What would happen if either Trump or Biden died during the presidential campaign, when the names had been finalised for the ballot - would votes automatically go to their running mate ?
So I’m hoping that the majority of non Trump supporters will turn out in droves in November 24.
Lest anyone draw the wrong inference from this, the U.S. presidential election is on November 5 this year. I don't know what happens on November 24.
Given that he said “in November 24” rather than “on November 24, I thought it was clear @Barnabas62 meant November ‘24, i.e., November of 2024.
Don’t mind! I appreciate I was a bit ambiguous. Nick Tamen read me right. I’m just a little rusty after a long absence.
The vagaries of dating systems. That usage would be less of a problem over here.
Anyway as Brit what happens is there is a draw for the Republican nomination? And is that a standard system or does it vary by party
So I’m hoping that the majority of non Trump supporters will turn out in droves in November 24.
Lest anyone draw the wrong inference from this, the U.S. presidential election is on November 5 this year. I don't know what happens on November 24.
Given that he said “in November 24” rather than “on November 24, I thought it was clear @Barnabas62 meant November ‘24, i.e., November of 2024.
Don’t mind! I appreciate I was a bit ambiguous. Nick Tamen read me right. I’m just a little rusty after a long absence.
The vagaries of dating systems. That usage would be less of a problem over here.
Anyway as Brit what happens is there is a draw for the Republican nomination? And is that a standard system or does it vary by party
It has been a long while since we have had a full-on draw. As I understand it, the delegates are committed to a particular candidate determined by voters in the individual states for one or two ballots; but, then, the state delegates are no longer committed to the original candidate, and then that is where the wheeling and dealing begins the delegates for minor candidates may commit to one of the leading candidates sometimes for pledges made by the candidate in consideration of the delegate's interest. There can be multiple ballots until someone finally gets a majority of the delegates.
As an outsider I find it sad that the Democrats cannot replace Biden.
I am informed that the Republican elite don't want Trump but it's the ordinary voters who decide
It's interesting that you put such a different emphasis on what are very similar situations. It's not as if there have been no challengers to Biden (RFK, Jr., Marianne Williamson, Dean Phillips), it's just that they failed to get any real support from either Democratic elites or Democratic voters. This is unsurprising given that Joe Biden is an incumbent president who has been fairly successful at advancing his party's agenda, despite Congressional obstacles.
As for the Republican elite, a good number of them have already endorsed Trump's efforts to seek the Republican nomination for a third time. They may secretly in their shriveled hearts want Donald Trump to go away, but actions speak louder than words.
Anyway as Brit what happens is there is a draw for the Republican nomination? And is that a standard system or does it vary by party
The nomination is decided by the vote of convention delegates. Delegates are bound to support whoever the voters back home picked on the first ballot. If no candidate has a majority on the first ballot (a mere plurality is not enough) delegates are allowed to change their votes. Deals can be cut during such a "brokered convention". This has not happened since the adoption of the modern primary system, but used to happen quite frequently in the days of the proverbial "smoke filled room". For example, the 1920 Republican National Convention had to go to ten ballots before agreeing to compromise nominee Warren G. Harding.
The only difference between the Democratic and Republican convention process is that the Democrats have what are known as "superdelegates". These are current Democratic federal office holders, past and current presidents and vice presidents, and certain party officials. Essentially anyone with a vested interest in the presidential nomination. For example, current federal office holders have a stake in the down-ballot effects the party's nominee might have in their state. In the 2016 Democratic primary supporters of Bernie Sanders supporters objected to a shadowy group of insiders having such influence on the party's presidential nomination so the rules were changed and the superdelegates now can only vote on the second or subsequent ballots. No national convention has gone to a second ballot since the 1952 Democratic National Convention, when it took four ballots to nominate Adlai Stevenson.
What would happen if either Trump or Biden died during the presidential campaign, when the names had been finalised for the ballot - would votes automatically go to their running mate ?
I only know the answer to this because it was discussed in 2020 when Trump got covid. The votes don't automatically go to the running mate of the deceased candidate. The Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee would vote on a new candidate, which means a very small number of people would be making that choice - a few hundred for the DNC, less than 200 for the RNC. If it was too late to change the ballots, they'd announce their choice and votes for Trump, for example, would go to their new candidate. It might make sense to choose the running mate, but they wouldn't have to.
Someone wrote a letter to our local paper suggesting a Biden, for president, A Democrat and Chris Christy for Vice President a Republican run together. I could vote for that. Never happen in a million years.
Someone wrote a letter to our local paper suggesting a Biden, for president, A Democrat and Chris Christy for Vice President a Republican run together. I could vote for that. Never happen in a million years.
So just so I got this straight...
The ticket is Biden for prez and Christie for veep? IOW if Biden dies in office ya get Christie?
Because, while I am willing to grant that Christie might be one of the very few Republicans who is actually embarrassed about his party's pandering to the theocratic-populist base, I'd really need to know alot more about his beliefs and policies before thinking that proposed ticket is a prudent idea.
Out of all his positions, I think the ones on education would be the most problematic for someone running on a Democrat-headed ticket. I know some Democrats(eg. Booker, I believe) are pro-"parental choice" on private schools and vouchers, but none of them have been tested in a presidential election. (And yeah, I know the POTUS really only has direct authority over the Department Of Education, but even there, I assume there's a bit of room for "disruption".)
On social-issues, he seems CURRENTLY liberal enough not to terrify the Swifties, but I don't know if he'll have the same leeway in dodging troglodytish statements from 2012 that Joe Biden had. Though I guess if there's no significant party to the left of the ticket on social issues, that wouldn't be a big problem.
A ticket consisting of an elderly white guy and an older middle-aged white guy, both hailing from that perceptionally amorphous not-quite-northeast-not-quite-dixie region of the country? Don't really see that working in the PR department.
A ticket consisting of an elderly white guy and an older middle-aged white guy, both hailing from that perceptionally amorphous not-quite-northeast-not-quite-dixie region of the country? Don't really see that working in the PR department.
Especially given that it would mean the older middle-aged white guy took the place currently occupied by a woman of color.
A ticket consisting of an elderly white guy and an older middle-aged white guy, both hailing from that perceptionally amorphous not-quite-northeast-not-quite-dixie region of the country? Don't really see that working in the PR department.
The "Double Bubba" worked for Clinton and Gore, both Southerners from neighbouring states. It worked quite well in the case. Twice.
A ticket consisting of an elderly white guy and an older middle-aged white guy, both hailing from that perceptionally amorphous not-quite-northeast-not-quite-dixie region of the country? Don't really see that working in the PR department.
The "Double Bubba" worked for Clinton and Gore, both Southerners from neighbouring states. It worked quite well in the case. Twice.
Yeah, I know. But I think things are a little different now, in terms of Democratic client groups' willingness to accept uniformly white-male tickets, especially given what would be a severe demographic reversal, as mentioned by @Nick Tamen.
Plus, Clinton and Gore were youthful and charismatic. By contrast, Biden ekes by on "Well, he may be a doddering old geezer, but he's OUR doddering old geezer", and Christie comes off as the guy skimming pinball-machine profits in the burger joints of Newark.
Someone wrote a letter to our local paper suggesting a Biden, for president, A Democrat and Chris Christy for Vice President a Republican run together. I could vote for that. Never happen in a million years.
And neither was Rhodes Scolar Clinton, really. But I assume @Sober Preacher's Kid was riffing on media buzz from the time, which did indeed use that exact phrase to point out that the ticket, in defiance of the common practice, contained two candidates from the same region.
I agree, but I think Christy might pull in some Republican voters, and I think most anti-Trump Democrats would be willing to do this vote. This is all a game of course, nothing like this is going to happen.
I'm pretty sure if Joe Biden had done something like this the calls for his immediate removal from office would be deafening.
Former President Donald Trump appeared to mistakenly refer to GOP rival Nikki Haley instead of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., when discussing the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at a campaign rally in New Hampshire on Friday night.
The mix-up came during Trump's remarks to a crowd of supporters in Concord, where he spoke for more than 90 minutes and repeatedly bashed Haley, who served in his administration as an ambassador to the United Nations and has never been a member of Congress.
“Nikki Haley, you know they, do you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it. All of it, because of lots of things like Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guard, whatever they want. They turned it down. They don’t want to talk about that. These are very dishonest people,” Trump said.
DeSantis has dropped out, presumably deciding he's got the publicity he wanted and he'd best get out of Trump's way before the redcaps turn on him. I suspect he'll be a good bet for the 2028 nomination if there are still elections in the US by that point.
DeSantis has dropped out, presumably deciding he's got the publicity he wanted and he'd best get out of Trump's way before the redcaps turn on him. I suspect he'll be a good bet for the 2028 nomination if there are still elections in the US by that point.
I believe there will continue to be elections beyond 2024.
For those who are unaware, Dixville Notch is a small town in New Hampshire that makes a habit of being the first jurisdiction in New Hampshire to report its results. Normally results aren't reported until the polls close, but there's an exception to that if everyone on the voting rolls has cast a ballot. With (apparently) six registered voters they all show up at midnight, cast their ballots, and then report the results.
Are the results from Dixville Notch regarded as being in any way predictive?
No. Or rather, it's not predictive of either New Hampshire or the nation as a whole, but it is predictive that a lot of journalists will descend on this remote part of the state looking for early copy.
Are the results from Dixville Notch regarded as being in any way predictive?
They generally sided with the eventual GOP nominee through 2012, but they don't appear to like Trump; they didn't pick him in 2016 and 2020. They haven't been good at predicting the Dem nominee.
I'm pretty sure if Joe Biden had done something like this the calls for his immediate removal from office would be deafening.
Former President Donald Trump appeared to mistakenly refer to GOP rival Nikki Haley instead of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., when discussing the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at a campaign rally in New Hampshire on Friday night.
The mix-up came during Trump's remarks to a crowd of supporters in Concord, where he spoke for more than 90 minutes and repeatedly bashed Haley, who served in his administration as an ambassador to the United Nations and has never been a member of Congress.
“Nikki Haley, you know they, do you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it. All of it, because of lots of things like Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guard, whatever they want. They turned it down. They don’t want to talk about that. These are very dishonest people,” Trump said.
It is very remarkable how dreadful mistakes like this have such little impact on Trump’s popularity with the GOP faithful. And this is not an isolated example either.
Trump's stump speech is even coming more incomprehensible.
While Doublethink wishes to avoid diagnosing Trump from a distance, Mary Trump, who is a psychologist has said DJT's mental health is deteriorating, and Liz Cheney is adamant he is unfit for public office.
Trump's stump speech is even coming more incomprehensible.
While Doublethink wishes to avoid diagnosing Trump from a distance, Mary Trump, who is a psychologist has said DJT's mental health is deteriorating, and Liz Cheney is adamant he is unfit for public office.
I think we all agree he's unfit for office, but that's largely independent of any purported cognitive decline. Mary Trump, meanwhile, is not an independent observer.
Trump wins New Hampshire. Nikki is behind by 7 points. On to South Carolina.
For those who want the full results you can find them here. The Trump/Haley split is currently 54.5%/43.2%. A solid victory for Trump, but not the blowout you'd expect for someone essentially running as if he were an incumbent. Here's the delegate count.
The first number is the total number of delegates. The number in parentheses is the number of delegates gained in New Hampshire. The '?' is there because it is still uncertain how one New Hampshire delegate will be awarded. Only 92% of the Republican primary vote has been counted, so there's still some question as to who will get that last delegate.
On the Democratic side the primary is unofficial and awarded no delegates due to the state party's defiance of the DNC primary calendar. As such Joe Biden does not appear on the ballot. His local supporters have been mounting a write-in campaign for him. At present, with 93% of the Democratic primary vote counted he seems to have won 53.1% of the vote. Assuming he takes a similar proportion of the as-yet unprocessed write-in vote as he has so far he will probably end up with about 64% of the total vote. Not bad for someone not even on the ballot.
Mary Trump, meanwhile, is not an independent observer.
Indeed. She was involved in a lawsuit against DJT. As a comparison, imagine a psychiatrist lives next door to the mayor, sues the mayor unsuccesfully after getting bit by the mayor's dog, and then builds a mini-career going on local TV and giving negative diagnoses of the mayor's personality.
I don't think anyone would take that psychiatrist seriously, no matter how many times he brandished his credentials or talked about how well he personally knows the mayor.
Please don't refer to the woman in the race by her first name when you consistently refer to the men by their last names.
My apologies. However the male candidate consistently uses his last name on his campaign signs, but the female candidate usually uses her first name--not actually her first name which is Nimrata-- but her middle name on her campaign signs.
Please don't refer to the woman in the race by her first name when you consistently refer to the men by their last names.
My apologies, However the male candidate consistently uses his last name on his campaign signs, but the female candidate usually uses her first name--not actually her first name which is Nimrata-- but her middle name.
This is not unknown among politicians, such as Addison Mitchell "Mitch" McConnell III, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.
Sorry for the double post, At the time I posted the seven point difference between Trump and Haley, the returns were still coming in. Once the rural votes were tallied, there was an 11 point spread, more or less.
This is not unknown among politicians, such as Addison Mitchell "Mitch" McConnell III, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.
It's common enough among humans who are not politicians, as well. There's no rule that the name that you call yourself by has to be the one that comes first in your sequence of given names. You can call yourself a nickname that isn't one of your given names at all if you like. Anyone who complains about this is an arsehole of the first water. Your name is whatever you want to call yourself. It doesn't matter whether or not this differs from what is written on your legal documents, and it doesn't matter why it's different.
This is not unknown among politicians, such as Addison Mitchell "Mitch" McConnell III, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.
It's common enough among humans who are not politicians, as well. There's no rule that the name that you call yourself by has to be the one that comes first in your sequence of given names. You can call yourself a nickname that isn't one of your given names at all if you like. Anyone who complains about this is an arsehole of the first water. Your name is whatever you want to call yourself. It doesn't matter whether or not this differs from what is written on your legal documents, and it doesn't matter why it's different.
Please, let's not get into semantics. I was just pointing out the male candidate prefers using his formal last name, but the female candidate tends to be more informal in her campaign.
But, since Ruth has raised her concern, I will try to be more formal with both names.
Please, let's not get into semantics. I was just pointing out the male candidate prefers using his formal last name, but the female candidate tends to be more informal in her campaign.
But, since Ruth has raised her concern, I will try to be more formal with both names.
Thank you. I will note that semantics, the study of meaning in language, is important. Even if Haley has been more informal in her campaign, she deserves to be referred to with the same respect accorded other candidates, not because I have raised the issue, but because how people are referred to means something.
Haley's campaign logo uses the full name she usually goes by: NIKKIHALEY with "Nikki" in white and "Haley" in red. She does use just "Nikki" in some formats; "Nikki" is far more distinctive and memorable than "Haley," and lots of candidates in recent years have used their first names in campaigning in order to seem more relateable. "Trump" is Donald Trump's brand, literally, so of course he sticks with that, but we had "Bernie" and "I Stand with Rand" and, my favorite, "Jeb!" George W. Bush ran with "BUSH" on his posters in 2000, but 16 years later Jeb Bush apparently felt the need to stand a little apart from the family name. That made sense to me; the exclamation point, not so much.
I still strongly suspect Rand Paul's father named him after ghastly "Virtue of Selfishness" advocate Ayn Rand. Ugh.
I could easily believe it, but I've seen interviews with Rand in which he pretty casually denies the claim, and gives some alternate explanation for his name.
I could go either way on the plausibility of that, but it seems odd that, if he WERE named after Ayn Rand, he would bother denying it, since in the same interview he also expresses admiration for Ms. Rand.
I dunno. Maybe he thinks that people knowing his name's origins will prompt more of them to actually read Ayn Rand. I think it's safe to say her pop-nietzschean attacks on xtianity and her related flouting of "mom and apple pie" values(eg. even most right-wingers don't consciously view selfishness as a virtue) could alienate the God-fearing among the Republican base.
Comments
Don’t mind! I appreciate I was a bit ambiguous. Nick Tamen read me right. I’m just a little rusty after a long absence.
I am informed that the Republican elite don't want Trump but it's the ordinary voters who decide
The vagaries of dating systems. That usage would be less of a problem over here.
Anyway as Brit what happens is there is a draw for the Republican nomination? And is that a standard system or does it vary by party
It has been a long while since we have had a full-on draw. As I understand it, the delegates are committed to a particular candidate determined by voters in the individual states for one or two ballots; but, then, the state delegates are no longer committed to the original candidate, and then that is where the wheeling and dealing begins the delegates for minor candidates may commit to one of the leading candidates sometimes for pledges made by the candidate in consideration of the delegate's interest. There can be multiple ballots until someone finally gets a majority of the delegates.
It's interesting that you put such a different emphasis on what are very similar situations. It's not as if there have been no challengers to Biden (RFK, Jr., Marianne Williamson, Dean Phillips), it's just that they failed to get any real support from either Democratic elites or Democratic voters. This is unsurprising given that Joe Biden is an incumbent president who has been fairly successful at advancing his party's agenda, despite Congressional obstacles.
As for the Republican elite, a good number of them have already endorsed Trump's efforts to seek the Republican nomination for a third time. They may secretly in their shriveled hearts want Donald Trump to go away, but actions speak louder than words.
The nomination is decided by the vote of convention delegates. Delegates are bound to support whoever the voters back home picked on the first ballot. If no candidate has a majority on the first ballot (a mere plurality is not enough) delegates are allowed to change their votes. Deals can be cut during such a "brokered convention". This has not happened since the adoption of the modern primary system, but used to happen quite frequently in the days of the proverbial "smoke filled room". For example, the 1920 Republican National Convention had to go to ten ballots before agreeing to compromise nominee Warren G. Harding.
The only difference between the Democratic and Republican convention process is that the Democrats have what are known as "superdelegates". These are current Democratic federal office holders, past and current presidents and vice presidents, and certain party officials. Essentially anyone with a vested interest in the presidential nomination. For example, current federal office holders have a stake in the down-ballot effects the party's nominee might have in their state. In the 2016 Democratic primary supporters of Bernie Sanders supporters objected to a shadowy group of insiders having such influence on the party's presidential nomination so the rules were changed and the superdelegates now can only vote on the second or subsequent ballots. No national convention has gone to a second ballot since the 1952 Democratic National Convention, when it took four ballots to nominate Adlai Stevenson.
I only know the answer to this because it was discussed in 2020 when Trump got covid. The votes don't automatically go to the running mate of the deceased candidate. The Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee would vote on a new candidate, which means a very small number of people would be making that choice - a few hundred for the DNC, less than 200 for the RNC. If it was too late to change the ballots, they'd announce their choice and votes for Trump, for example, would go to their new candidate. It might make sense to choose the running mate, but they wouldn't have to.
So just so I got this straight...
The ticket is Biden for prez and Christie for veep? IOW if Biden dies in office ya get Christie?
Because, while I am willing to grant that Christie might be one of the very few Republicans who is actually embarrassed about his party's pandering to the theocratic-populist base, I'd really need to know alot more about his beliefs and policies before thinking that proposed ticket is a prudent idea.
Out of all his positions, I think the ones on education would be the most problematic for someone running on a Democrat-headed ticket. I know some Democrats(eg. Booker, I believe) are pro-"parental choice" on private schools and vouchers, but none of them have been tested in a presidential election. (And yeah, I know the POTUS really only has direct authority over the Department Of Education, but even there, I assume there's a bit of room for "disruption".)
On social-issues, he seems CURRENTLY liberal enough not to terrify the Swifties, but I don't know if he'll have the same leeway in dodging troglodytish statements from 2012 that Joe Biden had. Though I guess if there's no significant party to the left of the ticket on social issues, that wouldn't be a big problem.
A ticket consisting of an elderly white guy and an older middle-aged white guy, both hailing from that perceptionally amorphous not-quite-northeast-not-quite-dixie region of the country? Don't really see that working in the PR department.
The "Double Bubba" worked for Clinton and Gore, both Southerners from neighbouring states. It worked quite well in the case. Twice.
Yeah, I know. But I think things are a little different now, in terms of Democratic client groups' willingness to accept uniformly white-male tickets, especially given what would be a severe demographic reversal, as mentioned by @Nick Tamen.
Plus, Clinton and Gore were youthful and charismatic. By contrast, Biden ekes by on "Well, he may be a doddering old geezer, but he's OUR doddering old geezer", and Christie comes off as the guy skimming pinball-machine profits in the burger joints of Newark.
I will take this moment to remind people that Chris Christie is both massively corrupt and massively unpopular.
There is nothing wrong with Kamala Harris as V.P.
And neither was Rhodes Scolar Clinton, really. But I assume @Sober Preacher's Kid was riffing on media buzz from the time, which did indeed use that exact phrase to point out that the ticket, in defiance of the common practice, contained two candidates from the same region.
Also, they were both Baptist, IIRC.
During the 1988 presidential primaries the comic strip Doonesbury dubbed him "Prince Albert".
I agree, but I think Christy might pull in some Republican voters, and I think most anti-Trump Democrats would be willing to do this vote. This is all a game of course, nothing like this is going to happen.
I believe there will continue to be elections beyond 2024.
For those who are unaware, Dixville Notch is a small town in New Hampshire that makes a habit of being the first jurisdiction in New Hampshire to report its results. Normally results aren't reported until the polls close, but there's an exception to that if everyone on the voting rolls has cast a ballot. With (apparently) six registered voters they all show up at midnight, cast their ballots, and then report the results.
No. Or rather, it's not predictive of either New Hampshire or the nation as a whole, but it is predictive that a lot of journalists will descend on this remote part of the state looking for early copy.
They generally sided with the eventual GOP nominee through 2012, but they don't appear to like Trump; they didn't pick him in 2016 and 2020. They haven't been good at predicting the Dem nominee.
It is very remarkable how dreadful mistakes like this have such little impact on Trump’s popularity with the GOP faithful. And this is not an isolated example either.
While Doublethink wishes to avoid diagnosing Trump from a distance, Mary Trump, who is a psychologist has said DJT's mental health is deteriorating, and Liz Cheney is adamant he is unfit for public office.
I think we all agree he's unfit for office, but that's largely independent of any purported cognitive decline. Mary Trump, meanwhile, is not an independent observer.
There was but when he lost it stopped. Now he is back on the campaign trail this is the best place IMO. We have gone over his charms several times.
For those who want the full results you can find them here. The Trump/Haley split is currently 54.5%/43.2%. A solid victory for Trump, but not the blowout you'd expect for someone essentially running as if he were an incumbent. Here's the delegate count.
1. Trump 32 (+12)
2. Haley 18 (+9)
3. DeSantis 9 (+0)
4. Ramaswamy 3 (+0)
?. ??? 1 (+1)
The first number is the total number of delegates. The number in parentheses is the number of delegates gained in New Hampshire. The '?' is there because it is still uncertain how one New Hampshire delegate will be awarded. Only 92% of the Republican primary vote has been counted, so there's still some question as to who will get that last delegate.
On the Democratic side the primary is unofficial and awarded no delegates due to the state party's defiance of the DNC primary calendar. As such Joe Biden does not appear on the ballot. His local supporters have been mounting a write-in campaign for him. At present, with 93% of the Democratic primary vote counted he seems to have won 53.1% of the vote. Assuming he takes a similar proportion of the as-yet unprocessed write-in vote as he has so far he will probably end up with about 64% of the total vote. Not bad for someone not even on the ballot.
Indeed. She was involved in a lawsuit against DJT. As a comparison, imagine a psychiatrist lives next door to the mayor, sues the mayor unsuccesfully after getting bit by the mayor's dog, and then builds a mini-career going on local TV and giving negative diagnoses of the mayor's personality.
I don't think anyone would take that psychiatrist seriously, no matter how many times he brandished his credentials or talked about how well he personally knows the mayor.
My apologies. However the male candidate consistently uses his last name on his campaign signs, but the female candidate usually uses her first name--not actually her first name which is Nimrata-- but her middle name on her campaign signs.
This is not unknown among politicians, such as Addison Mitchell "Mitch" McConnell III, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.
It's common enough among humans who are not politicians, as well. There's no rule that the name that you call yourself by has to be the one that comes first in your sequence of given names. You can call yourself a nickname that isn't one of your given names at all if you like. Anyone who complains about this is an arsehole of the first water. Your name is whatever you want to call yourself. It doesn't matter whether or not this differs from what is written on your legal documents, and it doesn't matter why it's different.
Please, let's not get into semantics. I was just pointing out the male candidate prefers using his formal last name, but the female candidate tends to be more informal in her campaign.
But, since Ruth has raised her concern, I will try to be more formal with both names.
Thank you. I will note that semantics, the study of meaning in language, is important. Even if Haley has been more informal in her campaign, she deserves to be referred to with the same respect accorded other candidates, not because I have raised the issue, but because how people are referred to means something.
Haley's campaign logo uses the full name she usually goes by: NIKKIHALEY with "Nikki" in white and "Haley" in red. She does use just "Nikki" in some formats; "Nikki" is far more distinctive and memorable than "Haley," and lots of candidates in recent years have used their first names in campaigning in order to seem more relateable. "Trump" is Donald Trump's brand, literally, so of course he sticks with that, but we had "Bernie" and "I Stand with Rand" and, my favorite, "Jeb!" George W. Bush ran with "BUSH" on his posters in 2000, but 16 years later Jeb Bush apparently felt the need to stand a little apart from the family name. That made sense to me; the exclamation point, not so much.
He certainly did. I still strongly suspect Rand Paul's father named him after ghastly "Virtue of Selfishness" advocate Ayn Rand. Ugh.
I could easily believe it, but I've seen interviews with Rand in which he pretty casually denies the claim, and gives some alternate explanation for his name.
I could go either way on the plausibility of that, but it seems odd that, if he WERE named after Ayn Rand, he would bother denying it, since in the same interview he also expresses admiration for Ms. Rand.
I dunno. Maybe he thinks that people knowing his name's origins will prompt more of them to actually read Ayn Rand. I think it's safe to say her pop-nietzschean attacks on xtianity and her related flouting of "mom and apple pie" values(eg. even most right-wingers don't consciously view selfishness as a virtue) could alienate the God-fearing among the Republican base.