Feb
18
2016

My RedState post on Nikki Haley endorsement.

Found here. Short version: getting Nikki Haley was a good get for Marco Rubio, if the screams of rage by Ann Coulter were any indication. And they typically are*.

Moe Lane

*Please note that I would ban Coulter¬†on sight. ¬†She’s gotten rather nastily racist in her golden years and I never actually liked her in the first place.

8 Comments

  • Aruges says:

    I’ve not followed her closely in years, so I’ve not seen what you have apparently. The times when she has popped up on my radar it’s always her being “professionally outrageous” which seems to be her job now. Being a right of center Bill Maher isn’t the best career choice, but I guess it’s a living…

  • BigGator5 says:

    Actually, now that he’s got Gov. Nikki Haley endorsement, a third place finish for Marco Rubio will be seen as a disaster. A little late and badly timed.

    • acat says:

      It doesn’t really hurt her, and I’ll bet there’s a chit or some campaign funds trading paws…
      .
      Mew

      • Luke says:

        The party establishment and its house organs have been all-in declaring Rubio the only electable alternative to Trump for a couple of weeks now.
        (Despite the obvious fact that Cruz keeps beating him when voters actually get to choose.)
        I’m sure there was an awful lot of pressure involved in getting nearly all the major powers in the state’s politics to line up behind Rubio. (Especially since many of them hate each other.)
        .
        And the attacks on Cruz have been relentless as part of battle prep. (Because the Republican National Leadership is perfectly happy to attack Conservatives in ways they never attack Democrats, or even out-and-proud Socialists.)
        .
        But what happens if it fails?
        What happens if despite everything and the kitchen sink being thrown at trying to win Rubio the primary, he comes in third? Or worse?
        How many elections can you lose while still touting “electibilty” as your strength?
        .
        After all, no candidate in modern history has won the Republican primary without winning Iowa or New Hampshire.

        • acat says:

          Precedents are only precedents until .. they’re not.
          .
          https://xkcd.com/1122/
          .
          (I love posting that, by the way – Munroe’s a genius)
          .
          More seriously, I think Ace of Spades is onto something – the GOP is in a fight for which group leads .. but that’ll be settled after the convention. (well, except for knives that’ll come out after the election, one way or the other ..)
          .
          I also think Moe is onto something – the Dems are just as divided and splintered, and … their neo-Jacobins are remarkably stupid about timing the use of knives…
          .
          Mew

        • Dave R says:

          Primaries were pretty much not consequential before 1972. In 1972, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 2004 there was an incumbent GOP president or the VP of a 2-term president running. In 1980, 1996, 2000, and 2012 despite not being an incumbent, there was an overwhelming favorite going in (who did win the nomination, even if in some cases they had to work harder than they thought they would have for it). The only truly competitive GOP primary season ever was 2008, where, yes, McCain did win NH & SC. But that’s a pretty small sample size.

  • Mikey NTH says:

    This is an odd year, and South Carolina is an odd place. How much are endorsements worth when all of the energy seems to be with those who despise the institutional leaders who give endorsements?

  • BJM says:

    >Nikki Haley was a good get for Marco Rubio
    .
    Yep, worked for President Romney.
    .
    Seriously, SC is small beer…March is going to be brutal. I think both Rubio and Kasich will stay afloat until Super Tuesday.

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com