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.
Coldeye can write for himself. But I took him to mean that 89% of registered Reps voted vs. 81% of the registered Dems voted in the election he was referring to. Someone please correct me if I’ve got it wrong, but that seems totally consistent with there being 4% more self-identified Dems than Reps among those who voted.
An example, using made up numbers, to show how this can be so:
Out of 1000 people who vote in our hypothetical election:
390 self-identify as Dem
350 self-identify as Rep
Turnout among registered Democrats is (rounding the numbers):
81% x 481 registered Dems = 390 self-identified Dems voting
89% x 393 registered Reps = 350 self-identified Reps voting
It is again not true that there were a higher percentage of republicans in last election. In fact in 1996 and 2000 the break down was 39% democrat, 35% republican, and 26% independent. That is what the zogby poll uses when he is weighing his daily poling.
“Hey, I’m with Kerry but it is true that historically, Republicans turn out in greater PERCENTAGES (read my prior post) than Democrats. Thus it may be appropriate to weight according to 89% R vs 81% D turnout.”
Um, but if you do this while assuming a 50-50 split between the parties, wouldn’t you get a strong over-representation of Republican voting intentions? Wouldn’t you almost *have* to weight by party ID first?
coldeye:
saying something several times does not make it true. if you have some historical analysis to make that is counter to what is CW of both what I know from my own research, and what I have seen by reading other posts and on other political sites, please provide your sources. thx.
Hey, I’m with Kerry but it is true that historically, Republicans turn out in greater PERCENTAGES (read my prior post) than Democrats. Thus it may be appropriate to weight according to 89% R vs 81% D turnout. I agree that in absolute numbers, more Democrats turned out last time. But given a group of Republicans and a same sized group of Democrats, history says more of the Republicans will vote.
Could someone please explain to me why pollsters continue to assume Bush voters are more likely to turn out??? I live in a conservative Republican area and even here that is just obviously not true. Many Bush voters here are not that enthusiastic, while Kerry voters are fired up, even the ones who don’t like Kerry that much are determined to vote against Bush. And Dem volunteers have come out to every residence in my area getting out the vote, but I have never even seen a Republican volunteer.
I obtained the Gallup internals tonight and have them posted over at my blog.
We will not know whether Bush is really ahead by 8 until state polls show up. Right now, only Rasmussen tracks the state polls and they essentially show a tie. State polls have been scarce in recent days although a Research 2000 poll shows Kerry ahead by 4 in NH as of saturday October 16.
I really think volatility is in play for polling….
It can drive you crazy to sit that close to day to day poll numbers. I think the key is to just keep pushing GOTV efforts and doing voter education.
Emphasize Kerry’s strengths and that he at least has a vision of how to extricate us from an increasingly unpopular war.
It is not true that there was more republican turn out than democratic in 2000 election. In fact according to moveon.org and other groups there was actually higher democratic turn out. Also those likely voter results in the polls are very suspect since it is based on whether you have voted in 2000 election. In fact there has been a huge voter registration drive particularly for democrats. Who really knows what will happen in this election.
Weirdly, there is a CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) note up on yahoo news, only 90 minutes old at this posting, that the Washington Post finds Kerry leading by 10% in a dozen swing states. I don’t see anything about it on the WP site, but maybe the Washington Post will discover its own poll results from the CBC and post them later.
There is a dimension to this that I know, having had statistics, but that I still can’t “get into my thick head” in terms of having a dispassionate view of these poll results. I want Kerry to show a solid lead.
But suppose the electorate is divided 50-50, or for that matter, you have a jar with 1/2 white balls and 1/2 black balls, 50 million of each, all mixed up. As you sample groups of five or six hundred, you will get one sample “leaning black” and another sample “leaning white.” The more you sample the more the sum of all the samples will resemble a normal distribution.
In other words, it’s only a matter of time, if you keep doing all these voting samples, before one “random survey” yields 90% of the country for Bush and another yields 90% for Kerry, with no underlying change in the voter preference. That would be something like a 1,000 chance of occuring, and we see three polls a week for 12 weeks (only 36 polls) we are not likely to see it at all–in fact the polling organization would probably suppress such a skewed result and try again. But in fact such an occurence (90% one way or the other) would become a certainty with enough polls. And this 1/1000 or “z3” event aside, it is a much greater probability that we will see Bush or Kerry up or down by 5% as time goes on. That’s within the limits of the methodology.
Variance of this kind also applies to reported party membership and such.
Although this purely statistical measurement effect is supposedly captured in the +/- figure given by each poll, that figure does not capture the “normal distribution of polling results” which will occur with repeated polls. And this latter distribution figure would INCLUDE the sum of all error measurements as carefully discussed by this site’s host and commentator. (This is an unpleasant truth of the social sciences too. If you get 2,000 political scientists testing variable significance for arcane theories, at least 5% of the variables will be found significant–and make a career, purely by chance: every now and then someone who bets on a single number at roulette wheel wins, ya know).
In sum, the polls aren’t telling us anything other than that their measurement accuracy is not sufficient to gauge the underlying distribution of real votes, which by the way, will also be skewed by voter suppression effects–in other words the actual election will not represent voter preference. It will simply be the largest sample, but maybe not even the best one.
Well I’m reading that the billionaires are pushing more money into the Party of Mordor so I guess I’ll go donate again to the DNC (my way of making sure some money goes to Senate and House candidates). I sure hope there are 2 or 3 million other people like me out there. I need the company to get my $50 and $100 contributions to matter.
Coldeye:
I was under the impression from several of these polling sites, and from what I can remember from my studies in this area, that actuallly historically the number of Democrats has been higher than Republicans. Hence, the arguments back and forth about party ID. Also, it really is telling to see the results from 2000 in terms of the polling for Gore and Bush. Finally, I firmly believe that likely voter models are a waste of time. Stats are an inexact science as it is. Adding this extra layer of guess work to it in my mind increases the chances that the final numbers are wrong- now it could be wrong in our favor, or against us- so I am not saying this as a partisan, but as someone who wonders how valuable it is to create a few extra degrees of modeling that is trying to guess at where voters will be on Nov 2, 2004 v. where they were in a different historical context of Nov 2000 or Nov 1996. For me, it depends too much on trying to use stats to understand human psychology- this has often been the error of the social sciences anyway- to treat a very soft science as though it were studying Genetics or Physics where these mathamatical models would have greater predicative value because the variables would be more definable. I wish people had a greater understanding of the limitations of using stats in a social science setting v. hard science setting b/c I believe this is a central issue regardless of all the stuff with cell phones, etc that people bring up and explains why so many of these polls were wrong 4 years ago. I forget the exact number, but aren’t these models suppose to have a 97 percent or something like that confidence value that the outcome will not change from one group to another- well we are dealing with people here- it simply isnt that simple and certainly not that simple when you add in a lot of additional complicating questions trying to determine the likihood of human behavior.
So frustrating. It’s like people have no memory. They see Kerry debate Bush, they say Kerry won the debate handily, but two days later they swing back to Bush.
Why won’t people wake up?
I follow your blog regularly and when I saw the Gallup Poll for today I knew it was bogus. This race is tied at a minimum. But, I suspect Kerry is way ahead.
what are the internals on this poll
Yes, but the real question is WHAT IS THE BREAKDOWN in the new Gallup poll. Does that three point RV lead mean that Bush is ahead by three, or is the result skewed one way or the other by the sampling? ALSO, did you notice no RV totals on WAPO today. Just a disturbing widening 50-46 in you-know-who’s favor.
I don’t think it’s unrealistic – Democratic turnout is historically lower, on a percentage basis, than Republican turnout.