Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s biggest albatross is Nikki, not Stormy

Nikki Haley

Nikki Haley's ghost "continues to haunt Trump in some very significant and, for him, ominous ways," writes Cupp.

Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.

Donald Trump has a woman problem.

That sounds like an obvious statement about the thrice married former president who is currently defending himself against charges he paid off a porn star he slept with just months after his wife gave birth to their son.

But Stormy Daniels — said porn star — isn’t the only woman stalking the embattled mogul, tying up his time and money, and threatening to upend his chance at a second term.


There’s E. Jean Carroll. A jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s, and then awarded her $83.3 million in punitive and compensatory damages after Trump defamed her in denying those claims.

There’s also New York State Attorney General Letitia James and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, two women who are pursuing additional charges against Trump in separate cases.

But it might not be a woman named Stormy, E. Jean, Tish or Fani who end Trump’s political aspirations. It might be a woman named Nikki.

You remember Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who took on Trump in the Republican primary a million years ago — or earlier this year?

Well, despite dropping out of the race after Super Tuesday, her ghost continues to haunt Trump in some very significant and, for him, ominous ways.

On Tuesday night, Indiana Republican primary voters unsurprisingly awarded Trump all 58 of their delegates. But somewhat surprisingly, more than 20% of them voted against him. While he handily won 78.3% of the vote, the 128,000 Republican voters who instead pulled the lever for Nikki Haley sent the presumptive nominee a serious message: “We are not with you.”

Lest you think that an anomaly, late last month 83.4% of Republicans in Pennsylvania voted for Trump. But significantly, 16.6% — or roughly 158,000 — voted for Haley.

There’s more.

In Washington state, Haley won 19.3% — 150,832 votes — of the Republican primary vote. In Arizona, she won 17.8%. In Illinois, she won 14.5%. In Ohio, she won 14.4%.

This was all after Haley had officially dropped out of the race.

Needless to say, Trump should be very concerned.

For one, there’s the bad optics of a former president losing as much as 20% of his base to someone who is no longer running.

But, obviously, there’s also the math. In as tight a general election as this is turning out to be, Trump simply can’t afford to lose that much of his base.

In 2020, the battleground states that determined the fate of the election were decided by even fewer voters than the groups currently going for Haley.

In Michigan, Joe Biden beat Trump by just 154,188 votes. In Arizona, Biden won by only 10,457 votes. In Georgia, you remember, Trump asked the secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” in order to overturn the election.

For Trump those are some tight — and terrifying — margins.

There are likely myriad reasons why a not insignificant number of Republicans are still refusing to back him. Some are sick of the chaos, the trials, the constant drama, distractions, and unseriousness. Others are turned off by Trump’s MAGA acolytes in Congress, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rep. Lauren Boebert, who consistently embarrass the party.

But there’s evidence a single issue is helping to drive those numbers: abortion.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal poll of seven battleground states, 39% of suburban women “cite abortion as a make-or-break issue for their vote — making it by far the most motivating issue for the group.”

And, “nearly three-quarters of them say the procedure should be legal all or most of the time, and a majority thinks Trump’s policies are too restrictive.”

Considering Trump keeps bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade, it’s not likely he can win those voters back.

It’s a question as to whether he’s even trying, in fact.

While he’s attempted to mitigate the blowback from a number of unpopular legislative wins against abortion rights by punting the issue rhetorically to the states, he’s explicitly told Haley voters he doesn’t want them.

After she won 43% of the vote in the New Hampshire Republican primary, Trump warned, “Anybody that makes a ‘Contribution’ to Birdbrain [Nikki Haley], from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the MAGA camp. We don’t want them, and will not accept them…!”

So the big question looms: Where do these voters go if Trump isn’t trying to win them back? Will they stay home? Vote for Biden? RFK Jr.?

They have a plethora of options other than holding their nose and voting for him. Believe it or not, despite dropping out, Nikki Haley might just be the woman standing between Trump and the White House.

©2024 S.E. Cupp. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read More

Varying speech bubbles.​ Dialogue. Conversations.

Examining the 2025 episodes that challenged democratic institutions and highlighted the stakes for truth, accountability, and responsible public leadership.

Getty Images, DrAfter123

Why I Was ‘Diagnosed’ With Trump Derangement Syndrome

After a year spent writing columns about President Donald Trump, a leader who seems intent on testing every norm, value, and standard of decency that supports our democracy, I finally did what any responsible citizen might do: I went to the doctor to see if I had "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

I told my doctor about my symptoms: constant worry about cruelty in public life, repeated anger at attacks on democratic institutions, and deep anxiety over leaders who treat Americans as props or enemies. After running tests, he gave me his diagnosis with a straight face: "You are, indeed, highly focused on abnormal behavior. But standing up for what is right is excellent for your health and essential for the health of the country."

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less