Daunting poll numbers to test Haley’s staying power in 2024 race

The day after Nikki Haley finished more than 30 points behind “none of these candidates” in Nevada, her presidential campaign touted a “blowout win” in another battleground state. “In Wisconsin, Haley has blowout win; Trump has blowup,” read the subject line of an email from the former United Nations ambassador’s team. The win in question was yet another poll showing Haley outperforming former President Donald Trump against President Joe Biden in a hypothetical general election matchup. “Democrats couldn’t dream up a weaker general election candidate than Donald Trump if they tried. They know the only way their grumpy old man wins is if he’s running against another grumpy old man,” Haley spokeswoman AnnMarie Graham-Barnes said in the statement. “With Nikki Haley on the ballot, Republicans will not only win the White House, they’ll win the Senate, the House, governors’ races, and statehouses across America. If Republicans are tired of losing, Nikki will end the GOP slump.”

Trump Pledges Unity Through Success During Final New Hampshire Rally Ahead of Primary Article by Joseph Lord from The Epoch Times, cross-posted with permission. JD RUCKER JAN 23

(The Epoch Times)—During a rally in New Hampshire, former President Donald Trump revealed how he would bring the increasingly divided United States back to a posture of unity. President Trump spoke to reporters before taking the stage in Laconia, New Hampshire, where he fielded questions from NTD, The Epoch Times’ sister media outlet, and others. It marked his last campaign stop in the Granite State ahead of the first in the nation primary. Pledge your support Asked how he would bring the United States back together after years of deep political division, President Trump told NTD that he would do it through “success.” Now, in a head-to-head with former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley for the nomination, President Trump refrained from saying he thinks she should drop out, telling NTD, “That’s up to her.” The comments come as team Haley is praying for a win in New Hampshire, where some polls have shown her roughly neck and neck with the former president. But President Trump didn’t seem worried. Asked whether he thought he could replicate his historic Iowa win in New Hampshire, President Trump was confident he could. “I think we'll win by big margins,” he said. Despite some polls giving Ms. Haley a reason for optimism, most polls still show President Trump with a sizable lead in New Hampshire, which helped deliver him to the White House in 2016. Former Rivals Take the Stage President Trump was joined in Laconia by three of his former rivals for the nomination, who’ve since dropped out and endorsed him. These included biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.). “Now is the time for the Republican Party to come together,” President Trump said. “We have to unify.” President Trump then turned to his erstwhile adversaries, who spoke in favor of their former rival. “Right now, we need a commander-in-chief who will lead us to victory in this war,” said Mr. Ramaswamy. “That is this man standing right here. “If you want to seal the border, vote Trump. If you want to restore law and order in this country, vote Trump. If you want to defeat the deep state, vote Trump. If you want to fight inflation, vote Trump. If you want to revive national pride in this country, vote Trump. If you want to revive our national identity in this country, for Trump. If you want to make America great again, vote Trump.” Mr. Ramaswamy then turned the podium over to Mr. Burgum. “Biden has been a disaster on the economy,” the governor said. “He has been a disaster on energy, and he has been a disaster on national security, including the border. “Under Donald J. Trump, our cities were safer. Our country was safer, and we were absolutely economically better off than we are today. Now, Joe Biden’s energy policies are empowering … dictators, and they’re hurting our economy. “They’re raising the prices of what you pay for gas in your car, food on your table, and energy to heat your homes. We need Donald Trump. America needs Donald Trump.” Up next was Mr. Scott, who spent his time on crowd engagement. “If you want four more years of Donald Trump, let me hear your scream,” he shouted. The MAGA crowd screamed back. “If you want the race to be over tomorrow, let me hear you scream,” he said. Another round of cheers. “Four more years of low inflation under Donald Trump,” he added. “Four more years of low crime and high law and order under Donald J. Trump.” President Trump also mentioned Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, emphasizing the proper pronunciation of his name rather than using the now-retired nickname “DeSanctimonious,” and saying he ran a great campaign. Interrupted by Hecklers President Trump also faced interruptions from three sets of hecklers during a speech in Laconia, New Hampshire. The hecklers, whose remarks were unclear, appeared to be climate protestors who’ve recently crashed a series of GOP events in the state, including those of Ms. Haley. The interrupters were quickly escorted out by security in turn, facing boos and jeers from President Trump’s supporters as they left. Some appeared to be wearing face masks, and members of the crowd shouted against “Antifa.” The hecklers heralded back to an earlier day of President Trump’s political tenure when hecklers were commonplace. However, President Trump hasn’t faced much strong opposition during his rallies recently. Trump Says He’ll ‘Free the J6ers’ President Trump said he would free those arrested, convicted, and detained in connection to the Jan. 6 Capitol breach. While President Trump was speaking at a rally in Laconia, New Hampshire, his final campaign stop before the first in the nation primary election, someone called out “Free the J6ers!” “We will,” President Trump replied. The comment falls in line with past comments President Trump has made calling on the administration to free several of those held on charges related to Jan. 6, who he’s described as “hostages.” With the conclusion of the rally, President Trump wraps up his long series of campaign stops in New Hampshire, as this was his final rally ahead of the New Hampshire primary. The New Hampshire primary is an important test for the viability of Ms. Haley, the sole remaining contender still battling for the nomination. While she only received third place in Iowa—over 30 points behind President Trump’s historic win—New Hampshire is less conservative and less religious, making it more amenable to her sometimes anti-Trump messaging. A win in New Hampshire could keep her in the race, potentially giving her the momentum to become a serious rival to President Trump—a long shot given President Trump’s domineering lead nationwide, but not unheard-of in the history of presidential politics. Failure to win the state would indicate trouble for Ms. Haley’s presidential aspirations. A win for President Trump, meanwhile, would all but cement his place as the Republican nominee. A loss, meanwhile, would still leave Ms. Haley with a great deal of ground to catch up on in future battles, where she still largely trails President Trump by wide margins. Pledge your support T.J. Muscaro contributed to this report. The Liberty Daily is free today. © 2024 The Liberty Daily 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe

The Real Threat to Democracy with John McWhorter GLENN LOURY JAN 21

Last week’s Iowa caucuses delivered the result that everyone predicted: Donald Trump crushed his competition. His lead in the polls is so overwhelming that you can hardly call this a “race” for the Republican nomination. Barring an act of God, Trump will cruise his way to the convention, while Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis vie for a very distant second-place finish. His likely nomination reflects the will of the vast majority of Republicans, whether they’re die-hard MAGA supporters, ambivalent voters who see Trump as the least-bad option, or something in between. Scores of millions of people are ready to pull the lever for him come November. I can think of few more level-headed people than my friend John McWhorter. He’s nobody’s idea of an extremist. And yet, as you’ll see in this clip from our most recent Substack subscriber-only Q&A session, he’s willing to negate the will of all those millions of people in order to keep Trump off the general election ballot, as the state of Colorado is attempting to do. John is not alone. Plenty of otherwise reasonable people see preventing Trump from running in the general election as a step necessary to preserve the democracy they are sure that Trump threatens. And a comparable number see disqualifying him from the ballot as an illegitimate effort to influence the election’s outcome. It’s all too easy to imagine a nightmare scenario where a small minority of armed Trumpers interfere with election day proceedings they feel to be illegitimate. John says, “Let the civil war happen.” I don’t think he and those who shrug at the possibility of violent civil unrest have really thought through what it could mean. The very foundations of our democracy would be thrown into question, and our country could descend to a state in which political violence was a regular feature of the evening news. That would be horrifying. Even more horrifying: Though the methods of these hypothetical armed resisters would be literally deplorable, it would be all too easy to understand their logic. An election in which legal maneuvering keeps a candidate preferred by half (and maybe more than half) of the electorate off the ballot would not, in my view, be legitimate. It would not really be an election at all, and we are not ready for the consequences that would follow. It may be that Trump violated the Fourteenth Amendment. I don’t know. We should not have a president in office who was found to violate the Constitution. But we cannot have a president in office whose victory was secured not because he won an election but because there never really was one. For the country to be free of the threat Trump allegedly poses, he must be defeated in a free and fair election. GLENN LOURY: This is from Joe. Long time listener and big fan. Thank you for what you do. I don't mean to be unduly divisive, but his question relates to a topic that's been tangentially discussed several times, the 2020 election. Professor McWhorter likes to assert that the 2020 election wasn't quote stolen. While I agree that Biden won and the 2020 election wasn't stolen in the ways many of the more lunatic people claim—that is hacked servers, etc.—I can't help think that there was material and pervasive unfairness in the 2020 election. The unprecedented censorship alone certainly made it unfair and raises questions concerning what actually happened that we are prevented from being told. My question is, even if we don't necessarily love the word “stolen,” can we all admit that the 2020 election contained deeply troubling manipulation, unfairness, and a lack of transparency perpetrated by big tech, the media, and several states. JOHN MCWHORTER: How about this. I think Joe understands that even the sorts of things that he's talking about are not what motivate this lunatic fringe that we're talking about. And it's more than a fringe. And so if we're talking about trying to take over the Capitol, trying to arrest the election, thinking that something tragically dissimulatory has been foisted upon the Republic and that we're in a crisis, etc. I think that sort of person has no leg to stand on. And I've been, frankly, bemused how annoyed many people get when I say that. I will not yield on this. The idea of— I'm sorry, let me just ask. What is it that they have no leg to stand on? What is, in your view, obviously wrong? The election was not stolen in some bald, absurd, nasty, incontestable way that justifies people taking up guns, justifies people thinking that we need to have a vast upending in procedure. No, all of that, I insist, is a kind of agitprop. It is a kind of— But Joe didn't say that. Joe just asked, could we not acknowledge that there was an unusual environment? And don't you see the suppression of that as being problematic? My answer to Joe is, haven't there been people saying that about pretty much every election over the past 200-plus years? It's just that we can talk more vividly about it now because of the nature of our communications technology. But was it worse last time than it was the time before or the time before? So yes, our whole election process is a mess. There are always these questions as to how representative of the national will the outcome was. But the idea of there being an insurrection about it? I say no. And so do you. But you're saying, aren't there things that we could have been talking about more? Yeah, but I'm not sure if there weren't people who would have said that in 2000. I'm not sure if there weren't people saying that in 2004, etc. It's just for me, it's an issue of degree. Glenn, what do you think? I think I agree with you. And Joe concedes the point that there weren't hacked voting machines or ballots that were stolen or people invented and their names were passed through with a voting register or whatever. We have no evidence of that. And there's no reason to believe that in the absence of evidence. And there's plenty of reason to not want to take that stance for the integrity of the system. I agree with that. I think, though, there are elections and then there's after the election. And after the election, there's a question of the legitimacy and the extent to which it is broadly accepted and ratified by the populace. I think you're right to say that there are always questions, because the election and the ratification are two distinct events. And usually, under normal circumstances, there'll be insufficient suspicion, so that the one and the other will be the same. Because you could raise questions. How are we going to conduct elections? What is going to be the role of mail-in balloting? What is going to be the role of early voting? You could really raise questions. You could be on one or the other side of that. And I think it's pretty clear that COVID-abetted irregularity or a modification of voting procedures disfavored Trump. I think his base is coming out. I want to say ballot harvesting, but I don't want to seem accusatory. Changing the technology of mobilizing people and getting them to the polling place and getting them to cast their ballot probably is a move that expands the electorate in the direction that would disfavor Trump. So you could see why he would not want that to happen. Yeah, but nothing radical happened . What do you say about this Hunter Biden thing? They did suppress that story. They organized a letter from national security people that debunked it “as likely Russian propaganda,” and the tech people shut that story down. The New York Post's reporting, which was correct, about a consequential matter was suppressed. Now, if I'm sitting in Joe's seat, the feeling of unfairness is going to be hard to dispel. The history of our republic is such—and Glenn, you know this much better than me—that we could have the same conversation about various things that the media did and didn't do in any election. Let me ask you, do you think there are organized forces amongst elites and various important junctures of American public life, rabidly anti-Trump, who worked assiduously to affect the outcome of the election? Because we're talking about the legitimacy of the result. And we have a problem here in America, because a lot of people like Joe don't think the 2020 outcome passes the test of legitimacy, even though they may acknowledge that, as a legal jurisprudential matter, Joe Biden is the president of the United States. So is that anything that we should be concerned about going forward? Oh, sure. We should be concerned about it, but not in the sense that [it’s] a crisis junction. Because there were people who felt the same way about the election of 1960. The world kept spinning. This is the way these things go. And the election of 2000. Yeah. And here we are. I'm not saying that these things don't matter, but I'm just saying that anybody who is ready to turn the country upside down because of it—this is not Joe—but if you're ready to turn the country upside down, there's something wrong with you, I think. Here's where we are, John. Donald Trump is running for president again, and he's under a criminal indictment in multiple jurisdictions. And his ballot legitimacy is being questioned at the level of several states. I'm not sure exactly what my question is for you. I merely want to call attention to the fact that the legitimacy mechanism is in grave jeopardy. Suppose you actually were able to disqualify Trump from some ballots, and Biden were to win the election in a narrow electoral college and popular vote. That's a disaster for our country. I worry about that very deeply, because Joe is probably being nice and polite in the way he states his question. This is a problem. It's a problem of the legitimacy of our electoral processes. The question as to how legitimate it is to disqualify Trump is one that has to be thought over. My feeling about it is, that is a legitimate decision. Roughly, there'd be no reason that the founders would have disincluded the president from what they were saying. It's not ideally worded. It would make no sense if they thought the president was the exception. The question is whether January 6th was an insurrection of the character that the Fourteenth Amendment was motivated by. That's the question. The question is whether Donald Trump incited an insurrection against the government of the United States of such a nature that he should be disqualified from serving in office. That's the question. And I'm just going to go out on a limb and say we must not answer that question “yes.” We must not do that. That's a threat to democracy. They were trying to hold up the procedure. The idea was to hold up what was going on inside of that building. But you're not following me. Excuse me, I apologize, but I don't think I'm making myself clear. I am not asking that question. I'm asking a question about the legitimacy machine. And regardless of the factual truth or falsity of the question of did he incite an insurrection, he must not, I assert and invite your rebuttal, be disqualified from the ballot on that ground. That will destroy this country. And if that's the way it has to go, as far as I'm concerned, let it. Maybe we need that. So you don't dispute what I'm saying, you're just willing to live with that outcome? Am I wrong to say that is a destruction of the legitimacy machine? No matter what the outcome of the election, it will not be legitimate if you do that, and that's a disaster for the country. That's the position. I know that there are many people who will think that it wasn't legitimate, and they might come out, finally, with their guns. You can't face this decision on being afraid of them, right? Or am I misunderstanding you? No, you're not. You can base this decision on being afraid of them. That is exactly what I'm saying. Don't go there. I'm saying, don't die on that hill. That's a mistake. To deal with this guy, you have to beat him in an election. You can't peremptorily disqualify him, because there are scores of millions of people who support him. You have to actually win the election. That's what I'm saying. Otherwise you do grave damage to the institutions. Uh-uh. I'm going to be crazy here and say, let the civil war happen. We cannot make this decision based on those... So let's agree to disagree. You want to move on it? 'Cause if you want to say more, go ahead and say more, but I've said my piece. Are you really interested in kowtowing to those morons? Oh God, John. Those melodramatic ... you okay? My crown came off. I just pressed it back on. I'm gonna have to get some adhesive in a moment, but fortunately it slotted right back in. So I'm good. I'm sorry. No, man. You call them morons? That is such a mistake. I don't want to get personal about it, but... All right. You're right. “Morons” was wrong. And I didn't mean it. I don't think they're morons. I sometimes like to use dramatic language. But I do think this. They are caught up in a melodramatic, self-affirming kind of group membership, which does not correspond with reality and it cannot be allowed. We can't base our decisions on that. No, they simply support Donald Trump for president of the United States. That's not a cult. That's a small businessman in a mid-sized town in Ohio. That's an evangelical Christian in Louisiana. That's a working-class, union-dues-paying resident of Detroit, Michigan. But the subset of those who believe in Giuliani's claims and really think the wool has been pulled over our eyes in that sense? I'm sorry, no. Most Trump supporters don't think that way, I know. You are pathologizing your political opponent. Some of them. You are pathologizing them. You're not asking about the border. You're not asking about the war in Ukraine. You're not asking about the economic agenda. Man ... It's the fantasists. The following here is not simply based on the personality of the individual. There are deep forces in American political life that are at play. I agree. You can't let the Democratic Party continue to set the agenda for the country without having an election. And if you preemptively disqualify this guy, that's exactly what you would be doing. But it would be based on legal doctrine that was not crafted even with him in mind. Maybe he shouldn't be running. He tried to break the country in two. That's not an unreasonable argument. Okay, he brought us to this point, and January 6th happened. We know how people feel about that. They impeached him twice. And his ego and his inflammatory rhetoric and his transphobia and his damage to the institutions. He's a bad guy. Trump bad. I'm not buying that. I think he is a phenomenon to be understood in the context of the forces that produced him. Now, look at what's happening in the country. The Supreme Court. There's a reaction against the leftward drift that is simmering. Look at this debate about the Middle East, about Ukraine. All of that should be represented by some Republican other than that—and this time I am going to say it—malevolent moron. He should not be the one who channels these very legitimate grievances. The ones that you're talking about are important. But not that man. And the way that man is is not what's motivating my saying he should be disqualified. I didn't have the legal expertise to anticipate this whole discussion until it came about. But it's not that I don't like him. He could be a kind of a likable, legalistic, intelligent person, and still, if there were a case that he had tried to break the country in two, I would be behind it. Glenn, how come it has to be him? Wouldn't you rather Nikki Haley or Chris Christie? It is him. No, I'm not going to get into that. I'm not a Republican, man. I'm not going to get into parsing these candidates. It is him. That's my point. It is him. Like I said, there's him and there are the historical forces that produced him. Those forces are what they are. © 2024 Glenn Loury 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe

NeoCon Nikki Haley Is Fading But Do NOT Underestimate the UniParty Swamp's Desperation

NeoCon Nikki Haley Is Fading But Do NOT Underestimate the UniParty Swamp's Desperation Winning is not enough in New Hampshire. Trump needs a resounding victory to extinguish any "momentum" they try to manufacture for Haley going into South Carolina. JD RUCKER JAN 20 (Conservative Playbook)—In the old days, elections were fairly predictable. Well, they seemed predictable. Some would argue they've been controlled by the Deep State or the New World Order or the UniParty Swamp or demonic powers or whichever bad guy group you favor for attribution. Compared to today, the powers-that-be at least portrayed a stronger illusion of choice for We the People. If the current GOP primaries were happening in the old days, we would look at it all and know with a 98% or more certainty that Donald Trump is going to be the nominee. But this is 2024 and nothing can be taken for granted. If you support Trump, now is not the time to get complacent. Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis are running to be the safety net. They strive to accumulate delegates in hopes that if any of the various manufactured charges against Trump stick, then someone will have to slide into the nomination. Otherwise, the race was over before the Iowa Caucuses. Now we're faced with a game of chicken as the two remaining challengers vie for crumbs and hope the other drops out first. As with all elections, this is a money game. We live in a society in which campaign fundraising and spending are signs of viability. The one who spends the most is not necessarily the winner as we've learned repeatedly, but the ability for someone to continue running hinges on their ability to raise money and spend it. If they raise it without spending it, they have a harder time raising more. If they spend it and struggle raising more, they're out. The DeSantis campaign has been struggling since before the Iowa Caucus after their big-dollar backing started evaporating. Haley's troubles started at the Iowa Caucus when she could only manage a third place finish, prompting more concerns about her viability. She has been hit hard since then with reports of infidelity, a big endorsement loss, and body blows from Trump that have landed. Both remaining contenders are banking on the other dropping out first. Both also know that even when the other drops out, their prospects are nearly nil. They need one or more of the lawfare gambits to hit paydirt. This leads me to the point of today's column. The powers-that-be seem to consider Haley as their best bad option. A big loss in New Hampshire will decimate her chances of winning her home state. A win or even a close loss in New Hampshire could boost her just enough to take South Carolina as well, especially if DeSantis drops out. Anyone who thinks it's impossible for her to beat Trump in New Hampshire hasn't been paying attention since 2020. The people who stole the last presidential election and the subsequent midterm elections are going to try to do their thing in New Hampshire. If anything, it'll be easier for them to manufacture votes through Democrats in the open primary. They won't have to wait until 3am the next day. They can pull off a "fair" win for Haley just by driving enough Democrats to vote for her. The worst thing Trump supporters in New Hampshire could do is to think Trump is going to win. They need to go into next week thinking his lead is razor thin, that every vote counts, that the UniParty Swamp is going to try to steal the state, and that Nikki Haley is an existential threat to both the MAGA movement and the America itself. They need to rally their friends and family to vote by debunking any notions that Trump has this locked up. It isn't just about winning the state. HOW he wins is important. A single-digit win for Trump will be portrayed as a loss as NeverTrump pundits will claim it demonstrates vulnerability. A solid win for Trump will deflate both opponents. More importantly, it will deflate their donors; the sooner they run out of money, the sooner we'll move on to the general election. A landslide for Trump could launch general election season next week. I'm cognizant of the fact that many of our readers are not Trump supporters and I have no intention of insulting them. I actually like DeSantis as a governor and I think despite the rhetoric that he hasn't completely blown his chances in 2028, but his prospects in 2024 are essentially nil. Haley, on the other hand, is untenable and must be stopped. That's why I would encourage DeSantis supporters to come home to Trump. The sooner that DeSantis drops out and backs Trump, the easier it will be for him to recover for another run at it in 2028. Nikki Haley is adored by the UniParty Swamp because she's one of them. She's Dick Cheney in high heals. She's a brunette Hillary Clinton. She puts the "Con" in NeoCon. She's dangerous. Pledge your support The Liberty Daily is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell The Liberty Daily that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments. Pledge your support © 2024 The Liberty Daily 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe Get the appStart writing He puts the Tea in Liberty ! No ? He puts the Lib in Liberty ? No ? He puts the Er in...

How DeSantis’s South Carolina gamble could help Trump in New Hampshire

Can Sununu do for Haley what Reynolds couldn’t for DeSantis? Johnson backed into corner as conservatives put speaker on notice BYRON YORK: GOP race losing energy fast Denver Mayor Mike Johnston calls work authorization for immigrants 'critical' Catholic bishop highlights faith and science as key to ’embrace life’ ahead of March for Life White House funnels millions into public charging as it tries to boost electric vehicles ANALYSIS: Abortion foes test sway over first post-Roe GOP presidential field Nikki Haley brushes off Trump’s name-calling and birtherism: ‘He feels insecure’ Anti-abortion groups eye the long game to achieve political and cultural wins Sen. Tommy Tuberville endorses Tim Sheehy in Montana Senate race Silicon Valley self-regulates for AI misinformation Willis moves to quash subpoena for testimony Biden's EV plan is a 'major threat' to national security Washington judge rules that Trump will remain on state ballot .NET Systems Software Programmer (Onsite) DP Professionals Inc Double Penetration Professionals ? Columbia, SC Posted 7 days ago | Updated 14 hours ago View all jobs for this Company Sorry this job is no longer available. The Similar Jobs shown below might interest you.

Debate over

 

Rodney Anderson

Didn’t watch, I compared California to Florida, debate over

Washington Examiner 

2 minutes ago  · 

Govs. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Gavin Newsom's (D-CA) red vs. blue state debate battle royale promised to deliver political fireworks, and it was like the Fourth of July.

I saw Aerosmith at MSA on July 4th.

Four takeaways from DeSantis-Newsom debate: 'Lion’s den'

by Naomi Lim, White House Reporter

 December 01, 2023 12:25 AM

Latest

Reporter's Notebook: Trump's Obamacare Christmas gift to Democrats

By: Washington Examiner Staff

Kamala Harris lays out US vision for Gaza post-conflict at COP28

By: Christopher Hutton

Houston police officer survives 'ambush-style attack' and kills suspect

By: Jenny Goldsberry

Videos

Reporter's Notebook: Good economic news as the holiday approaches

Georgia judge questions whether Trump can be tried if he wins 2024 election

House GOP spending bill votes unleash fresh abortion attack from Democrats

House GOP puts one major condition on Hunter Biden's offer to testify to Congress

Newsletters

Sign up now to get the Washington Examiner’s breaking news and timely commentary delivered right to your inbox.

Govs. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Gavin Newsom's (D-CA) red vs. blue state debate battle royale promised to deliver political fireworks, and it was like the Fourth of July.

The debate, televised without an audience and slower in pace than its 2024 Republican counterparts, allowed DeSantis to differentiate himself from his primary opponents and Newsom to introduce himself to a general election audience should he run for president in the future.

DESANTIS GOES FOR 'HAIL MARY' IN HIGH-RISK DEBATE AGAINST NEWSOM

Here are the Washington Examiner's top four takeaways:

DeSantis had a good night

DeSantis has improved in the Republican primary debates over the course of his campaign and had a strong performance against Newsom.

Despite appearing awkward at times, DeSantis had a solid opening, criticizing Newsom and other blue state governors, several of whom have lost residents to red ones.

"You almost have to try to mess California up," DeSantis said. "They actually, at one point. ran out of U-Hauls in the state of California because so many people were leaving!"

“He’s imposed restrictions on his own people while exempting himself from those restrictions and going to The French Laundry while his people were suffering," he added.

DeSantis's responses also included anecdotes from people he has met during the election cycle, in addition to a pandemic-era story about Newsom's father-in-law, who now lives in Florida.

"These liberal elites, they like to impose burdens on you," he said. "They don't want to have to face the consequences of their actions."

The debate was a "throwback" to a more traditional time before former President Donald Trump’s presence on the political scene, according to University of Michigan debate director Aaron Kall.

"This will provide DeSantis with practice and momentum heading into next week’s Alabama debate," he told the Washington Examiner of the fourth primary debate. "DeSantis can now say he’s gone toe-to-toe on a debate stage with the Democratic governor of California, which is good preparation for general election debates with President [Joe] Biden."

Newsom had a tough crowd

With Fox News as the host, Newsom was aware he would have to answer harder questions than DeSantis, with anchor Sean Hannity interfering less when DeSantis interrupted Newsom than vice versa.

Newsom went into the "lion’s den" to debate both DeSantis and moderator Hannity, according to Kall.

"Newsom was effective tonight in defending the legislative record of the Biden-[Vice President Kamala] Harris administration while simultaneously raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for the campaign," he said. "High-profile events like tonight’s will put Newsom in an excellent position to be one of the Democratic Party’s top standard bearers heading into the 2028 presidential election."

Republican strategist Cesar Conda countered that the debate will make Democrats "even more depressed."

"Gavin Newsom is far more articulate than Joe Biden, who everyone knows would get destroyed by [former U.N. Ambassador Nikki] Haley, DeSantis, or Trump in a presidential debate," he said. "Newsom has become the leading 'break glass in case of emergency' Democratic nominee should something happen to Biden."

Regardless, Newsom persevered, criticizing DeSantis for weaponizing "grievance" during his bid and "focusing on false separateness."

"There's one thing, in closing, that we have in common, is neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024," he said to DeSantis.

Newsom hugged Biden

Newsom underscored his support of Biden and his record before next year's election during his opening remarks, going on to defend the president against criticism regarding his age and economic policies, rebranded as Bidenomics.

DeSantis seized on Newsom's strategy, anchoring him to Biden and Harris amid their poor polling.

"I'll give Gavin credit — he did at least admit in his first answer he's joined at the hip with Biden and Harris," DeSantis said.

One of DeSantis and Newsom's most cacophonous clashes concerned DeSantis's claims Newsom is running a shadow 2024 campaign against Biden.

"I thought this guy was running for president of the United States," Newsom said.

"You are too. You just won't admit it," DeSantis replied.

Immigration, education, and freedom

Aside from their dissection of each other's leadership during the pandemic, DeSantis and Newsom's most memorable exchanges centered on immigration, education, and freedom.

Newsom criticized DeSantis for "lying" to immigrants before "using human beings as pawns" and sending them to places such as Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, and his home state's capital of Sacramento.

"I’m the only guy here that is a border state governor," he said. "You’re trolling folks trying to find migrants to play political games, to get some news, so you can out-Trump Trump, and by the way … how is that going for you, Ron? You’re down 41 points in your own home state."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

DeSantis came prepared with props, including Maia Kobabe's Gender Queer: A Memoir and a graphic from an app that tracks where human feces has been found in Newsom's hometown of San Francisco.

"California does have freedoms that some people don't, that other states don't," he said. "You have the freedom to defecate in public in California, you have the freedom to pitch a tent on Sunset Boulevard, you have the freedom to create a homeless encampment under a freeway."

Nikki Haley

 Nikki Haley

Who’s the leader of the club
That’s made for you and I?
N-I-K
K-K-I
H-A-L-E-Y!

Never Trumpers have found their man and surprise, surprise Sergeant Carter, it’s a woman.

CNBC reported, “JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon urged Democrats to support Nikki Haley in the GOP presidential primary, arguing that she offers a strong alternative to former President Donald Trump.”

Dimon said, “If you’re a very liberal Democrat, I urge you to help Nikki Haley, too. Give them a choice on the Republican side that might be better than Trump.”

ABC reported, “A group of self-styled political independents filed paperwork with the FEC this week to launch a new Super PAC aimed at swinging independent voters to support former U.N. ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley in her bid to secure the Republican presidential nomination.”

Never Trumpers want Democrats and Independents to vote for her in the Republican primaries to kneecap President Trump and MAGA Republicans in the general election.

That’s good to know. The move reflects how much fear of Trump there is.

I enjoy watching the sputtering campaigns of her competition for the Never Trump blessing and the money that goes with it.

The Hill reported, “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis criticized former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley for not showing interest in a proposed debate with him on Fox News.”

He said, “Well, she probably wouldn’t like what the debate would be about. I mean, I think she has taken very, very establishment-oriented positions.”

He’s desperate.

He later said, “I’ll debate any of these folks. I think that’s what it is all about.”

He’s very desperate.

Meanwhile Krispy Kreme Champ Chris Christie told Dana Bash of CNN, “I expect to be in this race through to the convention, Dana. And so yes, absolutely.”

Translation: He won’t make it out of New Hampshire. He should grow a mustache and become the new gotta-make-the-doughnuts guy for Dunkin Donuts if they ever bring that ad campaign back. If Christie were six inches high, he’d make a nice Poppin Fresh. Tee-hee-hee.

After months of hemming and hawing, RINOs have finally settled on Haley, who is Bobby Jindal in three-inch heels. She is safe and smiley and willing to say whatever they want her to say.

There is nothing wrong with being a dummy. Charlie McCarthy was witty and popular back in the day going toe-to-toe with W.C. Fields on the radio. But Charlie had Edgar Bergman pulling his strings as it were. Poor Nikki has Charles Koch.

Brian Schwartz of CNBC reported, “The political network largely financed by billionaire Charles Koch endorsed former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley for president Tuesday, boosting her primary campaign against the Republican front-runner, former President Donald Trump.

“The Haley endorsement by the Koch-backed super PAC Americans for Prosperity Action marks the end of a yearlong search for a viable Republican alternative to challenge Trump.

“Haley ‘has what it takes to lead a policy agenda to take on our nation’s biggest challenges and help ensure our country's best days are ahead,’ the group said in a memo. ‘With the grassroots and data capability we bring to bear in this race, no other organization is better equipped to help her do it.’

“The network has massive resources, and it said it is prepared to deploy them to boost the former South Carolina governor and to challenge Trump’s increasingly tight grip on his party's presidential nominating contest.”

The press release shows just how empty and daft Never Trumpers are. They hailed Haley as ready “to lead a policy agenda” — not how to lead a country.

The press is infatuated with Koch, who was known as the Koch Brothers before his brother David’s death in 2019. But whom have the Koches ever elected president? Certainly not Donald Trump. Nevertheless, when Charles Koch speaks, dummies listen.

CNN reported on January 8, 2016, “GOP kingmaker Charles Koch said he is ‘disappointed’ by the field of 2016 Republican candidates and sharply criticized the rhetoric and policies put forth by front-runners Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

“Koch, who along with billionaire brother David famously pledged to spend $900 million supporting Republicans in 2016, expressed dissatisfaction with the GOP primary thus far during a lengthy interview with the Financial Times published Friday.”

So the Brothers Koch (pronounced coke not cotch) pledged $900 million but found a way to renege because they did not like the Republican candidates they said they would back.

If pledging an unprecedented amount of money is all it takes to be heard on CNN, then I pledge to donate a trillion dollars. Oh wait, I don’t want to be on CNN. Make that 12 cents and a returnable Pepsi bottle.

Now Koch says he will turn his political factories, such as they are, into the Haley mills. Do they have a means of putting a brain in her?

Two weeks ago, she said, “When I get into office, the first thing we have to do, social media accounts, social media companies, they have to show America their algorithms.

“Let us see why they’re pushing what they’re pushing. The second thing is, every person on social media should be verified, by their name. That’s, first of all, it’s a national security threat. When you do that, all of a sudden, people have to stand by what they say.”

After people pointed out there is a thing called the First Amendment, she backed down.

She said, “I don’t mind anonymous American people having free speech; what I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having free speech.”

Putin, Xi and the ayatollahs thank her for her support.

What a mess. But at least she didn’t use misinformation and disinformation as code words for censorship. I guess that makes her only half a Democrat.

This policy agenda Charles Koch wants Haley to lead is a loser. Social Security is the third rail of politics, a reference to subways that means don’t touch it. Koch wants Republicans to place both hands and both feet on it. Haley is on it. She wants to raise the retirement age.

Democrats would have a field day with that.

Paul Krugman wrote, “Until Covid struck, average life expectancy at 65, the relevant number, was indeed rising. But these gains were concentrated among Americans with relatively high incomes. Less affluent Americans — those who depend most on Social Security — have seen little rise in life expectancy, and in some cases actual declines.

“So anyone invoking rising life expectancy as a reason to delay Social Security benefits is, in effect, saying that aging janitors must keep working (or be cast into extreme poverty) because bankers are living longer.

“How, then, should the Social Security gap be closed? The obvious answer — which happens to be favored by a majority of voters — is to raise more revenue. Remember, America collects less revenue as a percentage of G.D.P. than almost any other advanced economy.”

I got a chuckle out of his farcical notion of life expectancy equity. Does that mean the rich must kill themselves when they hit 70 to even things out? Thank goodness then that I ain’t rich.

But as goofy and as ill-informed as Krugman is, he has a Nobel and an audience. He also outlined the DNC line of attack, which is a pretty good one.

Haley is not much better than him. In 2016, she used her spot as the Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union address to attack Donald Trump.

She said, “During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation. No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”

And nearly 8 years, she collected her reward as the presidential candidate of Never Trumpville, where it is all about cheap labor and the illegal aliens who provide it. If open borders also bring in fentanyl, gang bangers and terrorists, Koch and the rest don’t care because they can afford private security.

What likely cost DeSantis the Never Trumpville endorsement is the Never Trumpvillains are uncomfortable with his willingness to take on social issues. No one wants a puppet who can think.

Plus, maybe the RINOs believe he would have a better chance than her of winning next November.