She’d still need to be able to pay campaign staff; without a ground team, get-out-the-vote efforts, etc., she wouldn’t be able to do even the minimal kinds of stuff you mention.
And, you need that staff, not only in your HQ, but in every state having a primary.
Yes. For some reason, people think that political campaigning is something that any idiot can do. But it takes much more than a phone and some social media accounts to have any degree of success as a candidate. Mostly, I think that people underestimate just how much effort is required to get people to actually turn out and vote. By far the most effective way to get your voters to the polls is repeated, focused contact – block walking, phone banking, rallies, direct mailers, etc. These all have costs.
Also, as for why Haley couldn’t just hang in there even without money – at a certain point, a candidate staying in the race long after it’s clear he or she has no chance goes from being admirable to pitiable. Her numbers could continue to slide as voters don’t want to waste their vote on a sure loser. And she risks damaging the larger cause, as opposition to Trump looks like an increasingly shrinking proposition as the primaries go on.
Not to mention security. If her goal is to just be a thorn in Trump’s messianic crown, there is an army of deluded disciples motivated to do her physical harm.
Depends on the goal of the campaign. I think that after New Hampshire, she privately knew she couldn’t win the nomination and switched to a “thorn in the side” campaign. At that time, the South Carolina wheels were already set in motion (ads placed, volunteers marshalled, etc.), so there was no reason to admit “I know I can’t win” publicly in the event that a miracle happened in her home state.
Super Tuesday gives Haley “thorn in the side” campaign a final chance to put an exclamation point on the idea that Trump does not have 100% conservative support, and for sure won’t have 100% conservative support in the general against Biden. After Super Tuesday, her campaign’s point will have been made 21 more times and she can hang it up until 2028.
As an aside – aren’t DeSantis’s and Ramaswamy’s, et al, names still on most (all?) the Republican primary ballots in most (all?) remaining states? Maybe Haley can quit actively campaigning after Super Tuesday, and let whatever primary vote totals she gets after that speak for themselves.
Dammit. Poking at he-who-shall-not-be-named -in-this-thread is just too tempting.
Yeah, I shouldn’t have brought him up.
Anyway, in regards to Haley-her support in South Carolina isn’t something to sneeze at according to this article:
Does this article violate the “no-Trump” rule? Asking for clarification.
I could be wrong about this, but: I suspect moderation doesn’t require that the name never be typed in this thread. Such a rule wouldn’t make sense when discussing a candidate whose primary opponent is that very person.
Isn’t it more along the lines of ‘don’t go off on tangents that focus on Himself and ignore Haley’…?
Well at least she won the DC primary.
And now of course she’s hedging her bets on endorsing Trump—Quelle surprise.
Kind of a Rorschach test, her recent statements.
In recent days, Haley has walked back on a pledge to endorse the former Republican president while simultaneously ruling out a No Labels candidacy and denying that she and her supporters are anti-Trump.
Haley’s fundraising in February ($12 million) was been healthier than I’d have thought … though one wonders what proportion of it came before the South Carolina primary.
“Not anti-Trump”? Holy fucking crap.
It’s disturbing. Her main theme seems to be “we can’t let Biden win as that would be a disaster, and I have a better chance than Trump of beating him. But Trump, he’s okay, perhaps a little distracted by all his trials.”
But she pretty much has to say that to have any chance of winning, both in the primary and the general election. She’s walking a tightrope trying to explain why she’s better than Trump, without alienating his hard-core supporters.
I’m not at all surprised to hear she’s saying this, that makes perfect sense. What I have trouble discerning is how much she actually means it. She needs to appear Trump-like to appeal to Trump supporters, but if she’s too Trump-like, that risks driving away never-Trumpers. She’ll have to pull the classic “pivot to the center” move at some point, but like always, that just leaves everyone in the dark about what you’re really going to do.
Trump poses such an existential threat to American democracy and (what ought to be well down her list of priorities) the GOP, I just wish she’d be consistently critical, hell, condemnatory of him.
She’ll kiss the orange patootie within the next day or two in order to maintain the illusion of having a political future. It just wasn’t her year and it wasn’t going to be anyone’s year other than DJT.
Once a lameass coward, always a lameass coward (if you’re in the GOP).
She gambled on long odds and lost. If trump was dead or imprisoned right now her stock would be on a tear.
He isn’t and so hers isn’t either. Now she needs a damage control effort. Which will be too little too late. But if f trump loses in Nov it may well prove to be enough to set her up in 2028.
Were I in her (uncomfortable) shoes I’d have played it similarly. Assuming I was a ruthless self-promoter disinterested in any notions of sound public policy or good governance.
So you mean a Republican then.