The long-awaited first Republican challenger to Donald Trump for 2024 is apparently arriving shortly, and I wrote about her at New York:
Ever since Donald Trump formally announced a 2024 presidential comeback bid last November, the big question has been when, exactly, one of the large number of potential Republican rivals would jump into the turbulent waters with him. There were credible reports that potential candidates were afraid to draw Trump’s concentrated fire. But now the Charleston Post & Courier reports that Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, will take the plunge on February 15.
The timing of the Haley announcement is odd, coming right after a show of force by Trump in South Carolina. At his January 28 event in Columbia, he demonstrated his support from the state’s Republican governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer, senior U.S. senator, and three U.S. House members. Perhaps Haley is just playing catch-up or is concerned about preempting a rival presidential bid by the junior U.S. senator from South Carolina, Tim Scott (whom she appointed to the Senate). The Dispatch’s David Drucker believes she actually relishes the prospect of a one-on-one fight with Trump in the early going:
“What better way to distinguish herself versus Trump, DeSantis, and anyone else, than by becoming the second declared candidate in the primary? The contrast is stark. Republican voters can choose between a white, male, soon-to-be 77-year-old defeated former president who has led the GOP to three consecutive electoral disappointments, or a nonwhite woman in her early 50s, born of immigrant parents, with conservative bona fides on most critical issues that are unassailable.”
Being the first official Trump challenger will definitely provide priceless advertising for Haley’s on-paper credentials. In addition to the qualities Drucker mentions, Haley has checked the foreign-policy-qualifications box via her service at the U.N., something Ron DeSantis can’t match. She has shown excellent political instincts over her lengthy career (she got massive positive publicity for removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina State House grounds long after it had become a low-risk endeavor). Most of all, she has excelled in the essential Republican art of staying on good terms with Trump without looking like his toady.
Indeed, Haley’s odd relationship with Trump may soon be in a bright spotlight. She has offended him on multiple occasions, first by endorsing “L’il Marco” Rubio in 2016 while criticizing Trump, then by unsubtly letting it be known while serving in his administration that she was an independent player, then by harshly attacking his conduct on January 6. You can add to her sins against the 45th president that she is now breaking a promise to back him in 2024 if he ran. Yet he’s never gone medieval on her, and he seems strangely affectionate toward her even now, according to the Post & Courier:
“During his weekend campaign swing that included a stop at the S.C. Statehouse, Trump told national reporters he recently received a phone call from Haley. Trump said Haley told him ‘she’d like to consider’ a 2024 run of her own.
“’I talked to her for a little while. I said, “Look, you know, go by your heart if you want to run,'” Trump told reporters, adding that he would welcome the competition.
“’She called me and said she’d like to consider it, and I said you should do it.’
“Trump then reportedly told Haley, ‘Go by your heart if you want to run.’”
It’s possible this last comment from Trump should be translated as “Go ahead! Make my day!,” suggesting that he is prepared to tear her a new one in the weeks and months ahead. Or maybe he’s simply not that worried about Haley compared to the bigger threat posed by DeSantis.
So what kind of threat to either of these men is Haley ’24? Yes, she is the sort of candidate that might have been thought up by central casting. Originally, she was a politician from the hard-core, Jim DeMint-Mark Sanford wing of the South Carolina GOP who fit the Tea Party mood like a glove. But then she gradually made herself into a national-media icon of what post-Trump Republicanism might look and sound like. To conservatives of every hue, she’s unimpeachable on cultural issues, unobjectionable on foreign policy, and especially distinguished in the evergreen hobby of union-hating (she anticipated DeSantis’s attacks on perfidious corporations back in 2014 by telling potential investors in her state that they could take their “union jobs” elsewhere).
Haley’s ultimate problem as a presidential candidate is that she’s from a crucial early primary state. As Tom Harkin (whose presidential candidacy in 1992 took Iowa right off the table) could tell her, you don’t get much credit for winning your home state. But if she loses South Carolina, her candidacy will be dead as a mackerel.
Haley’s other big challenge is to overcome the perception that she’s really running for vice-president. She has been regularly featured on veep lists for Trump (even back in the 2020 cycle, when there were reports that the then-president wanted to dump Mike Pence in favor of her). And there’s not much question that Republicans need help with women voters, having placed a woman on their national ticket only once. And maybe that is her goal, or at least an acceptable consolation prize; despite years of being treated as a Republican star, Haley is only 51. But she’d better not wind up looking too weak in her home state, or the largely superficial image she has built as a political world-beater could vanish like a rare snowfall in the Carolina sun.
Sure enough, Rasmussen’s noon update today has W’s lead back down to 0.6, the lowest it’s been since the RNC.
I think the Rasmussen 3-day tracking poll will show Kerry making a big gain tonight. The reason is that Bush probably had an especially big day of pollinig on the 8th that took his rating from 48.4 to 49.6. This day’s polling is due to drop off tonight. The other reason could be that a good day for Kerry dropped off the 3-day track, but actually, looking at the figures it doesn’t seem like that.
It’s possible, that the Rasmussen poll shows Bush running stronger, but even if this is so, tonight’s figure for Bush will be below 49% and Kerry’s will be stronger than 45%.
Rasmussen article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20112
Scott wrote it just before the 2000 election. He seemed sooo sure of himself …… only to have history make him look like complete failure.
A bit off subject but–does anyone know how the Senate races are likey to come out? Is there a good site with summaries from all states? We’re going to send a Democrat from Washington. The Repubs have pulled their money our of their candidate’s Senatorial race.
Any chance of a Democrat or Democrat/independent majority?
pollchaser-
More info would be great. Thanks. I’m seeing what Dan Andrews is seeing.
dan andrews — what u saw is what i saw at realclear politics (a good source for a wide range of news, altho the people who run it are hopelessly conservative).
But even those gallup poll figures are significant. Note especially the two-point gain in RVs–closing a gap into a tie. That’s crucial momentum in a close race if it’s accurate, and suggests that 2d prez debate helped. I thought Kerry came off definitely stronger, but still failed on some key points where he could have scored a knockout. With the Republicans insisting on a win and the Democrats equivocal and the polls close, it looked like it might be a wash, which worried me. If that didn’t help Kerry, that’s a bad sign. But indications are that his support continues to solidify.
———————————————–
I still think the machine agenda is the best predictor, but the polls and the campaign suggest that Bush is really struggling. Not only Noam Chomsky and Julianne Malveaux but TH Kerry have apparently suggested the possibility of an Osama surprise. Why can’t she be MORE CAREFUL for goodness sakes? No one defends me if I “speak my mind” and I’m not the wife of a major party
candidate in a closely contested election. Maybe there’s some strategic notion of bringing out the hostility to focus on her rather than the candidate, a function many felt Hillary performed for Bill (until Monicagate).
Get a load of this – today’s WaPost tracking poll has Bush up by six among LVs (51-45), but RACE IS TIED 47-47 among RVs (Kerry gaining). A LV-RV gap that large this close to the election just doesn’t seem right, esp. with interest and intensity running so high.
Jody,
I have immediate family members in Florida doing same, and they report similarly. They have been canvassing nonstop for a month.
The polls are simply missing a lot of voters.
Pollchaser, I hope that I am wrong and not you.
I thought the lastest Gallup showed Kerry 49 and Bush 48 among LVs and the race 48 to 48 among RVs?
I haven’t seen that Gallup poll, but Zogby (at the RealClearPolitics website) shows Kerry pulling into a slight edge lead. Given Zogby’s reliability I was wondering about comments.
I suspect that, now that Kerry won’t have a chance to talk more about Iraq and correct the nonsense about N Korea, Kerry will need to make VERY CLEAR what has happened in the economy. It was very dismaying that he — despite a still-better-than-Bush on substance AND style performance in the second debate — didn’t take more care with the job stats. He doesn’t need to exaggerate them at all, only ELABORATE them a little:
With nearly 1.6 million private sector jobs lost, all job growth has been in the public sector under Bush; and this is a Republican. I suspect most job growth in public sector related to Iraq war.
1.9 million jobs in ONLY year of job growth, after a loss of 3 million jobs, may sound like a large number, but AVERAGE job growth over 8 years of Clinton was higher. Clinton averaged nearly 3 million growth per year, while this past year doesn’t even keep pace with growth of working age population. Percentage of working age population has declined by 2% under Bush, equal to 4.5 million jobs short of keeping up with society’s requirements. This has eaten up almost all the job growth OVER the expansion of the labor market during the Clinton years. Bush has done with jobs as he has with the deficit, eviscerating Clinton’s surplus. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF?
Then there’s the issue of the Bush blame game. First he blames a recession as held over from Clinton years. Under Clinton, economy was slowing down a number of times, and big crisis was suspected with SE Asia and Russia crises in 1998. These didn’t happen. After mild recession, Bush blames 9-11. Then the press for printing ‘march to war’ from fall 2002 to March 2003, as well as corporate sleaze scandals. His record after three years of recovery is terrible, but all the public gets is excuses as rosy scenarios.
If Kerry lays this out in the domestic debate, and avoids wordiness like in the abortion funding answer, and keeps up carefulness in substance and style, he should be able gain further.
But I still feel that the weathervane of the machine (as in my comments about press and Kerry campaign silence on the flipflop spin, until the issue forced in the 2d debate — too little too late, as with Dukakis) is the most reliable predictor of the next president. Note also the NY Times column — pooh poohed by Garry Trudeau — by a graphic designer about the Kerry/Edwards logo conveying weakness and confusion predictably. You mean the Democrats, with their millions, don’t have a sophisticated graphic designer? It fits in with the flipflop pattern, together with press derriere couvrance for the cognoscenti
Hey All,
In the good old days it was “It is the economy, stupid.” Now I think we need to remember “It is Zogby, stupid.” I do not mean that as an insult.
Similar to many of you I am an information freak. It is best to select a poll or three and stay with those and not try to reconcile all the contradictions.
As I mentioned yesterday I am working on GOTV. I did door-to-door yesterday in an upscale area. Here are the unscientific results:
Lean Kerry 7
Strong Kerry 16
Lean Bush 5
Strong Bush 11
Undecideds 13
Of particular note – I interviewed a fellow (young with a young family) recently returned from a fourteen month tour in Iraq. He was quiet, respectful and determined in his support for Kerry.
And for what it is worth I do not believe all the undecideds are really undecided. One of the folks I was with for GOTV suggested that Kerry supporters many hold their vote close for fear of neighborly reprisals.
Jody
While I agree with most of pdb’s comments about Rasmussen, he IS a Republican pollster, and he knows which side his bread is buttered on.
While he has consistently overrated Bush’s position, he has tended further that direction since the Republican convention, after which he caught hell from Republicans for NOT getting on board with the post convention juggernaut to name Bush emperor and the election over.
As for his current numbers, on holiday weekends phone polls get more conservative respondents than usual because liberals and moderates have more fun and don’t answer the phone as much.
It’s official:
kerry 52
bush 46
Bush JA 47
Gallup poll at 6 P.M.
More on Rasmussen.
Charlie Cook was on the Washington Post’s “Live chat today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15752-2004Oct7.html?nav=headlines
He said don’t take stock in any poll, incl Rasmussen (he called it out by name) that uses automated questioning and not real people.
There was an article that someone linked to over the weekend, it was Scott Rasmussen, writing on Worldnet Daily, on the eve of the 2000 election.
The whole article centered on Rasmussen’s frustration that the media was saying the race was still close. Rasmussen wrote that the sum of the evidence …incl. his tracking poll over time (Bush by 4%!) … clearly demonstrated that Bush was well up on Gore and that Bush was going to win easily.
Don’t put too much stock in Rasmussen.
I’ll post the link when I get home tonight.
Let me bring together some observations I’ve posted on a couple of other threads.
1 Rasmussen came to my attention in the Spring when Kerry first became the probable nominee, and Rasmussen was the only pollster who didn’t show a sudden major surge of support to Kerry over Bush; most other polls gave him a big lead, Ras still gave Bush a small one.
2) In the months since, Ras has generally had the smallest leads for either side, and the smallest movements in either direction. Which is why some of us were _attracted_ to Rasmussen when other polls were showing Bush up >10%. The relative stability of Ras’ results is more consistent than his favoring Bush.
3) At one point I did a google and dug up a column or interview that said that in 2000 Ras consistently showed enormous Bush leads, and that he subsequently revised his party-weighting methodology because his results had been so wrong. (Some republicans do admit error!)
This is all I know. Someone please tell me more.
Can you offer a comment on the Rasmussen daily tracking poll? Does it have a credible track record? It seems to be in line with the Wash Post tracking poll in that it shows Bush gaining strength and Kerry losing support, just as most other polls show the opposite. I’m just wondering about whether Rasmussen has a solid reputation. Thanks.
OT: Does anyone have any idea about the effectiveness of events such as this being prepared by the Republicans?
[[
As a Volunteer, you probably have plans to go door-to-door in the final days, and make sure your neighbors vote. We’re asking you to start a little earlier.
http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/Walk
On October 16 and 17, tens of thousands of Volunteers will gather in thousands of homes all across America and carry out the largest door-to-door contact program ever assembled – the Walk the Vote Weekend. Will your house be one of them?
]]