Nikki Haley and Donald Trump

George H.W. Bush ended his 1980 presidential primary campaign on May 26, 1980

In 1968, Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn.) stunned the nation by getting 42% of the vote against incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson.  President Johnson ended up withdrawing from the presidential race.  On Tuesday, Nikki Haley, who has never been elected to any national office before, just pulled in 43.3% of the vote running against a former Republican President with universal name id who is, in effect, an incumbent.  This is an extremely strong showing, which suggests that Donald Trump cannot beat Joe Biden in November 2024.  Seventy percent of the voters who backed Haley were unregistered, independent voters.  These are the kinds of voters Republicans would need to win if they are to beat Joe Biden.  Nikki Haley is getting those voters, and Donald Trump is losing them big time.

Nikki Haley should stay in this race until every state in the nation has voted just as George Herbert Walker Bush did in 1980 when he ran against Ronald Reagan.  At the moment, we do not even know if the Supreme Court is going to allow Donald Trump's name to be printed on the ballot!  And, no matter how the Court rules in Trump v. Anderson, do not expect Senate President Kamala Harris or a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, on January 6, 2025, to count electoral votes cast for Donald Trump who all Democrats believe is disqualified from being re-elected as President by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The President of the Senate and a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will not feel bound to follow the ruling of a Republican Supreme Court.  And, that is even without factoring in the likelihood that Trump will be convicted of at least some of the 91 charges on which he has been indicted and that he may lose the popular vote even if he wins in the Electoral College.

Do I think this would be unfair and wrong as a matter of constitutional law?  Of course, I do!  I, after all, signed a brief by three former Republican Attorneys General in Trump v. Anderson saying that Donald Trump is not barred from being re-elected by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  But, if you want to know what Democrats think about this, and what they will do on January 6, 2025, take the time to read Yale Sterling Professor of Law Akhil Reed Amar's amicus brief, co-written with his brother Vikram, in Trump v. Anderson.  The Amar brothers think a Democratic President of the Senate and a Democratic majority in the House are not bound by the Republican Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Anderson. I would be stunned if all of legal academia and the press did not end up agreeing with them along with some conservative legal academics.  So, even if Donald Trump were to win in the Electoral College in 2024, Kamala Harris and the House of Representatives would not count his electoral votes.  There is simply no way that Donald Trump can win the 2024 presidential election.

What that means is that there is only one person who is running for the Republican nomination for President in 2024 whose electoral votes will be counted and who will pardon Donald Trump if she is elected:  Nikki Haley.  Republicans should pray for Haley to stay in this race until all fifty states have voted in the Republican primaries and caucuses.

Comments

[Bruce Hayden]

I am not overly worried about Trump getting the Republican nomination. All indications are that, without Biden on the Dem ticket, there were a lot of Dem crossovers voting for Haley, in something akin to Rush’s Operation Chaos. My experience recently is that Trump just gets more popular each election. So, let’s wait and see what happens in some closed primaries.

[David Nieporent]

There were, of course, no "Democratic crossovers," since New Hampshire law does not permit that. Independents and Republicans are the only ones who can vote in a GOP primary in NH.

[Brett Bellmore]

And half the independents are really Democrats, for all practical purposes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Either they were "Dem crossovers" or they weren't; they can't be both. Alternative facts, lol.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Not any more, they aren't. In New Hampshire if an unaffiliated voter opts for a Republican ballot in the primary, their affiliation is changed to Republican, unless they specifically ask for and fill out a form requesting this not to happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

And it would be very interesting to see some numbers on how many did that.

I tried asking Google Bard, but Bard answers every election related question with the same boilerplate: "Elections are a complex topic with fast-changing information. To make sure you have the latest and most accurate information, try Google Search."

[Kazinski]

I'm not totally adverse to Haley, she isn't as conservative as I'd like but she's better than any Democrat.

But as for the idea Trump.can't win, I don't buy it, he's leading Biden now on the RCP average 47.3 to 43.5, with 2 candidates with a 100% name recognition that's significant.

[Mr. Bumble]

Too many of Haley’s primary voters are Never Trumpers and Democrats to make her a viable choice in the general election.

Case in point an interview with a NH "Independent" voter:
Q. Who did you vote for? A. Haley; Q. Why? A. To stop Trump;
Q. In an election between Halley and Biden who would you choose? A. Biden.

[Randal]

Haley would win in a landslide against Biden. What are you talking about.

[Mr. Bumble]

So far she hasn't been able to win against Trump even with Dem support. How does she win against Biden.

[David Nieporent]

"Even Democrats support Haley. How can she win?" is probably the stupidest two statements said in sequence, non-Dr. Ed division.

[Kleppe]

Haley's showing in NH was due to independent voters who typically vote Democrat voting for her instead. Participating in the GOP primary when the incumbent Democrat president isn't even on the Dem primary ballot isn't a big ask. And no, there is no evidence these same people vote for a Republican in the general election.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Nimarata Hussein Haley isn’t even eligible to be president. Her slightly older sister was born in Canada and isn’t a natural born citizen because her parents weren’t American citizens.

[Randal]

This is very funny if it's a joke.

It's also very funny if it's not a joke.

[MoreCurious]

Just for kicks, you might try reading the Constitution. I highly recommend it as a way to avoid making yourself look like an idiot.

[Mr. Bumble]

Love your paraphrasing to change the meaning of what I said.

[VinniUSMC]

“Even Democrats support Haley. How can she win?” is probably the stupidest two statements said in sequence, non-Dr. Ed division.

Yes, your unreasonable paraphrasing of what you were responding to is indeed two very stupid statements. As was pointed out, a significant portion of Haley's votes came from people who are NEVER going to vote for a Republican in the general election.

Also, Democrats don't support Haley, they hate Trump. Which doesn't matter, because those people won't be voting for Haley or Trump no matter what.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I can't speak for Democrats, but I would consider voting for Haley. She doesn't seem to have much of a backbone, but she could develop one before this year is over.

A decent, non-deranged Republican would probably suit my interests just fine.

I don't expect her to be the nominee, however.

[SRG2]

The first question I ask of any candidate is, "are they on the same planet as me?" If the answer is, no, I won't bother to consider them further. Haley is, Trump isn't (and neither were deSantis, Ramaswamy, etc)

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd consider voting for Tulsi Gabbard. She's got about as much chance of being the Democratic nominee as Haley has of being the Republican nominee.

[David Nieporent]

As was pointed out, a significant portion of Haley’s votes came from people who are NEVER going to vote for a Republican in the general election.

That was not in fact "pointed out," and of course at no point has any evidence been provided for that statement.

[damikesc]

Poll results show about half said they'd vote for Biden in a general.

This is not news.

[Randal]

Poll results show about half said they’d vote for Biden in a general election between Biden and Trump.

Of course Haley won't beat Biden if she's not the nominee.

You guys need go have a think about Carter Reagan. Dems will cross over against a used-up incumbent when it seems like the alternative is something fresh and new. We can't resist progress.

[David Nieporent]

No such polls are cited, and "would vote for Biden" is not the same as "NEVER going to vote for a Republican in the general," and also you obviously don't believe that statistic. Nobody does. Haley got 44% of the GOP vote. If half of her share of the GOP vote went to Biden, Trump would lose the election by the biggest landslide in history, other than George Washington running unopposed. Do you think Trump is going to lose the general election by the largest margin in history?

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess the reasoning is that Republican voters will throw up a little in the back of their throats, but vote for her anyway, while the Democrats are split.

This ignores that, if by some miracle she got the nomination, she'd immediately become 'literally Hitler', like every Republican nominee for President since Dewy.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when Bush slaughtering and torturing innocent Muslims got your dick hard?? Those were the days.

[Nige]

That's nothing compared to what Trump would be calling her.

[David Nieporent]

Right now he has settled on the relatively (for him) restrained, but still juvenile, "birdbrain."

[Nige]

He's cast her and everyone who supports her into the Outer Dark, though.

[Voize]

That's where the real entertainment value comes in.
Haley would beat Biden handily if Trump stayed out of it, but who believes his ego would let him? He is far more likely to try to sabotage her, maybe by urging his base to vote for him as an independent or as a write-in, or to withhold their vote in protest.

[TW]

I don't think any Republican believes that Haley won't be demonized like every other Republican candidate in memory has been. Or that most voters aren't so used to it that's likely to have that much of an effect on most Republican candidates. It's more that Trump is actually going out of his way to make voters think that in his case, some of these things might be true.

There's a reason why Democrats used January 6th in the 2022 midterm elections and that's because it worked for them. And now when his trials (pluaral) start, voters are going to be reminded of it all over again.

[Kazinski]

Well using the RCP average she is only up 1.1 over Biden now with about 17.5% undecided/other.

Trumps up 3.8 with only 9% undecided. So the undecided would have to break to Biden 6.5 - 2.5 to win the popular vote.

In the battleground states WI is tied Biden leads by 0.6 in PA.

Trump leads by between 4-9 points in NV, AZ, MI, NC, GA.

I guess the experts and the polls diverge.

[NvEric]

Losing your senses at this point does not work, Steve.
This worst case scenario is far fetched - not counting Electoral Votes ? That's insurrection ! The role in the ceremony of counting is you count them and go home. There's no room for debate since an attack on the Capitol will occur nonetheless by the FBI to halt debate and frighten the Congress into submission. Been there already; it's SOP of the Empire.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Unless the Supreme Court effectively decides that Trump's plan to steal the election was not "insurrection"...

[Life of Brian]

Ooooo... here comes the next 1/2D chess move!

"Because the Supreme Court said the thing Trump did that we called insurrection that resulted in him leaving the White House as scheduled in Jan 2021, actually wasn't insurrection, all bets are off and we can do whatever we want to put whoever we want in power in Jan 2025!"

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If you think only "successful" insurrections count for 14th Amendment disqualification purposes, that makes sense.

[Life of Brian]

If I'm understanding your theory, the only way it could work is for the Supreme Court to say, "well, yes, Trump absolutely was trying to overthrow the government and stay in office and the only thing that kept him from doing that was [...], but nonetheless that doesn't disqualify him under the 14th Amendment."

Otherwise, there's no intellectually honest way for Ds to use Trump as cover to actually do what they subjectively opine Trump wanted to do but in fact did not. (And in fact, it's even worse than that, since in this wild-hair hypo the Ds aren't even alleging there were irregularities in the election -- just that the "wrong candidate" won.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

My theory? It sounds like you've done a lot more work on it than I have!

I especially like how you casually attribute "intellectual honesty" to Democrats, though. Not how I would describe them.

Democrats lie to us; Republicans lie to themselves.

[Roger S]

Yes, he is arguing that the Democrats are going to steal the election again. A lousy reason to support Haley.

[Krenn]

Remember that the new congress is seated BEFORE the electoral votes are counted. and under the new version of the Electoral Count Act, it takes BOTH houses to reject votes.

We don't know who will be in charge of the House or Senate on January 6th. Odds of Democrats controlling BOTH are what, 1 chance in 4?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not the odds of Democrats controlling both that matters. It's the odds of Democrats controlling both after an election in which Trump wins.

Which has to be a lot worse.

Anyway, as far as the Senate goes, the Democrats are hosed outside of a wave election; Most of the seats up for reelection this year are currently held by Democrats, they have a lot more exposure.

[Voize]

and under the new version of the Electoral Count Act, it takes BOTH houses to reject votes.

It also restricts the grounds for rejection. In particular, candidate ineligibility isn't grounds, and if an ineligible candidate receives a majority of votes for President then he or she would win the election but be barred from office by Article 1 Section 1 ("inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office") and as a result the VP would become President.
However I think if Congress rejected the votes anyway and declared a different winner the courts would find the dispute non-judiciable, that it was up to Congress itself to enforce the Act.

[Commenter_XY]

The bottom line for Nikki Haley is she needs to win primaries, if she wishes to supplant POTUS Trump. She is 0 for 2, and will soon be 0 for 4 within a few weeks; not looking very promising.

There is a long way between today and August. An eternity.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Or maybe she just needs to avoid being convicted and imprisoned.

[Brett Bellmore]

N.H. was the one state in the entire country where she polls best, she's less popular in every other state.

It was an open primary.

The Democratic side had already been announced to be irrelevant.

And she STILL couldn't beat him?

It doesn't MATTER if you think she'd do better in the general election, she has to be popular with Republicans, first, to get the nomination.

[Sarcastr0]

It was an open primary.

Try again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Try, "70% of her votes in the primary weren't Republicans." Sure, the N.H. primary isn't completely open, but it ain't closed, either.

What happens when she hits the states where you have to be a Republican to vote in the Republican primary? She tanks, that's what happens. This was her high water mark.

[Sarcastr0]

New goalposts, eh?

And a new conspiracy theory, I see. No proof of coordination, so why not just make it up?

What are you arguing so vociferously anyway? Are many on here saying Haley will win the primary?

[Brett Bellmore]

What new goalpost? I was saying BEFORE the NH primary that it was her best state, but that it didn't look like she'd win there anyway.

It's literally the state she polled best in, AND had rules allowing non-Republicans to vote in the Republican primary, and 70% of the vote she got WAS non-Republicans.

That was her high water mark, and the last delegate she's going to win, because it's all winner take all from this point.

[Brett Bellmore]

I will admit she did better than I'd expected based on the polls, but that's due to my not taking into account crossover votes, which were the majority of her votes.

[Don Nico]

You really cannot resist the "conspiracy theory" bullshit line.

[NicoleC]

As far as I can tell, there is no way to determine whether the statement about 70% is true. I heard that number touted yesterday as an estimate by AI, and quite appalled that someone I regard highly is using that number as fact. Where is your source Calabresi?

I live in NH. I talked with a poll-worker yesterday, and he told me that they can't track those numbers. Also, the Democratic Party has, for years, played the primary game here where they have their members switch party affiliations to sway the Republican nomination in favor of their preferred target (aka easiest to beat Republican). It's so well-known that our state legislature just changed the rules to try to curb it. Now if you're registered as a Dem or Republican, you have a longer deadline to change affiliations prior to a primary vote in order to be eligible to vote in the other primary. In a year like this where the Dems have already decided Biden will be their nominee, there's really no barrier to convincing registered Dems to change their party affiliations early enough to game the system. The past rule still applies to registered Independents: you choose which ballot to take when you arrive at the polling place.

[Brett Bellmore]

Exit polling is the way: 70 percent of Haley voters in New Hampshire were not registered Republicans: CNN exit poll

[Kleppe]

"And, that is even without factoring in the likelihood that Trump will be convicted of at least some of the 91 charges on which he has been indicted and that he may lose the popular vote even if he wins in the Electoral College."

Why are you invoking the popular vote here? It literally means nothing.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump and Biden could sign a contract saying that the winner of the popular vote wins the presidency…but Trump is fine with a trans woman in Wisconsin having more power than a Marine in California.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure they could. Who needs a stinkin' Constitution?
Maybe they could sign a contract that says popular vote winner is President, loser is Vice President.

[Kleppe]

Military members vote at their homes of record, not the shit holes where they're stationed.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Military members vote at their homes of record, not the shit holes where they’re stationed."

Not necessarily true.

[Kleppe]

Nothing is true in all cases. Most military members are not updating their residency every time they are PCSed. They either keep their home of record or they switch it to a state that has a favorable income tax -- and California is not one of them. The "Marine in California" is a meme.

[Randal]

I think losing the popular vote makes disqualification (slightly) more politically palatable.

Haven't you seen Veep?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If it didn't have Peter Capaldi in it, I wasn't watching.

[Randal]

Oh man that's tough. The lubricated horse cock vs. the croissant dildo.

I think I have to give the edge to Julia but only just. It comes down to her priceless facial expressions.

Peter can do variations on angry. Disappointed and angry, frustrated and angry, surprised and angry, mad and angry. Julia's got more range.

[Randal]

To whet your appetite...

https://youtu.be/lUbg5fg9SdU?si=p0tWGgaRZYZi3-x_

[EscherEnigma]

Nice theory, but in practice we've never seen losing the popular vote lead to disqualification.

[Krychek_2]

I think we can safely ignore polls this far out; let's see what they look like in October.

And here's the dynamic with a lot of Trump supporters: They're like the 15 year old girl who is dating a high school dropout with a substance abuse problem, for the sole reason that her parents hate him. She knows that he's not a good choice for a long term relationship, but she's doing it to spite her parents, just as much of Trump's support comes from a desire to spite both Democrats and the GOP establishment.

Someday she'll come home from a date with a black eye. Or she'll call her parents from jail. Or she'll find out he's screwing five other women. And at that point the relationship will be over. One only hopes he doesn't get her pregnant first.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well put.

[Kleppe]

Correct, I have voted for Trump and will continue to vote for him because the worst people in the world are doing everything in their power to stop me from doing so. They are finally waking up and realizing what a protest candidate is.

[Krychek_2]

If you want to vote for a protest candidate who will drive you off a cliff, great, but you're going to be at the bottom of the cliff when the smoke clears. And it would be nice if you weren't taking everyone else along with you.

[DaveM]

I skimmed the brief, which certainly leaves no doubt that a Trump electoral victory would certainly be rejected by the Democrats in Congress, regardless of their show of having the vapors over election “denialism” today. Just take these brief snippets here:

“For some, excluding an immensely popular political figure from the ballot is profoundly undemocratic. But, for others, what is truly undemocratic is empowering a uniquely dangerous demagogue who has already disobeyed his solemn Oath and is a genuine threat to recidivate and perhaps end the constitutional republic that now exists.”

I call this the “Minority Report” legal theory: Trump might “recidivate” and “perhaps end” things. Who needs to wait around for actual wrongdoing. Everybody knows he’s guilty, right?

Next up is this: “Congress on Judgment Day can refuse to count electoral votes that it alone deems improper. Congress has in fact done so in past elections.”

A nice bit of rhetorical finagling here, because the authors would like us to believe that the Electoral Count Act allows Congress to refuse to count for any reason, when in fact the whole purpose of the Act is to limit these refusals to resolving ministerial issues. Totally lost on them is the fact that it is this very limitation that has allowed Joe Biden to be President today. Going outside those limits is precisely what Pence decided he did not have the authority to do.

So these guys are exactly the same as Trump. They are making precisely the same type of argument: win at all costs.

And here is the topper to all: “Were this Court (wrongly) to hold that Donald Trump is categorically eligible and that states cannot invoke Section Three with regard to the events of 2020–21, Your Honors should understand that this Court cannot in the nature of things be the sole and last word.”

Well. That almost sounds like a threat; an odd thing to say in a "friendly" brief! This is a very bad look. Is this how the Democratic Party genuinely wishes to play this? I certainly hope cooler heads prevail.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, he already tried to steal an election. Why give him a second chance?

However, if Biden refused to go along with the plan to increase the number of Supreme Court justices, he’s unlikely to go full Trumptard now.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree here, if Joe Biden loses, he will concede. Joe Biden is an honorable man and understands his legacy is more important that a second term.

[Roger S]

Biden already did steal an election.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sure, and Rudy will be providing the evidence for that real soon...

[Josh R]

I don't think the Amars are driven by partisanship but rather honestly believe Congress does have the last word (*). So, had Congress rejected AZ, PA, ... on 1/6/2021, the Amars would argue that is constitutionally permissible, no matter how untethered in reality such an outcome would have been.

To be sure, the Amars would likely argue Congress should reject Trump electors based on 14.3 and should not have rejected Biden electors in 2021 based on what they think the reality is. But their stance on what is constitutionally permissible is consistent.

(*) But, they believe the VP has no role (Calabresi is wrong on that point).

[OtisAH]

“The Amar brothers think a Democratic President of the Senate and a Democratic majority in the House are not bound by the Republican Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Anderson. I would be stunned if all of legal academia and the press did not end up agreeing with them along with some conservative legal academics. So, even if Donald Trump were to win in the Electoral College in 2024, Kamala Harris and the House of Representatives would not count his electoral votes. There is simply no way that Donald Trump can win the 2024 presidential election.”

What a load of pure bolognium. At this point Calabresi, who clearly is so insulated professionally he has zero concerns about regularly clowning himself publicly, is Blackman’s figurative fat friend who makes Blackman look good by comparison.

[Brett Bellmore]

His reasoning here might be valid if Democrats ended up with a majority in both chambers. But I'm puzzled why he's treating this as a given. Admittedly the polling isn't very meaningful this far out, but such polling as there is actually favors the Republicans for both chambers.

And in a race where Trump won, you'd have to expect that Republican House and Senate candidates would do better, too.

So, the odds are, you're not going to see an election where the Democrats have the chance to do this.

[OtisAH]

No, Brett, it’s just more straw-manning from a rightwing hack on what Dems “will do” as pre-justification for things MAGA wants to do if given the chance.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Northwestern deserves better than to be expressly associated with this level of writing . . . except it hired this movement conservative, which should be an instructive point for every strong, mainstream law school.

[Seamus]

And, no matter how the Court rules in Trump v. Anderson, do not expect Senate President Kamala Harris or a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, on January 6, 2025, to count electoral votes cast for Donald Trump who all Democrats believe is disqualified from being re-elected as President by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You mean they'd overturn the outcome of the election, the very thing they want to exclude Trump from the ballot (and put him in jail for)? I'm shocked, shocked by the inconsistency.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I suppose their argument is, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. It is an unprincipled, desperate argument.

But as I’m constantly reminded by the MAGAts who inhabit the Reason comment section, what good are principles if they keep you from winning?

[Social Justice is neither]

So you're saying the threat to our Democracy is coming from inside the House?

[Dan Schiavetta]

On January 6, 1981, Vice President Mondale, a Democrat, counted the electoral votes and certified that Reagan and Bush, Republicans, were the new President and Vice President. There was no question about it. No Democrat voted against certification. If Mr. Calabresi is going to rely on the 1980 campaign and its results, and then talk about how V.P. Harris will somehow act differently than Mondale did, he should at least note that.

The Mondale certification session is on C-Span; you can look it up.

[Bored Lawyer]

I think his post is silly, but he explained why: Trump is arguably disqualified from office by the 14th Amendment. Reagan wasn't.

Not to mention that Mondale and most of the Democrats of his time were liberals, while today the Democratic party is dominated by leftists. Mondale had more honor is his right toe-pinky than Kamala Harris will ever have.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not if the Supreme Court says he isn't.

Biden the "leftist", lol. More of what he's drinking, please!

[Bored Lawyer]

Reading comprehension is a challenge for you, isn't it?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I admit I have no idea what you're trying to say, because you're simply speaking a different language if you really think Biden is a "leftist" or that he (and his ilk) does not dominate the Democrat Party.

[Commenter_XY]

I remember Mondale....he was a 'happy lib warrior'. He got trounced in the 1984 election, but carried himself well throughout. Good American.

[EscherEnigma]

I think his post is silly, but he explained why: Trump is arguably disqualified from office by the 14th Amendment. Reagan wasn’t.

A matter that will have been settled by the SCOTUS in Trump’s favor as a per-requisite for this scenario to play out.

There’s no real argument given for why Harris would disobey the SCOTUS.

[Kleppe]

I can't begin to understand why you are invoking Mondale. Why not look at the circus from January 2017, the last time Dems in Congress were forced to contend with Trump being elected?

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-163/issue-4/house-section/article/H185-8

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, not January 2021?

[StonewallDeSoto]

No conservative could ever vote for Nikki Haley. She’s the definition of America Last: a slave to Israel and other special interests, and deeply resentful of White America. Not to mention: a woman should not be in the White House, much less a snarky feminist.

If the argument is vote Haley or Biden will win, it really makes no difference. Do we want to drive off the cliff at 100 or 95mph? Trump is the only hope for America, and he has no apparent successor. We have to vote and fight for him.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Satire?

[Moderation4ever]

"a slave to Israel" are you kidding? Do you think that A President Trump would put any roadblocks in Bibi Netanyahu way? What did he do in his first term that make you think he would be tougher than Halley?

[StonewallDeSoto]

Trump does not like Netanyahu after he was the first official to congratulate Biden. Trump smartly courted Evangelical voters and Jewish donors with symbolic gestures and rhetoric like moving the embassy to Jerusalem. But more consequentially, he took American troops out of Syria, which was opposed by Israel and Nikki Haley. If he had a military which obeyed his orders, he might have brought even more troops home.

Nikki Haley said Israel doesn’t need America, America needs Israel. She also said we should give Israel whatever they need whenever they need it. Trump would never humiliate America and make such a generous, unqualified commitment to foreign aid.

Of course, most American politicians are Zionists loyal to Israel. But Trump is better than that because he believes in America First. You cannot say the same for Nimarata.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Apparently not satire!

"Not to mention: a woman should not be in the White House, much less a snarky feminist."

Kind of hard to square with (a) the 20th Century or (b) Trump's likely next VP pick, but hey, you do you.

[gVOR08]

“At the moment, we do not even know if the Supreme Court is going to allow Donald Trump's name to be printed on the ballot! And, no matter how the Court rules in Trump v. Anderson, do not expect Senate President Kamala Harris or a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, on January 6, 2025, to count electoral votes cast for Donald Trump who all Democrats believe is disqualified from being re-elected as President by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The President of the Senate and a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will not feel bound to follow the ruling of a Republican Supreme Court. And, that is even without factoring in the likelihood that Trump will be convicted of at least some of the 91 charges on which he has been indicted and that he may lose the popular vote even if he wins in the Electoral College.”

1. We pretty much do know the Supremes will allow Trump’s name on the ballot, we just don’t know what “originalist” BS they’ll use to do so.

2. Stop projecting Republican behavior on the rest of us.

3. He hasn’t won the popular vote yet, little chance he ever could.

As to 2., if y'all weren't projecting your behavior on Dems you'd realize a D win would be no more of a disaster than it's been the last many times it's happened.

[Moderation4ever]

Is this article bait and switch? The title is misleading because it talks Halley and Trump but then switches women for Harris. I don't think Trump will win in either the popular or the EC. In 2020, some Republican chose to not vote for Trump. They voted straight ticket Republican except for the Presidency. Don't believe me, believe my Senator Ron Johnson. I believe the number of Republicans skipping the Presidential vote will be larger in 2024.

As regards Harris and Biden, if Trump wins the EC President Biden will concede and VP Harris will count the votes. No Vice-President has ever refused to count the votes. Mike Pence researched the issue and concluded the VP has no choice. Harris will do what is expected, just as Pence did in 2021, just as Gore did 2001, just as Dan Quayle did and all VP before them.

[ReaderY]

Vice President Harris will handle it the same way Vice President Pence did. There will likely be an objection to counting the ballots, it will be supported by a member of each house, and the Vice President, as presiding officer, will recognize the objection and refer the matter to each house. Both houses will debate and vote. There will be some votes against. It will take a while. But as with the 2020 election, after a few hours of speeches and voting (and hopefully without a few hours of mob disruption), a majority will vote to certify the Electoral College vote.

[David Nieporent]

it will be supported by a member of each house,

The Electoral Count reform act heightened the requirement. One member of each house is no longer enough.

[ReaderY]

I think Congress does have the power to make this decision. However, if the Supreme Court overturns the Colorado decision and rules that Mr. Trump is fully qualified, I suspect that enough Democrats will defer to that decision that there will be a majority for counting Trump’s electoral votes that his election will be certified.

[Josh R]

Calabresi is pinning his hope (Trump is not the nominee) on an outcome (Haley defeats Trump in enough primaries and caucuses to capture the nomination) that has a probability of epsilon of occurring. Her continuing will have no impact on whether Trump drops out because of his health or legal problems.

She can’t win. She isn’t running to advance a message in a losing cause. She isn’t more likely to capture the nomination (than other alternatives) by continuing to run in case Trump drops out. She will endorse Trump later on. So, what is the rationale for her not dropping out?

[ReaderY]

It’s not an impossible outcome. Many things could happen. Trump might be convicted. The Supreme Court might rule against him. It’s not just a question of the current polls. I think there’s an argument to be made that Nikki Haley should stay in and hope for the best.

[Josh R]

Haley's chances of winning the nomination are not improved by sticking around in case Trump is convicted or barred by 14.3. She won't be winning very many delegates in the meantime and once Trump drops out, all of the other suspended candidacies will come out of hibernation (and perhaps a few new ones too).

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there's a narrow window where if Trump is taken out before he has secured a majority of the delegates, she *might* grab a lot of them before the other candidates have a chance to get their campaigns running full swing. She still wouldn't end up with a majority of the delegates, but might snatch a plurality victory.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think that's right. You can't just spin up a campaign apparatus from scratch. She'll be the only one with an active campaign.

[Josh R]

There almost certainly won't be a criminal conviction before the end of the primaries. SCOTUS will likely hand down s ruling before Super Tuesday (Colorado's primary date). So, assuming you are correct about suspended campaigns reigniting, her reason for staying in likely disappears the day after Super Tuesday.

[Moderation4ever]

I would add that Trump's problem is not just a conviction. The trials will show a lot of evidence and Trump has no real defense planned. He strategy seems to be to play out the clock. Note the Jean Carroll case the defense wants to relitigate a trial that is already over rather than focusing for the jury on the damage award.

[Moderation4ever]

I would add that Trump is cracking and the more he is forced to speak in public the better Halley's chances. Ideally, she would like a debate as he would then be forced to speak on his feet. He is mixing up names and places. Just image if Trump, for that matter Biden too, had a Mitch McConnell moment on live TV. I know that would be the end for Biden and I don't see Trump surviving it any better.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To win, you've got to play the game.

She has nothing to lose, now. Trump has gone all out against her and her financial backers, recently promising that MAGAworld would be forever closed to anyone who persists in supporting Haley. So she will never be Trump's VP and will never serve in another Trump Administration. She must know this.

If she stays in the race to the end, she can salvage her reputation by standing up to the bully. She may still be there when/if he melts down. And if that happens, she'll be poised to take advantage.

[Josh R]

I agree it makes sense for her to stay in if she doesn't kiss his ring when this over. But, she will.

[Mr. Bumble]

And after all of the back and forth above:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13006973/Big-donors-ditch-Nikki-Haley-Billionaire-LinkedIn-founder-metal-magnate-tell-Trumps-standing-rival-time-leave-race-bleak-sign-South-Carolina-governor.html

No mo money Nikki.

[Roger S]

"What that means is that there is only one person who is running for the Republican nomination for President in 2024 whose electoral votes will be counted and who will pardon Donald Trump if she is elected: Nikki Haley."

No. Haley is a not a natural born citizen, and her electoral votes should not be counted. Her Sikh parents were not citizens. She also promises to continue prosecuting Trump, refuses to pardon him until he is fully convicted and all of his appeals are exhausted. That could take many years.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You actually think Haley is not a "natural-born citizen" of the United States?

Like Obama?

[questioner7]

“do not expect Senate President Kamala Harris or a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, on January 6, 2025, to count electoral votes cast for Donald Trump” — what is this based on? Most Republicans did this on Jan 6 2021, but there’s no history of most Democrats seeking to actually annul certified election results non-judicially.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

True, but I think Steve's idea is that the Democrats would just invent some "election fraud" allegations and go with that. They wouldn't even have to invent their own such allegations; Trump is is already suggesting that the 2024 elections will be "rigged" and that the reason why Biden is not stopping illegal immigration is because Democrats plan to use those people to fraudulently vote for Biden in 2024:

"Donald Trump is laying the ground to claim election fraud again in 2024, baselessly suggesting in his New Year’s message that the Biden administration is allowing immigrants to enter the US to vote.

“As the New Year fast approaches, I would like to wish an early New Year’s salutation to Crooked Joe Biden and his group of Radical Left Misfits & Thugs on their never ending attempt to DESTROY OUR NATION through Lawfare, Invasion, and Rigging Elections,” Mr Trump wrote in the afternoon of 30 December.

“They are now scrambling to sign up as many of those millions of people they are illegally allowing into [our] Country, in order [so] that they will be ready to VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2024,” he added.

Mr Trump’s New Year’s screed followed a previous post just after midnight early on Saturday, in which he wrote, “It’s becoming more and more obvious to me why the ‘Crazed’ Democrats are allowing millions and millions of totally unvetted migrants into our once great Country”.

“IT’S SO THEY CAN VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. They are signing them up at a rapid pace, without even knowing who the hell they are. It all makes sense now. Republicans better wake up and do something, before it is too late. Are you listening Mitch McConnell?” he asked of the Senate Republican leader."

[Brett Bellmore]

They wouldn't allege election fraud, they'd just say that Trump failed to qualify for the office on account of being an insurrectionist.

[Nige]

Trump isn't responsible or accountable for the things he says and does; Democrats are guilty of the future crimes the commit in Brett's head. (Brett-dance!)