Elections

En las elecciones del domingo está en juego el futuro de un país que ha sido azotado por grupos criminales que han convertido a la nación en una pieza clave en el comercio internacional de la droga.Daniel Noboa es uno de los candidatos que aspira a convertirse en el presidente de Ecuador. Aspirante de centroderecha, Noboa es el heredero de un imperio de banano a quien un electorado ansioso de cambio, en un país que sufre por la violencia y una economía en crisis, respaldó para llegar a un sorprendente segundo lugar en la primera vuelta en agosto.Noboa se enfrenta a Luisa González, una candidata de izquierda del establishment quien, en su intento por convertirse en la primera mujer elegida para la presidencia del país, les ha prometido a los votantes el regreso a un momento en el que el nivel de la violencia era bajo y el precio del petróleo, una industria clave, era alto.En las elecciones del domingo está en juego el futuro de este país latinoamericano de más de 17 millones, que una vez fue un remanso tranquilo que ha sido trastocado por grupos criminales internacionales, convirtiendo a Ecuador en un jugador clave en el comercio internacional de la droga.Grupos criminales internacionales que trabajan con pandillas locales han desatado una oleada de violencia sin precedentes que ha hecho que decenas de miles de ecuatorianos se encaminen a la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México, parte de una afluencia de migración que ha desbordado al gobierno de Joe Biden.Como gran parte del resto de América Latina, Ecuador recibió un fuerte golpe financiero por la pandemia del coronavirus y a muchos trabajadores les cuesta obtener suficiente dinero para mantener a sus familias.Esto es lo que debes saber sobre la votación.Guillermo Lasso, presidente saliente de Ecuador, antes de hablar en las Naciones Unidas el mes pasado. Convocó a elecciones anticipadas tras enfrentar un proceso de juicio de destitución por parte de la Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador.Maansi Srivastava/The New York Times¿Qué hace a estas elecciones diferentes de otras?Guillermo Lasso, el presidente saliente, convocó en mayo elecciones anticipadas para evitar un juicio de destitución por acusaciones de malversación de fondo. Lasso también se ha vuelto cada vez más impopular con los votantes indignados ante la incapacidad del gobierno por detener la violencia.El asesinato del candidato presidencial Fernando Villavicencio mientras salía de un evento de campaña en agosto conmocionó a una nación que se dirigirá a las urnas de votación durante la que ha sido quizás la temporada electoral más violenta en su historia.Este año han sido asesinados cinco políticos, además de Villavicencio —quien se expresó abiertamente sobre supuestos vínculos entre el gobierno y el crimen organizado— y la semana pasada siete hombres imputados por el asesinato de Villavicencio fueron hallados muertos en prisión.Quien gane ocupará la presidencia solo durante alrededor de un año y medio. Noboa ha tenido una ventaja constante en diversas encuestas desde agosto, aunque esta se ha reducido ligeramente en los últimos días y algunas encuestas lo muestran muy cercano a González.Oficiales de la policía inspeccionan productos del mar destinados a exportación en el puerto de Guayaquil, Ecuador. El país se ha convertido en un importante punto de transbordo de cocaína que se contrabandea a Europa.Victor Moriyama para The New York Times¿Qué está en juego en estas elecciones?Ecuador solía ser un país pacífico en comparación con sus vecinos, en particular Colombia, nación que por décadas estuvo azotada por la violencia entre unidades guerrilleras armadas, grupos paramilitares y organizaciones del narcotráfico.Todo eso cambió en los últimos años, cuando Colombia forjó un acuerdo de paz con el grupo guerrillero de izquierda más grande del país, y Ecuador empezó a ser dominado por una red del tráfico de drogas cada vez más poderosa que incluye cárteles mexicanos y pandillas albanesas.A través de sus puertos en la costa del Pacífico, Ecuador se ha convertido en un importante punto de transbordo para la cocaína que es contrabandeada a Europa. Algunas organizaciones internacionales han unido fuerzas con pandillas radicadas en prisiones en una competencia brutal por el lucrativo mercado de la droga.Las noticias presentan periódicamente decapitaciones, atentados con coches bomba, asesinatos policiales, jóvenes colgados de puentes y niños asesinados frente a sus casas o escuelas.Luisa González es la candidata del establishment de izquierda, elegida personalmente por un expresidente.Rodrigo Buendia/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images¿Quién es Luisa González?González, de 45 años, es la candidata elegida personalmente por el expresidente Rafael Correa, quien lideró el país de 2007 a 2017. González ostentó varios cargos en su gobierno antes de ser elegida a la Asamblea Nacional en 2021, una posición que mantuvo hasta que Lasso disolvió la legislatura en mayo.Su campaña ha buscado apelar a la nostalgia de los votantes por las bajas tasas de homicidios y el auge de las materias primas que sacaron a millones de la pobreza durante el gobierno de Correa. El lema de campaña de González en la primera vuelta fue “ya lo hicimos y lo volveremos a hacer”.Pero el estrecho vínculo de González con el expresidente también conlleva riesgos. El estilo autoritario de Correa y las acusaciones de corrupción dividieron profundamente el país. Correa vive en el exilio, en Bélgica, huyendo de una sentencia de cárcel por violaciones en la financiación de su campaña, y muchos ecuatorianos temen que una presidencia de González allane el camino para que Correa regrese y vuelva a postularse para la presidencia.González se ha comprometido a recurrir a las reservas del banco central para estimular la economía e incrementar el financiamiento al sistema de salud pública y las universidades públicas.“Sabemos que está con el pueblo, no con la gente rica y por eso va a mejorar las cosas para nosotros”, dijo Oswaldo Proaño, un vendedor ambulante de 40 años, en Quito, la capital, quien habló en medio de gritos y silbidos en un mitin de campaña reciente de González.“Con Luisa vamos a tener seguridad, como la teníamos en el tiempo de Rafael Correa”, dijo Luisa María Manteca, de 65 años, quien trabaja en una distribuidora de productos cosméticos en Quito. “Con él, el país marchó bien y hay que continuar por ese rumbo”.La posibilidad de que González se convierta en la primera mujer en ganar la presidencia de Ecuador también atrae a muchos votantes.“Es una persona muy humilde”, dijo Debora Espinosa, una estudiante universitaria de 19 años. “Como mujer nos entiende”.Daniel Noboa, candidato de centroderecha, ha tenido una ventaja constante en diversas encuestas desde agosto, aunque esta se ha reducido ligeramente en los últimos días.Gerardo Menoscal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images¿Quién es Daniel Noboa?Noboa, de 35 años, proviene de una de las familias más ricas de América Latina, conocida por la mayoría de los ecuatorianos por su imperio bananero, que tiene una de las marcas de fruta más conocidas del mundo, bananas Bonita.Pero los vastos activos de la familia Noboa son variados e incluyen fertilizantes, plásticos, cartón y el complejo de almacenamiento de contenedores más grande del país.El padre de Noboa se postuló cinco veces a la presidencia sin éxito, pero la carrera política del joven Noboa apenas se remonta a 2021, cuando fue elegido para la Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador.Noboa se ha calificado a sí mismo como el “presidente del empleo”, hasta el punto de incluir una planilla de solicitud laboral en su sitio web, y ha prometido atraer la inversión y el comercio internacional y reducir los impuestos.Pero al igual que su padre, Noboa también ha generado críticas de analistas que temen que pueda utilizar su presidencia para favorecer el cada vez mayor imperio empresarial de su familia.En un reciente evento de campaña, cientos de estudiantes universitarios hicieron fila en la ciudad costera de Guayaquil, la ciudad más poblada del país y uno de los epicentros de la violencia, donde esperaron más de una hora para ver a Noboa.Noboa se quitó el chaleco antibalas y, lenta y tranquilamente, respondió las preguntas de los estudiantes, repitiendo sus temas de debate sobre convertir a Ecuador en un mercado atractivo para la banca internacional. Fue recibido con aplausos, vítores y adolescentes corriendo para tomarse selfies con él.“He estado viendo sus entrevistas y me gustan sus propuestas en temas como la dolarización, la educación y el trabajo”, dijo Dereck Delgado, un estudiante de ingeniería eléctrica de 17 años, quien planea votar por Noboa. (La edad mínima para votar en Ecuador es 16, y es un deber obligatorio para los mayores de 18 años).Muchos votantes también apoyan a Noboa porque representa una alternativa al partido de Correa. Valeria Vásquez, de 33 años, quien administra una compañía local de productos de belleza en Guayaquil, dijo que le gustaba que Noboa “no es socialista”.Otra simpatizante de Noboa, Natasha Villegas, una estudiante universitaria de 19 años en Guayaquil, afirmó que creía que había llegado la “hora de darle la oportunidad a una persona joven”.¿Qué dicen los candidatos sobre la seguridad?Noboa y González han prometido frenar la violencia, pero ninguno de los dos ha hecho de la seguridad una parte central de sus campañas.Ambos candidatos han hablado sobre proporcionarle más dinero a la policía y desplegar las fuerzas militares para asegurar los puertos que se utilizan para el contrabando de drogas fuera del país y las prisiones, las cuales están controladas por violentas pandillas.González ha señalado los arrestos de varios líderes de pandillas criminales durante su tiempo en el gobierno de Correa como evidencia de su intención de aplicar una mano firme.Noboa ha propuesto el uso de la tecnología, como drones y sistemas de rastreo satelital, para combatir el narcotráfico, y ha sugerido la construcción de barcos prisión para aislar a los reclusos más violentos.Sin embargo, los analistas afirman que ninguno de los dos candidatos ha hecho lo suficiente para darle prioridad al combate del crimen que ha desestabilizado a Ecuador y ha convertido a la nación en uno de los países más violentos de América Latina.Thalíe Ponce colaboró con reportería desde Guayaquil; Emilia Paz y Miño y José María León Cabrera colaboraron desde Quito. More

A center-right businessman and a leftist candidate are vying for the presidency on Sunday at a moment when the country is facing growing insecurity fueled by international criminal groups.One candidate seeking to become Ecuador’s president is Daniel Noboa, a center-right scion of a banana empire who was lifted to a surprising second-place finish in a runoff in August by an electorate hungry for change in a country suffering from violence and an ailing economy.Mr. Noboa is facing Luisa González, a leftist establishment candidate who, in trying to become the first woman elected the country’s president, is promising voters a return to a period when violence was low and the price of oil, a key industry, was high.At stake in Sunday’s election is the future of this Latin American nation of more than 17 million, a once tranquil haven that has been upended by international criminal groups that have turned Ecuador into a key player in the global drug trade.Working with local gangs, the global cartels have unleashed a surge of violence that has sent tens of thousands of Ecuadoreans fleeing to the U.S.-Mexico border, part of a migration wave that has overwhelmed the Biden administration.Like much of the rest of Latin America, Ecuador was dealt a major financial blow by the coronavirus pandemic and many workers struggle to make enough money provide for their families.Here’s what you need to know about the vote.Guillermo Lasso, the outgoing president of Ecuador, before speaking at the United Nations last month. He called early elections as he faced an impeachment proceeding by Ecuador’s legislature.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesWhat makes this election different from others?The outgoing president, Guillermo Lasso, called for early elections in May as he faced impeachment proceedings against him stemming from accusations of embezzlement. Mr. Lasso had also grown increasingly unpopular with voters angry over the government’s inability to address the spiraling violence.The assassination of a presidential candidate, Fernando Villavicencio, as he left a campaign event in August was a traumatic jolt for a nation that heads to the polls during what has been perhaps the most violent electoral season in its history.Beside Mr. Villavicencio — who was outspoken about what he claimed were links between organized crime and the government — five other politicians have been killed this year. Last week, seven men accused of killing Mr. Villavicencio were found dead in prison.Whoever wins will hold the presidency for only about a year and a half. Mr. Noboa has had a consistent lead in multiple polls since August, though it has narrowed slightly in recent days and some surveys show him neck and neck with Ms. González.Police inspecting seafood destined for export at the port of Guayaquil, Ecuador. The country has become a major transshipment point for cocaine that is smuggled to Europe.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesWhat is at stake in this election?Ecuador was once a peaceful nation compared with its neighbors, particularly Colombia, which for decades was torn by violence among armed guerrilla units, paramilitary groups and drug cartels.That all changed in recent years as Colombia forged a peace deal with the country’s largest leftist guerrilla group, and Ecuador became dominated by an increasingly powerful narco-trafficking industry that includes Mexican cartels and Albanian gangs.Through its ports on the Pacific Coast, Ecuador has become a major transshipment point for cocaine that is smuggled to Europe. International groups have joined forces with prison-based gangs in a brutal competition for the lucrative drug industry.News reports regularly feature beheadings, car bombings, police assassinations, young men hanging from bridges and children gunned down outside their homes or schools.Luisa González is a leftist establishment candidate who is the handpicked candidate of a former president. Rodrigo Buendia/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWho is Luisa González?Ms. González, 45, is the handpicked candidate of former President Rafael Correa, who led the country from 2007 to 2017. She held several positions in his government before being elected to congress in 2021, a position she held until the legislature was dissolved by Mr. Lasso in May.Her campaign has sought to appeal to voter nostalgia for the low homicide rates and commodities boom that lifted millions out of poverty during Mr. Correa’s administration. Ms. González’s campaign slogan in the first round was “we already did it and we will do it again.”But Ms. González’s close association with the former president also carries risks. Mr. Correa’s authoritarian style and accusations of corruption deeply divided the country. He is living in exile in Belgium, fleeing a prison sentence for campaign finance violations, and many Ecuadoreans fear that a González presidency would pave the way for him to return and run for office again.Ms. González has pledged to tap central bank reserves to stimulate the economy and increase financing for the public health care system and public universities.“We know she is with the people, not with the rich, and that is why she is going to improve things,” said Oswaldo Proaño, 40, a street vendor in Quito, the capital, who spoke amid shouts and whistles at a recent campaign rally for Ms. González.“With Luisa we will have security, as we had in the time of Rafael Correa,” said Luisa María Manteca, 65, who works at a cosmetics distributor in Quito. “With him, the country ran smoothly and we have to continue on that path.”The possibility that Ms. González could become the first woman to win Ecuador’s presidency also appeals to many voters. “She is a very humble person,’’ said Debora Espinosa, 19, a university student. “As a woman she understands us.”Daniel Noboa, a center-right candidate, has had a consistent lead in multiple polls since August, though that lead has narrowed slightly in recent days.Gerardo Menoscal/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWho is Daniel Noboa?Mr. Noboa, 35, comes from one of the richest families in Latin America, known to most Ecuadoreans for its banana empire, which features one of the world’s best known fruit brands, Bonita bananas.But the Noboa family’s vast holdings are varied and include fertilizers, plastics, cardboard and the country’s largest container storage facility.Mr. Noboa’s father ran unsuccessfully for president five times, though the younger Noboa’s political career goes back only to 2021, when he was elected to Ecuador’s Congress.He has positioned himself as “the employment president,” even including a work application form on his website, and has pledged to attract international investment and trade and cut taxes.But like his father, Mr. Noboa has also drawn criticism from analysts who fear he could use the presidency to advance the family’s sprawling business empire.At a recent campaign event, hundreds of university students lined up in the coastal city of Guayaquil, the country’s most populous city and an epicenter of the violence, waiting for more than an hour to see Mr. Noboa.Taking off his bullet-resistant vest, he slowly and calmly answered the students’ questions, repeating his talking points about making Ecuador an attractive market for international banking. He was met with applause, cheers and teenagers running to snap selfies with him.“I have been watching his interviews and I like his proposals on issues such as dollarization, education and work,” said Dereck Delgado, 17, an electrical engineering student, who plans to vote for Mr. Noboa. (The voting age in Ecuador is 16 and votingis mandatory for those 18 and older).Many voters are also drawn to him because he represents an alternative to Mr. Correa’s party. Valeria Vásquez, 33, who manages a local beauty product company in Guayaquil, said she liked that Mr. Noboa is “not a socialist.”Another Noboa supporter, Natasha Villegas, 19, a university student in Guayaquil, said she believed it was “time to give the opportunity to a young person.’’What are the candidates saying about security?Mr. Noboa and Ms. González have vowed to rein in the violence, though neither has made security a central part of their campaigns.Both candidates have talked about providing more money for the police and deploying the military to secure ports used to smuggle drugs out of the country and prisons, which are controlled by violent gangs.Ms. González has pointed to the arrests of several leaders of criminal gangs when she served in the Correa administration as evidence of her intention to apply a firm hand.Mr. Noboa has proposed the use of technology, like drones and satellite tracking systems, to stem drug trafficking, and has suggested building prison boats to isolate the most violent inmates.But analysts say the two candidates have not done enough to prioritize combating the crime that has destabilized Ecuador and turned it into one of Latin America’s most violent countries.Thalíe Ponce contributed reporting from Guayaquil; Emilia Paz y Miño and José María León Cabrera contributed from Quito. More

In January 2017, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, received a phone call from Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and Donald Trump’s newly appointed ambassador to the United Nations.Ms. Haley wanted to apologize.A month earlier, the U.N. Security Council had passed a resolution condemning Israel for building settlements in the West Bank. The Obama administration, by abstaining from the vote, had allowed the measure to pass, a parting rebuke to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s increasingly right-wing prime minister.In her first phone call to a fellow ambassador, Ms. Haley wanted to be clear that things would be different.“She guaranteed that it would not happen as long as she was serving as ambassador,” Mr. Danon recalled recently, “that she would get our back and support us.”That promise would set the tone for much of Ms. Haley’s time at the U.N. Over her nearly two-year tenure, she transformed herself from a foreign policy novice to a blunt-talking stateswoman, making the defense of Israel her defining cause.Ms. Haley blocked a Palestinian envoy’s appointment and took credit for forcing the withdrawal of a report that described the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians as “apartheid.” She walked out of a Security Council meeting during a Palestinian official’s speech and criticized the U.N.’s Palestinian refugee aid program, which she has since said “uses American money to feed Palestinian hatred of the Jewish state.”She was an enthusiastic face of the Trump administration’s diplomatic largess toward Israel, and described herself as turning back the tide of “Israel-bashing” at the world body.Denizens of the U.N.’s New York headquarters began joking that Israel now had two ambassadors.American ambassadors have generally stood with Israel at the U.N., but observers of Ms. Haley’s time there saw something new in her often confrontational advocacy for the Trump administration’s no-questions support for Mr. Netanyahu’s government.Critics have noted the political convenience of her approach — which ingratiated her with Mr. Trump’s inner circle and cemented relationships with major Republican donors and evangelical leaders — as well as its made-for-television tenor.“I wear heels,” she told the audience at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in 2017. “It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because if I see something wrong, we’re going to kick them every single time.” A clip of the statement appeared in a video teasing her presidential campaign early this year.“There was always a clear distinction between her relatively pragmatic approach to most issues and an incredibly performative, purist approach to diplomacy regarding Israel,” said Richard Gowan, the U.N. director of the International Crisis Group.As Israel plunges into a new war in the Gaza Strip, after a stunning wave of attacks by Hamas fighters, this chapter of Ms. Haley’s career has taken on a sudden importance.Ms. Haley, one of the few candidates with a foreign policy record to run on, has cast herself as an unwavering Israel hawk whose views are grounded in experience. Last weekend, Ms. Haley urged Mr. Netanyahu to “finish” Hamas. During an appearance on “Meet the Press,” she recalled her 2017 visit to Hamas-dug tunnels near the Gaza border.When Mr. Trump criticized Mr. Netanyahu — who angered him by recognizing Joseph R. Biden’s victory in 2020 — Ms. Haley used the moment to reinforce her case against her former boss.“To go and criticize the head of a country who just saw massive bloodshed — no, that’s not what we need in a president,” she said at a news conference in Concord, N.H., on Friday.Ms. Haley, who declined to comment for this article, has seen a recent uptick in polling, although she continues to run far behind Mr. Trump. As a new conflict pushes world affairs to the foreground of the campaign, this may be her best chance to emerge as the leading Republican alternative to the former president.“This was always political capital that she was banking while she was at the U.N.,” Mr. Gowan said. “And it may pay off for her now.”A Keen Eye for Set Pieces“I wear heels,” Ms. Haley told an audience of staunch Israel supporters at the meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in 2017. “It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because if I see something wrong we’re going to kick them every single time.”Pete Marovich/European Pressphoto AgencyIn interviews, close observers of Ms. Haley’s work — veterans of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, the Trump White House and State Department, United Nations officials, and foreign policy lobbyists and experts — described it in similar terms.They recalled a diplomat who quickly became a more pragmatic negotiator than her own accounts of her tenure, which tend to focus on her confrontations, suggested. They also remembered her as a politician: someone who understood the United Nations post as a stopover on a trajectory toward bigger things.Ms. Haley was not enamored with the minutiae of diplomacy. She requested that staff cut down background papers to a single page of talking points, written in “eighth-grade English.” In her first address to her new employees, the ambassador told them she wanted to create a humane and efficient office culture, insisting that nobody’s work should keep them at the office after 6 p.m. — a tall order for an institution where meetings often ran into the evening, and diplomatic crises at unusual hours were practically a daily event.Ms. Haley also had a keen eye for what one former mission staff member described as “set pieces”: the confrontations and dramatic gestures that would gain attention.The first such moment for Ms. Haley arrived only days into her tenure. In early February 2017, António Guterres, the U.N. secretary general, was preparing to name Salam Fayyad, the former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, as the U.N.’s special envoy to Libya. Mr. Fayyad was a well-regarded reformer who had been seen as a key Palestinian partner for both the United States and Israel. Mr. Guterres had received informal signoffs from the Security Council members. His office had prepared a news release.But half an hour before the deadline for objections, Ms. Haley informed him that she considered Mr. Fayyad unacceptable.“We thought that this must be a mistake,” said Jeffrey Feltman, an American diplomat who at the time was Mr. Guterres’s under secretary general for political affairs. The appointment had been vetted, and State Department officials had vouched for Mr. Fayyad, he said. The decision had been Ms. Haley’s, her staff has since said, though Mr. Trump approved it. In a statement at the time, she argued that appointing a Palestinian to a significant U.N. position would be tantamount to recognizing Palestinian statehood. “The United States does not currently recognize a Palestinian state or support the signal this appointment would send within the United Nations,” she said.“Essentially, she punished Salam Fayyad for his nationality, at the same time she was criticizing the U.N. for punishing Israelis for their nationality,” Mr. Feltman said. “It seemed to me to be quite hypocritical.”Speaking before an audience of Israel supporters at the AIPAC conference the following month, Ms. Haley cast the move more provocatively, taking credit for having Mr. Fayyad “booted out” of the U.N. post, and portraying the decision as a response to a culture of “Israel-bashing” at the organization. She announced that unless things changed, “there are no freebies for the Palestinian Authority anymore.”The Trump Translator at the U.N.Ms. Haley made herself the public face at the U.N. of the administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.Al Drago for The New York TimesBefore arriving at the U.N., Ms. Haley had a scant record on Israel policy. She has described her support for the country as “a matter of faith” — raised Sikh, she later converted to Christianity — and compared her own cultural background as the child of Indian immigrants to that of Israelis’. “We’re aggressive, we’re stubborn and we don’t back down from a fight,” she said in 2017.Her main claim was that as the governor of South Carolina, she signed a bill in 2015 banning the state from doing business with companies that boycotted or divested from Israel.Such laws — South Carolina’s was the second, after Illinois — had that year become a focus of pro-Israel political donors, including Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate and backer of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who wielded enormous influence in the G.O.P. and in Israel before his death in 2021.Ms. Haley’s campaign said the she did not discuss the issue with Mr. Adelson at the time. In 2016, Mr. Adelson contributed $250,000 to Ms. Haley’s political action committee — a quarter of the contributions it received that year — and hosted her in his luxury box at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.Arriving at the United Nations six months later, Ms. Haley quickly became the face of Mr. Trump’s Middle East policy, which reflected the long-held aims of pro-Israel hard-liners as well as conservative evangelicals, who ascribe great theological importance to the rise of a modern Jewish state in the Holy Land.“There’s been a historic tension between Zionism and a belief that the United States had an obligation to be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians,” said Ralph Reed, the chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. “Under Trump, we moved on, and now the G.O.P. tilts unapologetically pro-Israel.”Ms. Haley leaned into her role at the U.N. as the public defender of the administration’s pullout from the Iran nuclear deal, its support for expanding West Bank settlements and its decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.After the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the embassy move, Ms. Haley hosted a reception at the U.S. Mission, refusing to invite the 21 countries — including longtime American allies like Britain, France, Germany and Japan — who voted for the measure.“The United States will remember this day,” she warned.Some who watched her work up close detected less absolutism in her views, and her diplomacy, than she presented at the General Assembly and in interviews.Nickolay Mladenov, the U.N.’s special coordinator for the Middle East peace process at the time, recalled traveling in Israel to the Gaza border with Ms. Haley. “I think that trip really opened her eyes to the fact that there are two competing narratives, two competing realities in this situation,” he said. “Whatever the public speeches she made,” he added, “when we sat down to talk, she would say, ‘OK, what can we do about this?’”Palestinian supporters, however, saw a rhetorical escalation, even by the standards of a resolutely pro-Israel Republican Party.“You look at some of her statements and actions, it was comically over the top — not just willingness to support Israel, but a willingness to hurt Palestinians,” said Yousef Munayyer, who directs the Palestine/Israel Program at the Arab Center Washington D.C.Her public performances served her well in the often vicious internal politics of the administration. Amid a divide between foreign policy traditionalists — the long-résuméd appointees often cast as the “adults in the room” — and the coterie of Trump confidants who largely drove his Middle East policy, Ms. Haley aligned herself with the latter group.Her Israel advocacy gave her common cause with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, who had been tasked with the Middle East policy portfolio. When Mr. Kushner and others began drafting the White House’s Middle East peace plan, Ms. Haley was one of only a handful of policymakers allowed to see it and offer comments, said Jason Greenblatt, Mr. Trump’s special envoy for Middle East peace.“I thought she was one of my most important allies,” he said.Spending Political CapitalMs. Haley’s tenure was watched closely by influential evangelicals. David Brody, an anchor at the Christian Broadcasting Network, said “God is using Nikki Haley for such a time as this,” in his coverage of Ms. Haley’s 2017 visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem.Gali Tibbon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMs. Haley’s work also won accolades from evangelicals and Jewish Republican donors, key constituencies for any aspiring Republican president. Her U.N. tenure was covered closely by the Christian Broadcasting Network, the evangelical-oriented media company.“Clearly God is using Nikki Haley for such a time as this,” the network’s anchor, David Brody, said in a June 2017 segment, over footage of Ms. Haley praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem.In 2018, Christians United for Israel, the influential Christian Zionist organization led by the televangelist John C. Hagee, presented Ms. Haley with the organization’s Defender of Israel award. As she neared the end of her speech, someone in the crowd yelled: “Haley 2024!”But early polling has shown that Mr. Haley is struggling to peel away evangelical voters from Mr. Trump. Although Mr. Hagee offered a prayer at her campaign launch event, he has not endorsed her.“Most evangelicals certainly appreciate Nikki Haley’s pro-Israel stance,” said Robert Jeffress, the influential pastor of the First Baptist Dallas megachurch. “But evangelicals also realize that her pro-Israel policy while she was U.N. ambassador was a reflection of Donald Trump’s pro-Israel position.”Among prominent Jewish Republican donors, she has more vocal allies. Toward the end of Ms. Haley’s time at the U.N., Fred Zeidman, a Texas businessman, made her a promise. “I told her if she ever wanted to run for president of the United States, I was going to be with her from Day 1,” recalled Mr. Zeidman, who served as Jewish outreach director for the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush.In March, Mr. Zeidman and two like-minded donors, Phil Rosen and Cheryl Halpern, wrote to the members of the Republican Jewish Coalition urging them to back Haley, citing her U.N. record.But a majority of the group’s benefactors have not yet contributed to any candidate. “They don’t see any reason to actively give when you’ve got nine people out there,” Mr. Zeidman said.Mr. Zeidman and other Haley supporters hope that Republicans seeking an alternative to Mr. Trump will coalesce behind her candidacy. But despite Ms. Haley’s recent signs of momentum, the gulf between her and Mr. Trump remains daunting.“If she would’ve run in Israel,” Mr. Danon, the former Israeli ambassador, said, “I’m sure it would’ve been much easier for her.”

#youth-jobs-shadow {
display: none;
}

@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){

#fullBleedHeaderContent h1{
text-shadow: 1px 0px 8px #000;
}

#fullBleedHeaderContent header p.e1wiw3jv0{
text-shadow: 1px 0px 8px #000;
}

} More

Quinn Mitchell, an aspiring journalist from New Hampshire, was escorted out of a G.O.P. candidate summit on Friday, though he was later allowed to return.It was the type of tough question a Republican presidential candidate might get on a Sunday morning talk show, only the person asking it was 15: Quinn Mitchell wanted to know if Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida believed that former President Donald J. Trump had violated the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021.Video of the uncomfortable exchange at a June 27 town hall in Hollis, N.H., for Mr. DeSantis, who dodged the question, ricocheted online. So did the pair’s next encounter at a July 4 parade in Merrimack, N.H., where a video showed Quinn, an aspiring journalist, being shooed away by a handler for the Florida governor.But the teenager said he was not prepared for what happened on Friday, when he was briefly ejected by police officers from the First in the Nation Leadership Summit, a candidate showcase organized by the New Hampshire Republican Party. The two-day event in Nashua, N.H., featured Mr. DeSantis and most of the G.O.P. field, but not Mr. Trump.“They said, ‘We know who you are,’” Quinn, who has his own political blog and podcast, said in a phone interview on Saturday from his home in Walpole, N.H., referring to the organizers of the summit.Quinn, who received a guest credential for the summit from the state’s G.O.P., said a person associated with the event had told him that he had a history of being disruptive and had accused him of being a tracker, a type of political operative who records rival candidates.The next thing he knew, Quinn said, he was being led to a private room and was then ushered out of the Sheraton Nashua hotel by local police officers. His ejection was first reported by The Boston Globe.Jimmy Thompson, a spokesman for the New Hampshire Republican Party, said in a text message on Saturday that the teen’s removal had been a mistake.“During the course of the two-day event, an overzealous volunteer mistakenly made the decision to have Quinn removed from the event, thinking he was a Democrat tracker,” Mr. Thompson wrote. “Once the incident came to our staff’s attention, NHGOP let him back into the event, where he was free to enjoy the rest of the summit.”Quinn met Vivek Ramaswamy at a Republican event in Newport, N.H., last month. Mr. DeSantis isn’t the only candidate who has faced his direct questions.Sophie Park for The New York TimesA spokesman for the DeSantis campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday.A public information officer for the Nashua Police Department also did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday.According to his website, Quinn has attended more than 80 presidential campaign events since he was 10, taking advantage of New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status in the nominating process to pose questions to candidates.He said he wanted to hear former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey speak on Friday, along with the businessman Perry Johnson, a long-shot candidate.At a town hall featuring Mr. Christie in April, Quinn had asked another pointed question: Would Hillary Clinton have been better than Mr. Trump as president?Mr. Christie, the former president’s loudest critic in the G.O.P. field, answered that he still would have chosen Mr. Trump in the 2016 election, describing the contest as “the biggest hold-your-nose-and-vote choice” the American people ever had.About two months later, it was Mr. DeSantis’s turn to field a question from Quinn, this one about Mr. Trump’s actions on Jan. 6.“Are you in high school? said Mr. DeSantis, who has faced criticism as a candidate for not being fluid when interacting with voters and journalists, a dynamic that has made for some awkward exchanges on the campaign trail.The Florida governor pivoted, arguing that if the 2024 election focused on “relitigating things that happened two, three years ago, we’re going to lose.”Quinn said that it did not seem like a coincidence that he was kicked out of the event on Friday before Mr. DeSantis’s remarks, which he had planned to skip.“They know the story between me and DeSantis,” he said.By the time he was allowed to return to the event, Quinn said he was able to catch Mr. DeSantis’s remarks. But when the governor opened it up for a question, Quinn left.“OK, one quick question, what do you got?” Mr. DeSantis asked an audience member.Nicholas Nehamas More

Rivals to Donald J. Trump and their strategists told financiers that time is running out to build up a viable alternative to the former president.With less than 100 days until the Iowa caucuses, Donald J. Trump’s leading rivals continue to engage in a pitched battle with one another as much as with him, igniting fears that internal divisions were threatening to doom efforts to find a fresh face for the Republican Party in 2024.From Dallas to Park City, Utah, top Republican donors gathered behind closed doors this week as talk intensified about the need to cull the G.O.P. field. In private remarks to donors in Utah, Nikki Haley, the former ambassador to the United Nations, delivered a blunt message that it was time to pick sides and invest if there was any chance to prevent another Trump nomination.“Get in the game,” Ms. Haley urged them, according to two people who were present at the event.But given Mr. Trump’s durable lead, some political financiers are considering staying on the sidelines. For those donors who aren’t, the choice has increasingly narrowed to Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Ms. Haley, whose fortunes have been lifted by her performance in the first two debates. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina is a factor as well, given the $25 million his super PAC has remaining in television ad reservations in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in the next three months.On Friday, teams of advisers to Mr. DeSantis, Ms. Haley and Mr. Scott descended on Dallas for separate presentations to an exclusive gathering of some of the most influential Republican donors in the nation, a group known as the American Opportunity Alliance. They met at a property owned by the billionaire Republican financier Harlan Crow, who has gained attention and scrutiny for his close relationship with Justice Clarence Thomas.The crowd included some of the party’s biggest contributors or their top representatives, megadonors like Paul Singer and Ken Griffin who can spend tens of millions of dollars. And the stakes produced pointed presentations, according to more than a half-dozen people who were in the room or had been briefed on the remarks.The DeSantis team argued that any effort to push him out of the race would backfire for the anti-Trump cause. Three top DeSantis campaign strategists — James Uthmeier, David Polyansky and Ryan Tyson — presented internal polls showing that 90 percent of his supporters would drift to Mr. Trump if Mr. DeSantis were to exit the race. Ms. Haley’s supporters, they said in contrast, would flow to Mr. DeSantis if she departed.The DeSantis team suggested that Mr. Trump had to be stopped in Iowa, and that Mr. DeSantis was the only one positioned to do so. And they acknowledged Mr. DeSantis’s past struggles, describing themselves as having fought back to a stronger position.Gov. Ron DeSantis in Nashua, N.H., on Friday. His team has told donors that any effort to push him out of the race would backfire on the anti-Trump cause.John Tully for The New York TimesMs. Haley’s advisers, Betsy Ankeny and Jon Lerner, showed their own internal surveys, which placed Ms. Haley ahead of Mr. DeSantis in New Hampshire and South Carolina and had the two of them tied in Iowa. Mr. DeSantis had stalled, they argued, and she was rising.In a sign of the threat Ms. Haley poses to Mr. DeSantis, Never Back Down — the leading pro-DeSantis super PAC — is readying an anti-Haley ad campaign and has tested several attacks, including her ties to China, according to a person familiar with the matter. Such a move would be a watershed moment, as DeSantis advisers have long insisted the primary is a two-man contest between the governor and Mr. Trump.Mr. Scott, whose team had not initially been invited to Dallas, was represented by Jennifer DeCasper, Zac Moffatt and Erik Iverson. They revealed that Mr. Scott would enter October with $11.6 million cash on hand for the primary — more than either Mr. DeSantis or Ms. Haley.Ms. DeCasper pitched Mr. Scott’s toughness and his willingness to stand up to Mr. Trump. She invoked when he confronted Mr. Trump for the former president’s equivocations after the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Va.“We’ve never flown to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring, to ask permission for anything,” she said.The dueling presentations underscored the degree to which the race to be the main alternative to Mr. Trump is playing out in donor meetings as much as on the ground in the early states.Ms. Haley, campaigning in New Hampshire on Friday, made explicit the power of wealthy donors to narrow the field. “I think it’s up to the voters, and I think it’s up to the donors to decide which candidates should get off the stage,” Ms. Haley said as she filed to appear on the ballot in the state.For months, donors have had private discussions not just about the possibility of collectively backing a single alternative to Mr. Trump, but whether wealthy backers of low-polling candidates could encourage those candidates to drop out to consolidate anti-Trump support.In recent days, Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis have made a series of announcements pitching political insiders on their respective momentum. Mr. DeSantis on Thursday announced his first ad reservation of the race, saying he would spend $2 million in Iowa. That came a week after he started shifting one-third of his staff from Tallahassee to Iowa to bolster his operation in the state.Ms. Haley rolled out her fund-raising haul, revealing she had more cash on hand for the primary than Mr. DeSantis, $9.1 million to $5 million. She also announced the opening of her first office in Iowa and the addition of two staff members in the state, bringing her total to four.For veterans of the 2016 primary, the obsessive focus on the race to be in second place is inflicting a serious sense of déjà vu.“In October of 2015, you had Jeb Bush machine gunning Marco Rubio and Rubio going after Ted Cruz, and nobody was really laying a hand on Trump,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist who was a top adviser to Mr. Rubio at the time.“It’s shaping up to be a repeat of 2016,” Mr. Conant added of the current contest. He said that this time, it was even worse for the Trump challengers. “Now, even if you combined everyone’s poll numbers that was on the debate stage, you’d still be under Trump.”A recent national poll from Fox News showed Mr. Trump at 59 percent, virtually unchanged from September. Mr. DeSantis was the next closest at 13 percent, with Ms. Haley in third, with 10 percent.Still, most of Mr. Trump’s rivals tread cautiously when it comes to criticizing the former president.On Monday, Mr. DeSantis made his first appearance on MSNBC, the type of network he had spent years deriding as “corporate media,” a sign of his need for political oxygen and coverage. And while he swiped at how a Trump nomination would be a distraction — citing documents found near toilets in Mar-a-Lago — he evaded a follow-up question about whether Americans should be concerned Mr. Trump was loose with the nation’s secrets, the charge at the center of the special counsel’s criminal indictment.“Well, look, I think that’s an allegation — it remains to be seen,” Mr. DeSantis began, before pivoting to a defense of Mr. Trump.Later in the week, Mr. DeSantis criticized Mr. Trump for his attack on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and on Israel’s intelligence services for missing the impending terrorist attack by Hamas. The issue is potent for a number of pro-Israel and politically conservative donors, and Mr. DeSantis’s allies and advisers see it as a Trump vulnerability.Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, said that if donors “don’t pick a candidate, Trump is going to be the nominee.”John Tully for The New York TimesSpencer Zwick, who oversaw Senator Mitt Romney’s fund-raising operation when he ran for president in 2012 and who organized the Utah conference, said Ms. Haley “was probably the strongest in making the case” that donors needed to mobilize to stop Mr. Trump from winning. Other attendees included former Vice President Mike Pence, Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.“If you don’t pick a candidate, Trump is going to be the nominee,” Mr. Christie warned the donors, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by The New York Times.But the lower-polling Mr. Christie urged the donors not to focus on whom they thought could win — “Your track record shows that you don’t” know how to predict that, he said to laughter — but whom they thought would be the best president.“How about we try that one?” Mr. Christie said. More

Most of the concern over the independent presidential campaigns of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West and the No Labels party has focused on the risk that they could draw votes away from President Biden and throw the 2024 election to Donald Trump. That’s understandable, given what happened in 2000 and 2016.But there is another reason to fear these candidacies, and it’s right there in the Constitution: a contingent election decided by the House of Representatives, arguably the worst part of the Electoral College system.Ask people who don’t like the Electoral College — that’s roughly two-thirds of Americans — and they will point to its occasional habit of awarding the presidency to the candidate who comes in second in the popular vote. This fundamental violation of majority rule has happened five times — in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016. It nearly happened in 2020 and threatens to do so again in 2024.Don’t get me wrong: The wrong-winner scenario is unequivocally bad. Mr. Trump once called it “a disaster for a democracy,” before it delivered him to the White House. Yet it is not the most democratically offensive feature of the Electoral College. Few Americans are aware that under the Constitution, a candidate could lose the popular vote and the Electoral College and still become president. In fact, it’s already happened.How? By taking the election completely away from the people and giving it to the House of Representatives. This may sound far-fetched, but it is alarmingly plausible at a moment when the major-party candidates are relatively unpopular. No Labels (which is also the No Candidate party at the moment) seems to think that a contingent election is an entirely viable path to the White House — which is true, since it is virtually impossible to imagine any third-party candidate winning the old-fashioned way. But the group seems willfully oblivious to the chaos and destabilization that contingent elections provoked in the past and undoubtedly would again, especially in such a tense and polarized political climate. It is, as the best-selling author James Michener put it in a 1969 book on the topic, “a time bomb lodged near the heart of the nation.”The bomb goes off if an independent candidate like Mr. Kennedy manages to pick up a few electoral votes and prevents either of the two main candidates from winning an outright majority of electors (at least 270 out of 538). In that case, the American people no longer have a say in the biggest election in the land. Instead, under the 12th Amendment, the top three electoral vote getters advance to a second round, in which the House of Representatives “shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president. But” — and rarely in the history of democracy has a “but” been asked to do so much — “in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.”Those votes in the past were decided by what a majority of a state’s delegation wanted, although the House can set different rules if it chooses. If the delegation is evenly divided, the state gets no vote. The point is, it doesn’t matter which party has more members in the House as a whole; all that matters is the happenstance of which party controls more state delegations. And right now Republicans control 26 state delegations and Democrats 22.One vote per state, with the presidency in the balance. Stop for a moment and consider the absurdity of this. North Dakota, whose single representative in Congress represents about 779,000 people, would have as much say in choosing the nation’s leader as California’s 52 House members, who together represent almost 40 million people. The two Dakotas combined (fewer than 1.7 million people, about the population of Phoenix) would wield twice as much power as Texas, with 30 million people. This is about as far from the principle of majority rule as you can get.The irony is that many founders expected this to be the standard way America would choose its presidents. As the plan took shape during the constitutional convention in 1787, Virginia’s George Mason predicted that the House would end up deciding 19 out of 20 elections. This wasn’t a bug in the system but a natural consequence of the lack of knowledge held by 18th-century Americans of politicians outside their home state. As a result, the thinking went, votes would be spread among a wide range of candidates, leaving most with some electors but none with a majority.This sounded reasonable at the time, but as soon as it happened, in the wild tie election of 1800, it nearly collapsed the young nation, and the founders quickly realized what a bad idea it was. Congress rapidly passed the 12th Amendment to avoid a repeat. Thomas Jefferson, who prevailed that year, later wrote to a friend that the House-election provision was “the most dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit.” He was proved right in 1824, when a four-way race for the White House prevented any of the candidates from winning an outright majority. Andrew Jackson led in electoral votes and popular votes, but the House picked the second-highest vote getter, John Quincy Adams. Jackson’s supporters were furious. They called it a corrupt bargain, and for good reason: Henry Clay, the speaker of the House and one of the other candidates in the race, hated Jackson and strong-armed lawmakers to vote for Adams, who later chose Clay for secretary of state.The House has not decided a presidential election in the 200 years since, although it came close in 1968, during a tumultuous three-way race among Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace, the former Alabama governor who ran on the ultraright American Independent Party ticket. Nixon won but not before Wallace, an archsegregationist, captured 46 electoral votes in five Southern states.Now imagine that in 2024, a No Labels candidate or even Mr. Kennedy or Mr. West is able to peel off a few electors in, say, Maine or Alaska, states that pride themselves on their independent streaks. (Maine awards its electors by congressional district, making it even easier to pick one off.) It’s not a simple task, given the varied and sometimes strict ballot-access rules in many states. Many fans of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. West may never get a chance to vote for them. Still, No Labels has managed to secure a spot on the ballot in 11 states, including key battlegrounds like Arizona and North Carolina.Bottom line: It’s easy to assemble an electoral map in which no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, sending the election to the House. That vote would not take place until early January 2025, after the newly elected Congress is seated, but even if Democrats regain a numerical majority in the House, Republicans are likely to hold and possibly expand their advantage in state delegations. In other words, assuming Mr. Trump is still a free man, he could be picked by the House to be the 47th president, even if Mr. Biden wins millions more popular votes and the most electoral votes.It is reckless fantasy for a group like No Labels to inject more choices into a system that is not designed to handle them. That may sound like democracy in theory, but in practice it produces the opposite: a greater chance of a candidate winning with the support of only a minority. That’s all the more likely when the two major parties are as closely divided as they are today.This isn’t an argument against more political parties. To the contrary, multiparty democracies can give voters a wider and healthier range of choices, better reflecting the diversity of the electorate.A huge, diverse country like the United States should welcome reforms like a proportional election system — and, while we’re on the subject, the elimination of the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote. Until then, the quixotic campaigns by today’s professed independents aren’t just futile; they’re dangerous.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

Here is a second round of readers’ choices beyond the announced candidates.To the Editor:Re “More Hats in the Ring?” (Letters, Sept. 29):I’d like to see Gavin Newsom enter the presidential race.He’s intelligent and experienced, governing the most populous state in the country and one of the largest economies in the world.As governor of California, he’s aware of the important issues facing our country today: unchecked immigration, climate change, homelessness, polarization of society, etc.He’s young and charismatic, and presents an air of confidence and stability that our country and our allies desperately need.He would be an interesting and exciting candidate who could motivate voters. He could win the presidency, and many Americans would breathe a sigh of relief and have hope for the future.Mary Ellen RamirezHoffman Estates, Ill.To the Editor:If Caroline Kennedy joined the presidential race, she would receive my support. Unlike the current Kennedy who is vying for the presidency (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.), she is not mired in controversy and conspiracy theories.She served as the U.S. ambassador to Japan during President Barack Obama’s administration and is now the ambassador to Australia, showcasing her experience in diplomacy and politics. She has spent her life devoted to politics, educational reform and charitable work. She has continued her father’s legacy with class.Ms. Kennedy has never been driven by the spotlight, which proves that she would not be interested in boasting about accomplishments or putting personal interests ahead of the needs of the country.We have yet to elect a woman as president in this country. If we were to find Camelot again, Caroline Kennedy would be our leader.Kristina HopperHolland, Mich.To the Editor:Our commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo, has exceptional credentials to appeal to the electorate and to lead our nation.She earned a B.A. degree in economics at Harvard while graduating magna cum laude (and played rugby, an ideal foundation for politics, she says). She then became a Rhodes scholar, got a law degree from Yale Law School and worked as a venture capitalist.As general treasurer of Rhode Island, she reformed the state’s pension system. From there she became governor of Rhode Island, and cut taxes every year and removed thousands of pages of regulations. She is now the nation’s commerce secretary.Gina Raimondo has an excellent educational foundation, solid business qualifications and experience on the federal level as a cabinet member. Gina Raimondo checks a lot of boxes.David PastoreMountainside, N.J.To the Editor:There are numerous plain-speaking, pragmatic governors who eschew divisive culture wars and focus on results-oriented governance, job creation and fiscal responsibility. What distinguishes Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia is not only his courageous stand against Donald Trump’s election denialism, but his attention to re-establishing Republican Party unity.Only a Republican governor who can attract support from conservative Republicans, crossover Democrats and independent voters can realistically hope to build the gridlock-busting coalition the nation so desperately needs at this time. That makes Governor Kemp a most attractive presidential candidate in 2024.John R. LeopoldStoney Beach, Md.To the Editor:The best choice for another Democratic presidential candidate is Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a progressive Democrat focusing on health care, universal pre-K and infrastructure.Ms. Whitmer knows what voters want. Her campaign to “fix the damn roads” in cold hilly Michigan helped get her elected governor. She is fearless against insurrectionists and homegrown militias, and did not back down about her government’s pandemic restrictions. She spooks Donald Trump, who calls her “that woman from Michigan.” She knows how to kick the G.O.P.’s butt, winning the governorship with an over 10-point margin and inspiring voters to elect a Democratic-controlled House and Senate.Ms. Whitmer is smart and energetic, and projects a down-to-earth Midwestern sensibility.Big Gretch for the win!Karla JenningsDecatur, Ga.To the Editor:I hereby nominate Gen. Mark Milley for the presidency. Just retired from his post as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley is well qualified to become commander in chief.His 43-year Army career, during which he served in command positions across the globe, was exemplary. He is well versed in the functioning of government and in the politics of Washington. He holds degrees from Princeton and Columbia.His reverence for the American system of government is unwavering — perhaps most tellingly in a speech following the 2020 election, when our system of government hung in the balance. “We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual,” he said. “We take an oath to the Constitution.”Arguably his biggest mistake was following President Donald Trump to St. John’s Church in Washington after protesters objecting to the killing of George Floyd were cleared from the area. “My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics,” he later acknowledged. “It was a mistake that I have learned from.” How refreshing, a public figure apologizing. We could use more of that.Henry Von KohornPrinceton, N.J.To the Editor:I would like to see Nikki Haley be the Republican candidate against a female Democrat — Amy Klobuchar, Gina Raimondo or Gretchen Whitmer. All are qualified. We would have our first woman president regardless of which party won.Arleen BestArdsley, N.Y.To the Editor:Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado.He’s engaged, honest, eloquent, passionate and cut from a cloth that might not even exist anymore. His biggest flaw is that he’s not flashy or dramatic, but he knows policy, can come up with solutions, and is in touch with the real problems facing our nation. He is the moderate and principled human being that this country needs.Ken RizzoNew YorkTo the Editor:I like President Biden’s policies and his accomplishments, but I think he’s too old. So I’d like to see Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio run for the Democratic Party nomination.Mr. Brown is a progressive, F.D.R.-style Democrat who has focused on economic policies that have improved the lives of working-class Americans. He is pro-union and helped President Biden pass the CHIPS and Science Act, which had broad labor support.He’s also principled: He was the second Senate Democrat to call for the resignation of the disgraced senator Bob Menendez. And he’s been able to win, and keep, his Senate seat in swing-state Ohio, which the Democrats will need to win in 2024.I’m not from Ohio and I’ve never met Sherrod Brown, but every time I see him interviewed I think, “Why doesn’t this guy run for president?” I think he’d stop the slide of working-class Americans away from the Democratic Party, and as president, he’d continue to advance the successful Biden economic agenda.He could definitely beat Donald Trump. And if he’s not at the top of the ticket, I think he’d make an excellent V.P. choice for Gretchen Whitmer.Charles McLeanDenverTo the Editor:Tom Hanks.We’ve had actors before as president (aren’t they all?), but none as talented, well respected, intelligent, multidimensional, centered, compassionate and, well, genuine. He projects steel when necessary and is nobody’s fool — politically astute and cross-party electable.Bob CarrChicagoTo the Editor:I believe that Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut should consider running. He has vast experience in both domestic issues and foreign policy. His passion for classic, progressive issues is based on a concern that all Americans have a high quality of life.His bipartisan efforts, especially on gun control, are impressive. Age, eloquence and demeanor matter a great deal on a world stage; he is young, composed, thoughtful and articulate.Christopher NilsonChandler, Ariz.To the Editor:For the Democrats: Jared Polis, governor of Colorado, is the first name that comes to my mind. He’s an intelligent, honest, hard-working moderate.For the Republicans: No name comes to me, but I could support anyone who’s intelligent, honest and has the courage to stop being a fearful apologist for Donald Trump.The fact that I see no one fitting that bill makes me worry for the fate of my country.Jim HollestelleLouisville, Colo. More

The rightward shift came as voters punished the party once led by Jacinda Ardern for failing to deliver the transformational change that it had promised.After an election campaign of fits and starts, in which neither major party appeared to offer much solace to a weary nation, voters in New Zealand on Saturday ousted the party once led by Jacinda Ardern and elected the country’s most right-wing government in a generation, handing victory to a coalition of two conservative parties.New Zealand’s next prime minister will be Christopher Luxon, a former chief executive of Air New Zealand, whose center-right National Party will lead a coalition with Act, a smaller libertarian party.Addressing a euphoric crowd at his party’s victory event on Auckland’s waterfront, Mr. Luxon thanked supporters and promised a better and more stable future for the country.“Our government will deliver for every New Zealander,” he said, to whoops and cheers. “We will rebuild the economy and deliver tax relief.”The rightward drift ended six years of the Labour government that was dominated by Ms. Ardern, who stepped down early this year.“She’s probably the most consequential prime minister we’ve had since David Lange,” the Labour leader who came to power in 1984, “and, from an international point of view, most charismatic,” said Bernard Hickey, an economic and political commentator in Auckland, New Zealand. “But this election is the landmark of her failure.”For many voters, Ms. Ardern and her successor, Chris Hipkins, failed to deliver on the Labour Party’s promise of transformational change. In the weeks leading up to the election, New Zealanders, buffeted by the currents of global inflation and its larger Asia Pacific neighbors’ economic woes, overwhelmingly cited cost of living as the primary concern driving their vote.The coalition is a return to form for New Zealand, which since moving to a system of proportional representation in 1993 has had only one single-party government — the Labour government elected in 2020 under Ms. Ardern. But it is the first time National, which last governed alone in the early 1980s, has been in coalition with a more conservative partner.With most of the vote counted, support for the Labour Party, which won 50 percent of the vote in 2020, buoyed by the country’s strong response to the coronavirus pandemic, has collapsed to 27 percent. The National Party won 39 percent of the vote, up from 26 percent in 2020. Among the smaller parties, the Green Party took 11 percent of the vote, and Act won 9 percent. But those results could shift slightly after “special” votes were counted, including those of overseas New Zealanders. That could potentially force Act and National into coalition with New Zealand First, a longtime kingmaker that played a role in Ms. Ardern’s ascent, to push the right-wing coalition over the halfway mark.Addressing party members in Wellington, Mr. Hipkins said he had conceded the election to Mr. Luxon and celebrated Labour’s accomplishments on alleviating child poverty and navigating New Zealand through the coronavirus pandemic, the Christchurch massacres and the White Island volcano eruption.“We will keep fighting for working people, because that is our history and our future,” he said.Voters waiting for their ballots at a voting center in Wellington on Saturday.Ivan Tarlton/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe National Party had campaigned on a platform of tax cuts, saying it would offer relief to ordinary families. Critics have questioned the funding for those cuts, which rely heavily on foreign ownership of New Zealand property, and some have said that they disproportionately favor some 300 New Zealand landlords while cutting benefits for disabled people.Inflation, which was at 6 percent in July compared with 6.7 percent one year earlier, appears to be easing, according to the most recent government data, though New Zealanders will most likely endure pain for some time to come, as the country weathers high house and rent prices, a high cost of borrowing and the effects of global shocks.“When it comes to the economy,” said Grant Duncan, a political scientist in Auckland, “we’re a cork bobbing around on an ocean.”The new National-led government, despite being more conservative, was unlikely to make significant changes on many social issues, said Ben Thomas, a former press secretary for the National Party.“Nobody wants to re-litigate abortion or homosexual marriage,” he said. “Unlike the States, where there’s a constant battle to try and roll back progressive legislation, the conservative tradition in New Zealand is ‘We’ve always gone just about far enough.’”But Act may seek to push policy priorities of its own, including a referendum to reconsider the role New Zealand’s Indigenous Maori people play in policymaking.“What they actually want is a referendum which defines away any kind of standing or rights guaranteed to Maori by the Treaty,” Mr. Thomas said, referring to an 1840 agreement that governs New Zealand legislation to this day.He added: “What you might broadly call racial tensions — over race and policy, Maori policy, Treaty policy — are greater than at any point since 2005.”At the same time, the country was still contending with a multibillion dollar recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle, which in February devastated swaths of the country’s North Island, exposing dangerous infrastructure fault lines, said Craig Renney, an economist for the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.The National Party had not announced any plans for how it would manage New Zealand’s climate vulnerabilities, Mr. Renney said.“Where are we going to be in six years’ time? What are we going to do to tackle some of the really big issues, be it climate change, renting, employment security?” he said. “Those things haven’t been being debated, because the country is tired.”It was unclear whether the new government could easily solve these and other problems, said Dr. Duncan, the political scientist.“I’m not saying they’re going to do a bad job,” he said. “I just don’t have any confidence in them doing a better job.” More