mtutiger

Just want to revisit this point to say that Haley is very likely to get a much higher share relative to the GOP Primary than Uncommitted will in the D Primary. Some of that will be crossover voting, but it won't explain all of it either.

It'll probably seem like I'm contradicting my last post, but I cannot disagree with the idea that this mostly comes across as a virtue-signaling exercise.

100%. The line presumably exists as an outlet for voters to express discontent and it's fine in theory. Where a lot of the angst comes from is that the media (while for the most part ignoring that Trump only posted 59% in SC of all places) will likely make hay out of any number that is posted to that line. Coupled with the stakes of Trump winning being really high, that obviously has people concerned But ultimately, I just don't it matters much.... they are going to have a lot of work to do regardless before November, and much of the uncommitted vote would either be there or can be won back IMO

I don't really have any opinion on the uncommitted vote in Michigan other than I think the dialogue surrounding it and just I/P in general has often given the impression that the entire state revolves around what the people of Dearborn think about the issue. And it tends to ignore that there are voters in other part of Michigan (hell, other parts of Metro Detroit for that matter) for which the issue may not have the same salience or may just view it differently anyway. For instance, people write off places like Nothern Michigan, The Thumb, the UP because "they're red", but there will still be thousands of votes that come in from that part of the state in the Democratic Primary. Does the "uncommitted" campaign have the same level of salience for them as it does for Metro Detroit? How about West Michigan? SW Michigan? Michigan is a diverse state, and I think the dialogue on all of this has made the state seem way more one-dimensional than it is.

I don't have many takeaways from the first two days other than Eddys Leonard is probably being slept on a bit.

Not sure why you involved me in this, I really don't care about what happens at a California Libertarian Convention

Amazing how retirement allows folks to keep it real....

I will say this - she's at the point now where it's really hard to see any upside to her endorsing. She will never be accepted in a MAGA controlled party, and she can probably enter the private sector with self-respect and dignity if she doesn't give in. I wish I had your optimism about the future or what she might be after, I genuinely mean that. We do need a healthy conservative party in this country - MAGA isn't that. But to the extent that might be her aim, it looks like a kamikaze mission.

Yeah, if Biden theoretically announced he wasnt running, he would immediately endorse her and it would be over. The fact that there have been so many articles written over fantasy scenarios that make The West Wing look realistic by comparison is a real indictment of the pundit industrial complex.

How should the 'model' change? Again, I understand the general complaint about a lack of choices, but you cannot force Gretchen Whitmer to run for President... she would have to want to run for President. And clearly, she's not going to risk the wrath of *actual voters* in order to do so. You can't take self-interest out of the calculation. It's not totally apples to apples, but Nikki Haley is a great example of how that would go... as much as she is acting as a vessel for disaffected GOPers, I's and some D's thus far in the primary, I would guess that she is done in GOP politics after this. (I genuinely don't wish this fwiw)

I think you underestimate the possibility that Biden would beat a lot of the alternatives decisively in an open primary. And *that* is what discouraged competition in this case.

And while people attribute the lack of a competitive primary to a shadowy cabal of elite Democrats in a smoke filled room, that's just not the reality. The reality is that the big names in the party (the Whitmers, Shapiros, Newsoms, Pritzkers, etc.) all have free will and, at any point in this process, could have thrown their hat into the ring and they have chosen not to. Some of the maybe even polled the possibility (Newsom seems likely to have) and found they would not win and would have damaged their standing in any future runs by doing so with actual Dem Party voters. Simply put, the incentives are not there... there's little chance for success and a high likelihood of destroying your career by taking something like that on. It's easy for us to sit on the sidelines and play fantasy baseball on this stuff, it's a lot harder when you are in their shoes and weighing that kind of risk.

She could still win delegates tonight on account of the Charleston area. Which seems kind of improbable considering. It doesn't change the primary landscape, but Trump campaign doesn't project much strength IMO

Pretty consistent pattern... there was a mild miss here.

Average of polls was higher than those, will probably end around 19. Nobody will talk about it because Trump gets treated like he has zero flaws and is a perfect candidate, but he's putting up a really ****ty performance in the Charleston area tonight for a pseudo-incumbent

Looking like another polling miss in SC....

Shot: Chaser: Journalists realize that they can point out inconsistencies in these statements right? I'd be embarrassed if Twitter Community Notes was getting out in front on that

I would recommend reading about him, because he's an extremely influential figure from his time in office and his presence (which Trump leaned on) was more Roe focused than you suggest IMO

The thing about Presidents are that they are a reflection of the people who staff their administration and whom they rely on for counsel on various things, including SCOTUS picks. I wouldn't argue that, personally, Trump doesn't have many deeply held beliefs, but ultimately whether he does or doesn't isn't really germane when we are talking the actions that his administration took. Ultimately Presidents are judged on those actions because ultimately they are what we, the people, have to live with. The good and the bad. The fact is that Trump hugged the evangelical and religious right *hard* in his time in office. And Dobbs, and this subsequent ruling in Alabama, is a byproduct of that relationship. And we are living with the consequences.

Seriously. Who cares what issue was higher on the priority list or who cares about "intentions" or whatnot, ultimately it's the results that we all have to live with. And it's the results upon which Trump should (and ultimately will) be judged on this.

Which means he's pretty extreme compared to the actual middle of the electorate on the issue. And again, his actions helped lead to Dobbs, which was cited in the Alabama ruling. We're going to have to disagree here. Leonard Leo was the man who curated the list, and everything I understand about the man suggests that he wanted Roe overturned.

I'm not talking about what he personally cares about, I honestly don't even care whether he cares about it - I'm talking about how he projects himself as a candidate and how he governed as President. Because that's ultimately what impacts the people. And on that score, he's no moderate on *this* issue.

He's also the one who appointed the judges who took out Roe and made this subsequent ruling possible. He's no moderate on *this* issue.

Just to clarify, a lot of conservative news sites have seen significant declines in traffic (places like Breitbart) as well.