More stories

  • in

    Iowa Caucus Recap: Trump’s Win, the Weather, and a Look Toward New Hampshire

    Listen to and follow ‘The Run-Up’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | AmazonAnna Foley and Lanny Van Daele casting his presidential preference vote in Coralville, Iowa, on Monday.Jim Slosiarek/The Gazette, via Associated PressGoing into the Iowa caucuses, there were a handful of key things we were watching for: Would the frigid weather hamper turnout? Would his overwhelming dominance in the polls translate to a decisive victory for Donald Trump? And finally, could the other candidates muster enough of a showing to keep the race alive?Today: Through conversations with Iowa caucus goers — especially those who preferred another candidate to Trump — we get answers to our questions. And we check in with our colleague Nick Corasaniti in New Hampshire about how the state’s independents are approaching the primary next week — and how confident Trump is of a second early state victory.About ‘The Run-Up’“The Run-Up” is your guide to understanding the 2024 election. Through on-the-ground reporting and conversations with colleagues from The New York Times, newsmakers and voters across the country, our host, Astead W. Herndon, takes us beyond the horse race to explore how we came to this unprecedented moment in American politics. New episodes on Thursdays.Credits“The Run-Up” is hosted by More

  • in

    The Snickers Bar Is the Economic Indicator We Need

    The United States has just experienced one of the biggest collapses in consumer inflation in modern history. In June 2022 consumer prices had risen 9.1 percent over the previous year. By December 2023 the rate of increase had slowed to 3.4 percent. And yet, in survey after survey, voters still declare inflation to be at or near the top of their list of concerns.Why aren’t voters recognizing the decline in the inflation rate? Because voters are humans, and humans don’t think about inflation rationally. To understand why, let’s look at a Snickers bar.More than 12 Snickers bars are sold every second in the United States. That makes Snickers bars a very important part of consumer purchases, and so the price of a Snickers bar should be included in the inflation calculation. Yet Snickers bars do not consume a big portion of most families’ annual budget (at least they usually don’t).Most of us will spend far more of our budget on something like a television. With $1,500 a consumer could buy a high-end 55-inch television, or almost four Snickers bars a day for a year. Because items in the consumer price basket are weighted, roughly, by how much money consumers spend on that item in a year, television prices are more important than Snickers bars in the calculation of inflation.However, we probably buy a Snickers bar much more frequently, perhaps even daily. So we’re much more likely to remember the price of the Snickers bar and forget the price of the television we bought last year. Consumers tend to think only about the prices of high-frequency purchases — food for the family and fuel for the S.U.V.The different inflation rates for infrequent and frequent purchases is a big part of why consumers mistakenly believe inflation is higher than it actually is. The prices of more expensive goods like furniture and consumer electronics are actually falling — and have been falling for over a year. Once the post-pandemic surge in demand for electronics, furniture and similar items faded, manufacturers were unable to maintain higher prices, pulling the reported inflation numbers lower.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    For Biden, Another Trump Nomination Presents Opportunity, and Great Risk

    Some Democrats consider the former president the Republican they would have the best chance against this fall, but also the one they most fear the consequences of losing to.To be clear, no one in President Biden’s White House would ever root for Donald J. Trump. To a person, they consider him an existential threat to the nation. But as they watched Mr. Trump open the contest for the Republican presidential nomination with a romp through Iowa, they also saw something else: a pathway to a second term.Mr. Biden’s best chance of winning re-election in the fall, in their view, is a rematch against Mr. Trump. The former president is so toxic, so polarizing that his presence on the November ballot, as Mr. Biden’s advisers see it, would be the most powerful incentive possible to lure disaffected Democrats and independents back into the camp of the poll-challenged president.And so, some Democrats felt a little torn this week as the Republican race got underway. None of them would cry if Mr. Trump were taken down by someone like former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, who has one shot in New Hampshire next week to make it a race. Whatever Ms. Haley’s flaws, and Democrats see many, they do not believe she would pose the same danger to democracy that Mr. Trump does.But if she won the Republican nomination, she might pose a bigger danger to Mr. Biden.The paradox recalls 2016, when many Democrats were not unhappy when Mr. Trump won the Republican nomination, on the theory that the country would never elect a bumptious reality-television star who specialized in racist appeals and insult politics. Burned once, they are not so certain this time, but Democrats are banking on the hope that the country would not take back a defeated president who inspired a violent mob to help him keep power and has been charged with more felonies than Al Capone.“I was not one of those Democrats who thought Trump would be easier to beat in 2016,” said Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s communications director in the election she lost to Mr. Trump. “Some Democrats root for Trump. I think it is better for the country” for him “to be defeated in the Republican Party and not continue to gain strength.” If Mr. Trump did lose, she added, she believed Biden could defeat Ms. Haley or Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.But it might not be as easy. Ms. Haley would be vulnerable to Democratic attacks for enabling Mr. Trump as his ambassador to the United Nations, and even as a Republican candidate for president who largely declined to attack the former president and would not rule out voting for him if he won the nomination.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    Climate is on the Ballot Around the World

    About half of the world’s population will be electing leaders this year.More than 40 countries that are home to about half of the world’s population — including the United States, India and South Africa — will be electing their leaders this year.My colleagues at The Times report that it’s “one of the largest and most consequential democratic exercises in living memory,” which “will affect how the world is run for decades to come.”Climate is front and center on many of the ballots. The leaders chosen in this year’s elections will face daunting challenges laid out in global climate commitments for the end of the decade, such as ending deforestation, tripling renewable energy capacity and sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions.Here are the issues and races to watch closely:Major climate policies at stakeClimate change is one of the issues on which Republicans and Democrats are farthest apart.President Biden signed what many called the most powerful climate legislation in the country’s history. Former President Trump, who is likely to be the Republican presidential candidate — especially after his victory in the Iowa caucuses — withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, the 2015 treaty that guided much of the world’s progress in curbing climate change.Republicans have also prepared a sweeping strategy called Project 2025 if Trump wins back the White House. As my colleague Lisa Friedman wrote last year, “the plan calls for shredding regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells and power plants, dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels.”Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, is expected to seek re-election.Martin Divisek/EPA, via ShutterstockEuropean Union incumbents will also be defending their climate policies, known as the Green Deal, in elections for the European Parliament in June. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president who is expected to seek re-election by the European Parliament, kicked off a series of policies designed to ensure the bloc achieves carbon neutrality by 2050. But opposition to these policies is growing. Farmers in several countries have tried to block measures to restore natural ecosystems, while homeowners have grown increasingly worried about the cost of the green energy transition.Opinion polls analyzed by Reuters in a commentary piece suggest far-right lawmakers, who oppose Green Deal policies, will grow in number but remain a minority. Climate may also play a role in elections in Britain, which may happen in the second half of the year. They became a key point of disagreement between the Labour Party and the governing Conservative Party, which are trailing in the polls, after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak rolled back some of the country’s most ambitious climate policies.The future of coalCountries that rely heavily on coal as a source of energy, such as India, Indonesia and South Africa, are also going to the polls this year. In South Africa, elections could influence how fast the country is able to switch to renewables. Any shake up to the ruling African National Congress’ hold on power could boost the shift to renewables, my colleague Lynsey Chutel, who covers South Africa, told me.Environmental activists demonstrated outside of Standard Bank South Africa in Johannesburg, South Africa, in September.Kim Ludbrook/EPA, via ShutterstockRight now, one of the party’s most powerful leaders is an energy minister who has fiercely defended the country’s continued use of coal. Many voters are angry at the A.N.C. for its inability to address an energy crisis partially created by aging coal plants.There seems to be less room for a shift in the elections in Indonesia and India. My colleague Suhasini Raj, who is based in India, told me that, despite high rates of pollution and the pressure on India to let go of coal, the current prime minister Narendra Modi is likely to be re-elected and continue his pro-coal policies.In Indonesia none of the candidates running for president have put forward a concrete plan to transition to clean energy, Mongabay, an environmental news service, reported. The country is by far the world’s biggest exporter of coal. Oil on the ballotFor leaders in oil producing nations around the world, balancing climate policies and drilling has been a delicate act that will be tested on the ballot.President Biden risked losing the support of many climate-conscious voters when he approved Willow, an $8 billion oil drilling project on pristine federal land in Alaska. But Biden’s support for more drilling has been, at least in part, an effort to curb inflation, which angers many more voters.Claudia Sheinbaum’s presidential campaign in Mexico is also balancing climate proposals with her country’s dependence on oil. A climate scientist who is now the mayor of Mexico City, Sheinbaum is a protégé of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, whose administration has tried to boost the oil sector’s role in the country’s economy.Claudia Sheinbaum, running for president in Mexico.Carlos Lopez/EPA, via ShutterstockSheinbaum, a favorite to win in June, has vowed to act to protect the climate. But it’s unclear how much Obrador’s oil legacy will color her policies. “We are going to keep advancing with renewable energies and with the protection of the environment, but without betraying the people of Mexico,” she told voters, according to Bloomberg.The oil industry is also on the ballot in Venezuela and Russia, where it lends strength to authoritarian leaders.Vladimir Putin’s re-election — and his disregard for the climate — seems to be a foregone conclusion. But, in Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela, there is tiny window for change, though it seems to be closing fast.Venezuela freed five political prisoners in October after the United States vowed to lift some sanctions to its oil industry if it holds free and fair elections. But the main opposition candidate is still banned from running.It may sound contradictory, but some investment in Venezuela’s oil sector could help clean it up. As my colleagues reported last year, government dysfunction has left the industry unable to maintain minimum safeguards, with devastating consequences to the environment.We will report back with key developments on these races throughout the year. When it comes to the climate crisis, even far-off elections have implications for us all. Plaintiffs in the Loper Bright Enterprises case, from left, William Bright, Wayne Reichle and Stefan Axelsson, in Cape May, N.J.Rachel Wisniewski for The New York TimesA Supreme Court case could dismantle federal regulationThe Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday for a case that could severely curb the federal government’s regulatory power, with potentially drastic repercussions for the climate.The case is about a group of commercial fishermen who oppose a government fee designed to help prevent overfishing. But a victory for the fishermen could achieve a long-sought goal of the conservative legal movement: undermining a longstanding legal doctrine known as the Chevron deference.That could have implications for the environment, but also health care, finance, telecommunications and other sectors, legal experts told my colleague Hiroko Tabuchi.“It might all sound very innocuous,” said Jody Freeman, founder and director of the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program. “But it’s connected to a much larger agenda, which is essentially to disable and dismantle federal regulation.”The Chevron deference was created by a 1984 Supreme Court ruling involving the oil and gas giant. It empowers federal agencies to interpret ambiguities in laws passed by Congress. Weakening or eliminating the Chevron deference would limit the agencies’s ability to interpret the laws they administer. A victory for the fishermen would also shift power from agencies to judges, my colleague Adam Liptak wrote.The lawyers who have helped to propel the case to the nation’s highest court have a powerful backer: the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch. Court records show that the lawyers who represent the New Jersey-based fishermen also work for Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by Koch, who is a champion of anti-regulatory causes.In their briefs, the groups supporting the fishermen pointed out that the Chevron deference has fallen out of favor at the Supreme Court in recent years, and several justices have criticized it.Justice Clarence Thomas was initially a backer of the Chevron deference, writing the concurring opinion in 2005 that expanded its protections. But Thomas, who has close ties to the Koch’s political network, has since renounced his earlier ruling. Other climate newsNearly a quarter of humanity were living under drought in 2022 and 2023, the United Nations estimates.The Biden administration announced a plan to charge oil and gas companies a steep fee for emitting methane.John Kerry, President Biden’s special envoy for climate, plans to step down in the spring.A U.S. government map that show extreme weather threats now frequently covers almost the whole country.Chevron, the oil giant, and other companies are building an underground hydrogen battery in Utah.Denial about climate change is on the rise, according to an analysis of 12,000 disinformation videos by U.K. researchers, Grist reports.Colombia created its newest national park by befriending the traditional ranches that surround it.The Crochet Coral Reef, a long-running craft-science collaborative artwork, is the environmental version of the AIDS quilt. More

  • in

    Trump’s Landslide Victory in Iowa

    More from our inbox:Young Voters: Vote!U.S. Strikes in YemenThe Genocide Charges Against IsraelDonald J. Trump at a caucus site in Clive, Iowa, on Monday evening. His victory was called by The Associated Press only 31 minutes after the caucuses had begun.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Wins Iowa in Key First Step Toward Rematch” (front page, Jan. 16):If you weren’t scared before Monday night’s Iowa caucuses, you should be terrified now. The disgraced, twice-impeached, quadruple-indicted former president came within one vote of winning all 99 of Iowa’s counties, and received 51 percent of the vote.Ron DeSantis came in a distant second with 21 percent of the vote, and Nikki Haley was a distant third with just 19 percent of the vote.The bid for the Republican nomination for president is all but over, leaving America with a terrible choice between the autocratic and awful former president, and the obviously too old and frail current president.Unless Ms. Haley can win convincingly in New Hampshire, and match Donald Trump in South Carolina, the former president will be the nominee.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    Un gran año electoral no debe distraer del deterioro democrático

    Hay que prestar atención al declive institucional.No tengo idea de cómo llegué a mi oficina esta mañana. Quiero decir, sí lo sé: caminé a la estación del metro que está cerca de mi casa, me subí a un tren, unas paradas después transbordé a otro, me bajé cerca de mi oficina y luego entré al edificio, aunque antes fui rápido a una cafetería para comprar un sándwich para el desayuno.Pero esa lista de pasos describe el límite de mi conocimiento. No tengo ni idea de quién abrió la estación de metro ni de lo que se necesita para mantenerla en funcionamiento. (O, como fue el caso, por qué uno de los torniquetes estaba atascado a medio abrir y zumbaba a nadie en particular una quejumbrosa alarma sobre su situación). No sé conducir un tren y, desde luego, no sé cómo es su mantenimiento. Y estoy segura de que los londinenses están muy agradecidos de que yo nunca haya tenido que plantearme cómo excavar un túnel de metro o instalar una línea de tren.Y, sin embargo, si esas cosas no hubieran sucedido en el orden correcto, tal como las diseñaron los expertos y las llevaron a cabo los profesionales, Londres se paralizaría. De hecho, la semana pasada estuvo a punto de producirse ese colapso, debido a una huelga de transportes que se suspendió en el último momento.Lo mágico de las instituciones es esto: existen para que los procesos complejos puedan automatizarse, para que grandes grupos de personas puedan colaborar sin tener que crear nuevos sistemas para hacerlo y para que personas como yo podamos confiar en su pericia sin poseer ni un ápice de esa experiencia.Pero como las instituciones suelen funcionar en segundo plano, sin que se note, a veces es difícil determinar el momento en que empiezan a desmoronarse. Y, lo que es frustrante para mí, es que es aún más difícil escribir sobre el declive progresivo sin que suene tremendamente aburrido.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    Pritzker Is Among Democrats Making Case for Biden in Iowa

    All the political action in Iowa may be among Republicans, but President Biden’s campaign sought on Monday to get a piece of the action, sending three top surrogates to Des Moines to promote his agenda and trash his potential opponents.Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota and Jeffrey Katzenberg, a Hollywood megadonor and a campaign co-chairman, all made their case for re-electing Mr. Biden before a dozen TV cameras and a gaggle of journalists in a conference room at the Iowa Events Center.Mr. Pritzker said there was no difference between former President Donald J. Trump and his G.O.P. rivals, Ms. Smith warned that Republicans would ban abortion nationwide if they won back the White House and Mr. Katzenberg did a victory lap on the campaign’s latest fund-raising announcement.“Tonight’s contest is simply a contest of whether you like MAGA in its original packaging or in high heels or with lifts in their boots,” Mr. Pritzker said, jabbing at Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who quipped during a debate about wearing heels, and at Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has been suspected of wearing lifts in his shoes.Beyond cracks about the Republican candidates’ footwear, the Biden surrogates did not share much new information about the re-election campaign or the president’s thinking. Mr. Pritzker fended off questions about immigration policy and the Supreme Court case concerning Mr. Trump’s eligibility to be on the ballot, while Mr. Katzenberg declined to engage in a debate over whether the Biden campaign is too focused on coastal supporters.Instead, they sought to convey their argument that the future of the nation would be at risk if Mr. Trump were re-elected.“The campaign is running an operation like our democracy depends on it,” Mr. Katzenberg said. “Because in some respect it does.” More

  • in

    Biden and Democratic Allies Announce $97 Million Fund-Raising Haul

    President Biden’s re-election campaign said on Monday that, along with two allied committees, it had pulled in $97 million during the most recent fund-raising period. Together, they entered 2024 with more than $117 million in cash on hand, the campaign said.The Biden operation’s $97 million haul is significant, but its cash on hand number is just $27 million more than it had at the end of September, a function of the campaign’s significant spending on new personnel and more than $25 million in advertising it bought in general-election battlegrounds, where Mr. Biden’s poll numbers have been weak.The Biden campaign released its fund-raising data more than two weeks before it was required to do so, a clear attempt to distract attention from the Iowa caucuses on Monday, the first nominating contest for the Republican presidential candidates aiming to oust Mr. Biden from the White House.“The Team Biden-Harris coalition knows the stakes of this election and is ready to win this November,” said Julie Chávez Rodríguez, Mr. Biden’s campaign manager. “These numbers prove that the American people know the stakes and are taking action early to help defeat the extreme MAGA Republican agenda again.”Former President Donald J. Trump, who has a large lead in polls of the Republican race and is widely expected to win in Iowa, has not yet released his year-end fund-raising numbers. The Trump campaign had $37.5 million in cash on hand at the end of September, the last time filings were reported, and Mr. Biden’s campaign had $32.2 million.In January 2020, Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign committee alone had $102.8 million on hand — a function of a cash bonanza that followed his first impeachment.Of the other top Republican candidates, only former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina has revealed her end-of-year fund-raising totals. This month, she announced she had raised $24 million in the fourth quarter for her campaign and its two associated committees. The campaign said it had $14.5 million in cash to begin the new year.The Biden campaign offered few useful details about the money it has raised. The campaign pointed to 520,000 individual donors during the three-month period that ended Dec. 31, but did not reveal how much of its money came from donors who gave less than $200, the typical measuring stick for grass-roots enthusiasm.Small-dollar donors are vital to a campaign’s health because they can be tapped for repeated contributions, and they are a sign of grass-roots engagement with a candidate.It is not clear yet how much of the cash raised by the Biden operation is in the campaign account that can accept contributions of $6,600 per person or other accounts to which donors can give nearly $1 million. How the money is divided won’t be known until Jan. 31, when all of the federal campaign committees are required to file fund-raising reports with the Federal Election Commission. More