91
Trump was not on the ballot, so Trump's supporters voted for "none of these candidates"
So, no, Politico, you steaming pile of shit, it's not worse than people can imagine; people can easily imagine Haley losing to Trump.
An Indian woman, with immigrant parents, who likes Hillary… beating an old rich man in a right-wing race?
You don’t say… ;)
It really wasn't much of an embarrassment considering primary voting in Nevada is meaningless and it's all chosen through separate caucuses.
Haley didn't spend any money in Nevada specifically because it was already rigged for Trump.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nevadas-dueling-primary-caucuses-underway/story?id=106961691
So when is she going to start winning these races against Trump? If she wants to be the Republican nominee in 2024 she's going to have to start doing that eventually, but everything I've read says she's got almost no chance in South Carolina and I don't think it gets any better for her after her home state.
On the other hand, if she doesn't really care about winning in 2024 and is just getting her name out there for 2028, this "hey, remember that time Haley lost to none of the above?" meme could hurt her.
She's not going to beat him in the primary, however there's a not insignificant chance that Trump flames out (disqualification or conviction) and she'll be the only candidate left with some delegates and she'll default her way into the nomination.
I don't think this Republican party is ever going to disqualify Trump no matter what he gets convicted of, but I suppose he's due for a stroke or heart attack or something like that
But even still, couldn't the GOP delegates pledged to Trump just pick another candidate if he's unavailable? Might be a second round of voting at their convention situation, but I think if no one candidate clenches a majority the first time around the delegates can start siding with whoever they want, and I feel like there's going to be at least a few of them with grudges against Haley (like, it doesn't take a whole lot for Republicans to start hating women to begin with)
I don’t think this Republican party is ever going to disqualify Trump no matter what he gets convicted of, but I suppose he’s due for a stroke or heart attack or something like that
There is a nonzero chance that the Supreme Court upholds Colorado's removal of Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment. If they do, there's nothing that the GOP can do to get him back on the ballot. Trump would be out of the race, and Haley would essentially be the nominee by default.
And there's also the very real possibility that Trump drops dead of a heart attack. Not only is he 77 years old and already in poor physical and mental health, his diet consists of Burger King and a whole bunch of food even worse for you than Burger King.
But even still, couldn’t the GOP delegates pledged to Trump just pick another candidate if he’s unavailable?
Has anyone in modern history ever been a viable candidate for President but dropped dead mid-race? Genuine question. I have no idea what the procedure would be. But it would at least be funny watching the GOP stumble all over themselves trying to figure out what to do.
I think Haley's plan is to hang on by a string until the Supreme Court makes their ruling. If they don't remove Trump from the ballot on 14a grounds, she'll probably drop out before the end of the day. The viability of her entire candidacy hinges entirely on that ruling. If they boot Trump from the ballot, she's probably the nominee by default. If they let him stay on, her campaign is dead in the water.
Even if the Supreme Court upholds the removal of Trump from the Colorado ballot, it isn't immediately over for him, unfortunately. He won in 2016 without Colorado.
That said, it would be a precedent, and other Secretaries of State could start removing him with confidence. The question remains: would enough states remove him to make winning impossible? Which is to ask: how many battleground states (or even red states) would remove him?
Most, if not all, of the legal talking heads on both sides of the aisle (not counting MAGA morons looking for soundbytes) have said that the SC upholding Colorado's ruling that he engaged in insurrection and is therefore disqualified from the ballot would be binding nationwide, which means he'd be disqualified everywhere as the Supreme Court would be confirming that he is Constitutionally disqualified from office. He wouldn't be able to stay in the race at all. If the Supreme Court overturns Colorado, then Trump stays on everywhere.
It's why so many states that are also weighing in on the subject have either refused to rule on the matter pending the SC decision, or have stayed their own rulings pending the SC decision. He's either going to be on it everywhere or nowhere.
Losing MI, WI, and NV would kill his campaign. Those are probably the most likely swing states I could see moving forward with removing him. It won't take a lot with how razor thin the margins are.
deleted by creator
It's worth noting that the DeSantis didn't end his campaign as much as suspended so if Trump drops out I believe he can restart his campaign without any legal issues, right?
It's... not the worst strategy.
It really wasn't much of an embarrassment considering primary voting in Nevada is meaningless and it's all chosen through separate caucuses.
she chose to put her name in the primary ballot. and in nevada since they're having a primary and caucus you could only enter one. what was the plan here? if it was to show she's got general election appeal that was a massive failure. and it's totally embarrassing, trump wanted a caucus and he got one. and trump's name is the only one to be voted on, where the delegates will be awarded. that's not just a stupid strategy it's a losing one.
Haley didn't spend any money in Nevada specifically because it was already rigged for Trump.
if that was the case she shouldn't bother running. the entire republican primary process was rigged in favor of trump.
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
91 points (86.4% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2056 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS