Charles Koch's anti-Trump group endorses Nikki Haley in Republican primary - ABC News
By: ABC News
Waking up!!!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Americans for Prosperity Action hopes they can somehow shake Trump's lead.
ByKelsey WalshNovember 28, 2023, 9:37 AM
Americans for Prosperity Action, an advocacy organization backed by billionaire Charles Koch and his network of wealthy conservatives, on Tuesday morning endorsed Nikki Haley as the Republican alternative to Donald Trump ahead of the Iowa caucus that begins the 2024 primary in less than 50 days.
A memo circulated by the the Americans for Prosperity CEO, Emily Seidel, described Haley, a former U.N. ambassador, as offering "America the opportunity to turn the page on the current political era."
AFP Action stayed out of the 2016 and 2020 presidential cycles but has significant resources to try and boost Haley's campaign: The group reported raising more than $70 million in its last public filing, in June, with $25 million coming from Koch himself and another $25 million from one of his nonprofit groups.
The group first announced plans to oppose Trump back in February, based in large part on concerns about his ability to defeat President Joe Biden. Since then, however, the Republican base has only embraced Trump more.
He now leads his closest primary rival in national polls, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, by nearly 50 points in 538's average. Haley narrowly trails DeSantis in the national average.
But the situation in early-voting states is slightly different and Trump is a relatively weaker front-runner there, even though he still leads the field by double digits.
MORE: Chris Christie plays down risk to Republicans if Trump loses primary but won't leave the race
Republican presidential candidate, Nikki Haley, attends the Republican primary presidential debate in Miami, Fla., Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2023.Eva Marie Uzcategui/Bloomberg via Getty Images
DeSantis, Haley and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are hoping an upset in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina could prove they are a viable option for primary voters across the country, though their campaigns so far this year have yet to notably weaken Trump's standing.
AFP Action thinks it can make a difference: ABC News reviewed several internal memos, based on the organization's polling and door-knocking operations in early states, suggesting that about four in 10 GOP voters in Iowa and New Hampshire say the primary campaign "hasn't begun" or has "just started."
AFP Action also believes that three in four Republicans are open to a Trump alternative if they think that person has a better chance of winning.
Following their endorsement on Tuesday -- the recipient is being kept under wraps -- AFP Action plans to pivot from their identification efforts of waffling Trump voters to persuasion against him, focusing their efforts and organizations and advertising on their chosen candidate.
They also plan to mobilize large-scale events and push turnout.
Former President and current Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump attends a campaign rally in Sioux City, Iowa, on Oct. 29, 2023.Scott Morgan/Reuters
The endorsement of Haley comes at a potentially significant point in the 2024 race.
Nobody has ever had leads as big as Trump's in the primary and then failed to go on to win their party's nomination, and the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire have a checkered track record. But Trump's campaign is also grappling with his slew of unprecedented legal troubles, all of which he denies, which will complicate his calendar with court appearances and trial dates.
MORE: Nikki Haley says her momentum 'is real,' but do Republican voters want someone not named Trump?
Seidel, the CEO of Americans for Prosperity, said that "early in the cycle, Americans were clear: 70% didn't want Trump or Biden to run."
The group's endorsement is intended to "ensure this opportunity isn't squandered."
No personal insults
No death wishes of any individual
All of NT's rules apply
Tags
Who is online
52 visitors
Damned good choice!
I will vote for her if she eventually becomes the nominee.
She represents the old establishment wing of the GOP.
My understanding is that you will vote for whoever is the GOP nominee. We all have the ability to vote in primaries and thus the GOP electorate (and others, state dependent) has the power to choose someone other than Trump as the GOP nominee.
To make this a more realistic possibility, I would hope for DeSantis to drop out. (Of course, the ideal is for Trump to no longer be in the running.) With both DeSantis and Haley running, Trump will almost certainly win the nomination.
Currently, Haley is who I support for the nomination and for the presidency. I greatly prefer Chris Sununu, but he is no longer an option.
Correct.
We all have the ability to vote in primaries and thus the GOP electorate (and others, state dependent) has the power to choose someone other than Trump as the GOP nominee.
Unfortunately, we have some open primaries that many democrats took advantage of in 2016. Haley has made the cut thus far. Iowa will have a big impact on the primary race. I'd like to see the field reduced to no more than 3 after that.
To make this a more realistic possibility, I would hope for DeSantis to drop out. (Of course, the ideal is for Trump to no longer be in the running.) With both DeSantis and Haley running, Trump will almost certainly win the nomination.
If Trump were out Haley would be out too. I know you don't understand that. As I said Haley represents the old establishment wing of the party. It is now about one third of the party IMO. The rest of where the party is today is split unevenly between Trump and DeSantis. If Donald Trump were to die of illness or be assassinated tomorrow (for example), all those votes would go to DeSantis. Thus, you were right the first time: You need DeSantis to drop out and for something to take Trump out of the running.
Currently, Haley is who I support for the nomination and for the presidency.
I'm sure she has some appeal to a wide range of voters.
I greatly prefer Chris Sununu, but he is no longer an option.
He is golden in NH. I really wish he had run for the Senate.
But that also means that responsible Ds and independents who do not want to see Trump within reach of the presidency can vote. That may not be unfortunate. Since much of the GOP is drunk with Trump, it will take sober voters to keep him from the nomination. This new blood might be a very good thing.
I don't think it is possible for you (anyone) to determine that. For example, if Trump were out of the race I would not be surprised if many of his supporters would simply not vote. Also, there are no doubt plenty of voters who are simply momentum voters with no deep ties to Trump. Further, it is not definitive that Trump voters are against the GOP represented by Haley.
In politics, rarely are events so predictable as you have indicated.
Me too. But he is probably hedging for a 2028 run at the presidency.
Responsible voters don't vote for a regime that opens our southern border to everyone, devalues the earnings of hard-working Americans, emasculates the police, incorporates a dual standard of justice, prosecutes political enemies and encourages America's enemies to make aggressive moves.
For example, if Trump were out of the race I would not be surprised if many of his supporters would simply not vote.
To the contrary, if anything happens to Trump, they will come out in force to vote for DeSantis in the memory of Trump.
But he is probably hedging for a 2028 run at the presidency.
Then he is a fool.
... a vindictive traitor.
That is a possibility too. This is not determinable. I hope we get to find out.
Why do you think Chris Sununu is a fool for holding off for a future run for PotUS?
The one who took money from China?
I hope we get to find out.
So do I. Do your worst to Trump, I want them really motivated.
Why do you think Chris Sununu is a fool for holding off for a future run for PotUS?
Because I don't think he can convey the things he quietly did in NH, that touched so many residents to the national stage. Somethings can't be explained. He can best be described as a hard-working governor of a small state. I just don't see how one sells that in a national campaign in these desperate times.
If Biden is found to have taken bribes in return for services of his office as you suggest then that would be a betrayal and he would be a traitor.
There is no question that Trump is a traitor; the Biden case is not even remotely as clear (based on facts and not partisan 'speculation' and hyperbole). But if Biden turns out to be a traitor, I would not vote for him either.
You call Sununu a fool because you do not see how he can sell his accomplishments and qualifications? A 'fool'?
Who is investigating that? Are you going to dismiss the obvious fact that he took money from China?
You call Sununu a fool because you do not see how he can sell his accomplishments and qualifications?
Yes. He was a good governor, but he is naive about national politics. He could have benefited his party and the country as a US Senator and that could have been his springboard to a Presidential campaign.
An obvious fact is one that can be demonstrated to be true. What is evidenced is that Joe Biden received $40,000 from his brother. What is inferred is that China paid Joe Biden through his brother James. That alone does not determine: 'Joe Biden took a $40,000 bribe from China' as an obvious fact. Part of the determination would be the quid-pro-quo favor that Biden ostensibly granted China for this $40,000.
Following the evidence to wherever it leads does not mean that one extrapolates into a desired outcome. It means accepting established evidence and drawing conclusions based on the evidence, forming hypotheses from same, and then gathering evidence to test these hypotheses. Your hypothesis is that Joe Biden was paid $40,000 to provide a favor to the government of China and that this money was laundered through his brother James. Now, logically, one must investigate and secure evidence to confirm or reject this hypothesis.
As I stated, If Biden is found to have taken bribes in return for services of his office then that would be a betrayal and he would be a traitor. But that must actually be determined ... not just deemed as such by partisan zeal.
In contrast, which you keep ignoring, there is overwhelming evidence that Trump is a traitor — that he intentionally sought to steal the 2020 election through lies, coercion, fraud, and incitement. That Trump intentionally tried to undermine the CotUS and disenfranchise the USA electorate.
You intend to vote for a traitor if he is the GOP nominee.
You deem Sununu a fool because you consider him naive about national politics??
You deem him a fool because you think he should have run for the US Senate before PotUS??
A fool??
If Sununu had stayed in the race and won the GOP nomination, would you vote for this fool?
I think a Senate run would have been a great move. But Sununu not choosing that path does not make him a fool.
Comon TiG.
Hey, we put two and two together and came up with four.
Of course Joe Biden benefitted from his family selling him, pretending otherwise and demanding that we show a check or cash from someone being handed directly to Joe or it is all nothing at all to see seems to be the best defense of Joe anyone can muster.
And the most glaring part is Merrick Garland covering it up.
Not a persuasive argument.
Is Merrick Garland an independent acting Attorney General?
All part of putting two and two together and coming up with four.................
Apparently you think Garland is less independent than the average AG of the USA. Make your case and I will opine on its merits.
it was a simple question, why dodge?
I asked Vic to make his case. If he does, I will, as I noted, opine.
If you want to make the case that Garland is less independent than the average AG of the USA then do so.
If not, then you have nothing to offer.
[Deleted]
They dont even try to make cases. They make unsupportable statements that they glean from right wing media.
It seems he asked your opinion, not to opine a case he would make. Do you have an opinion of garland?
[Deleted]
Yes, Garland seems to be operating similar to what one would expect of an AG of the USA.
So if someone wants to suggest that he is remarkably less independent than the average AG, I would like to hear the case supporting that position.
Are you able to make a case that Garland is less independent than the average AG of the USA? If so, let's hear it.
If not, you offer nothing.
Clearly. The implicit claim in Vic's question is that Garland is significantly less independent than what we would expect of an AG based upon our history of AGs. So I would like Vic to make his case; support the claim.
Apparently he and others are unable to make an actual argument supporting this implicit claim.
This is how they reply to everything.
The rest of us, who can make actual arguments, are wasting our time here.
[deleted]
Let's hear your argument then
We'll all be dead and buried before you get around to making an actual case for the things you say.
[deleted]
Either stop talking to me or call off the mods.
I'll ask him another question that I'm sure he won't answer.
Here it is TiG:
Should Garland prosecute Hunter the same way he prosecuted Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro?
[Deleted]
First of all, Vic, I answered your question. I think Garland is operating as a normal AG. But you apparently have special information that causes you to absolutely believe otherwise. Yet you refuse to make your case to support your belief.
No. Garland should prosecute Hunter according to the specifics of his case (evidence) and according to the law. Now, to answer your implied question, if Garland was excessive with Bannon and Navarro then that would be wrong. An AG works for the people of the US, not for a party, not for a president, etc. An AG should thus represent the interests of the people and do so in accordance with the law.
Since you are yet again making a claim through a question, make your case that Garland is not operating as a normal AG.
He is prosecuting his bosses' opponents while protecting his boss. You can't see that? That is insulting.
, if Garland was excessive with Bannon and Navarro then that would be wrong.
It had not been the norm for the DOJ to prosecute people for refusing to comply with a House Subpoena. Garland prosecuted the Trump men.
I'm asking if he should be consistent and do the same with Hunter? (second time)
An AG works for the people of the US, not for a party, not for a president, etc. An AG should thus represent the interests of the people and do so in accordance with the law.
That is obviously not true in the case of Garland nor was it the case with Obama's wingman.
Again, you dodged my question.
That is merely a claim. Make your case. That means deliver evidence and reason.
No this is not the second time you asked the question. You have asked a more specific question this time. You are playing a dishonest game and each time you do that you reduce the degree to which I will grant you any benefit of the doubt.
First, you ignore the history of Bannon:
Merrick Garland Letting Steve Bannon Slide Is Setting a Dangerous Example
Second, when did Hunter Biden refuse to comply with a House subpoena? He is negotiating a public hearing. Maybe you should wait until he refuses to show up before deeming this a fact.
Make your case. Mere claims are worthless.
When you fail to produce a rebuttal, you just claim I dodged your questions? Pathetic.
I gave you a detailed answer which, at its core, noted that:
Make your case that Hunter is getting preferential treatment by Garland.
Bannon tried to do the same thing. Then House Chairman Raskin said No, we go through the regular order: a private deposition then a public hearing. Garland backed that up. Hunter has a subpoena to appear for a private deposition on December 13th. His lawyer indicated he will only appear for a public hearing.
One more time: If Hunter refuses the subpoena requirements what should Garland do?
But he went one step further and did not show up. As noted, you might want to wait until Hunter refuses to show up.
No, this is NOT one more time. You are asking now an even more specific question. And this one is hypothetical.
This is a pathetic game you are playing, Vic. Just be honest and ask direct questions if you expect me or anyone else to treat your comments seriously.
The answer is obvious and can be gleaned from my answers to you. If Hunter (or anyone) refuses a House subpoena, they should be held accountable and the accountability should be according to precedent, law and independent of politics. That would mean, IMO, that Hunter would be charged with contempt of Congress.
Looks to me as though you have no argument.
Come on, man!
That's all different somehow.
My hope is that Hunter defies the subpoena and gets held in contempt.
[deleted]
But then there will be new spin as to why the cases are not similar.
“She represents the old establishment wing of the GOP.”
And that is one reason i don’t care much for her, that, and she’s a warhawk. But, if she is the nominee she’ll get my vote. The dems have swung sooo far left i can’t ever see myself voting for another dem.
This is the smart choice.
I'm surrounded by Carolinians!
After Trump elephant stomps her, she will endorse him the next day.
Is that with or without a debate? She can hold her own in a debate.
That she can. Wonder how many people ever saw her deliver speeches at the UN? She takes no crap................
When she "debates" Trump she will be debating an empty chair.
Trump will say "why should I debate her?, I'm beating her by 30 or 40 points".
Haley's biggest problem is that, although at times she has been a full throated Trump enabler, she is viewed as an outsider by MAGA, and thus she has no chance.
There was really only one unknown about the GOP nomination - would enough Trump supporters realize he is an unfit criminal? We have learned that very few of them have achieved that realization. He wont lose a single primary.
I saw a couple days ago that he is 30 points ahead of Haley in her home state South Carolina.
While I agree that this is the most likely scenario, I am going to stay on the Haley course.
I would rather see Haley as the nominee over Trump also, but I think it is extremely unlikely. The Trump cult is too big and too committed to him. When delusional people have made up their mind there is little than can be done about it.
I wish I could disagree with you on this point.
I have and she does not.
Same here.
Kinda like what happened to bernie in 2016 and 2020?
IMO Haley would be a better contender to challenge Trump than DeSantis. But Nikki Haley would let Joe Biden off the hook for his botched foreign policy. Haley would attack Biden for being too weak rather than too neoliberal. That would open the door for Republicans to backslide into the same old Reagan bullshit. And that would mean Biden wins reelection. God help us all.
Pretzelism.
Same here. Truman vs Dewey in the 1948 presidential election. Majority of polls favored Dewey over Truman with one newspaper saying Dewey wins on the front page on election night. I have little to no faith in presidential polls and nothing is written in stone.