‘It’s a big mistake’: A CNN anchor’s prediction spells doom for Donald Trump’s campaign

Chris Wallace laid bare an uncomfortable truth about Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign strategy: The former president’s refusal to deploy Nikki Haley as a surrogate could spell disaster in November.

“It’s a big mistake,” Wallace said on CNN’s One World. The former Fox News anchor pointed to Haley’s commanding grip on 20% of Republican voters—primarily suburban women who could very well determine the outcome in battleground states.

The former UN Ambassador’s absence from the campaign trail highlights a deeper fracture within Trump’s operation. Despite her public statements of availability and past assistance with fundraising, Haley has allegedly not spoken with Trump since June. The distance appears orchestrated from Trump’s end—likely out of his noted pettiness—as his campaign has made no overtures for his former foes.

Recent events underscore why this matters. Going into the bucket of “probably not helping” is Haley’s emergence as a vocal critic of the campaign’s messaging, particularly its “overly masculine” tone and problematic (at absolute best) handling of gender and racial issues. She called out racist remarks about Puerto Rico stemming from the Nazi-leaning Madison Square Garden debacle, warning that such rhetoric alienates crucial voting blocs.

When pressed about Haley’s conspicuous absence from Trump’s campaign trail, despite her relative popularity, RNC Chair Michael Whatley’s sheepish response—”You’d have to take that up with her”—contradicted his claims of party unity and sidesteps questions of Trump’s agency in not having her aboard.

The situation mirrors broader challenges facing Trump’s operation. While Haley maintains she has “no bad blood” with Trump and stands ready to assist, her criticisms of the campaign’s “bromance” messaging and treatment of women highlight fundamental strategic differences. But she’s been talking out of both sides of her mouth when she doubled down on a previous remark that many Republicans “privately dread” Trump.

“We are on the same team,” Haley still insisted in her recent Fox News appearance, even as she detailed concerns about PAC advertisements using misogynistic language toward Vice President Harris. This balance—in supporting an aggressively problematic nominee while somehow denouncing his predictably awful methods and rhetoric that you mostly believe in but don’t want to be said out loud—exemplifies the messy predicament facing his base.

Wallace’s assessment suggests Trump’s unwillingness to incorporate Haley into his campaign machinery stems from personal rather than strategic considerations. With finicky (possibly gamed) polls showing tight races in all of the key states and women voters reasonably gravitating toward Harris, this self-imposed limitation could prove costly. The question remains whether Trump’s campaign will course-correct in time to capitalize on Haley’s influence with crucial voting demographics. As Wallace notes, the current trajectory appears driven more by ego than electoral strategy. But with less than a week away, it’s likely already too late.