Elections

The former South Carolina governor — the only woman in the Republican field — stood out for her responses on abortion, foreign policy and Donald Trump’s indictments.Less than 30 minutes into the first Republican presidential debate, the men onstage were bickering — just as Nikki Haley predicted.“I think this is exactly why Margaret Thatcher said, ‘If you want something said, ask a man,’” quipped Ms. Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and former ambassador to the United Nations. “If you want something done, ask a woman.”The response was the beginning of a standout performance for Ms. Haley, who already cut a distinct figure: the lone woman in the Republican field, standing in a white and light blue suit-style dress among a stretch of men in nearly identical red ties.Her Thatcher line — a favorite on the stump and the inspiration for the title of one of her books — captured the balance she has sought to strike between testing her party’s attitudes and not leaning too far into her gender. But Ms. Haley, who has struggled to gain traction in primary polls dominated by Donald J. Trump, did not always stay above the fray.She took swings at her rivals and offered a general-election vision for her party that seemed to intrigue some voters and pundits who were impressed with her abilities to speak authoritatively, skillfully break with the pack on some issues and give and take punches.The showing could inject some much-needed momentum into her campaign. Ms. Haley spent the next morning sitting through a blitz of interviews before she was expected in Chicago for a fund-raiser. At the very least, her allies said, the debate gave a glimpse into why she should not be discounted.“Nobody thought Nikki Haley could get elected to anything in South Carolina,” said Katon Dawson, a Haley surrogate and the former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. And yet, he added, “she has never lost a race.”Here are four areas where Ms. Haley was able to land a blow and distinguish herself from the field on Wednesday night in Milwaukee.“Do not make women feel like they have to decide on this issue.”She went head-to-head with former Vice President Mike Pence on abortion, giving an impassioned defense of women and urging her rivals to stop “demonizing” the issue. As governor of South Carolina, she signed a 20-week ban on the procedure, but on Wednesday, just as she has before, she called for “consensus” on the issue.“Can’t we all agree that we should ban late-term abortions? Can’t we all agree that we should encourage adoptions? Can’t we all agree that doctors and nurses who don’t believe in abortion shouldn’t have to perform them?” she said, before continuing: “Can’t we all agree that contraception should be available? And can’t we all agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?”Ms. Haley’s attempts to lead her party on a thorny issue haven’t always resonated — partly because, her critics say, she has dodged most questions on the details of her positions. On the stage Wednesday, she broached familiar personal themes, saying she was “unapologetically pro-life” because her husband was adopted and she had trouble conceiving her two children.But when Mr. Pence sought to establish himself as the staunchest opponent of abortion, telling Ms. Haley that “consensus is the opposite of leadership,” Ms. Haley fired back that he was being dishonest about what was politically possible when it comes to Congress passing a federal ban on abortion.“When you’re talking about a federal ban, be honest with the American people,” she said, arguing that the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate meant that no Democratic or Republican president would be able to set abortion policy.The exchange underscored the deep and emotional divide that has emerged among Republicans since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Though members of the party largely support that ruling, a fierce electoral backlash to more stringent state-level restrictions has made abortion a politically risky issue for Republicans.“This guy is a murderer, and you are choosing a murderer over a pro-American country.”Some of Ms. Haley’s fiercest clashes were with Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and political newcomer, over her support for Ukraine in its effort to fight Russia’s invasion, an issue that has starkly divided the field and the party more broadly. She suggested that Mr. Ramaswamy wanted to “hand Ukraine to Russia,” and that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had killed Yevgeny V. Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner mercenary group responsible for a short-lived mutiny.“This guy is a murderer, and you are choosing a murderer over a pro-American country,” Ms. Haley said to Mr. Ramaswamy, referring to Mr. Putin, whom she also called “thug.” “You don’t do that to friends. What you do instead is you have the backs of your friends.”Later, she took one of the most memorable shots of the night when she told Mr. Ramaswamy: “You will make America less safe. You have no foreign policy experience and it shows.” This drew loud applause from the audience.“They all voted to raise the debt, and Donald Trump added $8 trillion to our debt.”On the campaign trail, Ms. Haley often tells crowds that it is time to put an accountant like herself in the White House. On Wednesday, as her rivals blamed President Biden and Democrats for economic policies that they said had driven up the cost of food and gasoline, Ms. Haley criticized both Republicans and Democrats for increasing the nation’s spending and debt.“The truth is that Biden didn’t do this to us,” she said. “Our Republicans did this to us when they passed that $2.2 trillion Covid stimulus bill.”Mr. Biden shared a clip of Ms. Haley in which she said her rivals — Mr. Trump, Mr. Pence, Mr. DeSantis and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina — had all fueled the national debt increase. “What she said,” the president said on X, formerly known as Twitter.Economists largely agree that Mr. Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic rescue plan in 2021 contributed to the highest inflation rate in decades. But they spread the blame to stimulus passed under Mr. Trump and monetary stimulus by the Federal Reserve, along with disruptions to supply chains caused by Covid-19.The issues of debt and spending, along with calls for greater transparency in government, were part of Ms. Haley’s stunning come-from-behind-victory in 2010 when she was elected governor. That year, Ms. Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants, rode the Tea Party wave to become the first woman and first person of color to lead South Carolina — as well as the youngest governor of any state at the time.“We have to face the fact that Trump is the most disliked politician in America.”Ms. Haley elicited some boos from the arena audience when she called for “a new generational conservative leader,” pointing out “that-three quarters of Americans don’t want a rematch between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden.”“We have to face the fact that Trump is the most disliked politician in America,” she said. “We can’t win an election that way.”In an interview with the Fox News host Sean Hannity after the debate, Ms. Haley appealed to Republican primary voters to back a candidate other than Mr. Trump, whom she cast as an unsure bet against Mr. Biden.She said that she believed the criminal indictments against Mr. Trump were politically motivated, but that the cases could nevertheless take him off the campaign trail.“I served with him, I was proud to serve with him, I agree with him on most issues and he’s my friend,” Ms. Haley said of the former president. “But the reality is we cannot afford Joe Biden.” More

A New York exchange wants to allow high-dollar trading on the partisan divide on Capitol Hill, but lawmakers and watchdogs worry it could undermine public confidence in elections.Handicapping control of Congress is always a risky proposition, with multiple forces at work and much at stake in terms of policy and power. Now tens of millions of dollars could be riding on the outcome of House and Senate races as well.The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is weighing a proposal from a New York-based exchange that would allow derivatives trading on the question of which party will control Congress, potentially turning Election Day into a political version of the Super Bowl.Backers of the plan, which was proposed by the trading platform Kalshi, say it is simply another way for big firms to limit risk by hedging against possible adverse policy outcomes on issues such as taxes, energy and the environment that turn on which party holds sway in the House and Senate. They say it could also provide reliable data on the public view of elections that rivals or outperforms conventional polling.But the prospect of big firms laying up to $100 million on the line worries lawmakers and Wall Street watchdogs, who say it could lead to widespread gambling on politics in the United States and pose a threat to election confidence at a time when many Americans already harbor suspicions about electoral outcomes.“I just think this is hugely damaging to democracy, to have a monetary incentive,” said Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon and one of a bloc of senators in his party who oppose the plan.The effort by Kalshi, which already hosts trading on the outcome of real-world events such as when the Hollywood writers strike might end and whether there will be a government shutdown, is the latest in a push to allow more speculation on political contests, on which traditional betting is generally prohibited.The nonprofit firm PredictIt, which has allowed limited trading on political futures since 2014, won a reprieve last month from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that enabled it to temporarily continue to operate after an attempt by the C.F.T.C. to shut it down. The case will now make its way through federal court.The operators of Kalshi, a relatively recent start-up with some big-name Wall Street backing, want to go beyond the limited approach of PredictIt to allow large-scale trading on which party controls each chamber of Congress. Individuals would be allowed to take a position of up to $250,000 and big firms up to $100 million.The buyers of such “event contracts” who forecast correctly would be paid out depending on a market-established price, with Kalshi taking a fee for operating the exchange. The regulatory agency opened a review of the trading proposal in June and is expected to decide by Sept. 21.Kalshi executives reject the claim that their plan represents a threat to elections and say that their platform would be heavily regulated and transparent. They point to existing heavy wagering on American elections in Britain and other countries without domestic scrutiny, and say the exchange would open up possibilities for smaller companies and individuals that don’t have easy access to those opportunities.“People and businesses already take positions on elections on unregulated, overseas, or illegal markets in the billions,” said Eliezer Mishory, chief regulatory officer and counsel at Kalshi. “The C.F.T.C.’s choice isn’t whether this economic activity will happen or not happen, it’s whether this activity will happen in a regulated market with full government oversight or continue to happen without any government oversight.”The proposal has drawn the support of high-volume traders, economists and researchers who see advantages to companies whose financial prospects can hinge on the decisions made by Congress, as well as the opportunity to gather predictive election data. Among them is Jason Furman, a former top economic official in the Obama administration and a Harvard economics professor who calls himself an “enthusiastic” backer of the proposal. He dismissed concerns of financial manipulation of U.S. elections, noting that big financial players already make huge campaign and market-based moves based on their assessments of where elections are heading.“There are hundreds of billions of dollars already at stake in elections,” Mr. Furman said. “I think this is a rounding error compared to the set of financial incentives in elections today.”But given the heavy influence of megadonors in political campaigns, opponents in the Senate argue that allowing such substantial investment in potential election outcomes could provide powerful motivation for those with resources and inside knowledge to try to script the result.“Establishing a large-scale, for-profit political event betting market in the United States by approving Kalshi’ s requested contracts would profoundly undermine the sanctity and democratic value of elections,” Mr. Merkley wrote in a letter to the commission. He was joined by fellow Democratic Senators Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Dianne Feinstein of California and Elizabeth Warren and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts. They added that “introducing financial incentives into the elections process fundamentally changes the motivations behind each vote, potentially replacing political convictions with financial calculations.”The proposal has also encountered stiff opposition from Better Markets, an independent Wall Street and consumer watchdog that characterizes Kalshi’s proposal as a “back door” effort to instigate across-the-board wagering on U.S. elections when state and federal regulators have historically banned such gambling.“If it were to be approved by the C.F.T.C. or the courts, you can bet there will be widespread gambling on everything from the presidency to the local dogcatcher,” said Dennis Kelleher, a former top Senate aide who heads Better Markets. “We are at a perilous point in politics where confidence and trust in elections is low and going lower. The last thing democracy can withstand now is additional activities that erode the confidence of Americans.”Kalshi initially tried to win approval for its plan before the 2022 midterm elections but withdrew its proposal when it appeared in danger of being blocked. It resubmitted a revised plan in early June. The C.F.T.C. then began a 90-day review period over the objection of one commissioner, who argued Kalshi should be allowed to proceed. Should the agency rule against the trading plan, a lawsuit challenging that outcome is anticipated.Under the proposal, members of Congress, candidates for federal and statewide office, top advisers and others with a direct role in campaigns would be prohibited from taking part. More

I have a bunch of friends and acquaintances who are Never Trump, maybe-Trump or kind-of-Trump Republicans. They’ve been looking around for the candidate they can support and give their dollars to, somebody who is an antidote to Donald Trump and who can win a general election.We’ve had endless conversations about who this person might be. Many of these friends and acquaintances went through a Ron DeSantis phase. A few like the No Labels third candidate option. I’ve often found myself talking up Tim Scott with them. If Trump is a moral stain, I would say, Tim Scott is the kind, honest and optimistic remedy.But Wednesday’s debate persuaded me that the best Trump alternative is not Scott, it’s Nikki Haley. Nothing against Scott, he just didn’t show the specific kind of power and force needed to bring down Trump. Haley showed more than a glimpse of that power.Wednesday’s debate illustrated the cancer that is eating away at the Republican Party. It’s not just Trumpian immorality. The real disease is narcissistic hucksterism. The real danger is that he’s creating generations of people, like Vivek Ramaswamy, who threaten to dominate the G.O.P. for decades to come.Ramaswamy has absolutely no reason to be running for president. He said that Trump is the best president of the 21st century. So why is he running against the man he so admires? The answer is: To draw attention to himself. Maybe to be Trump’s vice president or secretary of social media memes.If Trump emerged from the make-believe world of pro wrestling, Ramaswamy emerges from the make-believe world of social media and the third-rate sectors of the right-wing media sphere. His statements are brisk, in-your-face provocations intended to produce temporary populist dopamine highs. It’s all performative show. Ramaswamy seems as uninterested in actually governing as his idol.Republicans have been unable to take down Trump because they haven’t been able to rebut and replace the core Trump/Ramaswamy ethos — that politics is essentially a form of entertainment. But time and again, Haley seemed to look at the Trump/Ramaswamy wing and implicitly say: You children need to stop preening and deal with reality. She showed total impatience for the kind of bravado that the fragile male ego manufactures by the boatload.Haley dismantled Ramaswamy on foreign policy. It was not only her contemptuous put-down: “You have no foreign policy experience and it shows.” She took on the whole America First ethos that sounds good as a one-liner but that doesn’t work when you’re governing a superpower. Gesturing to Ramaswamy, she said, “He wants to hand Ukraine to Russia, he wants to let China eat Taiwan, he wants to go and stop funding Israel. You don’t do that to friends.”Similarly on abortion, many of her opponents took the issue as a chance to perform self-righteous bluster — to make the issue about themselves. She was the only one who acknowledged the complexity of the issue, who tried to humanize people caught in horrible situations, who acknowledged that the absolutist position is politically unsustainable.She was the candidate brave enough to state the obvious truth that Trump took decades of G.O.P. fiscal conservative posturing and he blew it to smithereens. The other candidates assumed the usual conservative postures about cutting taxes and spending, but she introduced the reality: Under Trump, the G.O.P. added $8 trillion to the national debt. Where have you been the last seven years?That was part of a larger accomplishment. She seems to be one of the few candidates who understands that to run against Trump you have to run against Trump. Many of the other candidates, especially Ron DeSantis, seem to have absorbed the pernicious Trumpian assumption that Republican voters are so stupid that they can be won over by hokum. DeSantis is a smart guy trying to run as a simpleton. Haley, by contrast, seems to believe that voters are intelligent enough to be treated as adults.I’m trying to point to an overall pattern. When politics becomes entertainment, it’s very easy to create a land of make-believe in which you get high on your own supply. To follow Trump, you more or less have to say farewell to the actual world and live by the rules of the fun house carnival. Haley seems to have her feet still planted on the ground — able to face what Saul Bellow once called “the reality situation.”My largest question about Haley is: Does she know what year it is? The most interesting exchange of the night was between Ramaswamy and Mike Pence. Ramaswamy, to his credit, was talking about the nation’s mental health crisis and the national identity crisis that lies beneath it. Pence waved all that talk about the loss of meaning and purpose as so much woo-woo, and argued that the real problem is that government is not as good as the people. Pence, like many in the field, is still living in the age of Reagan, or at the latest, the Tea Party. They haven’t reoriented their focus to the sorts of concerns that are most important to heartland voters without a college degree. They don’t understand why the old Republican orthodoxy was so fragile in the face of Trump. They haven’t faced the new realities that have emerged this century.Has Haley? Too soon to tell. But if any of my friends and acquaintances want to stop Trump, this is their moment to give Haley her chance.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

Donald Trump’s signature issue from 2016 still reverberates powerfully and prompts aggressive rhetoric on ways to shore up the southern U.S. border.Asked whether he would send special forces into Mexico to combat drug cartels, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida didn’t hesitate to swing for the fences.“Yes, and I will do it on day one,” he said.He pledged to declare a national emergency and added: “When these drug pushers are bringing fentanyl across the border, that is going to be the last thing they do. We are going to use force and leave them stone-cold dead.”Republicans participating in the first presidential debate on Wednesday traded barbs and clashed repeatedly over abortion, climate change and how much fealty they owe to former President Donald J. Trump.But, when it came to immigration, there was little disagreement, only efforts to outdo each other in offering aggressive recommendations for military responses to unauthorized immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border. The overwhelming majority of illicit substances are brought into the United States in commercial vehicles coming through official ports of entry, rather than by migrants, according to law enforcement.Former Vice President Mike Pence did say that the United States would partner with the Mexican military, “and we will hunt down and destroy the cartels that are claiming lives in the United States.”During the debate, there were almost no evocations of immigration as one of the triumphant strains in the American tapestry, just a steady drumbeat of menace. In part, that reflects the degree to which Donald Trump’s signature issue has become so ingrained in the Republican playbook and psyche.But it also reflects the steady toll from drugs smuggled across the border, especially fentanyl, and the bitter trail of addiction and death that has stalked Americans across barriers of race, geography and class.As a result, like so much else in Republican politics, proposals that were once fringe have become mainstream since Mr. Trump made the border a core issue of his 2016 campaign and, once elected, of his domestic political agenda.Cars lining up to cross into the U.S. via Tijuana, Mexico, earlier this year. Drug smuggling across the border has been cited by Republican candidates as a main reason to secure the border.Guillermo Arias/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesRepublican candidates in this campaign cycle have picked up his baton, embracing ideas that would have been deemed unthinkable before the Trump presidency.For months, they have amped up their rhetoric about the southern border, raising the prospect of sending military troops to target drug cartels and stop what they call an invasion of migrants. And polls show growing frustration among many demographic groups, including Democrats, about the influx of migrants, which has created chaotic scenes at the border in recent years and strained cities, from New York to Denver, where many of the arrivals have ended up.But there are clear partisan divides, with two-thirds of Republicans saying that there should be fewer immigrants and asylum-seekers allowed into the country, compared to about a quarter of Democrats, according to an Associated Press poll earlier this year.A poll by Gallup in July found that the percentage of Americans who believe immigration is a “good thing” is the lowest since 2014. The poll found a growing minority — 41 percent — of Americans believe immigration should be decreased, with Republicans far more likely to say so than Democrats. Still, a majority of Americans polled remain largely supportive of immigration and opposed to decreasing the number of immigrants.The political fallout has been especially sharp in New York, where more than 100,000 migrants have arrived, with nearly 60,000 of those staying in shelters.A poll released this week by the Siena College Research Institute found that large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents in both the city and upstate New York believe the migrants, many of them asylum-seekers, pose a “serious problem” for the state.Roughly 46 percent of voters said that migrants resettling in New York in the last two decades have been more of a “burden” than a “benefit” to the state. Nearly 60 percent said that “New Yorkers have already done enough for new migrants and should now work to slow the flow” rather than “accept new migrants and work to assimilate them into New York.”Unauthorized border crossings have declined in recent months, a result of measures that the Biden administration has introduced to enable people to enter the United States in a more orderly fashion, such as by making an appointment on a government mobile app for an interview with U.S. authorities at the border or being sponsored by a relative already in the country.During Wednesday’s debate, the fentanyl crisis loomed large, with the candidates invoking overdose deaths as emblematic of the border crisis.Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina called for firing 87,000 newly hired I.R.S. agents and doubling the number of border patrol agents. “The most pressing need of the American people is our southern border,” he said.“If we spend $10 billion, we could finish the wall,” he said. “For $5 billion more, we could have the military-grade technology to surveil our southern border to stop the flow of fentanyl and save 70,000 Americans a year. “Vivek Ramaswamy, who has called for securing the border by any means necessary, including with military force, said that resources the United States has been sending to Ukraine should be employed instead to “protect against the invasion across our southern border.”Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, called for the detention of everyone entering the country unlawfully.But in a rare sentiment respectful of immigration at the debate, he said, “We have so many wonderful people from around the world who are waiting in line following the law to try to come here and pursue the American dream. Those people are waiting and waiting and waiting because we haven’t dealt with the problem of the folks who are here.”President Biden has repeatedly reminded Americans that only Congress can fix the broken immigration system. But, in an increasingly polarized political environment, prospects for a legislative solution backed by both parties have only become dimmer. More

The country went months without naming a new prime minister, only for Parliament to elect Srettha Thavisin, a candidate who many frustrated voters say represents the establishment.The election was supposed to be about change. Three months ago, Thai voters propelled the progressive Move Forward Party to a surprise victory. “A new day for the people has arrived,” said Pita Limjaroenrat, the party leader, as he paraded through the streets of Bangkok.On Tuesday, Thailand named a new prime minister, but it was not Mr. Pita. A coalition government was formed in Parliament, made up almost entirely of parties linked to the generals who led the last military coup. Move Forward is in the opposition.Now, many Thais are asking why the future they had voted for is looking so much like the past.“If you go around and talk to middle-class Thais at the moment, they’re saying, ‘What the hell did we have this election for, if this is the result that we get?’” said Christopher Baker, a historian of Thailand.Thailand, Mr. Baker said, is giving up a chance to “reverse the fact that it’s been going backward, in almost every sense, for the last 15 years.”Supporters of the Move Forward Party during a protest in Bangkok last month. No political party had ever been so explicit about changing the status quo in Thailand.Sakchai Lalit/Associated PressAs the second-largest economy in Southeast Asia and an ally of the United States, Thailand was once a powerful player in the region. More recently it has suffered from prolonged economic stagnation brought about by nine years of military rule under Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the general who seized power in a coup in 2014. Mr. Prayuth has steered Thailand away from democracy and toward authoritarian rule — he cracked down on pro-democracy protests and oversaw the rewriting of a Constitution that gave the military more power.His term fueled rising public anger and frustration, culminating in mass protests in 2020. For the first time, disaffected young Thais questioned publicly the relevance of the country’s powerful monarchy, a topic previously considered taboo. They asked why Thailand needed a royal defamation law, one of the world’s strictest, that carries a maximum sentence of up to 15 years in prison.Move Forward capitalized on this anti-royalist, anti-military sentiment, which became the bedrock of the party’s progressive platform. It announced more than 300 policy proposals, including shrinking the military budget and breaking up big business. No political party had ever been so explicit about changing the status quo.“No one would have thought that the party whose policy is to reform the monarchy and the military could win” the election, said Aim Sinpeng, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Sydney, in Australia. “I don’t think you can take that significance away, ever. It’s completely changed Thailand.”A portrait of Thailand’s king, in Bangkok. Young Thais have questioned publicly the relevance of the powerful monarchy, a topic previously considered taboo.Adam Dean for The New York TimesMove Forward’s election victory jolted the political elite, which quickly set the wheels in motion to block the party’s ascent. In the days after the election, the complaints against Mr. Pita piled up. The Constitutional Court suspended him from Parliament, pending a review of a case involving his shares in a now-defunct media company. The military-appointed Senate blocked him from becoming the prime minister during an initial vote. After that, the Constitutional Court said he could not be renominated for the position.When it became clear that the establishment was not going to allow Move Forward to form a government, Pheu Thai, the populist party founded by the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, stepped in.Pheu Thai had been Move Forward’s partner in the initial coalition. It said it had to part ways with Move Forward and attempt to form its own coalition after it became clear that other conservative parties were not willing to work with Move Forward.Pheu Thai does not share Move Forward’s liberal agenda, though it has promoted itself as a pro-democracy party. Mr. Thaksin had battled the conservative establishment for decades. But as a billionaire businessman, he is essentially a member of the old guard. Since 2001, the political parties he founded have consistently won the most votes in every election — except for this year.For 15 years, Mr. Thaksin had lived in self-imposed exile to avoid a lengthy jail term on corruption and abuse of power charges, with one goal: to return home to Thailand.Democracy demonstrations in Bangkok in 2020.Adam Dean for The New York TimesOn Tuesday, he did that, just hours before Pheu Thai’s candidate, Srettha Thavisin, secured enough votes in Parliament to become the next prime minister.For many in Thailand, Mr. Thaksin’s timing only confirmed their suspicions that a quid pro quo arrangement had been made between Pheu Thai and the conservative establishment to have his prison sentence reduced in exchange for keeping the military and royalists in power.“Srettha was a product of this deal with the Thai establishment,” said Ruchapong Chamjirachaikul, a politics specialist at iLaw, a civil society organization. “The people don’t feel excited about having Srettha as prime minister.”To obtain enough support for Mr. Srettha, Pheu Thai relied on the military’s support, despite vowing repeatedly in the past to remove the generals from politics. Mr. Srettha, a real estate tycoon, says the party had no choice because of “basic math”: to secure the premiership, he needed 374 votes from both houses of Parliament, including the military-appointed Senate.“It’s not deceiving the people, but I have to say it bluntly that we have to accept reality,” Mr. Srettha, 61, said in a speech to Pheu Thai party members on Monday.Move Forward lawmakers voted against Mr. Srettha; they had announced earlier this month that they would do so because Pheu Thai was essentially extending military rule in Thailand. “There will never be a day that this crossbred government can make a difference in society,” Mr. Pita, 42, wrote on Facebook after Mr. Srettha was voted in on Tuesday.The question now is whether Mr. Srettha has the support to hold together an 11-party coalition government that is united in its determination to stop Move Forward but in agreement on little else. Analysts warn that such an unwieldy coalition could lead to more instability.Pheu Thai’s candidate, Srettha Thavisin, had to rely on the military’s support to secure enough votes to become prime minister.Lauren Decicca/Getty Images“It’s very much a government that’s held together by a common enemy, but that doesn’t make them automatically friends,” said Ken Mathis Lohatepanont, an independent political analyst who writes about Thai politics.Thailand’s neighbors and partners are watching developments with apprehension, fearing that political instability in one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations could derail economic cooperation.History warns that this is possible: For the past 70 years, Thai politics have been defined by a cycle of protests and coups — the country has had 13 successful coups in its modern history, and several more attempted ones. Except for Mr. Thaksin’s first term from 2001-2005 and Mr. Prayuth’s term, no government in Thailand has lasted its full term in the past two decades.Countries like the United States, which was quick to condemn Cambodia for a recent election that was deemed not to be free or fair, have been largely silent on the protracted election process in Thailand.Sunai Phasuk, a senior researcher on Thailand for Human Rights Watch, said the rights organization had been pressing the United States, the European Union and Australia to take a stronger stance but has been told these governments prefer a “wait and see” approach.Mr. Sunai added that the United States was probably being cautious about alienating Thailand to avoid driving it closer to China.Last month, the State Department said that it was “closely watching” developments in Thailand and that it was concerned about the recent legal cases against Mr. Pita, a graduate of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Move Forward.One complaint before the Constitutional Court centers on the party’s effort to amend the royal defamation law, calling it tantamount to “attempting to overthrow the democratic system with His Majesty the King as the Head of State.”A ruling against the party could lead to its dissolution.The Election Commission is also investigating Mr. Pita to see if he was aware that he could not run for office because he owned shares in a now-defunct media company. If found guilty, he could be imprisoned for up to 10 years.Muktita Suhartono More

Welcome to Opinion’s commentary for the first Republican presidential primary candidate debate, held in Milwaukee on Wednesday night. In this special feature, Times Opinion writers and contributors rank the candidates on a scale of 0 to 10: 0 means the candidate probably didn’t belong on the stage and should have dropped out before the debate […] More

Eight Republican presidential hopefuls clashed over the future of abortion access on Wednesday night in the first debate of the 2024 election cycle.Without the specter of Roe v Wade looming overhead, the candidates faced a new litmus test on abortion: whether or not they support a nationwide ban on the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.The former vice-president Mike Pence, former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott all pledged to support a federal 15-week ban.The question from the moderator Martha MacCallum had noted that abortion had consistently been a losing issue for Republicans in state ballots since the Dobbs decision.Nevertheless just one candidate, the North Dakota governor, Doug Burgum, decisively rejected the idea that Congress ought to regulate abortion access.Burgum, who signed North Dakota’s six-week abortion ban in April, said the conservative mission to overturn Roe was predicated on the belief that states should be allowed to set their own rules on the procedure.“What is going to work in New York will never work in North Dakota and vice versa,” Burgum said.For decades, Roe v Wade offered Republican candidates a convenient boogeyman. The supreme court ruling was not just about abortion – swing state conservatives like Burgum could point to Roe as an example of federal overreach.But Wednesday’s debate signaled a schism in the GOP’s position on abortion.In a post-Roe landscape, one year after Senator Lindsey Graham first introduced a federal 15-week ban bill in Congress, Republicans were forced to choose between their purported support for states’ rights and their opposition to abortion access.Burgum was the lone voice that chose states’ rights.Pence and Scott, both evangelical Christians, said they support a 15-week ban because abortion is a “moral” question that necessitates federal intervention.Scott said states like “California, New York and Illinois” should not be allowed to offer broad access to the procedure.Pence said abortion was “not a states only issue, it’s a moral issue”.The former vice-president, who has centered abortion in his bid to court socially conservative voters, condemned his opponents for refusing to back a federal ban.“I’m not new to this cause,” Pence said on Wednesday night. “Can’t we have a minimum standard in every state in the nation?”In his opening remarks, Pence lauded the work of the Trump administration, which placed three conservative justices on the US supreme court and “gave the people a new beginning for the right to life”.Pence also criticized the former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who suggested that it would be difficult to gain the requisite congressional support to pass a federal abortion ban.Haley, the only woman on Wednesday’s debate stage, said Republicans should instead pursue pragmatic legislative goals that could garner bipartisan support in Congress.“Let’s find consensus, can’t we all agree that we should ban late-term abortions? Can’t we all agree that we should encourage adoptions?” she said.In his response, Pence directly addressed Haley: “Consensus is the opposite of leadership.”Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, a powerful anti-abortion lobbying group, praised Pence, Hutchinson and Scott for offering “a clear, bold case for national protections for the unborn at least by 15 weeks”.“The position taken by candidates like Doug Burgum, that life is solely a matter for the states, is unacceptable for a nation founded on unalienable rights and for a presidential contender,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president, in a statement on Wednesday night.Last month, Dannenfelser issued a similar condemnation of the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, for his reluctance to back a federal ban.DeSantis has supported bills restricting access to abortion – including a six-week ban in his own state of Florida, but has stopped short of saying he would support a federal ban.Dannenfelser said the Republican presidential candidate should “work to gather the votes necessary in Congress” to pass a national ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, adding that DeSantis’s failure to support the ban was “unacceptable”.“There are many pressing legislative issues for which Congress does not have the votes at the moment, but that is not a reason for a strong leader to back away from the fight,” she said in a statement last month.On Wednesday night, Fox News moderators twice asked DeSantis to clarify his position on federal abortion restrictions, but the Florida governor refused to provide a direct answer.“I’m going to stand on the side of life,” DeSantis said. “I understand Wisconsin is going to do it different than Texas, I understand Iowa and New Hampshire are going to be different, but I will support the cause of life as governor and as president.”Notably, Donald Trump – the presumed GOP frontrunner – skipped Wednesday night’s debate.Earlier this year, Trump criticized DeSantis’s position on abortion, calling Florida’s six-week ban “too harsh”.But the former president appears to share DeSantis’s hesitations about the federal 15-week ban, dodging questions about the proposed restrictions since launching his re-election campaign in March.The Guardian reported in April that Trump considers a federal abortion ban a losing proposition for Republicans, though his exact vision for the future of US abortion access remains unclear. More

In a crowded debate, you can tell which candidates are seen as the greatest threat because they take the most incoming fire from their rivals.During the Republican presidential primary debate on Wednesday night, that person wasn’t Ron DeSantis, who was once considered Donald Trump’s greatest threat, but Vivek Ramaswamy, a 38-year-old political upstart with little chance of actually securing the nomination.Watching the DeSantis campaign collapse has been an extraordinarily edifying spectacle.There would have been no DeSantis without Trump. Trump endorsed DeSantis for governor of Florida when DeSantis was struggling against a strong Republican opponent for the party’s nomination. DeSantis rode Trump’s endorsement to victory.So, there was always something in the DeSantis campaign that knew that he was Macbeth coming to kill his king. The only problem was that DeSantis had ambition, but not the bloodlust. He lacks the courage, which is ironic given that he wrote a book before his run titled “The Courage to Be Free.”Instead of making the case to voters that Trump was unfit, he is counting on Trump’s martyrdom being his downfall. His gamble has yet to pay off.In addition, DeSantis has a chronic personality problem. He simply doesn’t connect with people. He smiles the way a Doberman bares its teeth: It feels forced, aggressive and dangerous. You feel like you should retreat from it. And when he’s not forcing a smile, he reflexively scowls. He has a resting wince face.He is not just emotionally aloof, but completely detached. He abides in aggression because the rest of the emotional range has either atrophied or failed to develop in the first place. In fact, during debate prep in 2018, one of his advisers told him that on the debate stage he would need to write “LIKABLE” in all caps at the top of his note pad.On Wednesday, DeSantis dispensed with that advice. He leaned into the aggression. But no one engaged. No one even responded. He was largely ignored by the other candidates, and the only thing that cuts deeper than disparagement is indifference.Instead, Ramaswamy was the target onstage, and he ate up the attention.Ever since the rise of Barack Obama and Republicans’ unseemly reaction to it, the party has entertained exotica. In 2011, Herman “9-9-9” Cain surged in the G.O.P. field for a while. In 2015, Ben “no Muslims as president” Carson led Trump in the polls for a moment.They are the amuse-bouche, the tasty appetizer before the party gets serious and sits for the meal.Now it is Ramaswamy’s turn.At one point, Chris Christie attempted to insult Ramaswamy by saying that “the last person at one of these debates who stood in the middle of the stage and said, ‘What’s a skinny guy with an odd last name doing up here,’ was Barack Obama, and I’m afraid we’re dealing with the same type of amateur.”Ramaswamy glowed at the comparison and shot back: “Give me a hug just like you did to Obama, and you’ll help elect me just like you did to Obama too.”Let’s be clear: Vivek, you are no Barack.You have a shallow, CliffsNotes understanding of the issues, but because you speak with speed and confidence, polished diction and a toothy grin, the incoherence is disguised by the delivery. Ramaswamy is the kind of person who gets hired for charisma rather than competence.At points, it seems obvious that he is being intentionally contrarian, outlandish and provocative in his proposals and pronouncements in order to provoke a reaction and garner more attention. In doing so, he is the personification of click bait.He is also positioning himself as inseparable from Trump. Not a competitor of Trump, but a superfan. He doesn’t want to replace him; he wants to merge with him. Ramaswamy is so close to the former president that he’s like the joey in the pouch to Trump’s kangaroo.This ingratiates him not only to Trump’s voters but to Trump himself, because Trump appreciates nothing more than devotion and loyalty.This had to hurt DeSantis. He is consumed by a class complex. As DeSantis wrote in his book, he was a “blue-collar kid,” an every-Sunday-service Catholic, who made his way to the Ivy League, where he believed his wealthy classmates looked down on the working class as not “sufficiently sophisticated.” He is still fighting to prove that he belongs, to prove that his worldview is not only valid but superior.And along comes Ramaswamy, also wealthier and more polished than him, to once again steal his shine, to make him feel small and insignificant.There were points during the debate when Ramaswamy sparred with Mike Pence and Chris Christie while literally looking past DeSantis as if he wasn’t there.DeSantis didn’t crash and burn Wednesday night. He made no real errors. He stayed on message and forcefully delivered his points. But the debate delivered its own point to him: His star is setting while another rises.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 and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More