DeSantis Drops Out
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0
Last Friday on the Racket News podcast, I said that Ron DeSantis’s campaign was crumbling. Little did I know how right I was. I predicted that DeSantis would drop out shortly after the New Hampshire primary. As it turns out, he didn’t make it to New Hampshire, instead announcing the end of his campaign on Sunday. The DeSantis campaign ended as it started: On the platform formerly known as Twitter.
“He [Donald Trump] has my endorsement because we can’t go back to the old Republican guard of yesteryear,” DeSantis told supporters in a video posted to the website formerly known as Twitter as he endorsed the old Republican guard who was the nominee in the last two presidential elections.
Clarifying the confusion, DeSantis added that he meant the “repackaged form of warmed-over corporatism that Nikki Haley represents.”
“Now, following our second-place finish in Iowa, we’ve prayed and deliberated on the way forward,” DeSantis explained. “If there was anything I could do to produce a favorable outcome, more campaign stops, more interviews, I would do it. But I can’t ask our supporters to volunteer their time and donate their resources. We don’t have a clear path to victory. Accordingly, I am today suspending my campaign.”
“It’s clear to me that a majority of Republican primary voters want to give Donald Trump another chance,” DeSantis continued.
DeSantis’s announcement throws a curveball into the New Hampshire primary, which takes place on Tuesday. Less than two weeks ago, I wrote about Chris Christie’s departure and looked at polls that showed the second choices of Republican voters. Those same polls showed that Donald Trump was the second choice of a plurality of DeSantis voters nationally, but the breakdown was more even in New Hampshire.
When only New Hampshire voters were considered, DeSantis’s supporters split between Trump (35 percent) and Haley (32 percent) as a second choice. The rub for Haley is that 17 percent of DeSantis voters liked Ramaswamy, who is now out of the race, and Ramaswamy voters tended to flock to Trump.
There is a new data point, however. A CNN/University of New Hampshire poll was released just before the DeSantis announcement. The top line of the poll showed Trump at 50 percent, Haley at 39, and DeSantis at six percent.
Ironically, the new poll shows that DeSantis was the second-choice candidate with 43 percent of respondents picking him as their fallback candidate. Donald Trump was the second choice of 12 percent and Haley of six percent. Twenty-one percent said they wouldn’t vote if their primary choice dropped out and 13 percent didn’t know who their Plan B would be.
Based on all this data, it seems that Trump stands to gain more than Haley from DeSantis’s departure. That conclusion is buttressed by DeSantis’s endorsement of Donald Trump on his way out the door.
And that probably explains the timing of DeSantis’s departure. By exiting before New Hampshire and throwing his support to Trump, DeSantis is undoubtedly hoping that The Former Guy will appreciate his effort to undermine Nikki Haley and reward him with a prominent position in the second Trump Administration.
The office of the vice president is probably dancing before DeSantis’s eyes. I’m sure he’s thinking that if he’s on the ticket with Trump this year he will be the logical Republican choice in 2028, regardless of whether Trump wins or loses.
DeSantis and others who are cozying up to Trump would do well to remember the trail of convictions, indictments, broken careers, and broken people that has been left in Trump’s wake. And that’s just his friends.
I’m sure that Mike Pence made a similar calculation in 2016.
I asked a few days ago, “Can Nikki Haley win?” At this point, the answer is no, it would take a miracle. The entire Republican Party is arrayed against her with Donald Trump at its head.
As I’ve said in the past, the new Republican Party is the Trump™ Republican Party. He bought it. He owns it. Any resemblance to the pre-2016 Republican Party is purely coincidental and probably won’t last much longer.
I’ll leave you with a flashback to last week when Ron DeSantis was still talking tough. In a video posted on January 14, 2024, Desantis crowed, “You can be the most worthless Republican in America, but if you kiss the ring he’ll [Trump] say you’re wonderful.”
I’d say that’s what DeSantis is counting on this week.
There’s a small 12th Amendment problem with two Floridians on the ticket.Report
The GOP seems unconcerned with other parts of the Constitution, so why do you think this will matter?Report
Seriously, we have anti-Trumpers trying to get him kicked off the ballot for things he was never found guilty of, so let’s not pretend like this would slip through the cracks.Report
The 14th Amendment doesn’t require conviction.Report
That’s only a theory. Also, if someone said “the 14th Amendment doesn’t require conviction” in any other context, you’d call him a fascist.Report
“Died of a theory.”Report
It specifically requires legislation… which congress did rather a lot in the run-up to, and aftermath of the Civil War. Defining and redefining and eventually granting amnesty to people who participated in what they declared to be an insurrection.
Lincoln followed the Insurrection Act of 1807 with his initial call for the Militia; complete with the requisite call to disburse, while convening Congress to take next steps in the budding rebellion after Sumpter.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/civil_war/LincolnExtraordinarySession_Transcript.htm
If there’s a missed Irony here, it’s that Cotton’s piece in the NYT could be interpreted as the first step towards a path where the BLM riots are declared insurrections.Report
Oh, hell no.
Few, if any, in either party can claim with a straight face to have upheld their oath to defend the Constitution, but it was the Roosevelt Democrats who started the tradition of acting with unveiled contempt for Constitutional limits on Congressional and Presidential power, and Democrats have continued to do so to this day, with your enthusiastic support.
You do not get to play the Constitution card, ever, so you need to wipe that shoot-eating grin off your face and sit your punk ass down.Report
Thank you.Report
What democratic actions do you find unconstitutional?Report
Yes, but it might turn out to really be only a small problem. The 12th Amendment means that if a hypothetical Trump-DeSantis ticket carries Florida, Florida’s electors could not cast their electoral votes for DeSantis for Vice-President. But if that GOP ticket gets 300 or more electoral votes, Florida could sit out voting for VP and DeSantis might still get 270 electoral votes for VP and thereafter serve.
See also Philip H’s response.Report
We went through this with Bush and Cheney in 2000; Cheney moved to Wyoming.
Like many things in the Constitution, the requirement that electors not vote for two candidates from their own states is woefully underspecified:
“The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.”
It’s not clear what “inhabitant” means, and notably there is no Constitutional requirement that an elector be an inhabitant of the state that appoints him, although some states do have such a requirement, e.g. Florida requires that electors be registered Florida voters.
As written, this clause has no real teeth, but presumably it wasn’t just thrown in there just for kicks and giggles, so we’re left to try to infer what exactly they meant. A good-faith interpretation of the Constitution should account for the fact that the framers didn’t have nearly as much of a historical record of rules-lawyering to inform their drafting as we do; courts shouldn’t allow the exploitation of clearly unintentional Constitutional loopholes. Contemporary commentary, or early case law, if any exists, might be illuminating.
There was a lawsuit about the Bush-Cheney issue in 2000, Jones v Bush, that I don’t recall hearing about at the time. The federal appeals court ruled against the plaintiffs, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. Here’s a paper arguing that while the reasoning behind the ruling was invalid because it rendered the inhabitancy requirement a nullity, it nevertheless reached the correct conclusion: Cheney’s primary political affiliation was with Wyoming, as it was the only state in which he had ever been elected to political office.
https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1225&context=plr
This seems to me to get at the heart of the most likely intent of the inhabitancy requirement, although as noted in the paper, the reasoning can’t easily be applied to those who have no history of holding political office, or, as in the unusual case of Trump, have only ever been elected to the Presidency. It’s a long paper, and I’m egregiously oversimplifying, of course.Report
Regardless of Constitutionality, the “just move” approach seems unworkable here, since DeSantis is currently the governor of Florida, and Trump is…not a team player. I can’t see him moving just so DeSantis can be his running mate.Report
Well, if we’re being realistic, DeSantis would get nothing from running with Trump, Trump would get nothing from running with DeSantis, and DeSantis said some mean things about Trump that will never be forgiven, so I’d put the whole thing under 2%.Report
Basically it was a check on Virginia in an era when States had political meaning and salience. But yes, give the absence of any definition of inhabitant (it would have meant more in an era of land wealth than fungible money wealth) it’s just a relic easily sidestepped.
Well, easily if you’re not DJT who as you note below probably wouldn’t move to accommodate DeSantis. But then, why are we thinking DeSantis will be a running mate? Trump (perhaps correctly) sees Florida as his gift and DeSantis as the beneficiary — not the other way round.Report
“the framers didn’t have nearly as much of a historical record of rules-lawyering to inform their drafting as we do”
Meh. The term “inhabitant” is used elsewhere in the Constitution, Senators and Representatives must be inhabitants of the state they represent. Hillary Clinton, and the other Robert Kennedy were from New York. If the drafters were concerned about people moving to a location to establish ephemeral relationships with a state they would have added a term of years. They knew how to do that: A President must be a U.S. resident for fourteen years.
I think the primary underlying policy relevant here was that the Federalist were aware that they would be seen as having engaged in some sort of a coup with this new Constitution and were seeking to legitimize the national government by presenting it as truly national in its components, drawing from all states. There was this notion that there is talent out there known locally that would be beneficial nationally, so the electors are a means of communicating information. Leaving states to vote for favorite sons wasn’t a problem, it would be useful to hear about people from as far away as say Delaware, but if everybody simply chooses favorite sons, then the electoral college process is largely meaningless; the House will decide the President and the Senate will decide the Vice President. But with the rise of political parties that function has been outsourced, and the framers didn’t anticipate or want that.Report
I remember the small window where DeSantis was polling higher than Trump and the topic of whether DeSantis would have been worse than Trump came up. So maybe we should all breathe a sigh of relief.Report
You’re confusing a tautology for a description. “Things are worse than ever” is identical to “that which happens is worse than that which happened before”.Report
The only thing worse than the last Republican candidate is the next Republican candidate.Report
Eisenhower-Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Dole-W-McCain-Romney-Trump
Yep, checks out.Report
You’re certainly confirming my comment, though perhaps not in the way you think.Report
I’m curious, how many in that sequence would you consider an improvement?Report
For myself now, or for myself in my earlier “moderate liberal” incarnation? Even as a liberal in the early 90s, I didn’t like Bush but I saw him as preferable to Reagan — it’s hard for me to imagine a liberal who wouldn’t have felt that way once the time for election rhetoric was gone. From the same perspective, I don’t see how Dole was any worse than Bush I. And surely any liberal would’ve preferred McCain to W — McCain was popular across the aisle until he became the candidate (and of course that also changed with his selection of running mate).
For myself now – I haven’t taken the time to go back to Reagan and re-appraise now that I’m no longer of the Left, but otherwise much the same as that theoretical liberal. And Romney would’ve been fine, he was an institutional Republican — I voted for Obama but by that point was not-liberal enough that I wouldn’t have been distressed by Romney winning.Report
My list would have changed across time, but due to changes in appraisal rather than ideology. I see Reagan as (at least!) a step up from Nixon, W as better than Dole, and Romney as an improvement from McCain. I liked Bush 1 and Dole at the time, but I don’t think I can give them a firm “improvement”.
In a flat rating, I don’t know if I’d put Trump higher than Nixon.Report
Part of my evolution has been to have much less strong opinions about what even constitutes “good” vs “bad” and to be more aware of the vast complexities and uncertainty involved. Leaving aside any specific candidates, it would be interesting to discuss what our criteria would be.Report
It’s interesting; I just started to jot down notes on my criteria and it became obvious to me that the three improvements on my list were with regard to character. Reagan’s character as an improvement over Nixon should be obvious. I think W surpassed Dole in character as a leader, whatever else you may think of him. There was no pettiness in W. We never got to see a President McCain or a President Romney, so it’s hard to rate their public characters, but Romney showed character in his private life that McCain didn’t.Report
Those are fair comments.
The trend line from Ike to Trump isn’t a straight one, it has some peaks as you note, from Reagan to GW Bush or from W to McCain.
But the trend line IS downward, and there is no reason to think there is a GW Bush hovering out there in the wings.
Whoever replaces Trump will almost certainly be in the mold of Abbots or DeSantis, both of whom have every bit as much disdain for democracy and the rule of law. Trump, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is the product of the GOP, not some aberration.
And as a former Reaganite, and a very big fan of Bob Dole circa 1996, its been dispiriting to see even the “good” Republicans one by one fall to the power of the ring, with Dole in his last days praising Trump.Report
I sort of understand what you’re saying but am curious, can you specify the characteristic or variable you have in mind that’s going in that direction? I’m not ready to agree that’s there’s an actual trend line, vs just the effects of different parts of the GOP coalition having more or less influence at different points, as well as changes in the coalition.
I probably also disagree about DeSantis vis a vis Trump — I think Trump is dangerous in a sui generis way, and even an opportunist like DeSantis who adopted some of his tactics would ultimately still follow the rule of law and be preferable.Report
Even just comparing DeSantis or any of the current crop of Republicans to previous generations of Republicans we can see how disregard for democracy and the rule of law is now widespread throughout the party, having little to do with Trump.
The vast majority of the rank and file Republican base is committed to the Big Lie of a stolen election, and the same vast majority embraces the “I will be your retribution” line
The party reflects this; Abbot, DeSantis, Youngkin- None of them can deviate from the blood and soil ethno-nationalism, and couldn’t even if they tried.
DeSantis is happy to use the power of government to punish Disney, for no other reason than they publicly criticized him. He is intent on coercively forcing universities to adopt political positions he likes, and tolerates no dissent.
Abbot just straight up refuses to follow the law regarding the border, even to the point of standing off federal police at gunpoint.
Trump, it must be said over and again, is not sui generis, but entirely a creature of the Republican party base.Report
There’s no world where I would vote for DeSantis, but I am sort of with you in the sense that I would like to think that a former JAG would have a different kind of appreciation for basic rule of law, sanctity of certain constitutional processes, that Trump clearly disdains. However, while Chip and I are probably fairly construed as coming from different schools of liberalism, I don’t see how anyone can be sure as long as Republicans are swearing fealty to Trump. Regardless of how one characterizes 1/6, can anyone really believe any defeated Republican wouldn’t attempt to orchestrate a similar incident? Until one just walks away, or Trump no longer is in charge of the party, I don’t see how anyone can.
And this is where I do find apologetics for Trump (which I know you aren’t doing) so strange. Sure, the Democrats are trying to take advantage of Trump’s crazy and probably criminal behavior where they can, but why wouldn’t or shouldn’t they? And who opened the door for all of this stuff with his own conduct? All is to say I think Chip really has a point, and that the facts even under the most charitable interpretation for Trump all arise from doors he personally chose to open. Any analysis that omits that or tries to abstract it a way just isn’t very strong IMHO.Report
“Regardless of how one characterizes 1/6, can anyone really believe any defeated Republican wouldn’t attempt to orchestrate a similar incident?”
Why would we think that?Report
Please provide us a list of 2023-2024 Republican candidates for President who called January 6th an attack on democracy, and insurrection, or even a riot. Chris Christie is the only one I know of.Report
Because as best as I can tell all of them with the exception of Chris Christie have either expressly or tacitly endorsed it. If it’s a legitimate path to power why wouldn’t they do it?Report
Fixed that for ya!Report
What? I mean, Philip’s comment was a word game, but even he didn’t say that anyone endorsed it. I don’t care if someone refuses to call it an insurrection, but endorsing? I mean, did you actually mean to type that?Report
Yes, I meant it. You don’t endorse a person for high office much less actively cooperate with and assist that person in gaining power if you think their methods are illegitimate. So if it’s legitimate for Trump to do what he did, why wouldn’t they think it is for them?
To be clear I am totally putting aside the insurrection question.Report
To compete in the Republican primary, you had to promise to support the eventual candidate. I think that Pence and Christie will probably fulfill that to my comfort level. I think less of DeSantis for his endorsement. Now, I wouldn’t say that Trump acted illegitimately on January 6th, just scummier than anyone who’s ever run for the office. You can’t call that statement an endorsement of Trump’s activities on January 6th though.Report
I hold people who want high office to a higher standard on something like this. My take away from Jan. 6, whether an insurrection, or just a bunch of criminal activity by the specific individuals who have been convicted of or plead to something, is that our system is fragile. No one should ever go remotely close to anything like that ever again and I think it’s fair to expect those who want to be president to clearly say they would not.Report
I think it’s complicated — to have a chance at winning an R primary, you have to at least not condemn what Trump did, so from an information theory POV, the mere fact that an R candidate supports the Stolen Election claim doesn’t mean they would try that themselves. There have been plenty of R losers who supported Trump, and most of them haven’t tried the same shenanigans — is there anyone besides Kari Lake in Arizona?
OTOH it’s obviously a possibility that has to be accounted for. There have been losing candidates on both sides have made noises about the idea that their loss was not legitimate, but Trump blasted that door wide open for future losers to actually take it as far as it will go.Report
That’s my concern. I don’t look kindly upon those who have had sour grapes over an election, including on my own side, or made vague claims suggesting there was some kind of illicit activity that is never substantiated.
But this was at minimum another level that ought to be pretty easy to disavow. Of course not everyone will attempt it but as long as politicians are in lock step with a guy who did I don’t think it can be hand waved away.Report
One of the word games that candidates play is saying that the election was rigged, meaning the processes that were altered for covid safety gave Biden an unfair advantage. “The election was rigged” isn’t the same as “the election was stolen” or “Trump won”.
I think January 6th proved that the democracy is doing fine, but that Capitol Police need broader deadly force protocols. I mean, I’ve been stuck in traffic for longer than the electoral vote count was delayed.
ETA:
“to have a chance at winning an R primary, you have to at least not condemn what Trump did”
I don’t think that’s true; you just have to play the kind of word game I referred to earlier.Report
I think it’s worth remembering though that there was more going on than just the people running wild and attacking at the Capitol. There were the fraudulent electors in 7 states. There were the Republican Congressmen issuing challenges during the counting procedure for no merited reason other than to create an opening for an incident (this has of course been made a lot harder by statutory changes). There was of course Trump’s infamous phone call to Raffensperger a few days before. There was the strategic decision by Trump not to deploy the national guard to help restore order in the midst of the chaos.
Is the conclusion that putting the people from the mob or the fake electors in prison is enough to deter recurrence? It seems to me like it punishes the lowest people on the totem pole while letting the political actors off the hook.
Put more succinctly if the risk is just that your stupidest followers might go to jail why not try it? And maybe next time the fools actually reach the ballots or something else that creates a pretext for a very different outcome.Report
The fraudulent electors, as near as I can tell, were based on a legal theory that got nowhere, so they constituted no threat. Challenges from both sides are regular occurrences. The Raffensperger phone call was the opposite of infamous, it was pathetic and pointless.
The fools won’t reach the ballots if we broaden the deadly force protocols.Report
The attorneys general who have obtained successful indictments against those folks would like a word.Report
Well, I agree on loosening the use of deadly force standards for the situation. Still not sure a heightened possibility of the QAnon Shaman being blown away deters the political actors.
I know we have debated the nature of the other crimes before so no point in rehashing. Suffice to say that I’m not ready to dismiss the whole thing as a sort of no harm no foul LARP that got out of control. People really do get in trouble for attempting to file fraudulent documents or disrupt official proceedings even where clearly idiotic and ham fisted. There is a risk to just letting it go.Report
I’d be more worried about a Democrat or a Republican repeating the Steele dossier scheme than repeating the alternative electors scheme.Report
Is anyone surprised by this?Report
At this point the only thing that can stop Trump from winning the nomination is the Grim Reaper.Report
Here’s hoping!Report
Be the change you want to see in the world.Report
Who knew The Dead Zone would be so prescient?Report
Okay, that’s enough fedposting for this thread.Report
DeSantis Says He Will Try Running Again When He’s A Senile 75-Year-Old
https://babylonbee.com/news/desantis-drops-out-of-race-after-evidence-surfaces-of-him-not-being-over-75Report