Nikki Haley as a third party candidate

The establishment strategy and tactics are going to change. Nikki Haley got absolutely trounced in her home state of South Carolina in the 2024 GOP primary.  She has no path to victory.  So why does she keep running? The common theories are that she's delusional, or that she's staying in the race to secure a VP spot, or as a fallback in case president Trump is forced out for legal reasons, OR she's in it to hurt Trump's chances of winning because she's an establishment puppet.  This morning I had another thought.  What if the latter theory is true, and she wants to hurt Trump?  What is the best way to do that?  

It's not going to cut it with her staying in the race and losing state after state. She's not hurting Trump much at all.  Her support is coming from establishment Republicans and crossover primary voters (Democrats) who want to see anybody but Trump win. Firstly take a look at a few clips as the premise for my thinking.

1. Trump is doing everything right and it's no contest at this point:

Keep in mind that ABC is cherry picking to try to find how this is not good news for Trump when they talk about the electability of Trump after a possible conviction of a crime.  Keep that 36% in mind.

2. MSNBC exit polls tell an interesting story:

Yes, it's MSNBC, and yes it's just exit polls (and early ones at that), but there are still some takeaways that add context to the of the ABC report.  Firstly 31% non-Republicans voted. That could, and probably does account for the largest chunk of that 36% mentioned in the ABC exit polls about a Trump conviction.  Not all, but probably the majority.

Secondly, this means for Nikki Haley, is she does not have a shot among Republicans, who will always represent the vast majority of voters among the remaining primaries.  In some cases, they represent the entire primary electorate.   It means she CANNOT win the GOP nomination. But yet she persists, hence all the theories as to why she is staying in the race.

3. Her establishment financial support is also slipping away now too:

This makes her GOP primary win even more impossible (if that's even a thing). So what next? She's still not dropping out, and people like the Koch brothers are backing away because they are wasting money at this point.  Her strategy will have to change, and her tactics will have to also as a result of the strategy shift as well.

No matter the scenario that proves out to be the reason she is staying in the race, the following holds true: she would do better as a third party candidate.  Let's take a look at the possibilities.

She's delusional: If she believes she can win the GOP nomination, she is delusional. She has no path. But she's gotten pretty far politically prior to her run for president this cycle, and that doesn't happen because of delusions of grandeur.  I don't believe she's delusional, she has an agenda. That agenda may be to become president but we cannot pretend she doesn't understand the polls. But to entertain the notion, if she truly just wants to win the presidency, doing it as a GOP candidate is not her path.  An easier approach would be to run as a third party candidate and take the voters from both Trump and Let's Go Brandon with whom she believes she has a connection and can secure enough votes.

The VP slot: She's not really in it to secure a VP slot.  Trump has already intimated that she's not on the list. It's another scenario I'd simply rule out.

The fallback candidate: She does not represent the logical fallback candidate just because she was the last opponent standing. Loss after loss does not inspire confidence. She is hurting her chances in that scenario.  Instead going third party and trying to stand on her ideas seems more like the high road.  If for some (highly unlikely) reason Trump cannot serve as the Republican nominee, being called back in from an independent run seems far more positive and perhaps even gracious; stepping in to rescue the party from it's own flawed electoral 'mistake'.

The Establishment puppet: This scenario, to me, makes the most sense.  The GOP establishment and the establishment writ large, want to hurt Trump; they want to stop Trump by hurting him, constantly. Death by a thousand cuts if necessary. Keep hitting Trump with criminal cases, civil cases, a primary challenger, and whatever else they can throw in his way, so that (i) he cannot focus on his campaign, (ii) they find something that sticks and forces him to bow out and/or (iii) turns off his voter base. In that case having Nikki Haley in the reason is just one more speed bump for Trump. 

But it hasn't been working; Trump's support continues to grow (or at least, not falter) with each roadblock they attempt. Despite his focus being split his campaign seems to be humming along just fine. And with each case crumbling, finding something to stick on Trump seems to be not only falling further out of reach, it's making the establishment look more and more desperate, more and more suspicious and galvanizing support for Trump.  It's all a failure, which is why you are seeing the Koch money pull out.  The strategy has to change.

It won't make Nikki Haley president but that's not the establishment goal. The goal is to stop Trump. A third party run might do to Trump what the RFK Jr. run does to Let's Go Brandon; siphon off enough votes to make a difference. And the Koch money for Haley pulling out of the GOP primaries might be the signal to her to switch strategies.

To be clear, it's not likely to stop the Trump train, but the establishment is running out of options at this point. They may end up trying to ditch Let's Go Brandon as their last play, and if they do it's a sign of desperation. If they do though, it's also a clear sign the GOP establishment and the Democrat establishment are the same establishment, or at a minimum, they have almost identical agendas.  And that goes well beyond president Trump.

Nikki Haley is going to lose in South Carolina tomorrow

The question is, how badly.  If it's by less than 20 points, she's going to count it as a win. And the mainstream media will play right along.

Biden's worst debate moment (South Carolina edition)

According to Joe Biden, almost 50% of Americans have been killed from gun violence in the last 13 years. Was there a massive national bloodbath we all missed?

South Carolina - please primary this guy

Lindsey Graham is trying to walk a centrist line but consistently ends up undermining conservative values.  In this case, the CBS news headline takes his line about "half of what Trump does is not okay" and makes that the headline.  For the left, Graham is a useful idiot.  And in his attempt to walk a thin line Graham spends most of the gotcha interview "defending" Trump's innocence.  But his willingness to disparage Trump in general makes a great headline for the left.  South Carolina, please primary this guy. Get. Him. Out.

Impressions from the South Carolina GOP debate

The Republican debate last night in South Carolina left me with a few impressions and the strongest two of them were not about the candidates directly. That said, here's a quick summary of my immediate thoughts.

(1) The crowd was far too involved.  Disproportionately involved is probably a better way to put it.  The crowd seemed to be firmly behind Bush first, then Kasich and then maybe Rubio.  That does not reflect polling in the state and often did not reflect what was being said by the candidates.  At times it seemed like they were booing for the sake of booing a specific candidate. Trump claimed they were all Bush donors.  What's more likely is that each candidate tried to stack the hall with supporters/volunteers provided with instructions on how to respond.

(2) The moderator John Dickerson was both prepared and unprepared.  As a moderator Dickerson asked measured, intelligent questions. He deserves credit for that.  Secondly as to the audience stepping on candidates' responses he did not seem prepared for it and made no obvious effort to control it.  Similarly he allowed the back and forth between candidates to go on too long in many cases.  I applaud him for not stepping on candidates' talking and allowing more back and forth.  However, he did not manage the perfect balance between allowing the back and forth, and keeping the debate from bogging down in tit-for-tat talking.  All that said, on balance he did a good job overall, especially when compared to many previous GOP debate moderators in the past 8 years.

(3)  Donald Trump seemed to take a lot of the jabs from Jeb too personally. It came across as bitter. He started strong on the SCOTUS issue suggesting openly that the GOP controlled senate should delay on any Obama nomination.  Then he got into it with Jeb and made the debate about the two of them.  It's been called swinging down and it helps Jeb and hurts Trump.  Trump should stop it if he wants to win. Trump did manage to even himself out later in the debate and finished strongly.

(4) It was Jeb's strongest performance yet in terms of actual debating.  He did the right thing by attacking Trump because it kept him in the limelight more than his ranking merits. It did nothing to change his image as an establishment RINO.  

(5) Kasich's message of not attacking fellow Republicans was a good one but...  Two problems: (i) It's not practical right now for the candidates to do that. The need to show they can mix it up for when they face Clinton or Sanders, and more urgently, they need to gain or protect their existing support levels among primary voters. (ii) It would carry more weight if he had not started the debates by slagging Donald Trump really hard. It's a bit hypocritical or at least a flip flop.

(6) Rubio did much better than his New Hampshire debate. He probably did not do as well as he needed to make up most of the ground he lost as a result of the Chris Christie tussle last time around.

(7) I did not get a strong enough sense on the positions of most of the candidates on the Supreme Court.  Perhaps that was too much to expect at that debate, but a strong answer from a candidate could have been a boon.  None of the answers on the death of Justice Scalia were particularly bad, but they were certainly not enough to make an impression.

Lessons from the "All politics is local" file

From South Carolina, comes some local interesting developments that have some broader truths underlying them.  The story via ABC:

When openly gay police chief Crystal Moore was fired by a mayor who condemned her lifestyle as "questionable," she feared her two decade career in law enforcement in this town was over.

Then, this conservative, small town rebelled.

The people of Latta, who voted overwhelmingly for a state amendment banning gay marriage eight years ago, turned against the mayor, stripped him of his powers and the town council rehired Moore. They said her dedication to the town mattered more than her sexual orientation.

The truth - true conservatives are not concerned about someone's sexual orientation but rather, they are concerned about government OVER-oversight and encroachment on liberty.  It's evident in the town's reaction to the firing of Moore.  Government, of any polticial persuasion, does not, opr should not, have the right to condemn or restrict someone's personal orientation using a government office as a big stick to do it.

The mayor was wrong.  Conservatives in town are rightly concerned about whether the police chief was doing a good job, which she was, and not her personal orientation.  So the town admonished a politician who had previously been popular enough to run unopposed for his office.  

While the mainstream media may portray this as an awakening of conservatives to the realities of the 21st century, that is not the case - it`s just liberal spin.

Yes, there are social conservatives, and many of them are also fiscal conservatives.  Not all fiscal conservatives are social conservatives. (Full disclosure - I would consider myself socially predominantly conservative and fiscally fully conservative). But real conservatism does not seek to impose itself upon those with differing views.  It seeks to enlighten, and challenge people.  Just as Christianity does.  Unlike some other religion, it does not seek to impose itself.  Force removes choice, which removes free will, which removes the ability to have faith.

Conservatives have become more enlightened over the decades, but not by progressive liberalism - rather by the more libertarian live and let live rationale.  So long as your lifestyle does not impinge upon mine, or harm anyone, then you are, as Milton Friedman would say, `Free to Choose`.  The people of Latta have proved that conservatives get that.  They may not bow to political correctness, but they do know what is right, and they act accordingly.

Thursday Hillary Bash - Cult

Hillary Clinton's cult of personality?  Those who fell under the Obama spell and fell prey to his cult of personality, might possibly not want to do the same thing again.  So claims a prominent South Carolina Democrat.

"Is Hillary ready for Hillary? That's the question," said former South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian, who said he plans to support Biden if he runs. "Is it a political organization or a fan club for a boy band? I just don't understand the idea that somehow you've got to encourage her to run. Either people want to run and have a coherent message about why they should be president, or not. She has been around the block. She knows that if she wants to run, she can get in and get the money."

"I think it's a cult, not a political movement," Harpootlian added. "Ready for Hillary compared to who? The field still has to develop."

Now, you have to take anything from a Biden supporter with a grain of salt.  But Ready For Hillary seems to be kinda cultish, or at least a fan club as Harpootlian put it.  With recent polls suggesting a lot of Obama supporters might have buyer's remorse over his election and/or re-election, Harpootlian is smartly laying some groundwork for the approach to derail Hillary's possible quest for the presidency.  To position her as a cult of personality candidate dovetails perfectly with those who feel like they fell for an empty suit in Obama.  The cult of personality is what worked for Obama.  If you feel betrayed by that, having the same thing being tagged to Clinton works in Biden's favor.

After the debate - Newt's next problem

Newt Gingrich is a terrific debater, and on the surface it would seem that he won the debate last night, within the first 3 minutes with his response to John King's opening question.  Fair enough.  Although each candidate had their moment(s) to shine.  Mitt Romney even provided a couple of good answers himself.  Good in the sense that they sounded more genuine than they did car salesman, as he often does (to me at least).  Whether Gingrich actually won or not, there's an observation to be made about his debating style that could prove to be a weakness in the long run.

Newt's Ex Interview on ABC Proves Liberals Want Romney

ABC plans to unload an interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife right before the South Carolina primary, lending credence to the theory that the liberal media wants Mitt Romney to face president Obama. Why?  He's very beatable.  Maybe they don't feel the same way about Gingrich who could clearly undress Obama in a debate.

NEW YORK (AP) - An ABC News executive tells The Associated Press that the network has interviewed Newt Gingrich's second wife and is likely to air the segment Thursday on "Nightline." That's two days before the South Carolina primary, where the Republican presidential candidate is trying to topple GOP front-runner Mitt Romney.

The ABC News executive did not indicate what the ex-wife, Marianne, said in the interview and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plans for airing the interview were tentative.

The timing couldn't be more suspect.

That said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  I've argued that attacks on Romney were justified now because the GOP can't change it's mind in September if he's the choice.  The same is true for Gingrich.  But I suspect he can weather it.  The other point is that if this swings the South Carolina race in favor of Romney, it quite likely locks him in as the nominee.

UPDATE: Why am I so sure this is an anti-Gingrich ploy?  Timing.

In case you still care - Sarah Palin says...

Sarah Palin kinda sorta endorses Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina primary.  Her cache has slipped since she didn't enter the race (better to enter and lose than not run), but she still has sway over a segment of the population.  Just because her star has fallen doesn't make her wrong either. So for what it's worth, here it is:

Do we need fewer GOP candidates?

We aren't getting anyone else so let's concentrate on the ones we've got now. Huntsman is out, following Bachmann and Cain. And Trump for that matter. That leaves us with Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Paul as the possibilities. Would fewer candidates allow for someone to seriously challenge Mitt Romney? There's a strong case to be made that if everyone dropped out but one not Romney candidate, the eventual nominee would be not Romney. The problem is, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum are not going to blink. They all want to be that last man standing and benefit from the convergence of the not Romney vote. But the longer they hold out the further ahead Romney will get as the not Romney vote is split.

Conundrum.

South Carolina GOP Debate #1

Some random observations from the first GOP debate tonight.

I'm not sure the GOP debate will have done much to alter opinions nationally, but I think people in South Carolina who were paying the most attention will probably drift away from Mitt Romney to some degree, and will end up amongst the others, but probably not much support.

Rick Santorum answered a lot of questions well, but was grating in the way he turned answers about his opinion turned into attacks on others like Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich.  I'm not sure that it's appealing to go after 

Newt Gingrich started weak on Bain Capital re: Mitt Romney, but got a lot of applause and a lot of positive tweets on the occasions he talked about the economy and poverty.

Fox News was running a tweet-in on their live web coverage where people could tweet their opinion on whether each response to a question by a candidate was an answer or a dodge. Gingrich did well, Santorum mediocre and Romney poorly after the first hour.  I'm not convinced the general public sees the debates through the same lens as hardcore politically junkies who are tweeting in their feedback.

Mitt Romney attacked McCain Feingold campaign finance reform laws - rightly - as being a disaster.  I wonder how his recent endorser, John McCain feels about that.

Overall, I think Gingrich won, but I'm not sure it was by much. Santorum was decent, Perry did pretty well and Ron Paul was Ron Paul.

Yawner - Huntsman bows out.

Establishment conspiracy? The one not Romney candidate who could actually hurt Mitt Romney by staying in the race, Jon Huntsman has decided to drop out and endorse - Mitt Romney.  Yawn.  Now the 6 Republicans outside of New Hampshire who might have voted for him will likely vote for Romney.

Jon Huntsman will drop out of the Republican presidential race on Monday, a campaign spokesman told ABC News. A source close to the Huntsman campaign said the former ambassador to China and Utah governor was “proud of the race that he ran” but “did not want to stand in the way” of rival Mitt Romney, the current front-runner for the Republican nomination.

Huntsman plans to endorse Romney at an 11 a.m. press conference Monday in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Does that mean anything?  It strikes me that Romney must be worried about South Carolina.  He must not be on the verge of a pre-Florida sweep.  He must need that Huntsman voter in South Carolina, in light of Gingrich's resurgence there and the religious endorsements accruing to Santorum.  And I did mean voter, not voters.

Part 3 - GOP primaries – Beyond the Nomination

Continuing my look at the 2012 GOP nomination process, whom will be left standing to face president Obama in the general election after the nomination process is less important than what they have in their arsenal and what they will be faced with to do political battle. I’m not going to lie to you, it’s not as rosy as 2010. However, there is one secret weapon that might still help.

The march is on

The day after tomorrow the Iowa caucus kicks off the primary season for the 2012 presidential election.  It's the start of an almost year long march towards the election.  Less important than the implications of that march are the predictions of who might eventually win.  While I intend to look at the overall implications of the race this month, let's start with something less meaningful, since it's less effort on a January 1st morning.

Mitt Romney convinced he'll lose, or win?

Mitt Romney has two reasons to reject a face-to-face debate with Newt Gingrich.  The question is, which one is driving his decision?

2011 year in pictures

Instead of doing a top 10 list, this year I thought I'd do a year in pictures. Below is the political year in pictures, but it's not without some context available. Click the images to read details on the scandalous stories.

Note that these are in no particular order.

Plain awful.

Coming  home to roost.

Hundreds of millions up in green smoke.

Weiner: Used to be a mouthpiece. Add your own punchline.

WTF?  Making Weiner look normal.

Boeing being beaten down by Obama.

Barney Frank retires, finally.

What?  Another Obama scandal?  Yep.

Democrats score biggest lie of 2011 - from a liberal organization.

And finally, there's complicity to consider.  That's probably the biggest scandal of the year - again.

Media bias isn't cool.

Bizarro World GOP style

I missed the debate last night, so I'm still looking to see if anything went down out of sorts. Nonetheless, this morning South Carolina Governor, Nikki Hayley herself a recipient of Tea Party support has chosen to endorse - Mitt Romney?

What...how...huh?

GOP foreign policy debate: No real winner

In the first hour of the South Carolina GOP candidates debate, there was no clear winner. In the bonus on-line time, there wasn't much difference. Everyone did well, and as Newt Gingrich pointed out, everyone on that stage would be an improvement over president Obama.  Everyone handled themselves as expected, and there were no real surprises.

GOP moving parts almost stop moving. Let's predict.

Oh really now?

With Sarah Palin and Chris Christie bowing out of the race, the nominees are pretty much locked.  With states moving up their caucuses and primaries, the dates are locking in and coming soon.  The moving parts are stopping their moving and locking in for the GOP nomination process.  With things locking down predictions about what is likely to happen are somewhat easier, though by no means have they become a simple task.  The ubiquitous "a lot can happen between now and..." still applies.

Just ask the guy on the left.

Things change, and we can't wait for the next one.  The question is, who will it be to replace America's significant O?