So-So Tuesday Meanderings

Even eight hours after polls started closing on the Super Tuesday primaries yesterday, I see little of real interest in yesterday’s results.

The biggest news of the day remains that we’re rid of Kristen Sinema, which should make it easier for Ruben Gallego to replace her.

Another big news nugget yesterday confirmed what some had speculated: that when Elon Musk flew to West Palm Beach the other day, it was to allow Trump to beg him for cash. Musk famously demands full board control in business negotiations; imagine how such a discussion would go with Trump’s campaign team, who thus far have run a far more professional show than Trump’s past Presidential elections. Or, for that matter, Xitter under Musk’s direction.

Speaking of Nazi sympathizers, the North Carolina GOP nominated a Black Holocaust denier to run for governor.

Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey will face off to take Dianne Feinstein’s seat — and sadly, the progressives weren’t even close.

Nikki Haley appears to have won Vermont. [Update: At 10AM, Haley will suspend her campaign but not yet endorse Trump.] Joe Biden appears to have lost American Samoa. [Correction: Updated reporting says it was a delegate tie.]

It will take days to figure out how much of Haley’s vote — under 20% in more conservative states and Texas — reflected cross-overs. Similarly, it’ll take some time to understand the significance of protest votes against Joe Biden, the most significant of which was in Minnesota. And given what a weird situation a two incumbent general presents it’ll take days to figure out what the turnout means for Biden and Trump.

One of the most important measures, in my opinion, is in where and how Latinos voted — particularly if Colin Allred, now the Democratic nominee in Texas, has a chance of replacing Ted Cruz. Again, it’ll take days to make sense of that.

The big takeaway right now is that a whole lot of people don’t want to be facing a Trump-Biden rematch. But as of yesterday, it is virtually certain that’s what will happen.

119 replies
  1. EW Moderation Team says:

    A reminder to all new and existing community members participating in comments:

    — We have been moving to a new minimum standard to support community security over the last year. Usernames should be unique and a minimum of 8 letters.

    — We do not require a valid, working email, but you must use the same email address each time you publish a comment here. **Single use disposable email addresses do not meet this standard.**

    — If you have been commenting here but have less than 1000 comments published and been participating less than 10 years as of October 2022, you must update your username to match the new standard.

    Thank you.

  2. boloboffin says:

    A strong percentage of the Latino vote here in Texas was going to Roland Gutierrez, but in the end it was not enough to need a runoff. Gutierrez did not win Bexar County and he’s from San Antonio! I’ve a good feeling that Allred will be able to pull the coalition together well and face off against the odious Ted Cruz. He barely survived Beto last time. If we get a blue wave general (fingers crossed), maybe Allred has a chance.

    What I need to check now is to see how the intra-party conflicts in the Texas GOP played out. Both Abbott and Paxton were supporting primary challengers for Republicans insufficiently supportive of their particular hobby horses (Abbott wants vouchers, Paxton wants to stay out of prison).

    • BreslauTX says:

      I don’t know who is behind the major funding for Allred, but he had plenty of TV commercials to get his name in front of the voters.

      John Coryn
      Ted Cruz

      Greg Abbott
      Dan Patrick
      Ken Paxton

      Cornyn as the “Moderate” of the statewide elected Republicans shows how much of a tilt to the Far Right that the Texas GOP has.

    • 2Cats2Furious says:

      I voted for Allred and am glad he won the primary. I hope Gutierrez quickly endorses him and helps get out the Hispanic vote.

      I think Allred is a much better candidate than Beto O’Rourke. While Beto was passionate in stump speeches, he was probably too progressive for Texas voters, and he’s not great in debates. Still, he only lost to Cruz by 3 points in 2018.

      In addition to being super smart, Allred is charismatic, charming, and handsome – all things that Cruz is not. And running on issues like reproductive rights is a smart move, because a lot of Texas women are pissed off in the post-Dobbs era. The key will be getting out the vote in urban and suburban areas.

  3. Mister_Sterling says:

    While I am very pessimistic about the run for the White House, I am a little more optimistic about the Senate. Manchin will be replaced by a Republican, yes. But thanks to the least liked Senator making her move to lobbyist, Reuben Gallego will hold Arizona. That would bring us to 50-50, with several ancient GOP senators poised to retire or expire at some point.

    Bernie Sanders owes everyone an announcement. I think he should retire. But he has the option to be senator until age 89. Nuts.

    Oh, and my fellow man from Boston, Adam Schiff? That was really dirty blocking out Katie Porter from the general. Yes, Adam, the seat is yours. That’s your reward for Impeachment No. 1. But come on. That was undemocratic and very dickish.

    • Capemaydave says:

      Not very party helpful either.

      Putting Garvey on the ballot may well increase GOP turnout in CA, and we need those Congressional seats back.

    • Baltimark says:

      I lean into optimistic but clear-eyed engagement. And that engagement is more necessary than ever (in recent decades) here in Maryland where we have a “moderate” Republican who left the Governor’s chair last year with a state approval rating of 77% running for Senate.

      Hogan was the beneficiary of substantial crossover voting and many suburban light blue folks view him positively. The task at hand is obviously explaining with utter clarity to those voters the _entirely_ different context now in play. I _think_ those efforts will ultimately work. I shall strive to help them work. D victory is still likely, but it’s not the lock it was a few months ago.

      • Hope Ratner says:

        I also live in Maryland. There’s a big difference between the last time Hogan was in office and now. Dobbs, fascism, Ukraine, Trump running again. The task at hand is to ask Hogan straight out: “do you support a woman’s right to choose”, “ do you support Trump for President”, “do you support Ukraine in its battle with Putin”. Those questions are just for starters.

  4. harpie says:

    Posted at Marc Elias’ Democracy Docket:

    Democratic Governors’ Judicial Appointments Have Never Mattered More Meghan Meehan-Draper March 6, 2024

    […] It’s no surprise that Americans are more aware now than ever of the impact the courts have on their lives when it comes to freedom, democracy and the biggest issues we care about.

    That’s why the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) is launching Power to Appoint, a new dedicated, no-overhead fund with a mission to uplift an important power almost every governor in America has: appointing judges. […]

    Democratic Governors Association (DGA)

    • bmaz says:

      Ruben was going to win either way. Might note that I predicted very long ago that Sinema would not really run again. She has brought in very little money in the last year, and her office, which is not far from me, is barely staffed the last two years. She was cooked long ago.

        • bmaz says:

          Hey Backstabber Rayne, why is my inert Sinema reply in moderation? What exactly is wrong with you?

          [Moderator’s note: You’re such a super genius at moderation – you can tell us why you think the comment below tripped the algorithm requiring my manual clearance while yet two of your comments including another inane insult aimed at moderation which wouldn’t be accepted from other commenters cleared without assistance. /~Rayne]

        • dark winter says:

          oh grow up bmaz. for gods sake.
          post this or not, I do not regret this comment Rayne. thanks.

        • Rayne says:

          As soon as the screenshot clears the Media Library, I’ll post it here.

          In short, Askimet the spam catcher cleared it. WordPress did not – and it clearly wasn’t because of the word “Sinema” or your identity.

          And clearly your insults are still getting through though certain offensive terms are on the blacklist.

        • dopefish says:

          You calling Rayne “petty” is pretty rich, given all your recent shitposting.

          Don’t you have anything better to do?

      • Rugger_9 says:

        I remember some time ago your mentioning how politically astute Sinema was in general, but for some reason she really drop-kicked the ball into the stands here. Any idea on what the end game was here? How accurate was Kate Riga’s TPM article?

        • bmaz says:

          When I said that, it was about the old Sinema. She used to work her ass off on retail politicking, but has done none of that since being elected to Senate. Was constant in walking neighborhoods in her district and holding coffee klatches all over it. And she was personable and good at it. Been none of that since Senate election.

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        Indeed—Sinema decided long ago to not run for re-election, especially after she became personal friends with TPG co-founders, David Bonderman and James Coulter. She also became friends with Bill Price III, an early employee of TPG.

        The three TPG guys have shown her how she can pursue interests other than being a politician.

  5. JR_in_Mass says:

    Regarding Elon and Donald: there is a price to be negotiated. Donald needs approximately $500 million in cash* (fast) and strong support through Twitter. Elon will demand to pick the VP nominee (J.D. Vance?) – or, maybe, to be the nominee. Any promise from Donald to be fulfilled post-election is obviously worthless, which Elon well knows.

    *”If you consider 500 million dollars in cash merely ‘finance’, te saluto, Don Muskelone.”

    • Peterr says:

      The negotiations must be something else. “You *need* me.” “No, *you* need *me*.” “I’m the big guy here.” “No, *I’m* the big guy.”

      Given how well Musk’s purchase of Twitter did for his bottom line, I can only imagine how purchasing Trump will work out for him. Also I wonder how the Saudis will feel about Musk trying to buy what they already own.

      • Troutwaxer says:

        If Trump can’t get money from the Saudis or Putin it says either they’re sure he’s fucked, or that they believe he’ll do as much damage to the US as a loser as he’ll do as a winner.

    • Scott_in_MI says:

      Musk is constitutionally ineligible to be president, which ought to make him ineligible to be VP as well.

        • Sussex Trafalgar says:

          Exactly! Politicians are useful “tools” for those who pay them to achieve specific goals and objectives—financial, ideological and political.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Yes, it would make him ineligible to serve as VP. But like a former British press baron, Lord Beaverbrook, who controlled many companies, you don’t need to bother serving as CEO when you’re the controlling shareholder.

      • JR_in_Mass says:

        Yes, of course, I’d forgotten that Elon was born in SA. Maybe he’s not even a US citizen now, I don’t know.

        Here’s another thing Elon could demand: maybe Donald can shut up about how much he hates electric vehicles.

      • Stephen Calhoun says:

        I would say Trump is Constitutionally ineligible to run for President, but, alas. . .

        • P J Evans says:

          As long as he claims that he won in 2020, I says he’s ineligible under the 22nd amendment. “No person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice”

    • originalK says:

      Is the plan that Elon will buy Truth Social for an inflated price – a la Twitter? Can a deal like that happen / money change hands quickly enough? I say this in part because Trump is the kind of guy that always wants what others have gotten ($$/headlines) and Elon wants the yuck that Trump brings on his platform.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Depends on how much Musk is willing to do. In addition to buying or financing the purchase of Truth Social, for example – which could give Trump the money he needs to get out of trouble – he could loan funds to Trump, persuade mortgage holders on Trump’s properties not to declare him in default, or put up the bonds Trump needs for his appeals, secured only by Trump’s word, normally an impossible ask.

        There are many permutations. All of them would make Trump his vassal. Some of them might be disguised campaign contributions.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          Players like Elno and MBS do not ‘help’ friends for free. There will be a pro quo for the quid. So, what did Jared give up to get his 2 B$ in spite of opposition from the advisers to MBS? What can Elno get from Defendant-1 that isn’t already leveraged to the hilt, de facto owned by someone else or about to be sold off by sheriffs? I really can’t see anything.

          Even a deal would depend on prevailing in the election and the gracious word of Defendant-1, which is a fool’s errand.

          FWIW, I would prefer to use Elno instead of Elmo to refer to Musk, since the red Muppet doesn’t deserve the insult.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Too late for Elmo. All that support could be in addition to any campaign or issue financing he provides.

        • missinggeorgecarlin says:

          R.I.P. Reverend Bullwinkle….a talented musician and funny guy well known in the Tampa Bay area! :-)

        • Shadowalker says:

          Elmo would be a fool to think Trump would honor any agreement if he gets back into office. And if Elmo so much as complains, all his billions will simply vanish when the king takes it all away.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Not if Elmo documents the arrangement. He could do it in such a way as to have considerable leverage on whether the Trump businesses continue.

        • Just Some Guy says:

          If there’s one thing both Hell to da Naw and TFG are known for, it’s adherence to contracts! /sarcasm, if it was not obvious.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Yes, Trump thinks keeping promises is for fools, not geniuses. But Trump is used to playing that game with people he can easily dominate. As a skilled predator, he seems to limit his hiring and deals to such people.

          But you underestimate the resources Musk or a similarly wealthy oligarch has to obtain leverage over a large debtor. Not even a President Trump could overcome some of them.

        • Just Some Guy says:

          Hell to da Naw has a lengthy history of ignoring contracts, as evidenced by just about everything since he bought Twitter.

        • Shadowalker says:

          Not if Elmo is perceived to be a threat by a Trump DOJ.

          Besides that, we don’t know how much capital Trump has ready access to. He has in the past delayed making required court payments for appeal purposes till the last possible moment while simultaneously filing the appeal. This happened in 2016 when Trump Doral was renovated, one of the suppliers was a Benjamin Moore Paint store that supplied the material. There were three drawdowns, two were paid promptly (in Trump’s way of stringing things along), the third and final payment however they refused to honor. The store took Trump Inc. to court and won. Just before Doral was to go on the block in a sheriff sale, Trump Inc. deposited the full amount in escrow and filed the appeal. We’ll know more as time goes on, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he didn’t already have access to the capital he needs to appeal both cases. This is a game he plays.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Yes, Trump has played this game since he left his gilded crib. But it was rarely for such large amounts or with players with comparable or greater resources than those he has, and no incentive to discount what he owes by a bent dime.

        • originalK says:

          The other part of why I ask this is because of the string of Digital World AC-related lawsuits (linked by @nycsouthpaw). I am 80% comtent to say I am not knowledgeable enough to understand their financial ins and outs, only that his Truth Social co-founders say Trump is trying to cut them out of their share with “11th hour, pre-merger corporate maneuvering”

    • synergies says:

      Not so interesting, the major newspaper sites I visit have had a thumbnail pic & article of musk for the last month if not longer, EVERY day, a driver less truck plunged off the freeway for example. Today, the L.A. Times doesn’t even have the results of Schiff’s past congressional district 30 on it’s front page or even a click away if one wants to study what oligarch owned news is today. Musk MUST get his pic in the news EVERY day & they’re “happily” buying it or is it quid pro quo vs. pro bono or an amalgamation? The geniuses.

    • Terry Salad says:

      I am curious. How exactly can Musk send $500M to Trump for him to post the necessary bond while he appeals? Is that considered a personal loan? Are there reporting requirements or other financial disclosures required since Trump is a candidate? The people have a right to know if Trump is in debt to Musk and what sort of arrangement they have, don’t we? Or do we just let Musk buy himself a President?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        There are many ways that Musk or a consortium of oligarchs could make available to Trump the $650 million he needs to post both bonds. It’s not clear what rules would require him to disclose the source(s) of funds needs for those appeals bonds.

        They range from gifts to loans to purchases of Trump assets. Or all of the above. Some of them could be disguised campaign contributions, which the FEC ordinarily regulates.

        Yes, voters should have detailed information about every candidate’s financial position – the kind of disclosure required for a home mortgage application or a routine security clearance – so that they can evaluate potential conflicts of interest.

        • Terry Salad says:

          It’s not clear what rules would require him to disclose the source(s) of funds needed for those appeals bonds.

          That’s what worries me.

          The Atlantic has an article where the author writes: “That makes it unclear who else might be willing to make a loan to Trump—but one distressing possibility is that a wealthy individual, whether foreign or domestic, might see making a large loan to a potential future president as a useful way to exert influence over him.”

          Has there ever been a candidate who’s been in a similar situation? There are no safeguards?

  6. FL Resister says:

    Katie Porter resigned from her House seat to run for Senate.
    This is a loss for the whole country though Adam Schiff will make a fine Senator. Would love to see Biden appoint Rep Porter to a position at the IRS or somewhere else in his second administration.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          The thing is that she could very well make the CFPB big, and that would be a big thing to do, in itself, given the current condition of it. If she could lead that agency to get its kinks worked out and do some serious, well-covered consumer protection — with a supportive legislature and administration — I could see it in the ballpark with Social Security eventually.

          But you’re right, she doesn’t get any appointments or nominations without clear majorities in both houses and Biden at the WH anyway. She’s not within the Pelosi orbit, so extra mojo is required.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Regarding Biden getting Senate-approved nominations through the process, only a Senate majority matters.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          If it’s 50-50 in the Senate and Harris is still VP, despite the absence of Sinema and Manchin, Fetterman seems to be taking up their mantle. Also, Porter has made it clear that she opposes the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party, which is not a small cadre.

          That’s why I said that she’d need a healthy Dem majority to be nominated for anything. And her nomination hearing would be contentious because she doesn’t back down or play coy ala ACB. If there were to be a sufficient decimation of the GOP this year, that would set things up for her to find an agency director job or a bench seat in Biden’s next term; another squeaker wouldn’t be enough, imo.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          As far as a nomination goes, yes.

          My comment about “both houses” was attempting to refer to the general atmosphere on the Hill — one of triumph rather than close-call — that would be required for Biden (given his collaborative nature and “the lay of the land”) to put her name forward in the first place.

      • wa_rickf says:

        I’ve used the CFPB several times over the years, filing complaints against companies that wronged me. The CFPB was great when it first stated. VERY pro-consumer. The Trump Admin completely ruined the Agency. It’s now only a shell of its former self. Aso there was a court ruling last fall about how the agency is funded. Remember, the Rs currently hold the purse strings. To be honest, the CFPB is useless now-a-days.

        [Moderator’s note: If your comment doesn’t clear moderation inside the four-minute editing window, you need to wait for a human volunteer to manually clear it. Your patience is appreciated as is your avoiding repeated attempts to republish the same comment. /~Rayne]

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I think the jury’s out about what Schiff’s tenure as a Senator will be like. His claim to be progressive seems to have arisen mainly as part of his campaign. The Senate does not need another corporate centrist: it has many already. He would, of course, be better than his putative opponent, a septuagenarian former ballplayer.

      Yes, Katie Porter would be a good appointee in a second Biden administration. A senior policy-level appointment at a fiscal agency for a start, perhaps. SEC, FTC, Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Even with a decent Democratic majority, her appointment would still face a fight, which indicates how much it would be needed.

        • Peterr says:

          On an appeals court.

          The prospect of her grilling lawyers who try to snow the court . . . yum! “Do I need to bring out my white board, counselor?”

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The Ninth Circuit needs another progressive, to balance Trump’s appointments, or the DC Circuit, perhaps.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          During the course of my experience as a public servant, one of the challenges I faced was whether the litigation I brought against the City was as an employee or a citizen. The City tried to deny me standing. I think public service has unique attributes that are not adequately represented solely by employment law.

          So, I would love to see Katie Porter in a position where she could explore whether or not a specialized court should be created to address the kinds of concerns and issues that I faced. I imagine it being called something like Constituents Court. If something like this had existed during my encounter with white supremacists and an intransigent local government administration, I really wonder if the J6 insurrection would have had the reach that it did.

          “How Are Courts Established Under the Constitution?” – 7/15/22

    • Grain of Sand says:

      She could do valuable short term service with Biden’s campaign as a surrogate. She has great skill in communicating real word economics.

      OT: another trash talk thread soon?

      • Tech Support says:

        That’s right out of the playbook isn’t it? Spend the remainder of this election season stumping for Biden, get an appointment.

        Not a bad consolation prize if it works out.

    • P J Evans says:

      She DIDN’T resign. She’s the incumbent. (Note that Schiff and Lee haven’t resigned, either.)

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Porter will not seek re-election in 2024 in her Orange County congressional district, so she will not be in the new House in 2025.

        • Shadowalker says:

          California apparently has a law that prohibits current office holders from running for another office at the same time. Though a judge ruled in December of last year that there is a difference when it involves state and federal offices simultaneously.

      • Clare Kelly says:

        Rep. Lee vacated the seat she held for 26 years to run for Senate.

        It looks like BART Board Director Lateefah Simon, whom Barbara Lee, Gov Newsom, AG Bonta, Emily’s list, and NARA endorsed*, received the most votes at 43.4%, followed by Tony Daysog (Vice Mayor, City of Alameda) at 14.5%.

        Rep Lee was the only bona fide Progressive in that race, imho.


  7. originalK says:

    I was happy to look through the precinct-level results in my well-educated, well-off but aging suburb (formerly GOP in a blue state) and find that Haley beat Trump in 7/8 of said precincts, with enough Biden voters to hold down the “uncommitted” percentage in the Dem contest. In one of the wealthiest areas 2 of 3 Republican votes went to Haley.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      That undercurrent is why Turdblossom (of all people) is sounding the alarm about the GOP. Keeping in mind that many of Super Tuesday’s primaries are crossovers, the comparison of the Biden’s 80% versus Defendant-1’s 65% support means there are a lot of people who do not like the GOP frontrunner and will go elsewhere in November, even before the revelations to come from the various trials and the collapse of the HB case.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          It was on Faux News last night. He also did an earlier WSJ op-ed which said the GOP was headed to a dumpster fire campaign.

          Apparently, Defendant-1 is so cheap that there was no free alcohol at his M-a-L party last night. Still not leaving a nickel on the ground, I see.

        • ExRacerX says:

          No doubt. Given all the $$ Trump owes, he should buy some of those metal detectors and deploy the MAL staff on the beach.

      • originalK says:

        I try not to listen to much of what he says, TBH 😐 – but these numbers were personally consoling to me, too, as I am in the 1/8 that went for Trump, and have more personal knowledge of MAGA here than I’d like. I don’t think any them qualify as deplorable – at least not in person or socially – and nearly half are decent neighbors. The crossover voters are also taking a bit of a public stand (selecting a GOP ballot) and while the uncommitted campaign was “grassroots”, Biden support could be described as spontaneous. Dem loyalists were Bernie voters in ’16 and ’20 (and turnout was much, much higher).

      • P J Evans says:

        Turdblossom needs to come to terms with the work he did that got them to this point. He was the one who said “we create our own reality” … so they did, and the voters don’t want that reality.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Karl Rove also originated the idea, in effect, of buying up a state’s judiciary for Republicans. Started in Alabama, I think. Apart from proving the concept, it had many knock-on effects, especially on state legislators, who, along with state judges, were once considered too low in the national political hierarchy to influence or fund.

          Among the results were legislating even more corporate friendly and overtly partisan laws, including so-called tort reform, which defunded many Democratic Party supporting plaintiffs lawyers.

  8. BRUCE F COLE says:

    The race that I’m really upset about is CA-Sen. The reason that there’s not a progressive in the final round is twofold:
    1)Schiff decided that boosting Garvey’s turnout numbers would be a good way to make sure he didn’t have to go head-to-head with Porter in the final, so he proceeded to spend a lot of money decrying Garvey as a Trump tool (a perfectly good strategy in a general election) which boosted Garvey’s GOP turnout numbers, and relegated Porter to 3rd place;
    and 2) Barbara Lee didn’t have the grace or sense to bow out and ask her lefty supporters to vote for Porter (who was consistently well ahead of her in polling throughout the runup).

    The result is, of course, Schiff vs Garvey in November, and corporatist Schiff will undoubtedly win. But there’s this headscratcher: As of now, Garvey leads Schiff by ~4 points with almost 50% of the vote tallied — in the race to fill Feinstein’s unexpired term! Why the fuck is that a even on the ballot??? And if you scroll down the WaPo page linked below, you’ll see that Shiff leads Garvey by one point in the Senate primary for the next full term:
    Can anybody tell me why CA holds a vote for an interim position when there’s already an interim Senator (Butler) in place who could serve out the rest of her term, just two months beyond the general election? And can anyone tell me why the vote percentages in those two, otherwise identical races are so different?

    Also, if Garvey does end up getting more votes that Schiff, that will boost GOP turnout later.

    Other than that, another fallout from Schiff’s Garvey-boosting ploy is that with the popular ballplayer on the ballot in Nov, there will likely be a higher turnout of moderate and otherwise disaffected GOPers (Garvey’s will shade himself moderately since it’s a CA electorate, as he already has done by not saying whether he’ll vote for Trump), and that increased moderate faction may well tilt some downballot races rightward, both federal and local, which might result in GOP House gains in marginal races. And if Garvey ends up with a higher vote tally in either of the two Senate primaries (again, two?? WTF?), that will add to his coattails in November.

    CA’s primary system is fucked, and all this is prima facie evidence of it.

  9. MsJennyMD says:

    Trump Super Tuesday Victory Speech quotes on 3/7/2024:
    “A lot of experts have said the stock market is the only thing that’s doing well and that’s doing well because our poll numbers are so much higher than Joe Biden’s.”
    “We’re gonna have to deport a lot of people. A lot of bad people. Because our country can’t live like this. Our cities are choking to death. Our states our dying. And frankly our country is dying.”

    Nikki Haley announced Wednesday morning she would be suspending her presidential campaign.

    Klepper Presses Haley Supporters: Biden or Trump in 2024? | The Daily Show

    Trump Fan Says Quiet Part Out Very, Very Loud With Disgusting Anti-Haley Comment

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Seems to me that Nikki Haley has three choices. She can become a Lindsey Graham and contort herself into whatever shape power demands. In the case of Trump as president, though, no shape would save her. His vindictiveness would win out.

    She can become a Michael Steele/Mitt Romney Republican never Trumper, and continue to denounce Trump. Or, she can become an independent.

    Choices two and three allow her to endorse no one, and recommend that Goopers stay home on election day. Or she can endorse Biden, as the only practical alternative.

    • Peterr says:

      Option one will not happen. Those bridges have been burned with Trump. Her play will be whatever positions her to run again in 2028 with an “I told you so” campaign message, regardless of what happens in 2024. If Trump loses, it will be “I told you he would lose.” If Trump wins, she will be ready with her “I told you he’d destroy the party/country” when that comes about.

      • Just Some Guy says:

        I’m going to say she already chose option #1. Her criticisms of Trump on the campaign trail, such as they were, were unbelievably weak. It definitely seemed that she was holding back so she can pull a return-to-MAGA move a la Graham, Vance, and now McConnell.

      • Bruce Olsen says:

        I think Haley is done for.
        If Trump loses in 2024 (… to God’s ears) Haley is on tape with too many contradictory (and very unpopular) positions to win in 28 or ever again.
        If Trump wins in 2024 Haley has no chance in 2028.

        I’m kind of glad. She was one of the few younger GOPers who concerned me, but she threw everything away to break MAGA. Fox political commentator for her.

        • CovariantTensor says:

          I wouldn’t say “ever again”. She’s not that old. There’s a chance of the GOP coming to its senses in my lifetime. But she’ll no sooner become a Democrat than Liz Cheney.

      • Matt___B says:

        Dunno. Kevin McCarthy, Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell also criticized Trump on Jan. 6. Then they kissed the ring shortly thereafter. So Haley could do the same. Or has she said too much at this point? I think Trump values current loyalty pledges over past denigrations. You know, “what have you done for me lately?” (Or stated in narcissist terms: “ongoing supply always welcomed” [and needed…] )

    • Tech Support says:

      I think she has a third option. Now that the campaign is over, she can wave off her most strident invective as “hard campaigning” and try to maintain a low-key opposition to Trump without being labeled a Never Trumper. Would we call that the Larry Hogan lane?

      In that scenario, she continues to maintain a presence in the machine, providing support to candidates in Biden-leaning districts etc., and nurture her relationships with the donor class over the long term. It sets her up for a pseudo-incumbency in 2028 that have propelled other candidates to the nomination in the past, like Romney in ’12 or Biden in ’20.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Nikki Haley will never be able to maintain a presence in Trump’s machine – or the GOP. There will only be room for zealots, something Elise Stefanik has already reckoned with.

    • Bobster33 says:

      Republicans have a habit of letting the runner up of their last primary as their front runner in the next. Haley will go on a tour of America, listening to voters and return to the lime light in time for 2028.

  11. CovariantTensor says:

    Haley has (so far) declined to endorse Trump. So there’s that. No “I take back all the mean things I said about Trump, and now endorse him”, as we’ve become so used to. Lindsey Graham, who took back the mean things long ago, is urging her to.

    • FL Resister says:

      Nikki Haley announced herself as a power broker in her withdrawal speech on Tuesday when she urged Donald Trump to win back her voters. If past is prelude, Haley will do and say whatever she thinks will advance her own career regardless of democratic principles and oaths of office, so I have low expectations.
      Haley may be a good politician, but she is a lousy civic leader.

  12. yydennek says:

    Also in N.C., the GOP voters selected a MAGA homeschooler to lead the state’s school system. It echoes Sununu’s choice to lead N.H.’s school system – a Greek Orthodox guy who homeschooled his 7 kids (Edelblut). The N.C. MAGA homeschooler was formerly a “Christian” missionary.
    Back to the discussion of right wing “Christian” Mark Robinson and his win, he said he wanted to return to a time when women couldn’t vote. Maybe right wing Catholic, Amy Comey Barrett will agree with him.

      • yydennek says:

        Clever retort, Ith…
        Koch tells the conservatives on the court what to do, my opinion. If he tells one or more to recuse, it happens.
        Leonard Leo and Don McGahn of Jones Day made the right wing Catholic jurist appointments happen. Koch has close links with D.C.-based Catholic University of America.
        Amy Comey Barrett’s friend, Notre Dame Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnet
        is a Manhattan Institute Fellow (so is Christopher Rufo). Garnet is described as the legal scholar most credited with the advancement of religious charter schools (tax supported). The first one, in Oklahoma, is opposed by the state’s attorney general.
        Taxpayers have made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer.

  13. Patrick Carty says:

    Reading that Mitch McConnell is throwing support behind Donald Trump. I know he knows better and has nothing to lose regarding another election, so is he just owned by the 2% that seek to transfer the wealth from the middle class, or simply a coward?

  14. El Señor Onazol says:

    Anyone has thoughts on the recently unsealed grand jury materials of the Barry Bennett FARA prosecution?

    Since the Alexander Smirnov indictment, I haven’t thought anymore that David Weiss will indict Hunter Biden for FARA violations. If he were to do so now, however, can a lawyer comment on whether the deferred prosecution given to Bennett would be ammunition for Abbe Lowell?

  15. yydennek says:

    No Labels’ Presidential candidate- the claim is that the party is a Trojan horse for Israel support (Nancy Jacobson’s involvement). Best case, the premise is false. No Labels is rich people with a right wing religious bent e.g. Jon Huntsman (Mormon). No Labels’ chief strategist went to Villa Nova. Bill Gaston, also part of No Labels, in an interview, “The idea that America is a chosen nation, singled out by God….is remarkably persistent part of America’s cultural and political DNA. Political leaders ignore it at their own peril.”

    Two possibilities (maybe conjoined)- (1) No Labels is aimed at taking Jewish money from the Biden’s campaign (2) No Labels runs an anti-abortion candidate aimed at taking religious right evangelicals from Trump.
    Koch and right wing Catholics will stick with trump to get theocracy and unfettered capitalism. Jefferson’s warning, in every age, in every country, the priest aligns with the despot.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      You may be overstating the religious element involved in No Labels. A simpler explanation would suffice.

      Joe Lieberman is a founding member. Its aims are not about democracy, better governance or less partisanship. Two of its principal aims are to make the US more welcoming to wealth – which is gilding the lily – and to punish Democrats.

      • yydennek says:

        I can agree with you. Tom Davis, a George Mason University board member is part of the No Labels crew. Without endorsement by Koch, IMO, Davis wouldn’t be in the position at GMU.
        No Labels can’t promote a candidate with a message about naked greed. So what’s their PR?

Comments are closed.