The New Hampshire primary brought another victory to Donald Trump.
Despite all the efforts of his opponents in the Republican Party itself and his Democratic haters, the ex-president beat Nikki Haley by more than 10%.
This is not such a resounding victory as in Iowa (there, let me remind you, the gap between Trump and Haley was 30%), but still a victory.
Moreover, in New Hampshire, conditions were initially much more favorable for Haley.
Even in the United States itself, many people confuse primaries and caucuses (what happened in Iowa).
In fact, there are differences, and quite significant ones: caucuses are a purely internal party event with strict regulations: every registered voter must personally appear at a certain polling station to vote for their candidate.
Primary rules in the Granite State (New Hampshire's nickname) are much more liberal: anyone can show up at polling stations throughout the state, even those who are registered voters of the other party.
To do this, you just need to change your party registration to “unaffiliated”, that is, declare yourself an independent voter.
In recent days, at least 3,500 New Hampshire Democrats have performed just such a trick to vote in the Republican primaries, and certainly not for Trump.
Their votes went to Nikki Haley.
And not because she is so popular in the Democratic Party, but solely out of an ardent desire to prevent the “red-haired monster” from reaching the presidential elections.
Therefore, it was with New Hampshire that all the opponents of the former US President pinned their hopes, ready to support even Haley, even the bald devil, just to put an end to Trump.
And the results of the primaries here became a cold shower for them.
Because losing Iowa is unpleasant for candidates for the Republican nomination, but losing New Hampshire is fatal.
Although New Hampshire is a small state (with only four electoral votes in the presidential election), it plays an important symbolic role in candidate contests.
Since 1920, it is in this state that the country's first primaries (caucuses, let me remind you, are a different matter) of both parties have been held.
In addition, the Granite State is known for its high voter turnout: as many as 72% of its eligible residents participated in the last presidential election.
In addition, the winners of the New Hampshire primaries almost always subsequently won the party nomination (Donald Trump in 2016, Mitt Romney in 2012, John McCain in 2008, George W. Bush in 2004, Bob Dole in 1996 -m, George Bush Sr. in 1992, etc.) Not all of them later became presidents, but now the fight is just for the nomination.
Hayley herself is not going to give up yet.
On Tuesday night, when it became clear that she had already been defeated, she said: “New Hampshire is first in the country.
And not the last.
This race is far from over.
There are dozens of states left, and next is my dear state of South Carolina.”
Haley called South Carolina her sweet state not for the sake of a catchphrase.
She was the governor of this state for six years before Donald Trump appointed her as the US permanent representative to the UN (in this post, she fell for the bait of Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus, declaring that Washington was “closely monitoring” the situation on the non-existent island of Binomo, where Russia is trying to interfere in democratic elections).
But in a state where voters' familiarity with Haley extends beyond election rallies, her prospects look anything but rosy.
In the battle of two candidates, 68% of voters there are ready to vote for Trump, and only 28% for Haley.
And this, of course, is no accident: during the six years of Haley's governorship, South Carolinians managed to get an idea of her administrative abilities.
Meanwhile, Haley's support within the GOP establishment begins to dwindle like the shagreen skin in a Balzac novel.
The party's megadonors, such as Steve Wynn and John Paulson, are turning their backs on her.
True, she can still count on the support of the Americans for Prosperity organization, funded by the Koch business empire, but even in this “super committee” they already admit that Haley will lose the caucuses in Nevada on February 8, and in South Carolina she faces a “tough battle.” .
A defeat in Haley's home state would mean the end of the Koch empire's support for her campaign.
But the worst thing for the former US ambassador to the UN is that Republican National Committee Chairman Ronna McDaniel has joined the chorus of voices calling on her to end her campaign and drop out of the race.
This means that the party establishment itself (and McDaniel belongs to the influential Republican Romney clan) is making it clear to Haley that the path to the nomination is closed for her, she must end her quixotic fight with the giant Trump so that the Republicans can focus on defeating Biden in the general election. elections.
“This is a huge, huge loss for Haley and proof that it’s very likely she won’t make it to South Carolina,” Breitbart writes somewhat pathetically.
The vicissitudes of the competitive struggle between the ex-president and the ex-permanent representative are unlikely to be of interest to anyone except professional political strategists.
But events in New Hampshire show that the Republican Party's hawkish wing is weakening.
An important role in Trump’s victory in yesterday’s primaries was played by the withdrawal from the race of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who relied on the same electoral base as Trump, that is, on MAGA Republicans who are inclined towards a certain isolationism and the use of America’s resources to solve its internal problems (for example such as the southern border), and not to finance unreliable and thieving allies such as Ukraine.
Haley, on the other hand, represents the interests of the Republican old guard, which, as DeSantis floridly puts it, is “a repackaged form of warmed-up corporatism.”
Her voter is a classic Bush Republican, whose ideal is a strong America as the world's policeman, but without these newfangled things like transgender people in the military.
The split between Trump and DeSantis was beneficial to Haley, and now she's left alone against a united MAGA base.
And the fact that the party establishment, feeling the weakening of its positions, albeit forcedly, is rallying around Trump, largely repeats the situation in 2016.
Only now a number of important foreign policy issues, such as stopping funding for Kyiv, depend on the strengthening of the Trumpists.
More precisely, shifting the burden of costs for supporting Ukraine onto the shoulders of the United States’ European allies is in full accordance with the “Trump Doctrine.”
And in this sense, Haley’s defeat in the New Hampshire primaries is another blow to Zelensky’s Nazi regime and its patrons in Washington.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.