Charles Koch-Backed Super PAC Endorses Nikki Haley For President

"Americans for Prosperity Action, the super PAC backed by billionaire Charles Koch, endorsed former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for president Tuesday, adding to the growing list of influential anti-Trump Republicans rallying around her."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarado...es-nikki-haley-for-president/?sh=71fdb1c471d9

I guess this is the epitome of "the enemy of your enemy, is your friend". Never thought it would be the Koch machine.

 

Won't move the needle one bit. Republicans, whether they like it or not, are married to Trump at this point. If he doesn't end up as their candidate, and runs independent, he will suck at least half the votes away from any republican candidate leaving them no chance to beat Biden or any other democrat candidate.

 

IF I were female, I would not want the support of anyone named c o c k

 

I plan on voting in the Republican primary this time, and Haley is on top of the list at this point, for me.
I'm not Republican, but it does seem that Trump's support has eroded from 2016 and 2020. Not a good sign, as he barely won in 2016 and lost in 2020.
In 2024 matchups, Biden vs Trump: Biden. Biden vs. Haley: undecided.
My favorite candidate, running or not, Kasich, second Klobuchar.
The Koch's can back whoever they want, but a lot of advertising money doesn't get my vote, the candidate does.

 

The dream scenario.... akin to 1992

GOP runs flawed candidate (Bush/Haley)
A deranged right leaning independent runs as well (Perot/Trump)
Dem candidate wins (Clinton/Biden)

BTW, if Trump isn't the GOP candidate, how could he possiblly "suck at least half the votes away" from the GOP candidate?? That's not mathmatically sound...

 

If you look at the actual data, I strongly disagree. In 2016, Trump received 62,985,106 votes. In 2020, Trump received 74,223,369 votes. That's about 16% more votes than he received in 2016.

Unfortunately for Donald, Biden received 81,282,916 votes. Still, Trump received the 2nd most votes of any candidate of all time.

The question becomes, does Biden get the same turn out he got in 2020? All the polls, for now, indicate no. With the progressive divide based on the Israel response and significantly lower minority vote, Biden may have a turn out problem. We shall see.

 

Unless he find a party with ballot access already, it’ll be hard to be more than a write in. He’s not shown he’s organized enough to do it himself.

 

Because he would be an independent and take those votes away.... not sure what you don't understand about it?

 

I don't think he would have that hard a time becoming an independent on the ballot. He has enough money to pay someone to do the work for him and he's spiteful enough that he would do so to derail a republican candidate even if he believes he won't win in the end.

 

If he could get at least half of the votes from the GOP candidate, he'd likely BE the GOP candidate...

 

Turnout for everyone will be lower now that the covid rules are over.

 

That's not how the primary elections work though, and each state can/has a different set up.

 

Sure, and I think we will likely see that. But who's turn out does it hurt more will be a critical factor IMO.

 

Bottom line is that his vote pct remained close to the same, and is unlikely to change in 2024

2016 - 46.09%
2020 - 46.86%

I put his rise in 2020 due to his share of the 5M voters who didn't vote 3rd party that year.

 

He hires stupid and incompetent people tho.

 

Who knows what this crazy narcissist will do if he is outprimaried by a woman... of color.... who used to work for him??

Other than scream "rigged" and "stollen" over and over again....

 

I dont think this would require a rocket scientist.

 

Why don't the neo-cons just go the way of the dinosaur already? We will NEVER, ever put a neo-con back into power. This is like some dejected lover stalking an EX or something and it's weird. There's an old saying about temporary suffage being preferable to an enduring one. And that is the difference between the Liberals and the neo cons.

The Liberals are awful, their policies incongruent with a national economy and to suffer with them is inevitable. But to suffer a neo-con is eternal. We still haven't recovered from the fateful misguided decision to go into Iraq and Afghanistan. We know that neo-cons only long for war, they hate peace. We know neo-cons are tied to big baron bankers.

So despite both parties failing, I will never go for a neo-con. Even if Biden had a million terms, that's still preferable to the alternative.

 

It's the feature, they are there for the pocket stuffing, it's the fascist/authoritarian playbook, loyalty period by any means necessary. No corrupt person in power can afford to be surrounded by an unshakable oath to the Constitution and a moral compass.

 

There was also a much higher turnout of voters. That said, calling about 62% a high turnout is a shame more people do not vote.

 

Well sure, but I was talking vote pct, not vote totals... Trump did go up .77% in 2020.... But Biden went up 3.13% over Hillary.

Increased voter turnout is a part of that, but the facts that Trump is slime and fewer people voted 3rd party in 2020 explains those differences better....

It's all moot anyway, with the shitty system we have in place to elect the president.

 

Why do you say it's shitty?

 

Because twice in my lifetime, the person getting the most votes didn't become president.

I have no issue with each state getting to vote their electoral college number. I do have a problem with assigning that number via the "winner take all" system.

I think each state should divide their vote based on the pct vote each candidate received (after rounding to whole numbers).

I've run the numbers... Al Gore would have won by 6 EC votes in 2000 and Hillary would have won by 4 in 2016.

Every other election (going back to 1904, when I got bored) would have been the same winner, although obviously with closer EC margins..

 

The problem with the E.C. isn't how it's defined in The Constitution. The problem is how it's been redefined since the Constitution was ratified. The Founders expected electors to be "faithless" to the popular vote in cases where the people chose an unqualified, unacceptable person to be President. I'm going to post snipits of Federalist 68, to prove that point but, I highly recomend you read all of it.

"THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States ...
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. ... (They wanted the people to have a part in choosing their President)
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. ... (Russia in 2016)
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union"

The founders created the EC to preclude a man with "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity", by being "faithless" to the general electorate and vote for someone other than a man like Donald Trump. But that was short circuited by the concept of "faithless" electors. In the days of the founders holding a national election that could be fairly and expediently tallied would have been impossible. But today it's not. We should end the concept of "flyover states" and eliminate the EC because it's outlived it's planed purpose and actually failed in that purpose.

 

That seems like an unsurprising match. Koch and Haley share similar policy goals.