Nikki Haley and Donald Trump

Could the race go on until the Convention?

Suppose that Nikki Haley loses to Donald Trump by 15% in New Hampshire and also loses her home state of South Carolina by a big margin.  Will she necessarily drop out of the race?  It seems unlikely.

A number of states that will vote on Super Tuesday offer Haley much friendlier territory then do New Hampshire or South Carolina.  California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, and Virginia all vote on Tuesday, March 5th.  Haley could very well beat Trump in some or even in all of these states.

Trump, who is 77, might have a sudden health problem or be convicted of one of the 91 felonies he has been charged with.  This could totally upend the race.

In the 1980, Republican primaries George H.W. Bush stayed in the race until May 26, 1980 hoping for a lucky break.  Haley has every incentive to do the same thing.  She has quite rightly promised to pardon Trump of any of the Fake Crimes he has been charged with.  Maybe voters will give her the chance to do that.

Comments

[MoreCurious]

“She has quite rightly promised to pardon Trump of any of the Fake Crimes he has been charged with.” And exactly which fake crimes would that be? Be specific, please.

[Randal]

If they are indeed "Fake Crimes," then surely he'll be acquitted.

[Life of Brian]

Exactly -- that's how the system works, duh.

But now that you mention it, you and I have some work on our hands: we need to call every single law school in the country, stat, and let them know that they can close their so-called "wrongful conviction" clinics and retask that space to something actually useful to society.

When do we start?

[JasonT20]

If all of those Innocence Project outfits and the like spend a lot of time checking to see if people with millions or billions of net worth were wrongfully convicted, then yeah. They could close up shop any time.

[Life of Brian]

Well of course they don't, silly rabbit. Everybody knows if you have enough money you can always buy your way out of a wrongful conviction, and thus if you're actually convicted, you must have deserved it!

[JasonT20]

What are the reasons why those people where wrongfully convicted? They had incompetent attorneys, overworked public defenders or otherwise didn't have the resources to challenge the charges. They faced unethical prosecutors and police that jumped at the first suspect rather than investigate thoroughly, and who withheld evidence of their innocence when it did turn up. They were misidentified by victims or other eyewitnesses and the police and prosecutors reinforced those witness' beliefs that they had the right person rather than show any skepticism. They were convicted decades ago before DNA evidence was faster and cheaper and common.

Do any of the reasons that people typically get convicted wrongly apply in any of Trump's 91 charges? There are no significantly disputed facts in any of these cases. It is all down to whether a jury will believe it when Trump and his co-defendants claim that he/they weren't trying to defraud anyone with the signed Electoral Vote declarations, that he/they weren't trying to instigate violence to stop Congress from certifying Biden's victory, that he/they weren't obstructing the feds from recovering documents belonging not to Trump, but to the federal government.

Any appealable questions if Trump is convicted on any of this will about details of law that are far from typical in wrongful conviction cases. Those are always relating to key facts about whether the defendant actually committed the acts underlying the charges. The biggest obstacle to Trump getting a fair trial in any of these cases is Trump and his big, fat mouth.

[Life of Brian]

Putting aside the "no significantly disputed facts" rabbit hole and your not even close to correct premise that wrongful conviction work always concerns factual rather than procedural points, it does indeed sound like you're saying that if an initial conviction sticks and the defendant had "enough" money and competent "enough" counsel, it must have been correctly decided. Once we get past this one specific rather... inflammatory situation, I can't truly believe that's what you want as a going-forward standard.

[Don Nico]

Exactly. But there are no fake crimes. He dug every hole that he is in

[Suudy]

It seems that the capitalization of "Fake Crimes" is a hint that this is something either quoted or at least paraphrased. I didn't read it as anything other than a statement about Haley.

[Josh R]

California and Vermont have had polls since the new year. Trump leads by 52%-points and 28%-points respectively.

Haley will drop out long before South Carolina if she loses New Hampshire by 15%-points, maybe on Wednesday.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now that DeSantis has dropped out, it makes no sense for Haley to drop out no matter how badly she's doing. She can always hope that Trump will lose a genuinely major court case, or stroke out, or get shot, or SOMETHING will take him out of contention.

At which point she might be the only choice available at the convention.

And that's the only way she was ever going to get the nomination, anyway.

The spoiler is that DeSantis didn't "quit", he "suspended his campaign". So, maybe he'd still be an option, in that event?

Anyway, if she wins outright even one primary, I'll be impressed. She just wasn't the second choice of very many DeSantis supporters.

[JasonT20]

Now that DeSantis has dropped out, it makes no sense for Haley to drop out no matter how badly she’s doing. She can always hope that Trump will lose a genuinely major court case, or stroke out, or get shot, or SOMETHING will take him out of contention.

True. He could even say or do something (new) that is so egregious, that he would actually lose support among Republican voters. Or, he could start rambling during his speeches, making it look like he isn't even bothering to prepare any plans for his next administration other than how to get revenge on his enemies. I mean, there's definitely a majority of Republican voters that want someone to be President that actually understands and considers policy options carefully.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I said, "or SOMETHING". People who claim that Trump is a cult of personality, nothing to do with policy, like to think that there's nothing he could do that would lose him supporters, but the truth is that there are a LOT of things he could do that would have that consequence, mostly policy stances he could publicly take on hot button issues like gun control.

He's just careful not to do them, mostly. Like the way he only went rogue on bump stocks after the NRA told him it was OK.

[Nige]

Yes, you develop a cult of personality by telling people what they want to hear and seeming to give people what they want, or promising it, nobody cares if he delivers, that’s always someone else’s fault. Of course most politicians try to do the same to one degree or another, but every now and then, someone like Trump comes along and aces it.

[JasonT20]

People who claim that Trump is a cult of personality, nothing to do with policy, like to think that there’s nothing he could do that would lose him supporters, but the truth is that there are a LOT of things he could do that would have that consequence, mostly policy stances he could publicly take on hot button issues like gun control.

Like Nige said, Trump developed his cult of personality by telling people what they wanted to hear. He made them feel good about themselves by showing them people that they could blame for their problems. Why would he stop doing any of that now, after 8 years?

There’s a quote that I heard a lot as a teacher that is supposed to give us a positive view of our ability to impact our students. But applied to politics, it is obviously dangerous.

I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. – Maya Angelou

I’ve seen Trump fans clearly forget things Trump has said in the past that should make him look really bad. I’ve even seen them deny that he ever said it, even when there is video of him saying it. Of course, when there is video of him saying it, he clearly meant something else, or he was right to say it. If he did something that they shouldn’t like, then it is fake news, or he was right to do it.

You can say that Trump is only “claim[ed]” to have developed a cult of personality, but he is a textbook example of it. Any attempt to show Trump’s misdeeds is just further proof of his ultimate victim status, which lines up perfectly with the mindset of many of his biggest fans. Trump won’t do anything to weaken his support. The only thing that can do that is enough of his fans doing something truly difficult in human psychology – realizing that they were wrong – about him, about things he has said and done, and about themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Like Nige said, Trump developed his cult of personality by telling people what they wanted to hear. "

Telling people what they want to hear is standard in politics. Trump pretty visibly attempted to act on what he was saying, on enough topics that he cemented his position.

[Lee Stillman]

The silly man, didn't he know he was supposed to ignore his campaign promises once elected like every other Republican politician?

[myself]

Trump has said a lot of dumb things that could have alienated supporters, but the moment supporters don't seem to like it he backtracks. That's a big part of his appeal, supporters aren't worried that he'll support a policy they don't like because they understand that Trump's only real policy preference is to appease his supporters.

I think the only think that stops Trump's candidacy is a serious health issue (he is an obese old man after all) or an impossible to ignore cognitive decline. He seems to be getting confused more often, but people have been speculating that he has dementia since 2016, his rhetorical style makes it really hard to tell.

Either way to convince people he had dementia you'd need actual undeniable babbling or complete incoherence at a rally.

[David Nieporent]

Now that DeSantis has dropped out, it makes no sense for Haley to drop out no matter how badly she’s doing. She can always hope that Trump will lose a genuinely major court case, or stroke out, or get shot, or SOMETHING will take him out of contention.

At which point she might be the only choice available at the convention.

No, that's not how it works. She — like DeSantis, and Vivek, and Hutchinson, and Christies, and Burgum, and whatever other nobodies I've forgotten — would suspend her campaign. (Just because you noticed it for the first time last week with DeSantis doesn't actually make it a new thing; every candidate uses that terminology, every year, every time.) If Trump has a stroke, any one of them will have the opportunity to jump back in.

[TW]

It’s a little more complicated. Yes, the candidates who "suspended" their campaigns could theoretically "unsuspend" them and get back in the race. However, until then, states will have their primaries and award delegates to the candidates who are still running and those delegates will be bound to vote for Trump or Haley at the convention.

So if Trump has drop outs, his delegates will theoretically be up for grabs but Haley will have a certain number "locked in" both because they'll be "bound" by RNC rules to vote for (at least on the first ballot) and also because her campaign will be pushing to elect delegates who will stay loyal to her and continue to vote for her on the following ballots.

Meanwhile everyone else has to fight for delegates who aren’t pledged to vote for anyone but by staying in the race, Haley is going to go into a contested convention with a built-in advantage that none of the other candidates who left and returned will have.

[Dr. Ed 2]

DeSantis has SUSPENDED his campaign -- to me, that means that if trump screws up, he could come back in.

A vote for Darlin Nikki is a vote for Joe Biden because she ain't gonna get the grassroots suspoprt.

[David Nieporent]

Newsflash: every non-winning primary candidate in every presidential election "suspends" his or her campaign. That's a legal thing relating to fundraising; it has nothing to do with hoping the frontrunner is forced out.

[Orin S. Kerr]

"Haley . . . has quite rightly promised to pardon Trump of any of the Fake Crimes he has been charged with. Maybe voters will give her the chance to do that."

Old "let the system play out" conservatism: Let the jurors decide if the government has proved the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

New "let the system play out" conservatism: Let the voters decide who to elect so they can use executive clemency to pardon who the voters want to see pardoned.

[defaultdotxbe]

Trump is far too polarizing a figure to be tried fairly. Almost any potential juror will either be biased against the defense or against the prosecution. I remember all the trouble they had to go through finding jurors for the OJ Simpson trial, because they basically had to find people who lived under a rock, not only since the murder, but even before since they didn't want anyone with preconceived opinion of OJ as an athlete either.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump is far too polarizing a figure to be tried fairly

You haven’t proven this at all, but what’s you upshot, that if if you manage to be an asshole on a national level you are immune from criminal consequence?

Just what kind of system are you advocating for here?

[Life of Brian]

You haven’t proven this at all

How would one go about doing that to your satisfaction?

[EscherEnigma]

Experimentally.

Seeing as there are multiple on-going jury trials with Trump as a defendant, someone concerned about biased juries could go to court on jury selection days, observe and enumerate the errors that Trump's lawyers are making during jury selection, and report back on them.

And as a bonus, if done right, you'll have a nice little stack of data that can be used during the inevitable appeal to argue it wasn't a fair trial.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude says an unprovable thing, that's his fault.

[ReaderY]

I think the capitalized “Fake Crimes” moniker is a giveaway that under the new conservatism, there is no intention whatsoever of letting the system play out. There is no intention of letting the system do anything. The new conservatism is in fact utterly opposed to the system. It demonizes it. It wants to overthrow it and replace it with something radically new.

Conserving, conserving anything at all, is the last thing the new conservatism has any interest in doing.

[ReaderY]

Also, under the new conservativism, the voters are allowed to decide only if they reach the rigbt result. If they don’t, patriots can always be counted on to find 10,000 more votes or so going the right way, and traitors and non-Americans who refuse will be dealt with like the traitors and non-Americans who try to prosecute patriots for fake crimes will be. What do you think all those detention camps Homeland Security will be building are for?

[ReaderY]

We keep hearing they’ll be built for all those non-Americans poisoning our blood. Who do you think those non-Americans are? Non-Americans by some stupid technicality written in some stupid piece of paper? or REAL non-Americans, what the people who count think non-Americans are?

[santamonica811]

When we need to decide if Steven Calabresi has integrity or not, let us remember his argument that he's making here: Donald Trump taking documents from the White House, deliberately refusing to return them when asked, affirmatively trying to hide them, and refusing to comply with subpoenas, is (a) not a crime, and (b) is SO OBVIOUSLY not a crime that the charges rise to the level of "fake." [ie, that no reasonable person could think that doing all that Trump did could *possibly* be criminal in nature]

Hmmm . . . your mileage may vary, but I'm gonna go with "Calabresi = whore."

[NvEric]

ZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Longtobefree]

"taking documents from the White House, deliberately refusing to return them when asked, affirmatively trying to hide them, and refusing to comply with subpoenas, is (a) not a crime,"

I'm Joe Biden and I approve this message

[JasonT20]

Joe Biden (and Mike Pence, by the way) only did the first of those things.

There have been plenty of stories since the documents thing hit a head showing how many people with access to classified documents got years in prison for taking them home when they weren't supposed to, when it was clearly not accidental or incidental in nature. (That is, they had obviously made a habit of it when they absolutely should have known better.) None of those cases match up with how documents were found and recovered from Biden's residence or from Pence, either. And in none of those such cases that I have seen involved the defendants doing anything to prevent the documents from being recovered. Trump, as always, is in a (low) class by himself here. Attempts to whatabout it away won't work on anyone that isn't a Trump fan or at least a Trump defender.

[Bruce Hayden]

“taking documents from the White House”

Trump didn’t take them. GSA shipped his papers from the WH to MAL, where they were secured by the Secret Service.

The papers of a President are always removed from the WH after he leaves office. They typically consist of a mixture of President Records, that typically go to the National Archives, and personal papers. The National Archives in the past has taken control of both, and separating out which is which is done later – but the determination of which is which is the former President’s alone. Archives didn’t do this this time, and the big question there is why? Orders from the Biden WH? Orders from Jay Bratt, through the FBI, to the Archives, who had been ordered to cooperate fully with the FBI by the Biden WH? Inadvertence? The reality is that when Trump left office, he had two choices: abandon his personal papers, or order them shipped to MAL, where they were secured by the Secret Service, along with what might otherwise have been Presidential Records mixed in.

“deliberately refusing to return them when asked”

Well, no. He didn’t return them as quickly as Jay Bratt, Deputy Special Counsel and Chief the DOJ’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Branch demanded. He denied Trump their requests for extensions of time and for rolling production.

“7affirmatively trying to hide them, and”

By hiding them in the boxes that they were stored in, from the time that an aide filled them, sometime during the 4 years of Trump’s Presidency, in order for him to have a clean desk for his next meeting or call. The documents still marked as classified were “hidden” by mixing them in with the other documents involved in the meeting or phone call or meeting of Trump’s. For the most part, the boxes had been stored unopened from at least the time they arrived at MAL and Bratt demanded the documents marked as classified.

As an aside, note that Trump wasn’t charged with stealing classified documents, because he could always claim to have declassified them when he ordered the documents marked classified shipped to MAL. Instead he is charged with misappropriating National Defense documents, which is essentially the same thing. The DOJ has some novel theory why Trump can’t have possession of his copies of (presumably) now declassified documents.

“refusing to comply with subpoenas, is (a) not a crime,”

They were responding, just not fast enough for Bratt, who refused to give them sufficient time to comply. There were a couple hundred boxes, unopened for years, without an inventory (aides in the WH had just cleared his desk into the boxes, and when full, were sealed). Remember, the govt claim is that they contained potentially classified documents, so that required someone with a sufficiently high security clearance. That included Trump, and who else? At the time, DOJ/FBI were slow walking security clearances for Trump’s attorneys, which only ended when Judge Cannon told Bratt that he wasn’t going to get his March trial date if they continued to obstruct and delay Trump and his attorneys, which was many months after Bratt had used their delay in responding as the basis for his MAL search warrant.

If you don’t find this conspiracy theory plausible, if not compelling, be prepared for the heart break of an acquittal, if it even gets to trial before November. I am pretty sure that the March trial date (likely picked to maximize election interference – esp since the DOJ/SC picked the same month for their DC trial) is dead in the water right now. Bratt probably wasn’t going to make that date anyway, even if the two federal judges hadn’t frozen both cases waiting for the Supreme act to decide Trump’s immunity claims. Bratt wanted Trump’s attorneys to see just what he wanted them to see. Judge Cannon told him “No”, the defense was entitled to see whatever evidence (well funded) defendants normally get to see. His March trial date was his idea, not hers, and she wasn’t going to jeopardize Trump’s rights for his wishes.

[Sarcastr0]

If you don’t find this conspiracy theory plausible, if not compelling,

Jesus Christ, man. Why haven't you joined QAnon, with these critical thinking skills?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bruce Hayden's only notable accomplishment in life is that he lies at every opportunity.

[David Nieporent]

Bruce is a slightly more sophisticated version of our MAGA trolls. He writes in complete sentences, with actual grammar. But he lies just as much, and just as frequently, and tells the same lies over and over again after being called on them.

None of that post is true.

[David Nieporent]

Bratt probably wasn’t going to make that date anyway, even if the two federal judges hadn’t frozen both cases waiting for the Supreme act to decide Trump’s immunity claims.

This is a lie too. No federal judge froze the Florida trial, and there is no "immunity claim" there, since the charges all relate to actions Trump took after he left office.

[JudgesFed]

“Fake Crimes”

lol Calabresi is the not-so-secret Trump supporter that pretends to tell you how principled they are by supporting someone not named Donald Trump even though we know he will vote for him with pleasure.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Fake crimes”

I can’t believe a law professor is saying this.

[John F. Carr]

The D.C. charges are quite a stretch.

The Florida charges look solid and she can't pardon for state crimes of any level of reality.

The same capitalization style – "Fake Crimes" – is found in the fundraising emails I get in the name of well known conservative figures including Trump and Eastman. Most of us left Germanic Capitalization back in the 18th century.

[Brett Bellmore]

Capitalization is easier than adding a "™".

[Brett Bellmore]

DeSantis could, though.

[David Nieporent]

He can't. There are no state charges in Florida. The state charges are in NY and GA.

[Voize]

I think what is going on here, is that Prof. Calabresi didn't come here in search of another outlet for serious legal thought. He was looking for a new opportunity, a place where he could indulge his inner troll, and this being Reason it fit the bill.

[David Nieporent]

I can’t believe a law professor is saying this.

I continue to believe that he's using ChatGPT to generate these posts, asking it to do so in the style of a MAGA.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

I can’t believe a law professor is saying this.

A movement conservative law professor . . . an affirmative action (for clingers) hire and a token wingnut.

[Martinned]

"Fake crimes" nonsense aside, it definitely seems sensible for Haley to stay in the race quite long, just in case those Big Macs finally kill Trump.

[NvEric]

The bots are still active here with their shrill tripe

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm neither a bot nor a Haley supporter, and think that's sensible advice. She's never going to win a primary where anybody even vaguely Trumpy is on the ballot, but now that it's down to two of them, she CAN at least hope that he has a stroke.

Of course, it's possible at that point the convention would just look at her, and draft somebody.

[Martinned]

Of course, it’s possible at that point the convention would just look at her, and draft somebody.

I would think that depends on how many delegates she can win in the meantime. If she can pick up 30% or more, it would become harder and harder for some new candidate to be drafted in.

(Particularly since there's no obvious Trump heir in waiting. There's no one who could plausibly claim that Trump would have approved of him taking over. All the Trump wannabees have been ritually humiliated by the man himself in recent months.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll be shocked if she gets 30% of the delegates; She might get 30% in New Hampshire, possibly Iowa, but most Republican primaries are winner take all, and she's not going to outright carry any state, based on current polling.

[JasonT20]

Well, yeah. Getting a sizeable portion of the delegates after Super Tuesday is nearly impossible for anyone other than the front-runner. Primaries become winner-take-all at a point where the party is hoping that the contest is actually over so that they can save money for the general election and avoid the party candidates bruising each other and weakening the chances of the eventual winner in the general election.

- Reason #384 why our primary systems suck balls.

[David Nieporent]

This is an overstatement. Only the GOP does this WTA thing. The Democratic primaries/caucuses remain proportional all the way to the end.

[JasonT20]

I did not realize that. I simply assumed that they were the same in that respect. Of course, the Democrats had their own issues with the "superdelagates" in 2016, so I'd be even more surprised if they didn't still try and build in ways to give the front runner additional advantages as the primaries continue.

This also says something about the GOP, though I think we all knew this. They value "falling in line" with the rest of the party very highly. They'll do it even after saying how terrible Trump is as a candidate just a week before.

[Mr. Bumble]

Better chance of the ice cream killing Biden. Maybe all that ice cream is the cause of his constant brain freezes.

[Martinned]

Who knows? But that has f*ck all to do with the Republican presidential nomination race.

[Life of Brian]

Better chance of the ice cream killing Biden.

LOL -- you beat me to it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump is a flabby, sedentary, reckless old man.

Biden is a relatively fit, active, reasonable old man.

I doubt Trump's life expectancy exceeds Biden's.

Some of you clingers may have spent too much time ogling those "Superman Trump" images at 4chan.

[Moderation4ever]

"Fake crimes" aside there are the real crimes that Trump has to contend with. There are trials, there is physical health, and it increasingly seems mental health. Trump supporters will look the other way with the increasing number of gaffs, but others will not. Nikki Halley loses little by staying, and while there is only a small chance, but the payoff is big.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure I'd go so far as "mental health", but I think he IS starting to show his age.

Maybe after '24 is safely behind us, we can agree to amend the Constitution to add an age limit for the Presidency? The way we added Presidential term limits after FDR was safely dead?

[Moderation4ever]

The Republicans have had ample opportunity to set an age limit, but seem reluctant to do so. You could argue the same for Democrats but President Biden is an incumbent, and they are always renominated.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump is, for all practical purposes, also an incumbent. Maybe 75% of one, anyway.

It would have to be a mutual "Let's not do this again" agreement.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump seems more likely to be an inmate than an incumbent.

[Voize]

Republicans will have trouble justifying additional qualifications for President while advocating ignoring the 14th amendment because voters should be free to pick whoever they want.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who's advocating ignoring the 14th amendment? I think Trump's factually innocent of insurrection. Prove me wrong by convicting him of it...

[Sarcastr0]

We all know how much you trust convictions from how you have retried and acquitted the Whitmer kidnappers.

You'll just move the goalposts.

[JasonT20]

I'd be reluctant to put a number as an age limit. But it really is a stupid feature of politics where people in government continue to cling to power at an age when only a tiny percent of people work full time that don't need the income.

The core problem is thinking that there is no one that could do a job as well as the person over 75 years old vying to keep it. Anyone seeking to gain or keep power at that age is overwhelmed with arrogance. (Yes, Biden should not have run in 2020, but then, that applies to Bernie as well. It was beyond ridiculous for Strom Thurmond to still be in the Senate at fucking 100, and Grassley running for re-election to a 6 year term at 89 was almost as bad.)

[Moderation4ever]

The American people have age limits and term limits called voting. They so often chose not to use the vote and instead want government to set limits. I am amazed that a person will chose to primary a candidate that is not far enough left or far enough right, but no one choses to primary a candidate that is far too old. Trump's mental health, age related, is melting before people eyes and people will still vote for him.

[Brett Bellmore]

By that reasoning offices shouldn't have any mandatory qualifications at all.

[Moderation4ever]

Maybe they should not have mandatory qualification. Certainly block naturalized citizens has denied people some very good candidates. Shouldn't the question of too young or too old be determined by the voters? If excluding Donald Trump from the ballot denies people their choice, so does age.

[Mr. Bumble]

Didn't Haley promise not to run if Trump was running?

[Seamus]

In the 1980, Republican primaries George H.W. Bush stayed in the race until May 26, 1980 hoping for a lucky break. Haley has every incentive to do the same thing.

So Haley has Big Mo?

[Mr. Bumble]

HW got his “lucky break” when Reagan chose him for VP which eventually led to the presidency for one term.

The same is not going to happen for Haley.

[SRG2]

Not a lucky break - that was part of the deal that Bush's campaign manager - James Baker, IIRC - struck with the Reagan campaign and the RNC to get Bush to drop out of the race. Another component of the deal was a guarantee that Bush would get the nomination in 1988.

[Brett Bellmore]

Reagan had to agree to a VP from the liberal wing of the GOP to keep the RINOs from bolting in the general election. The left-wing of the GOP was a serious force back then.

He didn't really need to do that when he ran for reelection, but personal loyalty triumphed over political sense. He kept Bush on, Bush ended up campaigning as "Reagan's 3rd term", and then set out to reverse as many of his policies as possible.

Example: Reagan had reined in the BATF, and even seriously considered shutting the agency down. Bush took off the choke chain, and sicced them on the American people again. Leading to both Ruby Ridge and Waco.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Fake Crimes"

Another data point in support of the idea that conservatives believe a criminal is a type of person who exists and not someone whose conduct meets the elements of a criminal statute. If the conduct plausibly does, then the crime must be fake.

And when I say a "type of person" they don't mean a personality type, but a class of people. Which class? You know the ones. Because Trump has a very similar personality type to a good chunk of the recidivist criminal defendants. Spend some time in state criminal court and any time listening to Trump, especially his in court outbursts,. you'll see it.

[Captain Motion]

If she's only going to pardon fake crimes, I'm fine with that. I haven't seen any fake ones in the 91 indictments by citizen grand jurors. She gushingly adored him before she opposed him, so her hypocrisy about that undoes her for me. I was a strong supporter of hers before she accepted Trump's UN job and started her gush. I'm back in the John Kasich camp.

[David Nieporent]

This is (yet another) terrible post, even setting aside the "fake crimes" line. It shows no understanding whatsoever of the electorate. Exactly zero states in the United States are "much friendlier territory [than] New Hampshire or South Carolina" for Haley in the primary. Perhaps DC (though pedantically not a state). SC is of course her home state (and she will still likely lose it), but NH allows independents to vote in primaries and thus has frequently given a boost to an upstart candidate over the party favorite.

Calabresi's logic appears (he doesn't bother to explain) to be that the states he named are less conservative than SC and NH. But that's irrelevant; what's relevant is the ideology of the people voting in primaries. GOP voters in California are not liberal just because California as a whole is. And NH voters are more moderate for the reason I said above: that they include non-Republicans. (Though not, as Trump falsely claimed last week, Democrats.)

Moreover, Calabresi ignores the fact that the primaries are path dependent. If Haley loses in NH, her campaign is over. I suppose that if it's really close she may try to hang on through SC (though she also needs to get past the NV caucuses to get to SC), but if she loses in SC, her campaign is 100% over. If she can't beat him in her home state — and she can't, barring a huge upset in NH or a black swan event taking place to knock Trump out — then she can't beat him anywhere and she will have no money to keep her campaign going.

The 1980 reference is silly, both because it was a lot cheaper to run a campaign back then and because the GOP didn't have WTA primaries back then, so GHWB could keep racking up delegates even as he was losing primaries. Haley would get zero as the campaign grinds on.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If she has the money she might as well see if she can favorite daughter herself in SC even if she makes a disappointing showing in NH. But if she loses SC...she's cooked. IDK why anyone would pretend otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

She's actually doing worse in the polls here in SC than she is in NH.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I figured.

[David Nieporent]

She’s actually doing worse in the polls here in SC than she is in NH.

Again: not surprising. NH allows independents to vote, so its primary electorate is more moderate (and, for lack of a better term, mavericky) than that of other states.

But also again: path dependence. It makes no sense to talk about how she'll do in SC before we know how she does in NH, because the latter will affect the former. If she has an upset win in NH — I am no longer an optimist about the sanity or decency of the GOP electorate, so I doubt it — then that very well may boost her performance in SC.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here in SC we have open primaries, though, so it's quite common for candidates to benefit from crossover votes.

[CindyF]

Julie Kelly
@julie_kelly2
Judge interrupted Willis' attorney as he explained how busy she is dealing with Trump indictment. Does she have "unique personal knowledge" as to Wade's finances? Willis' attorney hedges, offers that there are other ways to get that information instead of deposition.

Jocelyn Wade atty up now. Claims Willis is attempting to get protective order to hide discovery to which Jocelyn Wade is entitled to know.

Willis is "trying to hide under the shield of her position improperly."

Julie Kelly
@julie_kelly2
·
32m
Fani says Fani is too important to sit for a deposition.

Willis' attorney tells judge that the matter is a no fault divorce and adultery is irrelevant at this stage. Claims Fani does not share accounts with Nathan Wade, doesn't control what he spends money on. (LOL)Julie Kelly
@julie_kelly2
·
38m
NEW: My source at Fulton County courthouse reports that Judge Thompson has granted the motion to unseal divorce file of Nathan Wade, Fani Willis' lover.

Next up: Willis' motion for protective order.

[Currentsitguy]

If she continues to lose by wide margins it's going to become increasingly difficult to keep the donation train going.

[EscherEnigma]

I think Calabresi has a point here.

While it's very doubtful that we'll get to the convention with the outcome being in serious doubt, I can see Haley sticking it out that long on the off-chance that something dramatic happens. I mean, let's be honest, with Trump's age alone (irregardless of what you think of his general health, just looking at his age) it wouldn't be surprising for him to drop dead literally any day now. Which isn't to say I expect him to, or that it's likely, but it is very much in the realm of "this could reasonably happen".

So Haley holding out for an "in case of death", and becoming the default candidate? I could see it.

Of course, after the convention, Trump will have a VP chosen, so if something dramatic happens the VP will continue the campaign.

Is Haley the kind of person to hold out for a hail Mary like that? No clue. But honestly, with candidates this old, it's probably not a bad idea to keep someone in the wings just in case.