Trump’s GOP Opponents Have No Answer for His Dominance

Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis are fighting for second place, but lack a clear strategy for competing with the former president.

By
84
Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis participate in the NBC News Republican presidential primary debate on November 8, 2023, in Miami, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

MIAMI—The stage keeps shrinking; Donald Trump’s lead keeps growing. That’s the scenario facing Republican candidates after yet another televised debate seemingly failed to catapult any of them into real contention with the former president in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

There were only five candidates on stage in South Florida on Wednesday, down from eight in the first debate and seven in the second. Throughout, the sparring over domestic and foreign policy has been substantive, budding rivalries have intensified, and the jockeying for second place has ratcheted up. Nikki Haley is rising; Vivek Ramaswamy is falling; Ron DeSantis is stuck in neutral.

None of it, including the recent withdrawals of former Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, has threatened Trump’s standing atop the field or produced a consensus alternative. And upon the conclusion of the third debate, conversations with the campaigns chasing the former president suggest they don’t have an obvious strategy for altering this essential dynamic of the GOP primary—other than to have faith that what hasn’t worked so far will eventually pay off.

Time is short; voting begins with the January 15 Iowa caucuses.

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
84
By
Comments (84)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I wonder, does anybody at the Dispatch have an idea of what a better plan would look like?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    "And thus far, there’s little indication the other candidates are any closer to figuring it out."

    "It" here being how to beat Trump in a public opinion poll in 2023.

    I'm not minimizing his chances next year. I do still dispute that his nomination is inevitable. Either way, I'm going to keep in mind the difference between the pseudo-science of public opinion polling and the relatively more meaningful and objective polling done at the ballot box.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      I agree.

      Collapse
  3. Craig Berry

    This is true- they cannot dent Trump's dominance. I think at this point all the candidates know that to be the case. They can't make their real case, which I think can be summarized as, "He's a fat 77 year-old who's got 91 felony charges against him. There's a chance the feds or the actuarial table gets him and then I'll be right there."

    Collapse
    1. Jfan

      Never mind that. How about "He lost to Crooked Hillary by 3 million votes. He lost to Sleepy Joe Biden by 7 million. Every real estate project he tried in the last forty years has failed. Losing is his brand. America is a land of second chances, but it doesn't have time for sore losers."

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        Add to that that Republicans lost every election from 2018-2023 except Youngkin in 2021 and they picked up a couple House seats in 2020.

        Collapse
  4. Sullyaugustine

    I'm still hopeful that someone will gain traction, because I'm going to really hate voting against a Republican presidential candidate in a general election for the first time in my now 75 year long life. . . If Trump is the candidate, I hope Manchin will be in the race, but otherwise I'll probably waste the vote on a Libertarian, or I'll write in Pence.
    However I think through the situation last December/January I come to the conclusion that Trump simply refused to accept the results of an election in which there was more fraud than the Ds will admit but far less than was needed to turn the result.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jeff Younger

      That’s an accurate assessment - having worked with Democrat public union get-out-the-vote efforts as a teen, I have no doubts that Democrats took full advantage -and then some - of the pandemic-related voting accommodations in 2020. But no one has convinced me there was a level of chicanery sufficient to flip a single state, let alone the 3 or 4 Trump needed to win the election. And much of what appeared, at first glance, to be peculiar (late surges in Biden numbers) makes sense when you understand how hard Trump worked to discourage mail-in/absentee ballots, while the Democrats had a concerted effort to utilize the more lax rules governing such ballots in 2020. Im sure there are Biden votes still trickling in.

      If Trump’s domination in the polling numbers to date is confirmed by actual votes early next year, you can go ahead and stick a fork in the GOP. And I would wager good money that Biden will not be President in 2027 or 2028. 4-5 years is an eternity for someone battling mild-to-moderate cognitive decline. God help us all if Kamala is taking the oath before the 2028 election.

      Collapse
  5. Spook1320-Generaluse

    ===> "Team Christie’s optimism is based, at least in part, on its belief that Trump’s nearly 60 percent support in current polling is actually a sign of weakness—if you treat Trump as a quasi-incumbent."

    I really really really look to The Dispatch to be so coherent and logical that the constant "THE NEWEST NATIONAL POLL REPORTS [insert Presidential polling finding here] refrain of traditional media outlets is readily set aside, so that full focus and attention can be granted *exclusively* to any polling that *actually has merit*.

    To wit...

    Please have some internal discussions next staff meeting about citing national polling *at all*. Yes, you have some peer pressure to endure if you exclude it from being referenced, but us subscribers will benefit from the absence of these tangentially-related factoids gumming up the writing we read here.

    In this case, it truly does mean nothing to the challengers what DJT may be polling nationally. *The ONLY polling that matters* in the current environment is Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and perhaps Nevada. Secondary to those are the battleground states, though the early caucus/primary states are a step even above those because out of IA, NH and SC *history substantiates the BIG MO* forms... indeed for our current POTUS, he was considered an also-ran... until he wasn't... until South Carolina gave Biden his golden ticket courtesy of Jim Clyburn.

    That to say, then, a national percentage in November is not nearly as relevant as whatever the IA, NH and SC numbers are.

    That's what makes this a contest still. The number of highly-regarded polls in any given state is limited as-is. But curiously, very few have been conducted in those states in the last 4-6 weeks.

    Christie's people are right. Trump has so much of the name recognition still, and until the RNC somehow strong arms him on to a debate stage so that he's being compared and contrasted in a vivid way, he naturally benefits much like an incumbent benefits.

    Important side note that seems to me to be getting incredibly little attention...

    Christie went from saying previously he would reassess his campaign after the NH results to, now, saying he's in it through the convention. The premise is that he believes ultimately the party will not actually nominate someone who has been convicted, daring Americans to test the theory of whether a felon could win a general election... and now that there's some more tangible reason to believe Mark Meadows is actively cooperating with Jack Smith, Christie believes the case against Trump will be overwhelming.

    That's compelling, but maybe only to me (?).Show less

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      David M. Drucker vertical-nib Author

      Appreciate your comment and your thoughts. Your point about national polls vs. state polls has merit. But I'm going to disagree w/ you in this case, which I'm saying primarily as a way to explain why I keep mentioning national polls in various stories. While it's true that presidential primaries and general elections are decided state by state, national polling can be useful in terms of revealing sentiment. And in this case, Trump's lead is so large, and has been so durable, that I think it tells us something about the hill his GOP opponents have to climb in Iowa, NH, SC, etc . Even though Trump's lead is smaller in those states than it is nationally, it's still pretty significant, and it's proven rather durable. In any event, that is how I have viewed this issue vis-a-vis my reporting. Thanks again for your thought-provoking comment. -d

      Collapse
      1. Spook1320-Generaluse

        Hi, David. Appreciate that you appreciate. :)

        We do not disagree by much... the words "tangentially-related factoids" was used, and it compares favorably to the "revealing sentiment" words you use.

        However, that said... does it *really* tell us any "revealing sentiment" that isn't already evident in the ***actually salient*** state polls?

        And yes, Trump's lead is fairly large in the early state polls, but that's arguably significantly affected by the lack of (a) polls by well-regarded orgs and (b) timely polls... in some cases we barely have any new intel that evolved out of the 2nd debate, let alone the 3rd.

        And and... yes, yes... Trump's national polling lead appears to be large, but then again, as a former director of a social science institute, there's some chicken-and-egg effect that we have to acknowledge may be a substantial factor driving that... to the degree that individuals surveyed have been mainly persuaded and have foreclosed to the quasi-incumbent's inevitability.

        That to suggest... again, then... the national polling not only doesn't give us insight that isn't already revealed in actually-salient early state polling... it plausibly helps enhance numbers by having a promotional effect for the quasi-incumbent.

        Thank you again for reading here in the peon section (... or, at least that applies to this lone post by this particular subscriber. :) )

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

        I agree with this: "Trump's lead is so large, and has been so durable, that I think it tells us something about the hill his GOP opponents have to climb ...."

        I know you always have in mind, Mr. Drucker, as you slice and dice this data from public opinion polling, that you're engaged in guesswork and projection. But without frequent reminders from you of that, the emotional power of numbers gives these projections undue reality that can become self-fulfilling.

        Bless you for reading these comments. You're a good fit for this audience and, probably, vice versa.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    TheMatMan

    While clearer and better written overall, this column doesn't really add anything to any number of Nick C's articles from the last few months.

    Collapse
  7. Mirabelle

    They don't need an answer but need to simply offer an alternative, which they're doing. They are showing, at least some of them, that normality could be a feature of the Republican party if enough voters want it. This is better than the complete capitulation of the party in 2020 when all you got was crazy or crazy.

    The pundit expectations placed on these candidates is enormous. They are supposed to save the day and vanquish Trump singlehandedly.

    Not gonna happen.

    Instead, we will see where the voters are at with Trump this cycle, and go from there. I appreciate these serious candidates who are presenting a choice. Whether or not voters take it isn't their fault since conservative media has done such a good job convincing so many R voters that lies about Trump are truth. They aren't fighting Trump but disinformation. The legacy of lies persists.

    Collapse
  8. CB76

    "I remain convinced that neither Biden nor Trump will be their party's nominee ... blahdididy blah blah, blah blahblah"

    I'm certain I'll still be reading comments like that both here and at NRO in July. Still stubbornly refusing to accept reality.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    Trump support among Republicans is a phenomenon that parallels support for Hamas among progressives. Trump support can more broadly be taken as anti-Democrat. Given that the Democrats direct so much animus at Trump, supporting Trump is a strong symbol of opposing the Democrats. However, a lot of that support for Trump doesn't seem to understand or acknowledge the reality of Trump's unfitness for office, or the authoritarian threat he poses to American democracy.

    Progressive support for Hamas is really meant as support for the Palestinians, and is even more generally anti-Israeli. We see the same ignorance or denial of the nature of Hamas or its culpability for the current war, and a failure to comprehend that Palestinian political goals and attitudes towards Israel and Jews are a fundamental obstacle to a peaceful resolution.

    I'm at a loss to come up with a solution. The facts are all readily available, but people are determined to stay locked in their own information ecosystems to avoid challenging their preconceptions. We also see people determined to embrace wishful thinking rather than deal with unpalatable practical solutions.

    Collapse
  10. Jaybrown

    Dear Democrats: If you don't want Trump, run someone other than Biden.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Delenda Est

      Democrat here, desperately wishing the party had the nerve to throw Biden overboard. Not because he's been a bad president, but because he's going to lose. At this point, it'd be better to go with President Harris. She has a better chance than Biden now, and if she loses Dems can at least say they tried to do *something,* to avert the Trump nightmare.

      Collapse
      1. Jaybrown

        I think Harris would be equally bad for the country as Trump, for entirely different reasons.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Dear Republicans: get rid of Trump and take responsibility for yourselves.

      Collapse
      1. Jaybrown

        I'm not a Republican. I won't vote for Trump or Biden (which would actually be a vote for Harris). If Democrats would find a semi-moderate replacement for Biden that isn't a mumbling geriatric, I'd likely vote for that person if Trump is the R nominee. I suspect I'm not alone.

        Collapse
      2. CatoTheElder

        Is Jaybrown a Republican? If not, then your rejoinder becomes a type of non sequitur. There are many political conservatives bemoaning the state of the Republican Party, and are expending every effort to “get rid of Trump”, with no discernible effect.

        If it’s true, as many of the political left would have us believe, that the GOP is, stem to stern, a Trump cult, and if the Democratic Party, as many of the same people declare and/or take as a given, is a sane, sober, and responsible group favoring democracy, good governance, etc., then it would seem more than merely reasonable that a genuinely concerned outside observer wishing the best for America and the world might devote most efforts to persuading the “sane, sober, and responsible group” of the desirability of a change in plan.

        Let’s suppose that we come across a grandfather and grandchild who have come out to an open field to fly kites. Their kite is now down on the ground in an adjacent pasture. The kindly old granddad, a enfeebled by years and their baggage, is preparing to gingerly clamber through/over the barb-wire fence to get the kite. A short distance from the kite, watching proceedings carefully, is a large bull. There’s a sign on the fence warning that the bull is dangerous, don’t go in the pasture, and if you do, whatever happens is on you.

        The grandchild is wildly despondent that the kite is on the ground over there, and wants it back, now. The bull paws at the ground.

        Would it be more fruitful to reason about plans and options with the grandad, or the bull and his absent and uncaring owner?

        Collapse
        1. Lrander

          None of the above. Convince the child that it is more advantageous to purchase a new and better kite.

          Collapse
          1. CatoTheElder

            Cute. Sadly, though, it turns out the child is absolutely convinced that there is no better kite. And the farmer likes the bull just as and where he is.

            Collapse
        2. Jaybrown

          Well said, Cato. I haven't been a Republican since 2016.

          Collapse
          1. CatoTheElder

            I thought such was likely the case. I suspect if you had it within your power to stop Trump from being the GOP nominee, it’d be a done deal, and I would go to bed a happier man this evening.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      HappyCow

      And vice versa

      Collapse
Load More