a snowballs chance in hell of beating Biden.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/02/25/haley-trump-gop-south-carolina-primary/72710319007/
Trump will beat Biden.
Haley will be a less senile version of him.
They were Democrats.
The neocon, culture-war fleeing vermin try to fluff themselves:
This is a primary waging normal against abnormal. Abnormal is sadly winning. People keep deluding themselves that abnormal can be checked. Abnormal didn’t crash the markets or create a security crisis its first term, so abnormal won’t do it this time. Abnormal challenges every institution and every barricade, but somehow nothing can shake their faith.
People keep imagining that abnormal is just not any more abnormal or corrupt than the current Oval Office occupant. They oscillate between brain-dead-dullard and crime-family-kingpin without struggling with the dissonance. “They all do it” so there just is not any abnormal. Abnormal = Normal with the new GOP math. People rationalize that things will just be better under abnormal. Inflation will recede, illegals will be shipped, crime will lessen, and wars will cease. Flowers will bloom and global warming will cool….and coal will be shoveled proudly. This is the it-just-will-be religious devotion. There’s no proof or analysis required, the thesis statement is followed only by QED. People imagine Abnormal as just strong and defiant and unapologetic. They fantasize that obnoxious, prevaricating, cheating, undisciplined, and ignorant define leadership and success. They are invested in abnormal because they’ve been grifted. They’ll send that $20 check because they can’t stop the grift. Abnormal has compromised the GOP. I ride with normal. The smell is much better… AJ_Liberty (dec9f3) — 2/24/2024 @ 7:10 pm
These nits are so far up their own ass they can’t see daylight anymore.
Thanks for posting that.
Fascism, socialism, and theocracies are normal. Total surveillance and police states are normal. Political show trials and political corruption are normal.
AJ is a ghoul and he likes the smell of rotting corpses. That's why he rides with normal.
POTUS Trump won SC handily, and will win all primaries going forward. He will be the nominee. Full stop.
Governor Haley's funding comes (in part) from a few very wealthy democrats;' you have to get money where you can get it. I can understand the financial dilemma.
I don't have anything really 'bad' to say about Gov Haley (I think she retains the highest title, which is Governor). She did a credible job as SC governor; good enough to get re-elected. Her time at the UN, I very much appreciated her unstinting support of Israel and unabashed statements on what the US believed and why. She spoke with clarity and stood up for the US at the UN time and time again. Whatever you think of her politics, those things are objectively true. I appreciate her service on the civic side, and her husband is active military.
Governor Haley needs to think about what another Team D administration might do. The Team R voters have made their choice abundantly clear. It is time to exit the field and wish your old boss good luck against whoever the Team D candidate is (ain't going to be POTUS Biden....My God, he has declined in 3 years).
The mere fact that Haley doesn't realize she's being used by her rad-lefty donors like Reid Hoffman ought to be disqualification enough for the office. She's probably flattered herself into believing that he's doing it because he likes her policies, as opposed to just being a cat's paw against Trump and a sacrificial lamb for the Democrats.
And right on cue to prove my point, from Daily Fail:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he wants Nikki Haley to stay in the 2024 presidential primary race because she is essentially a 'surrogate' for Democrats.
Haley realizes, but like most of the GOPe is just fine with being a DNC cat’s paw if it preserves the DC status quo and rule of the donor class.
Like many other candidates Nikki Haley waited too long to directly attack Trump. Taking him on directly has advanced her candidacy but still not enough to win. Should she stay? Well, if something happens to Trump like a conviction or Trump has a Mitch McConnell moment, she is next in-line and that is important because unlike Trump she can beat President Biden.
Parody.
She lost because not enough people attacked trump with her support in attacks. Lol.
"Well, if something happens to Trump like a conviction or Trump has a Mitch McConnell moment, she is next in-line"
She really is not.
She would be passed over for DeSantis or Vivek in a split second. Noem has a better shot as well.
Well for many Republicans DeSantis or Vivek would have the advantage of being male.
Also not race hustling warmongers.
They already defected to the Dems as the neocon globalists. The cruise ship crowd conserving conservatism.
Not war hawks, not internet censorship morons, and haven't passed off the base, so, yeah.
she is next in-line and that is important because unlike Trump she can beat President Biden.
No, she can't. She's doing well in polls right now because she hasn't been dragged through the mud yet. If she were the nominee, Democrats would roll out their propaganda and legal machine against her and utterly destroy her.
Maybe you only read one set of news reports but Halley has already caught significant flack over the slavery and IVF comments and in a general she would have to address them. But Halley has a better chance of moving to the center than other Republicans.
But Halley has a better chance of moving to the center than other Republicans.
Yes, the voters have already seen she'll roll over and show her belly to the Democrats. That's exactly why she's not winning these primaries, Squealer.
The fact that you seem to have anything positive to say about her makes me that much less likely to vote for her.
You should vote for who you wish. I am making the case that if you don't wish for a 2020 repeat, then Nikki Haley is probably the best option people have.
She's the same thing as Biden. A different finger-puppet on the same hand.
When you say the same as President Biden do you mean that both are competent as opposed to the other option?
Biden's spending his time talking to ghosts, what the fuck are you going on about here?
Halley has already caught significant flack over the slavery and IVF comments and in a general she would have to address them.
Yes, and the Democrats haven't even started their character assassination routine.
But Halley has a better chance of moving to the center than other Republicans.
Yes, she is a progressive neocon. What's your point?
Like many other candidates Nikki Haley waited too long to directly attack Trump.
Uh, that was Christie's primary strategy and he went down in flames. Is this AJ_Liberty spreading misinformation and self-deluded hot takes?
Well, if something happens to Trump like a conviction or Trump has a Mitch McConnell moment, she is next in-line and that is important because unlike Trump she can beat President Biden.
LOL, no, she's not. The delegates aren't going to give their votes to her at the convention because the GOP base will revolt, and you're either deluded or trying to speak your desires into reality if you're claiming otherwise.
Stop trying to make "fetch" happen; it's not going to happen.
Republicans don’t like her. Case closed.
Haley is a neocon globalist. If you want that sort of thing, just vote for Biden.
Yeesh... Trump vs. Biden, the Sequel? No thanks.
So who are the third party options? Kennedy? No Labels Candidate to be Named Later?
Libertarian Party -- Someone named Charles Ballay is the only guy I see on the California primary ballot.... Looks like he's an MD. Here's his platform, pretty generic:
https://www.ballay2024.com/issues
TDS-addled shits agree: Let us know when you expect Godot to arrive.
Trump is most most conservative and libertarian candidate available right now. Everyone else is to the left of him. So Trump is the guy.
Haley is spending millions to lose. Why? This is what people should be asking. There is always an ulterior motive to campaign spending. Career politicians are never to be trusted.
She is a hired mouthpiece for a few billionaire Democrats who are paying her to attack Trump.
Is it working?
Haley is like a vulture circling an animal caught in a trap. She’s hoping the animal doesn’t get out and then when it dies, she can feast on the remains.
The D’s, Neocons and Never Trumpers who are funding her campaign are hoping that either the animal dies in the trap, or that she runs as a 3rd party candidate to siphon off votes. Either way, they win, the Uniparty wins, the deep state wins, the military-industrial complex wins, the permanent bureaucracy wins…everyone wins except the common man in the middle class.
A unified Republican party is the only chance to stop the downward spiral this country is in, and she's doing everything she can to destroy that chance.
Thank you ever so much, Nikki!
She really is part of the problem.
Donald Trump, champion of the losers.
Just to drive the point home as to how utterly captured by the mainstream media the neocon faction is:
Haley, with a move towards the middle, has the presence to make sanity and age an issue. She would be helped by the fact that no independent and only have of the party members are strongly for Trump or Biden. She would have plenty of money — something few independents have ever had — and a strong base going in. There is an incredible desire among voters for an end to this crazy divisive Crossfire world.
Sheer self-delusion here. Haley's funding is mostly coming from left-wingers like Reid Hoffman, not conservative backers. Her base is non-existent and she'd do nothing except roll over for the Dems even if she was in office--which is precisely why the neocons love her, and why the GOP voters don't want anything to do with her.
What's notable at the end is the citation of Crossfire, as it reflects that fallacious, Jon Stewart fake centrist argument that strong political disagreements are bad, and that the country needs some vague,m warmed-over "consensus" to ensure a functional society (a "consensus" that inevitably ends up moving the Overton window leftwards, as the past 50 or so years have shown). On the contrary, what Crossfire demonstrated is that expressing strong political disagreements is actually healthy, because it brings these issues into stark relief and provides choices based on principles.
What the neocons really fear is that the right won't actually go along with their "give in to the left at all times" policy stance, and might even decide to go their own way, like a battered spouse that finally has had enough. They're the equivalent of a shitty "friend" who counsels someone to remain in an abusive relationship because "you're never going to be able to find any better than what you have." But the peace and serenity that comes from not being gaslit and battered every day is its own reward.
The fact that the neocons are parroting the media's "Christian Nationalism" Extremist Label of the Month demonstrates their capture by the left even further. There's no alliance that should be made with people who take the left's assertions and labels at face value.
The primary race is basically over. Next week, POTUS Trump will win another 3-4 states, have ~250/1300 needed. Super Tuesday and it is over. By the end of March, Gov Haley will be out.
If POTUS Trump dies, she is the back-up candidate for Team R, mostly financed by Team D. Truly, that level of irony is (D)ifferent.
If POTUS Trump dies, she is the back-up candidate for Team R, mostly financed by Team D.
She won't be the backup. In the event that actually happened, Trump's delegates aren't going to Haley at the convention without a massive grassroots revolt happening. The Trump voters would stay home on election day and Haley would get her ass kicked, irrespective of what the polls might say (and Reid Hoffman would conveniently abandon her right after the nomination).
What would happen is a bunch of people would put their names up for the nomination, and there would be multiple votes and backroom deals at the convention until a consensus candidate was reached. Most likely that would be DeSantis, not Haley or any other neocon favorite. The stench of their time in charge of the GOP hasn't gone away.
Trump will name a VP early, and if Trump can't get nominated for some reason, his VP choice will become the top candidate, or DeSantis.
I seem to recall that the rules have the RNC pick the back-up candidate if POTUS candidate expires. I do not think it just devolves to the VP nominee.
I think ultimately the delegates get to decide, not the rules.
Democrats still don’t seem to understand that this is largely their fault. Their hounding of Trump in both the media and the courts is convincing people that they’re not playing fair.
Trump's doing quite a job making that clear, isn't he?
The democrats are discovering that, like Humpty Dumpty, all the king’s horses, and all the king’s men, can’t put Biden back together again.
Nikki Haley has a duty to stay in the race — just like Biden has a duty to stay in the race. Simply put, our country will not survive a second Trump presidency. It barely survived the first one.
It barely survived because of all the insane shit your team pulled. Trump however, governed as a bog standard liberal.
Remember:
Trump never removed his opponent from a ballot. You did.
Trump never used the Government against his opponent. You did.
Trump never censored speech. You did.
Trump never charged his political opponents with novel crimes. You did.
Your party is guilty of everything they've accused Trump of.
Trump did indeed attack Obama for his birth certificate and Ted Cruz for his Canadian birth, presumably to keep them from holding office.
Trump's first impeachment was pretty much only about him abusing the power of the US government against his (expected) opponent.
And, it was of course Trump's own Administration which sought to manipulate social media companies during Covid.
That leaves charging his opponents with novel crimes. No, I don't think he did that. (Nor, of course, did Democrats accuse him of doing that (unless you've got some evidence for your claim).)
1 out of 4. Convincing!
The country was doing just fine under Trump.
What is destroying this country is the Biden presidency.
Simply asked, why do TDS-addled piles of shit repeat lies like this without a single piece of support?
"...Simply put, our country will not survive a second Trump presidency. It barely survived the first one..."
Because TDS is an amazingly powerful illness which can make the even moderately intelligent lie like this, let alone our abysmally ignorant newest pile of TDS-addled shit.
Fuck off and die.
So Kay, are you another Haley campaign volunteer sent here to spew this nonsense?