Conventional wisdom can evolve in unexpected and unpredictable ways. Conventional wisdom isn’t necessarily valid, of course. The “conventional” label hints that it’s probably not, or at least that it’s incomplete. But conventional wisdom, regardless of its merits, can shape how real world events are perceived and thus the reality of how they unfold. I say all this as preface to note that the day-after reactions to the New Hampshire primary results seemed a bit different from what we heard and saw that night.

Kate Riga mentioned this in the podcast episode we recorded yesterday. We heard all these wild things on Tuesday night about Trump’s resounding victory, how the nomination race is essentially over. And of course it is over if we’re talking about whether or not Trump is going to be the nominee. But I’m seeing more and more comment from the insider commentators and newsletters finally getting around to the idea that while these results almost certainly lock down the nomination, they show general election weakness rather than strength.

Let’s come back to last night’s result. We’ve now had two contests on the Republican side. Donald Trump won 51% of the vote in Iowa (on the GOP side it’s not actually a caucus, just a straight vote) and 54% in New Hampshire. These are at best a thin showing for a former president who remains head of his party. David Kurtz is right that it’s hard to know just what the standard should be when the whole situation is so unprecedented and absurd. The rule in modern American politics is that when you lose a presidential election your career in politics is over. Add to that trying to overthrow the government and facing about a hundred felony indictments and you’d think that would be enough. But that’s obviously not the case. This is the world we’re living in.

Tonight is the night of the first and very likely the last meaningful primary of the 2024 primary calendar. Polls suggest a similar outcome to what we saw last week in Iowa: a bare majority for Trump, which in a normal contest would be a big win but is less clearly so when the candidate is the party leader and de facto incumbent. The difference is that unlike in Iowa where most of the remaining vote was split between Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, now most will go to Haley.

People will be talking all day about just where we should place the thresholds over which Haley overperforms and keeps some semblance of a faux primary campaign going or Trump does the same and gets everyone to finally admit that this thing is completely absolutely done.

I’d put the number for Haley somewhere between 35% and 40%. For Trump, maybe if he goes over 60%. The truth is I have no idea. By any reasonable calculus, if she can’t win in New Hampshire she can’t win anywhere. And really … it doesn’t matter. We’re talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when there actually is no pin.

I wrote a few days ago that Ron DeSantis’s long campaign collapse was likely the most ignominious and vertiginous in the presidential primary era, which dates in stages from the 1960s and early 1970s. Some skeptics pointed to Jeb! in 2016 or Rudy Giuliani in 2008. But on a closer inspection neither flameout measures up to Ron’s. As evidenced by his legendary “Please clap” mix of exhortation and lament, Jeb! had an uncanny degree of self-awareness about the impending collapse of his succession plans that would cheat him of the prize. Giuliani had the political press in his hands. But his attempt to corner the 9/11 market was never enough to overcome his heterodoxy on issues like gay rights or serial-philandering in an earlier version of the Republican Party where those things mattered. His strategy of sitting out the early primaries and waiting until Florida, while a nice foreshadowing of Florida’s future as the home of Trumpism, was always correctly identified as a way to post-date the end of his campaign. Even the 9/11 brand was too long in the tooth by 2007. Joe Biden was able to make him a punch line with his famous one-liner.

The truth though is that DeSantis never had a chance. His humiliation was preordained and basically certain. Professional Republicans were at least a bit soured on Trump after the 2022 election, which seemed to make clear what 2018 and 2020 had strongly suggested: that Trump is an electoral loser. For professional Republicans there’s a bit more to it though. They’re completely down with Trump and Trumpism, as the last seven years have shown clearly enough. But they’re always going to have an eye out to move on. Part of what it means to be a political professional is to have a wandering eye for the new political horse, the new candidate, the new rising star, which is the usual path to professional advancement. More generously, it’s why you get into political work in the first place.

A Republican Party ruled by Donald Trump is one in which true advancement and greatness is always stymied and, to the extent it exists, always subject to his whims.