Nikki Haley's next move

[Lees]

I haven't made any comment on if Trump's support will last or not. We don't know what will happen. There are a lot of variables in play and a lot of things can and will happen between now and November that will effect the outcome of the election.

Saying I think he is a terrible candidate and that other republicans would have an easier time winning, and that I believe they would make for a more effective President does not mean that I think he is destined to lose in November.


So you think it is impossible for Biden to get more actual votes than Trump? And that any vote tally that says otherwise must be fraudulent?

Your post #(58). You said Trumps populism is not sustainable. What you call 'populism' is nothing but his support. Well, you certainly seemed to indicate what will happen. The biggest factors between now and November are the efforts of Democrat liberals and leftests to destroy Trump using the legal system. Or some other way.

Any of Trump's ineffectiveness was/is due to the constant attacks by the Democrats and swamp to stop him, using any method they can.

Of course. I'm sure the Democrats are harvesting the votes right now for fear of Trump. They fear the American voter, just like you. And my position is that Democrats will not ever let the election be between Trump and anybody.

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

Here is what I said "My point is that 2022 MAGA candidates getting swept (in places they should have easily won) shows that Trumps populism isn't sustainable."

I wasn't speaking about this specific election in November. I was speaking about the Republican party in general. Specifically showing that his populism didn't transfer over to other candidates in the 2022 midterms. Which is why he is dragging the Republican Party down. Trump diehards will never abandon him. That is very clear.

 

[Lanman87]

First, it's not a black and white, issues-only, approach that explains why she is so vehemently opposed by leading Conservatives. Using that kind of checklist doesn't get at the problems.

Second, she IS on the Conservative side with some issues. But that doesn't settle the matter, even if you or I have one or two concerns that take precedence over others that are important to many Conservatives.

To then 'get at' the heart of the question, read the following article. It will save me a lot of time guessing what the key issues are for you, and which departures you'd excuse, and so on. I do not endorse everything in this article, but I think it covers most of the ground that other critics (including Senator Paul) have covered--

Here's the Never-Ending List of Why Nikki Haley Would Suck as President - Revolver News

Nikki Haley will do whatever it takes to get the future GOP nomination. and conservatives should do whatever it takes to stop her.

revolver.news

I guess I'm a Bush era conservative then instead of a Trump isolationist. I guess that is why I think Trump is moving the party in the wrong direction. Haley is right about Russia and is right to be skeptical about censoring Tech corporations. Aren't Republicans about government keeping it's nose out of peoples business and not over regulating private companies.

She was also right to remove the confederate Flag from the SC Capital grounds. The Confederate Flag is not the national flag or the state flag of SC. It belongs in a museum and at confederate cemeteries.

 

[Albion]

I guess I'm a Bush era conservative then instead of a Trump isolationist.

Yeah, that's a much looser use of the term Conservative, but the question as I understood you was only asking why Haley is not in favor with many Conservatives. What you are referring to is often called Neo-Conservatism.

She was also right to remove the confederate Flag from the SC Capital grounds. The Confederate Flag is not the national flag or the state flag of SC. It belongs in a museum and at confederate cemeteries.

Alas, I have to conclude that you missed the point of that matter. I thought the article that I referred you to was clear enough about the real reason for the concern over her decisions in that case and that it is typical of her approach to governing in general.

 

[Albion]

Here is what I said "My point is that 2022 MAGA candidates getting swept (in places they should have easily won) shows that Trumps populism isn't sustainable."

That isn't demonstrated, however. While his endorsements didn't work out in a number of key races, they were decisive in some others. And, after all is said and done, support (or lack of it) for a President's policies and values is not always transferrable to his endorsements of local candidates. There are many cases of a President being popular as President, but the voters reserving their own judgments when it comes to voting for Governor, Senator, and so on. I

In addition, and as has already been mentioned by someone else, off-year elections usually favor the party whose candidate lost the Presidential election two years prior. Indeed, the Republicans in 2022 did better than that historic pattern indicated, if not by as much as they had hoped.

 

[Lanman87]

In addition, and as has already been mentioned by someone else, off-year elections usually favor the party whose candidate lost the Presidential election two years prior. Indeed, the Republicans in 2022 did better than that historic pattern indicated, if not by as much as they had hoped.

The Republicans lost the presidential election two years prior. Historically, they should have won back the Senate and won way more seats in the house. They did way worse than the historic pattern indicated that they should have. Look at how the Republicans took the house in 1994 with Bill Clinton as President. The state of the economy and nation as a whole was way worse in 2022 under Biden and yet MAGA candidates lost all the close races. With a Democrat in the White House, inflation going nuts, and Biden's failure in the withdrawal from Afghanistan, republicans should have not only taken back both the house and senate but should have established strong majorities, especially in the house.

I can't think of any MAGA candidates that won in contested races. Either the MAGA candidate won in a blowout (that any republican would have won) or lost.

Can you name one race where Trump's endorsement was decisive?

 

[Lanman87]

Alas, I have to conclude that you missed the point of that matter. I thought the article that I referred you to was clear enough about the real reason for the concern over her decisions in that case and that it is typical of her approach to governing in general.

And I'm saying that I agree with her approach. It is much more pragmatic and more politically savvy than hurling insults as people. What you believe would make her a bad president I think would make her a more effective president.

 

[Albion]

The Republicans lost the presidential election two years prior.

That's right, and in 2022 they took control of the House of Representatives from the Democrats. The "big deal" promoted by the media was that they should have won by a bigger margin.

And they probably would have done so if it were not for the vote harvesting, drop boxes, absentee ballots sent out to people who didn't request one, clerks deciding that ballots needn't be returned on time or signed, and other innovations that were made in a number of states shortly before Election Day.

I can't think of any MAGA candidates that won in contested races.

Either the MAGA candidate won in a blowout (that any republican would have won) or lost.

Can you name one race where Trump's endorsement was decisive?

Ohio Senate race.

 

[Albion]

And I'm saying that I agree with her approach. It is much more pragmatic and more politically savvy than hurling insults as people.

"Pragmatic" is the term you prefer, but there are other terms for it such as "wishy-washy," "flip flop," and "RINO." The longer she stays in the race, the more that her record of saying one thing and doing another, changing her mind, and going with what pressure groups and special interests want will become part of the campaign.

 

[Lees]

Here is what I said "My point is that 2022 MAGA candidates getting swept (in places they should have easily won) shows that Trumps populism isn't sustainable."

I wasn't speaking about this specific election in November. I was speaking about the Republican party in general. Specifically showing that his populism didn't transfer over to other candidates in the 2022 midterms. Which is why he is dragging the Republican Party down. Trump diehards will never abandon him. That is very clear.

Yet, Trumps support is sustainable as he is the front runner. Which shows you are wrong.

Many issues were involved in the 2022 midterms. For one, the constant legal attacks and allegations against Trump from the Democrats. For two, the removal of Roe-v-wade, which was equivalent to destroying an American idol. So many rats come out of the wood work because of that.

Trump is dragging the swamp down. If those in the Republican party are part of that, then they need to be drug down. Drained.

That's right. Trump American supporters will never abandon him because he and they are right. And that's what bothers you. The voter.

And quit feigning some allegiance to the Republican party. You are loyal to a man only. Reagan. You said so yourself. Reagan is your man. He is your cult leader. He is who you follow.

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

"Pragmatic" is the term you prefer, but there are other terms for it such as "wishy-washy," "flip flop," and "RINO." The longer she stays in the race, the more that her record of saying one thing and doing another, changing her mind, and going with what pressure groups and special interests want will become part of the campaign.

Oh Please, she was working for Republican causes while Trump was still partying with the Clintons and fornicating at Jeffery Epstein's apartment.

 

[Lanman87]

This ought to make ya'll happy. Personally, I think we are in trouble no matter which one wins.

 

[Albion]

Oh Please, she was working for Republican causes while Trump was still partying with the Clintons

"Working for Republicans?" Is that all it takes for your support? How many Republican office-holders can't be credited with having worked for other Republicans? Not many.

Earlier, you questioned why Haley shouldn't be considered a Conservative. Now that's been softened to just saying that she made the decision to be a Republican instead of a Democrat when she entered public life.

I gave you several links that identified--in response to your request--reasons why Republicans don't think her record is, in actuality, that of a Conservative. Now it looks like I need to ask you to familiarize yourself with her record before going any further with this.

 

[Albion]

And quit feigning some allegiance to the Republican party. You are loyal to a man only. Reagan. You said so yourself. Reagan is your man. He is your cult leader. He is who you follow.

Lees

Not to mention that our friend also said he was a "Bush conservative" which is a contradiction in terms.

And as for Reagan, wasn't he the man who made famous the so-called Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican?"

Seems like a Reagan disciple would have remembered that.

 

[Lanman87]

"Working for Republicans?" Is that all it takes for your support?

How many Republican office-holders can't be credited with having worked for other Republicans? You started out claiming that you couldn't see why she wouldn't be considered a Conservative, not that she didn't decide to be a Republican instead of a Democrat.

She has was a solid conservative republican gov in SC and did a good job as UN Ambassador. Nobody ever called her a RINO until she challenged Trump.

I would say she is slightly to the right of GW Bush and way to the right of Romney and McCain.

The only real substantial difference I can find between her and Trump is foreign policy. And I think she is right and Trump is wrong. Of course, Trump blabbers on about stuff and goes down so many rabbit trails in his speeches that it is hard to know exactly what he believes on foreign policy. His standard answer is "they wouldn't do that if I were president".

 

[Albion]

She has was a solid conservative republican gov in SC and did a good job as UN Ambassador. Nobody ever called her a RINO until she challenged Trump.

On the contrary, she was identified as a RINO from at least the year 2020.

 

[Lanman87]

Not to mention that our friend also said he was a "Bush conservative" which is a contradiction in terms.

And as for Reagan, wasn't he the man who made famous the so-called Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican?"

Seems like a Reagan disciple would have remembered that.

You mean like calling one a RINO.

We aren't getting anywhere.

I'll just say I think she will be back in four years and will be a major player in who wins the nomination. She may not win but she will have a lot of support. I just think she is quicker on her feet and better on camera than anyone else who has currently been mentioned. Republicans nominated Romney and McCain which were way worse candidates that she will ever be. Reagan made a name for himself in 1976 and took the nomination four years later. She hasn't done as well but then Trump isn't Ford and she isn't Reagan. Ford had made the conservative mad so they were looking for another candidate. But I think that is the playbook she is trying to copy.

 

[Albion]

You mean like calling one a RINO.

Yes. And all the trash talking I've been reading that was aimed at Trump by a self-described Reagan conservative.

I'll just say I think she will be back in four years and will be a major player in who wins the nomination.

Anything's possible. But her popularity, such as it is at present, is mainly because all the Never Trumpers and their sympathizers in the media have no one else left on whom to pin their hopes of stopping him from getting the nomination.

Other people who failed to get their party's nomination but did make a comeback the following time had identifiable platforms and ideals. Think of Reagan, for one, or Bernie Sanders.

But Haley isn't cut from this mold; she isn't identified with any particular set of values. At best she's a good campaigner and is thought to have been an effective state governor and UN ambassador.

 

[Lanman87]

Yes. And all the trash talking I've been reading that was aimed at Trump by a self-described Reagan conservative.

to be fair, early on is this conversation I said I didn't think Trump is a republican. At least not the republican party I have been in my whole life.

 

[Albion]

to be fair, early on is this conversation I said I didn't think Trump is a republican. At least not the republican party I have been in my whole life.

Frankly, I don't see how your disclaimer lets you off the hook. When Ronald Reagan took his stand, he didn't say or mean that only the Republicans he liked were covered by the Eleventh Commandment. In fact, his Eleventh Commandment was mainly about Gerald Ford whom Reagan was challenging for the Republican nomination.