mtutiger

I could be proven wrong, or maybe it's likely that I am, but her statement today was interesting because it forwent an endorsement in favor of putting the onus on Trump to make a compelling pitch to her supporters, which he will likely need in an election in order to win. Haley isn't dumb, she knows that pitch isn't coming. The principal himself has said as much in recent days. It just looks like a longer play (ie. beyond 2024) versus something that she's trying to extract today. But we'll see.

Counterpoint being that there have been plenty of RINO politicos who ended up out of work on account of Trump as well (Cheney, Kinzinger, Flake, Corker, etc.). To me, the biggest issue is that Haley is currently not in office, and in terms of an elected job, there is literally zero chance she can win a GOP primary for anything after this run, at least so long as Trump is the main driver of this GOP. An endorsement will not change that. And for many of the ones who did roll over, they *were* in office and it was the fear of a GOP primary during their next cycle.... that just does not apply to her. Theoretically she could negotiate a job in a future Trump administration, but we have a disagreement on how likely that could even be anyway. So, at least in my mind, I don't know exactly what an endorsement gets her beyond standing by her statement today

I actually agree with you She may yet endorse him, but if she does, it will be from a lack of self respect than some theoretical negotiation about a spot in a future Trump administration (which seems like a remote likelihood to me)

I mean, it isn't just the proxies.... it's Trump himself who trashed Nikki in his statement about dropping out. At the very least, that isn't a helpful factor in any sort of negotiation like that.

These seem contradictory to me, fwiw.... if Trump didn't need her endorsement, he would, like Michael Corleone with Sen. Geary, would offer nothing. The chances that Haley is part of Trump 2.0 are pretty close to zero, in my mind. This isn't Reagan/Bush we are talking about here.

I think it's pretty close to 50/50 too, and I assume you probably consider me one of the more optimistic ones

In a GOP that is completely dominated by Donald Trump, I'd argue her standing is currently pretty torpedo'd

She definitely could end up endorsing Trump, but from reading her statement today, it'd be easy for her to not just opine at all on the subject going forward. It really comes down to incentives.... if there aren't incentives for her to say anything further, I doubt she will. And I don't see what an endorsement actually gets her.

Trump and Co. aren't exactly building the bridge to reconciliation so far

Totally, as I've said, I would be surprised if this wasn't a lower turnout election across the board.

Just my two cents, but the reaction from 2016 (and confirmed to an extent in 2020) has, for many commentators in elite media circles (think Damon Linker, for instance), been to assume the absolute worst case scenario for things happening outside of whatever their circle of life is like. It's like the reverse Pauline Kael, where they are too self-aware of how different their environment is that they make assumptions of what things are like elsewhere. Life in rural/exurban America is complicated.... yes, it is Trumpier, but that doesn't mean everyone who lives in these areas is Trumpy. And there's a geographic split as well, whereby these areas in northern states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc) are more secular or mainline Catholic/Protestant vs. evangelical (like in the south or in states like Indiana), that has an impact on how voters vote in these areas.

From living in a fairly conservative, exurban area, my only real observation is that this election cycle seems a lot more low-energy than 2016 and 2020 so far. Whether it remains that way, we will see.

Agreed. I also think she doesn't have a ton of incentive to go any further than her statement today either.... she gets compared to Ted Cruz a lot, but Ted was also a sitting lawmaker who was up for reelection two years after in 2018. Haley is out of the game completely at the moment and an endorsement doesn't make her anymore likely to win a primary for anything in today's GOP.

lol

The other part about crosstabs is the size of them and making broad judgments. This poll, with N=800, has Trump at around 8% with black voters. NYT/Siena, with a much smaller N, had Trump at over 20%. The toplines may be right regardless in various national polls, but with subgroups,, oversamples of these groups from pollsters who know how to sample these groups (aside from this example, Univision with Hispanics as well) are inherently going to be more reliable than crosstabs from a national poll in gauging the electorate among these groups.

Not sure if he mentioned it in his piece (I don't subscribe, so behind paywall), but isn't the other 800 lb gorilla in the room here the fact that the last election cycle took place in the middle of a pandemic where, due to a bunch of people being at home, response rates (by age and partisanship) may have been much different in that cycle as well? I suspect that might explain a lot of how these polls show Biden/Dems doing significantly better with older voters and worse with younger and minority voters.... pollsters are likely reaching those high propensity older voters (who are probably more blue than the median older voter) a lot more easily and filling out the younger/minority pool (who are much harder to reach) l with whatever they can find.

I have no idea what she does, but whatever she does, I expect it to be kinda disappointing lol

Good point lol...

Looking at the returns from Colorado and seeing Haley's performance there, it's crazy that it was a swing state as recently as 2016.... It's basically the Dem version of Ohio lol

North Carolina also kinda confirms a little of what I suspect, with it being a semi-closed primary, that even in open primary states, it isn't just "all Democrats" voting against Trump.

If there's probably one state that I'm taking a little more seriously after what I've seen so far, it's North Carolina.... really underwhelming performance for Trump from the returns, particularly in suburban Charlotte, and they nominated an absolute nutcase (who dabbles in stuff like Holocaust denial) as their Gubernatorial candidate

Sawyer Gipson Long at #11.... Al's last two deadline deals may have been his best after all lol

Craig was better than normal, IMO, but definitely needs to not get in the way of Benetti as much as he did today.

I'm not even talking about Silver, I'm talking about the Times... They go out and write an article and characterize a respondant as an undecided independent who is concerned about Biden's age when a basic search turns up that said respondent is a hardcore registered R. This happens a lot with their reporting, has happened a lot in past election cycles as well. Does the Times do this on purpose or is it just lazy journalism that doesn't even do a basic background check of who they are talking to?