Nikki Haley Defeats Trump In Nevada GOP Presidential Preference Primary

Voters Dissatisfied

Party in Disarray

Never Trump Republicans sent a clear message.

The only question remaining is, “How badly will Republicans lose nationwide in November?”

---

Trump Chose to Lose

Loser Fairy dumped boatloads of Loser Dust on Federally-indicted convicted sex abuser Florida Loser-Man.

Nikki Haley Defeats Trump in Nevada’s GOP Primary/Caucus

Former President CHOSE to became a Loser by Default by failing to participate in NV’s Presidential Preference Primary/caucus.

Former US Ambassador to the United Nations cum-South Carolina Governess Nikki Haley defeated GOP rival Donald Trump in the Silver State’s GOP Presidential Preference Primary/Caucus Tuesday, February 6, 2024.

Then-former South Carolina Governor, later Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley waves to attendees and delegates at the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

She is now the former President’s only competitor in the race to become the party’s nominee for President; all other contenders — Vivek Ramaswamy, former VP Mike Pence, SC Senator Tim Scott, FL Governor Ron DeSantis, former NJ Governor Chris Christie, former DEA Administrator/AR Governor Asa Hutchinson, and a spattering of others — all dropped out around the time of the NH primaries, or very shortly thereafter.

Notably, Nevada GOP primary/caucus voters also failed to write-in the former President’s name. Some critics have noted an unjustified sense of overconfidence betrayed him, mistakenly thinking that he would somehow magically win, even though he chose not to campaign in the state, and failed to initiate a write-in campaign.

In stark contrast, President Joe Biden, who is campaigning for re-election, did not appear on New Hampshire’s ballot, but won that state’s Democratic primary when voters wrote in his name, with 63.8% of all 123,996 votes cast.

Like Silver State Republicans, Granite State Republicans were not thrilled by their choices, and

A Family First: Joe Kennedy III first in the clan to lose a Massachusetts election

To which I say,

GOOD!

It’s about damn time!

Joe Kennedy III, who is the 40-year old grandson of slain Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, challenged incumbent Ed Markey for the state’s upcoming U.S. Senate seat in the Democratic primary.

Kennedy lost.

It was a landmark, a high water mark, an event of immensely significant importance.

Perhaps it even intoned cataclysmic changes ahead.

Good ones, of course.

Just like “good trouble.”

The Boston Globe characterized Kennedy’s campaign style as an “increasingly bare-knuckled offensive,” while the headlines across the world were interesting… if not telling.

Let’s examine a few of the headlines from throughout the nation, and then, we’ll move along to WHY it’s a good thing that not-so-poor little Joe P. Kennedy III lost.

• The Boston Globe had a straight-forward “Ed Markey beats Joe Kennedy in Senate primary.”

• While the Boston Herald wrote a more colorful, “Joe Kennedy, others lose out to the old geezer incumbents.”

• The Daily Mail of the United Kingdom, however, had a more telling, embarrassing, and detailed pronouncement, “The end of a dynasty: RFK’s grandson Joe Kennedy III becomes the first member of his family to lose a Massachusetts election as he is defeated in Senate primary in JFK’s old seat.”

• New York’s venerable “Gray Lady” wrote semi-wishful we-wish-it-was-almost-a-contest type of headline as, “Markey Holds Off Joseph Kennedy in Massachusetts Senate Race.”

• The Rupert Murdoch-owned right-leaning tabloid-type New York Post wrote, “Joe Kennedy III suffers stinging defeat to Ed Markey in Mass. Senate primary.“

• The Daily Beast wrote an unvarnished sobriquet, “Sen. Ed Markey Fends Off Challenge From Rep. Joe Kennedy III-Camelot Lost.”

• NPR wrote a steady-as-she-goes observation that, “Markey Fends Off Kennedy Challenge In High Profile Mass. Senate Primary.”

• The Los Angeles Times wrote a semi-obituary with, “A Kennedy loses in Massachusetts and a storied dynasty fades.”

• The Hill composed a  bare bones headline with, “Markey defeats Kennedy in Massachusetts.”

• POLITICO wrote a blame-game headline with, “The Unlikely Kennedy Who Ended the Kennedy Dynasty.”

• Ever the standard, the Associated Press wrote, “Markey defeats Kennedy III in Massachusetts’ Senate primary.”

• Business Insider wrote a more opinionated headline with, “Ed Markey defeats primary challenger Rep. Joe Kennedy, in a major victory for the left.”

• Bloomberg wrote a fact-based, plain-Jane headline with, “Ed Markey Wins Massachusetts Democratic Primary, Defeating Joe Kennedy.”

• The Chicago Tribune similarly wrote a fact-based headline with, “Sen. Edward Markey defeats Rep. Joe Kennedy III in Massachusetts’ Senate primary.”

• CNN had a different historical name recognition perspective with, “Sen. Ed Markey defeats a Kennedy in Massachusetts.”

• CQ RollCall wrote, “A Massachusetts first: Kennedy loses Senate primary to Markey.”

• The Guardian wrote a fact-based, “Edward Markey defeats Joe Kennedy in Massachusetts Democratic primary.”

• United Press International wrote a no-frills, straight-forward, “Ed Markey defeats Joe Kennedy III in Massachusetts primary race.”

Here’s also a wee bit of background to aid understanding.

Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr. (wearing glasses) family portrait

The Kennedy name, of course, is renown in American politics. And for perspective, Joe P. III is the grandson of the slain Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (1925-1968). And Joe P. III is named for the family progenitor, Joseph Patrick Kennedy (1888-1969) – long rumored by numerous sources to have been a bootlegger during Prohibition, which, if the sources were lying, and the claim not true, would question their motives, since the senior Kennedy has long been dead.

That piddling matter aside, however, suffice it to say that the Kennedy family is wealthy… VERY wealthy. Maybe not Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet wealthy, but wealthy nonetheless. Forbes magazine writer Carl O’Donnell in the July 8, 2014 online edition, wrote about the Kennedy family wealth as follows:

“If America had an aristocracy, the most titled bloodline would certainly be the Kennedys. In the past half century, one Kennedy after another has occupied nearly every political position America has to offer, including the roles of congressman, senator, ambassador, mayor, SEC chairman, state representative, city councilman, and, of course, President.

“The sustaining force behind the Kennedys reign is hardly a secret. Thanks to Joseph P. Kennedy, who made a fortune from insider trading only to later chair the SEC, the family is fabulously rich. But exactly how much is America’s first family worth? Forbes pegs the extended family’s fortune at $1 billion.

“Protected by a labyrinth of trusts, as well as tax strategies that would make Joseph P. Kennedy proud, the Kennedy fortune now spans approximately 30 family members, and includes the surnames Shriver, Lawford and the Smith. At nearly $175 million as of 2013, Caroline Kennedy is the richest descendant by far, but more modestly endowed relatives, such as Robert Shriver, who is running for Los Angeles County Supervisor, still possess assets in the tens of millions, according to public financial disclosures required of government officials.

“The bulk of the family’s wealth is held in dozens of trusts, which range in value from tens of thousands to as much as $25 million. Nearly all are managed by Joseph P. Kennedy Enterprises, a family office located in New York City with assets dating back to 1927, according to Christopher Kennedy, a member of the Kennedy family who sits on the office’s board.

“Joseph P. Kennedy’s choice to place his fortune in trusts is possibly the single most critical reason why the family wealth is still around today. The most obvious benefit was to protect the fortune from the prying fingers of ne’er-do-well heirs, said Laurence Leamer, who wrote three Kennedy biographies. Trusts often prevent beneficiaries from tapping more than 10 percent of principal, said Rick Kruse, principal at Kruse and Crawford, which offers estate management advice.

“The trusts also protect the family assets from another set of prying fingers: Uncle Sam’s. By holding assets in so called “dynasty trusts,” which are passed from heir to heir for decades, if not longer, the Kennedy family fortune is largely insulated from the estate tax, Kruse said. Handled correctly, a dynasty trust could potentially maintain an un-taxable fortune indefinitely. The oldest Kennedy trust on record dates back to 1936.

“Like politics, tax savvy seems to run in the Kennedy family. The most recent example is

Joe Biden said…

Hearing Joe Biden say,

“We now have amassed more popular vote
than
anyone running for the nomination,”

is like…

To Trump, or Not to Trump?

Will History Repeat Itself?

Why Trump Worries About GOP Contenders

For the past four decades plus, regardless of party, every incumbent president who faced a serious primary opponent was weakened enough to ultimately lose re-election.

In 1968, Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy (NOT to be confused with U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin)) nearly upset then-POTUS Lyndon Baines Johnson in the New Hampshire primary by winning 40% of the votes to Johnson’s 49%.

Weeks later, Johnson stunned the nation and announced he would not seek another term.

In 1976, President Gerald Ford survived Reagan’s challenge from the right wing of the GOP, but lost to former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter.

Four years later, Carter faced a strong opponent in

Democratic Tea Leaves II

In a recent entry dated August 8, 2019, entitled Reading Democratic Tea Leaves I noted one, or two very fine, somewhat minor points overlooked by most pundits.

One, that like most other Democratic nominee candidates, former Vice President Joe Biden’s support has largely stagnated – even though it has been higher than most other candidates.

Vice President Joe Biden, Official Portrait 2013

And second, only two other candidates have had any SIGNIFICANT INCREASE in their level of support (as defined by polling) since the inception of their candidacy: South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Since the announcement of his candidacy as the Democratic nominee for President, former Vice President Joe Biden’s support has gone from 29.0% to 30.8%. That’s an increase of only 6.21%.

October 26, 2016; South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg

In sharp contrast, “Mayor Pete” has gone from 1.0% and is now (August 10) at 6.5%, and has polled as high as 8.4% from April 20 through May 2. That’s an increase of 550% to date. If fluctuations are considered (low to high), that’s 740%.

Senator Warren, however, has gone from 5.3% and is now at 18.3% – her highest ever polling. That’s an increase, and fluctuation of 245.28%.

Senator Sanders started at

Reading Democratic Tea Leaves

The Democratic candidates’ field is as great for the upcoming 2020 General Election as the Republicans’ 2016 was – and, that may, or may not be a good sign.

The 2016 GOP clown car was populated by, among others, Donald Trump, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Ohio Governor John Kasich, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Aside from them, there were 10 others who withdrew before the primaries, so say it was a crowded field, was a gross understatement.

Now, it’s the Democrats’ turn.

The 20-candidate field has not yet been winnowed, per se – at least not by prospective primary voters.

Among them, is one of the last candidates to join that field was former Vice President Joe Biden, who had the advantage of name recognition among all voters, and potential voters.

Because of his name recognition advantage, Biden’s “popularity” within the massive field has led the next closest competitors – which are Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren – sometimes by double digits.

A notable game-changing exception was made following the first Democratic debate at The Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami, Florida, with NBC Moderators Savannah Guthrie, Lester Holt, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow and José Diaz-Balart on Night 2 (June 27) when California Senator Kamala Harris took former Vice President Joe Biden to task for his opposition as then-Senator from Delaware to busing to remedy and resolve the problem of segregation in California pubic schools.

Up until that time, Harris was polling 7.0%, while Biden was at 32.0%. After that night, support for Harris doubled to 15.2%, while Biden experienced a corresponding 6-point drop to 26.0%.

Since that high, Harris has continued to fall, and as of August 7 was polling at 8.3%.

Up until then, Sanders, the next-closest competitor, had fluctuated from 16.5% to 24.0% (his highest), to 14.0% (his lowest), and as of August 7, was polling at 15.8%.

Biden’s polling has been as high as

History Repeats Itself: How Alabama’s Anti-Crossover Voting Law Violates the Constitution

Alabama Political Reporter news writer Brandon Mosely wrote in a story headlined “Alabama secretary of state releases updates on crossover voting,” and published December 7, 2018, that “the Secretary of State’s office announced Thursday that it has discovered 398 violations of Alabama’s new crossover voting rules in the 2018 election cycle.

“At the conclusion of the 2017 United States Senate Special Election Run-off, the Alabama Secretary of State’s Office reviewed a formal, routine election report indicating that 140 individuals had been given credit for voting in the Democrat primary election on August 15th and then voting in the Republican run-off election on September 26. This action, termed crossover voting, is an action which would violate the State’s new crossover voting law (Act No. 2017-340).

“… under Alabama law it is illegal to vote in both a party primary and then vote in another party’s primary runoff. In the general election, voters are allowed to vote for candidates from both parties and/or independent or minor party candidates. 66 percent of Alabamians straight party voted in the 2018 election. Alabama does not have party registration, so any voter is allowed to participate in the party primary of their choice.”

He cited Act No. 2017-340, which as summarized on the state legislature’s website as, “Act 2017-340, SB108, amends Section 17-4-2.1, Code of Alabama 1975, relating to voting, to allow the Secretary of State to use electronic poll books instead of printed lists of qualified voters.  The act also prohibits any voter from voting in a primary runoff election unless the voter voted in the preceding primary election of the party for which the runoff election is being held.”

A PDF image of the actual document, which was signed by the Governor Kay Ivey, May 22, 2017, 1:30PM, may be found here>http://arc-sos.state.al.us/PAC/SOSACPDF.001/A0012111.PDF.

The act, which originated as SB108 (Senate Bill) and was sponsored by Senators Tom Whatley, Cam Ward, Clyde Chambliss, Tripp Pittman, Bill Holtzclaw and Senate President Pro Tempore Del Marsh – all Republicans – states in part that the law will “prohibit a voter from voting in a primary runoff election unless the voter voted in the preceding primary election of the party for which the runoff election is being held.”

The purpose of the bill (now law as Code of Alabama 1975,17-4-2.1(9)) was ostensibly to

Alabama Secretary of State Errs in Poll Watcher Guide: Photo Voter ID Law Disenfranchises Elderly Voters in June Primaries

{Tuesday, 10 June 2014: Update/Annotation/Correction noted in response #2. Ed.}

Today (June 3, 2014) in Alabama was primary election day. It is a day the party faithful – Democrats and Republicans – went to the polls to cast ballots for the candidates of their choice.

In Alabama, citizens cannot vote for candidates of their choice in both parties. They must choose either/or. Only in the November General Election can they “split the ticket” and vote for Democrats and Republicans.

In my way of thinking, that is a shame… and a crime, because it disenfranchises those whom would vote by requiring them to identify – against their will – as a member of a political party.

As I write, the polls have closed (they’re open from 0700 – 1900… or if you prefer, 7AM – 7PM), and already, there have been reports throughout the state that irregularities have occurred. Some voters – specifically, the elderly – have been denied the right to vote.

Voter fraud? 92-year-old great-grandmother’s expired driver’s license unacceptable for voter ID

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/06/voter_fraud.htm

Photograph of the “Alabama Ballot Security Manual: A Practical guide for Poll Watchers, Alabama Primary Election, June 3, 2014“

93-year-old black man disenfranchised by Alabama voter ID law

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/voter-id-law-disenfranchises-93-year-old-black-man

As well, there are inconsistencies in official information produced by the Secretary of State specifically for the purpose of Poll Watching & Voter Identification.

In a document entitled “Alabama Photo Voter ID Guide” available on the Alabama Secretary of State’s website