Debates (Political)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Who Are the Moderators for Wednesday’s Republican Debate?

      by

      Three experienced moderators will lead Wednesday’s meeting in Miami of the remaining Republican presidential candidates, although former President Donald J. Trump will again be absent.Lester Holt and Kristen Welker, two lead anchors at NBC News, which is overseeing the debate’s production and editorial process, will serve alongside Hugh Hewitt, a conservative radio host who works for a co-sponsor of the debate, Salem Media Group.Mr. Holt, the anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” was the sole moderator of Mr. Trump’s first general-election debate with Hillary Clinton, in September 2016. That event was watched by 84 million Americans, a record audience. Mr. Holt took a minimalist approach that evening, sometimes allowing the candidates to argue between themselves, although his lack of interruption granted viewers an unfiltered view of the candidates’ rhetorical styles.Ms. Welker, the host of “Meet the Press,” was the sole moderator of Mr. Trump’s final debate against Joseph R. Biden Jr., in October 2020. She was the first Black woman to moderate a general-election presidential matchup since Carole Simpson in 1992, and won praise for her efforts to retain civility and for urging the candidates to avoid any extended harangues.Mr. Hewitt used to appear frequently on NBC News and MSNBC. He helped moderate three Republican primary debates in the 2016 campaign. Salem Media Group, which distributes Mr. Hewitt’s radio show, works with several Trump loyalists, including Sebastian Gorka and Jenna Ellis, a former Trump lawyer who pleaded guilty last month to a felony related to false claims of election fraud in Georgia. Mr. Hewitt is considered more moderate in his views and writes a column for The Washington Post. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Vivek Ramaswamy Loves His Heritage. Just Don’t Call Him an Indian American.

      by

      The Republican presidential candidate says the celebration of diversity in America has come at the cost of national unity.Vivek Ramaswamy does not shy away from his Indian heritage.It is present in his name (his first name rhymes with “cake,” he explains) and his Hindu faith. He has explained on the campaign trail that he is vegetarian because of his family’s tradition. And during a Republican debate in August that was a breakout performance, he introduced himself as a “skinny guy with a funny last name,” echoing former President Barack Obama.Still, Mr. Ramaswamy recently said in an interview that he does not identify as an Indian American. Being Hindu and Indian is “part of my cultural identity, for sure, and I’m proud of that and very comfortable with that,” he said after a campaign stop in Marshalltown, Iowa. “But I’m an American first.”Mr. Ramaswamy, fourth from left, waves at the crowd as he takes the stage for a debate with other Republican primary candidates, from left, Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott and Mike Pence.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesMr. Ramaswamy, 38, a first-time presidential candidate and conservative author, is at once deeply in touch with his Indian roots and adamant that the growing focus on diversity and racial inequality in America has come at the cost of national unity. His message is geared toward a Republican electorate that is heavily white and Christian, and he has tailored his personal story for his audience. When asked by voters about his Hindu faith, for instance, he is often quick to emphasize that it allows for him to hold “Judeo Christian” values.Brimming with energy and brash talk, Mr. Ramaswamy seized enough attention at the party’s first debate in August to get a bump in polls — some briefly showed him leaping into second place, albeit well behind former President Donald Trump. He has since fallen back behind Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, and Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Trump.Still, Mr. Ramaswamy has attracted enough support to qualify for the third Republican debate on Wednesday in Miami. Many Indian Americans, even those who are critical of Mr. Ramaswamy’s political beliefs, have said in interviews they have a special pride seeing him on the national stage — more so than they have had for other Republican presidential candidates of Indian descent, like Bobby Jindal and Ms. Haley, who converted to Christianity in their youth and adopted Anglicized names.Mr. Ramaswamy’s story is emblematic of many Asian American millennials whose parents came to the country after immigration laws were liberalized in 1965 and migration from outside Europe grew dramatically. Asian Americans are the fastest-growing racial group in the country, and Indian Americans now comprise the largest stand-alone group in the United States among them.As a child, Mr. Ramaswamy was enmeshed in a small but tight-knit Indian community in a Greater Cincinnati region that was mostly white. He belonged to a Hindu temple but attended a private Catholic high school, where he has said he was the only Hindu student in his class. As a teenager, he co-founded an India Association at school and also worked for a local Indian radio station, according to a 2002 article in The Cincinnati Enquirer.Mr. Ramaswamy speaking with voters in Iowa City, Iowa.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesAs an undergraduate at Harvard University, Mr. Ramaswamy seemed to comfortably move between different worlds, his classmates said in interviews. He studied biology, served as chair of the Harvard Political Union and rapped under a libertarian alter ego known as ‘Da Vek.’ (At the time, he told The Harvard Crimson that Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” was his life’s theme song, which he unexpectedly reprised this summer at the Iowa State Fair.)At Harvard, he took a comedic turn in the annual cultural show organized by the South Asian Association and was active in Dharma, the Hindu student association. And he served as a student liaison for Mr. Jindal, at the time a rising political star who was a visiting fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics in 2004 before he became governor of Louisiana and the first American of Indian descent to run for president.“If you had asked me when we were in college if being an Indian American was a big part of his identity, I would have said yes,” said Saikat Chakrabarti, Mr. Ramaswamy’s classmate at Harvard and a former chief of staff to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York.Mr. Ramaswamy went on to make a fortune as a biotech entrepreneur. After the police murder of George Floyd in 2020 propelled the racial justice movement, Mr. Ramaswamy made a name for himself in conservative circles by railing against identity politics and a corporate commitment to diversity and inclusion, which he referred to as “wokeism.” Since then, Mr. Ramaswamy has said he believes liberals have been fixated on skin color and race in a way that has contributed to divisiveness in the country.Like many Republican candidates of color, he has spoken at times about his own experiences facing discrimination, but he has said the country does not have systemic racism.“I’m sure the boogeyman white supremacist exists somewhere in America,” Mr. Ramaswamy told voters at a late August event in Pella, Iowa. “I’ve just never met him, never seen one, I’ve never met one in my life.”Mr. Ramaswamy, walking in a Labor Day parade in Milford, N.H. with his wife, Apoorva, has railed against identity politics and “wokeism.”Sophie Park for The New York TimesAt an event in late August with voters at Legends American Grill in Marshalltown, David Tracy, 37, an entrepreneur, asked Mr. Ramaswamy to elaborate on what it meant to him to be Hindu with “Judeo Christian” values. Mr. Ramaswamy responded by explaining that he had gone to a Christian school and shared the same values, and he wove in a biblical story as if to prove the point.“I may not be qualified to be your pastor,” Mr. Ramaswamy told the overflow crowd of mostly white, older voters. “But I believe that I am able to be your commander in chief.”Mr. Tracy, who lives in Des Moines, said in an interview last week that he understood why Mr. Ramaswamy has at times downplayed his Indian and Hindu roots in trying to appeal to Republican voters. But he also said that Mr. Ramaswamy has lost some authenticity in doing so. “He speaks more like a conservative white male than he does a Hindu son of immigrants,” Mr. Tracy said.Mr. Tracy said that he did not think Mr. Ramaswamy was against diversity but that the candidate felt too many Americans were focusing on their individual identity.“I think the point that Vivek is making is there’s personal identity and there’s national identity, and I think right now young people are collectively at a loss for what that national identity means,” he said.Susan Kunkel, 65, an undecided Republican, said last week at a campaign event for Ms. Haley in Nashua, N.H., that she did not like Mr. Ramaswamy’s constant pandering to the Trump base. But she appreciated that he was a fresh face in the party and agreed with his opposition to affirmative action.“It’s nice to have all different ages and sexes and genders, and you know, minorities, but it should be based on merit,” Ms. Kunkel, a practice administrator for a medical office, said of recent corporate diversity efforts.Mr. Ramaswamy greeting potential voters at the Salem G.O.P. Labor Day Picnic in Salem, N.H., in September.Sophie Park for The New York TimesOn the stump, Mr. Ramaswamy has often cited his family’s bootstrap story as an example of how anyone can achieve the American dream and should not blame racism for holding them back. “My parents came to this country 40 years ago with no money,” he has said. “In a single generation, I have gone on to found multibillion-dollar companies.”But many immigrants from India after 1965 arrived with advantages that other people of color have lacked, noted Devesh Kapur, a professor of South Asian Studies at Johns Hopkins University and co-author of the book “The Other One Percent: Indians in America.” Mr. Ramaswamy’s parents came with advanced degrees; his father was an engineer at General Electric and his mother was a geriatric psychiatrist.“It’s a severe underestimation and underplaying of his privileged background,” Mr. Kapur said of Mr. Ramaswamy’s back story.“At some point along the way in the last 20 years I think we did fall into the trap of celebrating that which can be beautiful but which is only beautiful if there’s something greater that unites all of us,” Mr. Ramaswamy said.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesIn October, through posts on social media, Mr. Ramaswamy agreed to a debate with Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, that was held last Wednesday at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Manchester, N.H. Mr. Khanna’s team had framed the event as a civil conversation between two children of immigrants who were rising Indian American political voices.In an interview, Mr. Khanna, who grew up in suburban Philadelphia, said that recognizing the history of racism and discrimination in America was crucial to building a cohesive, multiracial democracy. He said that not everyone in America was able to have “the opportunities that people like Vivek and I had,” referring to their middle-class upbringing.Until “everyone has that opportunity, we can’t say that race and class don’t matter,” he added.Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Ramaswamy campaign, said Mr. Ramaswamy’s decision to debate Mr. Khanna had little to do with their shared Indian identity.It was more about Mr. Ramaswamy being Mr. Ramaswamy.“Vivek does pretty much go on anything,” she said.Jonathan Weisman More

    • 63 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley Wears the Skirts

      by

      Whether on the debate stage or “The Daily Show,” the Republican presidential candidate is strategic about standing out — in every way.In a crowded field of Republican presidential candidates, Nikki R. Haley is starting to stand out. Such, anyway, seems to be the conclusion of pollsters, voters and donors alike, who have helped bolster her numbers since she first took to the debate stage back in August. She’s on enough of an upswing that “Saturday Night Live” has started to prep a Haley character in anticipation.But as the third debate — and, perhaps, Ms. Haley’s debut as an “S.N.L.” character — looms, it’s worth considering just how tactically she has used the fact that she unmistakably stands out, even before she has opened her mouth to show off her foreign policy experience, or scold a competitor, to her advantage.Yes, I am talking about gender. Being a woman has always been seen as an issue to manage in a presidential race. Ms. Haley is using it as an asset. She announced, in the first debate, as her opponents were sniping at each other, “This is exactly why Margaret Thatcher said, ‘If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.’”And where is that woman? Just open your eyes and look.Mr. Ramaswamy, left, in the typical Republican uniform, next to Ms. Haley, in a uniform of her own choosing, at the debate in August. Morry Gash/Associated PressIn that initial debate, surrounded by seven men in the exact same outfits — dark blue suits, white shirts, red ties, tiny flag pins, otherwise known as the political uniform of the non-debating Donald J. Trump — Ms. Haley was a beacon in a light blue bouclé skirt suit and high heels.In the second debate, with the men in pretty much the same outfits (Tim Scott did wear a red and navy striped tie that time), there she was, in gleaming crimson silk shantung and pumps. And chances are, as the field shrinks in the third debate, such distinctions will become even more apparent.“Political campaigns are about differentiation,” said Cheri Bustos, a former congresswoman from Illinois, who said she also wore skirts and heels during her first primary campaign, when she was the only woman in a field of six. “The best candidates look for every opportunity. Nikki Haley has taken advantage of the situation.”Ms. Haley in crimson at the second Republican presidential debate in September. Robyn Beck/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAnd she has done so while repudiating conventional wisdom when it comes to women seeking the highest office. You know, the truism that trouser suits should be the uniform of choice for women as well as men, the better to fit in with the group and downplay the whole gender issue.Hillary Clinton was, of course, the ultimate pantsuit champion, though she swapped her signature rainbow of trouser suits for basic black when she was on the debate stage in 2016, segueing to symbolic suffragist white only after she had won the nomination and setting a tone that has defined the American female political wardrobe ever since.Indeed, in the 2020 election cycle Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson stuck almost entirely to the clothing script, Ms. Harris in dark suits and Ms. Gabbard and Ms. Williamson in white. Since Ms. Harris became vice president, she has worn dark pantsuits almost entirely.But Ms. Haley wears the skirts. And not just any old skirts: knee-length skirts. The kind of skirts often referred to as “demure,” that suggest legs crossed at the ankle, and traditional gender roles. The irony is, in adopting this more classically female garment in this context, she looks both acceptably conservative and radical at the same time.Ms. Haley at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Annual Leadership summit in Las Vegas in October, in her trademark skirt and high heels.Ethan Miller/Getty ImagesAfter all, you’re not exactly fooling anyone in a pantsuit. So why not upend the status quo and wear something your rivals cannot?Besides, the pantsuit is in part a Democratic convention. Republican women have hewed more to the sheath dress-skirt suit tradition in presidential politics. When Sarah Palin was John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate in 2008, she wore skirts and skirt suits for most of her major public appearances, including her debate with Joe Biden. Ditto Elizabeth Dole in 2000 for her presidential run.Many Republican candidates seem to buy into the idea, expressed by Mr. Trump during his term in office, that the women who worked for him should “dress like women,” in the most clichéd sense. Though Ms. Haley’s interpretation of that idea is less Fox News presenter and more Thatcherite. (Ms. Haley did title her 2022 book on female leadership “If You Want Something Done.”)Still, clichés, generally shared, are also a subtle way for Ms. Haley to plant a seed in viewers’ minds without anyone necessarily being conscious of what is going on. “Her presentation adds to her credibility,” said Frank Luntz, a political communications strategist. “Her verbal strategy and her visual strategy are in sync.”Ms. Haley may have flip-flopped in her positions on Mr. Trump and his transgressions, especially the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, but she has always stuck to certain core principles, at least when it comes to her image: color, heels, skirt or dress (when not at the Iowa State Fair, where she we wore jeans). She grew up working in her mother’s clothing store in Bamberg, S.C. Her husband is a commissioned officer in the South Carolina Army National Guard, currently serving in Africa. She understands the impact of uniform.Ms. Haley at the Moms for Liberty summit in Philadelphia in June.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesOne of her favorite lines, first trotted out in 2012 when she was the governor of South Carolina, is about her shoe preference. “I wear high heels, and it’s not a fashion statement — it’s for ammunition,” she said back then, adding: “I’ve got a completely male Senate. Do I want to use these for kicking? Sometimes, I do.’’She recycled the line, with a few edits, when addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2017: “I wear heels. It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because if I see something wrong, we’re going to kick them every single time.”Then she made it the capstone of her February announcement video: “You should know this about me: I don’t put up with bullies, and when you kick back, it hurts them more if you’re wearing heels.” And just last week, she discussed it on “The Daily Show” in reference to resurfaced rumors that Ron DeSantis wore lifts in his cowboy boots to make himself taller — an allegation the DeSantis campaign has denied but which his opponents, especially Mr. Trump, have somewhat gleefully embraced.When Charlamagne Tha God, a host of the show, asked if Ms. Haley would be wearing higher heels than Mr. DeSantis so she could be taller, Ms. Haley replied: “I’ve always said, ‘Don’t wear ’em if you can’t run in ’em,’ so we’ll see if he can run in ’em.”It’s probably not a coincidence that Tom Broecker, the costume designer for “House of Cards” (and “S.N. L.”) said he always dressed Robin Wright Penn’s character in pointed high heels when she was president.“She felt in control when she had them on,” Mr. Broecker said. “High heels make you walk, and stand, a certain way, as if you can go toe to toe with a person.”Given the cloud of suspicion hanging over Mr. DeSantis’s shoes, and what they may reveal about his insecurities, it’s not a bad time to have a facility with strategically wielded footwear. Like Hillary Clinton, who after years of pushing back against discussion around her clothes, finally started joking about it and thus neutralized it as an issue to be used again her, Ms. Haley has pre-emptively weaponized her wardrobe for herself. She owns the heels in this race, just as she owns the skirt.It may seem like a minor detail, but it is starting to become a telling one. More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      ‘He’s 80 Years Old, and That Colors Every Impression Voters Have’: Three Writers Dish on Biden and the G.O.P. Debate

      by

      Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Katherine Mangu-Ward, the editor in chief of Reason magazine, and Nate Silver, the founder and former editor of FiveThirtyEight and author of the newsletter Silver Bulletin, to discuss their expectations for the third Republican debate on Wednesday night. They also dug into and sorted through a blizzard of political news — particularly the new New York Times/Siena battleground-state polling with dreadful news for President Biden that has Democrats freaked out (again).Frank Bruni: Thank you both for joining me. While we’ll pivot in short order to the debate, I can’t shake that poll, whose scariness ranks somewhere between “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” and “The Exorcist.” I know my own head is spinning. I mean: Donald Trump ahead of President Biden in five of six crucial battleground states?How loud an alarm is this? Should Biden at this late stage consider not pursuing re-election? Would that likely help or hurt the Democrats in winning the White House? And if not Biden, who would give the party the best chance? Nate, let’s start with you.Nate Silver: Thanks for having me, Frank! It’s nice to be back in the (digital) pages of The Times! I think whether Democrats would be better off if Biden dropped out is very much an open question — which is kind of a remarkable thing to be saying at this late stage. There’s a whole cottage industry devoted to trying to figure out why Biden doesn’t get more credit on the economy, for instance. And the answer might just be that he’s 80 years old, and that colors every impression voters have of him.Katherine Mangu-Ward: The voters in these polls just seem to be screaming, ‘He’s too old, and I feel poor!’ The most shocking finding was that only 2 percent of voters said the economy was excellent. Two percent! Less than 1 percent of voters under 30 said the economy was excellent. In Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin, exactly zero polled respondents under 30 said the economy was excellent.Bruni: Nate, I take your point about “open question” — I have no crystal ball, and my God, I’ve never so badly wanted one, because the Democrats getting this right and blocking Trump is, well, incalculably vital to this democracy’s future. But if you were the party’s chief adviser and you had to make the call: Yes to Biden or no to Biden and an invitation to someone else?Silver: Well, I’m the probabilities guy — so I’ll usually avoid answering a question definitively unless you force me to. Really, the best option would have been if Biden decided in March he wouldn’t run, and then you could have a vigorous primary. If you actually invested me with all this power, I’d want access to private information. I’d like to do some polling. I’d want to canvas people like Gretchen Whitmer and Raphael Warnock about how prepared they are. I’d like to know how energetic Biden is from day to day.Bruni: And you, Katherine? Biden thumbs-up or thumbs-down? And if thumbs-down, tell me your favorite alternative.Mangu-Ward: If we’re picking up magical artifacts, a time machine would be more useful than a crystal ball. And you’d need to go back before the selection of Kamala Harris as vice president. A viable vice president would have been a moderate threat to Biden, but a weak one is a major threat to the party. If we’re scrounging around for an alternative, I don’t completely hate Colorado Gov. Jared Polis.Bruni: I’d settle at this point for a Magic 8 Ball. And Katherine, “don’t completely hate” in 2023 politics equals “want to marry and live with forever” in the politics of decades past. We’re a cynical lot!In any case, Nate mentioned age. How do you two explain that the same poll we’ve been talking about revealed that while 62 percent of Americans feel that Biden, 80, doesn’t have the mental sharpness to be effective, only 44 percent feel that way about Trump, 77. Only 39 percent said that Trump is too old to be president, while 71 percent said that Biden is. Do those numbers make any sense at all to you?Silver: There are at least three things going on here. First, the three-and-a-half-year difference between Trump and Biden is not nothing. It’s certainly something you start to notice if you have older friends, parents, relatives entering their late 70s or early 80s. Second, Biden’s manner of speaking and presentation just reads as being more old-fashioned than Trump’s, and that perception is reinforced by media coverage. Third, I wonder if younger voters feel like Biden’s a bit of a forced choice — there wasn’t really a competitive primary — so “old” serves as a euphemism for “stale.”Mangu-Ward: Because this election cycle has been largely bereft of serious policy debate, I also think age is one thing people can grab on to to justify their unease about a Biden second term.Bruni: I wrote a few months back about this: Trump is so deliberately and flamboyantly outrageous — such a purposeful cyclone of noise and distraction — that the normal metrics don’t apply to him. He transcends mundane realities like age. He’s Trump! He’s a horror-movie villain, a Saturday-morning cartoon, a parade float. Those things don’t have ages (or four indictments encompassing 91 counts).Silver: I like that theory. There’s a sense in which some voters feel like they’re in on the joke with Trump. Although I also don’t think that voters have quite shifted into general-election mode, and maybe the media hasn’t, either. Trump as candidate is a very different ball of wax than Trump as president, and that’s what Democrats will spend the next year reminding voters about.Bruni: Katherine, let’s say Biden stays in the race. Certainly looks that way. Can you envision a scenario in which Democrats grow so doubtful, so uncomfortable, that he’s seriously challenged for the nomination and maybe doesn’t get it? If so, sketch that for me.Mangu-Ward: As a libertarian (but not a Libertarian), I’m always cautiously interested in third-party challenges, and that seems more likely to me than a direct challenge for the Democratic nomination. After each election cycle, there’s a moment when pundits decide whether to blame a Green or a Libertarian or an independent for the fact that their pick lost, but an appealing outsider peeling off support from Biden or Trump seems more likely to be a real consideration this time around. We have a lot of noisy characters who don’t fit neatly into partisan boxes on the loose at the moment.Bruni: Veterans of Obama’s 2012 campaign are arguing that Obama was in a similar position to Biden a year out from the election in 2011. Nate, do they have a point? Or do their assurances ring hollow because Biden is not Obama, isn’t as beloved by the base, is indeed old, has been stuck in a low-approval rut for months now going back to 2021, or some combination of those?Silver: Certainly, it’s generally true that polling a year in advance of the election is not very predictive. But Biden’s situation is worse than Obama’s. His approval ratings are notably worse. The Electoral College has shifted against Democrats since 2012 (although it’s now not a given). And there’s the age thing. Remember, a majority of Democrats did not even want Biden to run again. I think the Democratic communications and strategy people have been shrugging off that data more than they maybe should.Mangu-Ward: Biden is definitely not Obama, and it’s definitely not 2012. The concerns about Biden’s age are valid. Though they would apply to Trump just as much in a sane world.Bruni: You’re both so admirably — or is that eerily? — calm. I need to get your diet, exercise or pharmaceutical regimen. Am I nuts to worry/believe that Trump’s return to the presidency isn’t just an unideal election outcome but a historically cataclysmic one? How much does that prospect scare you two?Mangu-Ward: That’s my secret, Frank. I’m always angry. Like the Hulk. I think the current offerings for president are deeply unappealing, to say the least. But that’s nothing new for someone who prefers to maximize freedom and minimize the role of the state in Americans’ personal and economic lives. I am concerned about the peaceful transfer of power, and Trump has shown that he and his supporters are more of a threat to that.Silver: On that, one thing I feel better about is that the reforms that Congress made to the Electoral Count Act made a repeat of Jan. 6 less likely. There’s also perhaps less chance of another Electoral College-popular vote split. If Trump wins the popular vote by three points and there’s no other funny business, I’m not sure what to say exactly other than that in a democracy, you often have to live with outcomes that you yourself would not have chosen.Bruni: Biden, theoretically, isn’t the only bar to Trump’s long red tie dangling over the Resolute Desk anew. I mean — again, theoretically — one of the candidates in this third Republican debate could be the nominee. Yes? Or is it time to admit that, barring a truly extraordinary development, the Republican primary is over?Silver: Prediction markets say there’s a roughly 75 percent chance that Trump is the nominee. That frankly seems too low — no candidate has been this dominant at this stage of the race before. I suppose there’s a path where Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley does relatively well in Iowa, the other drops out, and then — actually, I’m still not sure there’s a path. Maybe Trump’s legal trouble begins to catch up to him? As much as the early states tend to produce surprises, I think if you put all the numbers into a model, it would put the chances at closer to 90 percent than 75.Mangu-Ward: The Times/Siena poll is bad news for Biden, but it’s even worse news for the folks on the G.O.P. debate stage, because it suggests that they simply needn’t bother. Trump is doing just fine holding his own against Biden, so there’s no need to change horses midrace. Unless your horse goes to jail, I guess.The debate will be a primo demonstration of Sayre’s Law: “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.”Bruni: If one of the five people on the debate stage were somehow to overtake Trump, who would that be? Has Nikki Haley supplanted Ron DeSantis as the fallback?Silver: The one thing DeSantis originally had going for him was a perception of being more electable. But he’s pretty much squandered that by being an unappealing candidate along many dimensions. And Haley largely performed better than Trump in that new Times/Siena poll. Still, I’m not sure how many Republicans are going to be willing to oust Trump on the basis of a New York Times poll. And it’s not an easy argument to make to Republican voters when Biden looks vulnerable against anyone right now.Mangu-Ward: I appreciated Haley’s early debate appearances, where she put a lot of emphasis on the shared responsibility for budgetary malfeasance between the Democrats and Trump. But now she’s giving me 2012 Mitt Romney flashbacks. She’s a sane and competent Republican who has realized the best way to keep her primary campaign viable is to go hard on immigration restrictionism. She was never an open borders gal, but she did usually offer some warm fuzzies about our nation of immigrants followed by a “get in line.”Bruni: ​​Trump has said he doesn’t want a running mate from any of the people on the debate stage. Do you see anyone — like Haley in particular — who could force his or her way into at least serious consideration? And could possibly help him get elected?Mangu-Ward: The Harris debacle certainly offers lessons for Trump, but I’m not sure whether he’s in the mood to learn them.Silver: The conventional political science view is that V.P. choices do not matter very much unless they seem manifestly unqualified. But they probably ought to matter more for candidates as old as Biden and Trump. I do think Haley would represent some softening of Trump’s image and might appeal to Republicans who worry about a second term being a total clown show. Who would actually staff the cabinet in a second Trump administration, with Trump’s tendency to be disloyal and the legal jeopardy he puts everybody in his orbit in, is one of those things that keeps me up at night.Bruni: Nate, your cabinet question haunts me, too. The quality of Trump’s aides deteriorated steadily across his four years in the White House. And anyone who came near him paid for it in legal fees and the contagion of madness to which they were exposed. So who does serve him if he’s back? Do Ivanka and Jared make peace with him — power again!Silver: I don’t think I have anything reassuring to say on this front! I do think, I guess, that Trump has some incentive to assure voters that he wouldn’t go too crazy in a second term — in 2016, voters actually saw Trump as being more moderate than Clinton.Mangu-Ward: A second-term president will always have a different kind of cabinet than a first-termer, and a Trump-Biden matchup would mean a second-termer no matter who wins. But either way the cabinet will likely be lower quality and more focused on risk mitigation, which isn’t ideal.Bruni: So is there any reason to watch this debate other than, when the subjects of the Middle East in particular and foreign policy in general come up, to see Haley come at the yapping human jitterbug known as Vivek Ramaswamy like a can of Raid?Silver: TV ratings for the second debate were quite low. But I suspect the main audience here isn’t rank-and-file voters so much as what remains of the anti-Trump Republican establishment. If Haley can convince that crowd that she’s more viable than DeSantis, and more electable than Trump, that could make some difference.Mangu-Ward: Historically, debates have been my favorite part of the campaign season, because I’m in it for the policy. But G.O.P. primary voters have been pretty clear that policy is not a priority. I suppose I’ll also tune in to see Chris Christie scold the audience. This week’s spectacle of him telling a booing crowd “Your anger against the truth is reprehensible” was pretty wild.Bruni: OK, lightning round — fast and dirty. Or clean. But definitely fast. Will Trump ever serve a day in prison?Silver: I’d say no, although prediction markets put the odds at above 50 percent!Bruni: You and your prediction markets, Nate! You could have given me your own hunch. Or wish. My wish is a 10-year sentence. At least. My hunch is zip. Hulk?Mangu-Ward: He will probably serve time. He will certainly exhaust every avenue available to him before doing so. In general, the fact that there are many opportunities for appeal is a good thing about our justice system.Bruni: Which 2024 Senate race do you find most interesting?Silver: Undoubtedly Texas, just because it’s one of the only chances Democrats have to pick up a G.O.P. seat. Ted Cruz won fairly narrowly last time, and Colin Allred is probably a better candidate than Beto O’Rourke.Mangu-Ward: Peter Meijer just joined the Senate Republican primary race in Michigan. I appreciated his performance in the House — he’s quite libertarian and was one of the few Republicans who voted to impeach Trump.Bruni: America’s medium-term future — are you bullish, bearish or, I don’t know, horse-ish?Silver: Everyone is so bearish now, you can almost seem like a bull by default just by pointing out that liberal democracy usually gets its act together in the long run. But the younger generation of voters takes a different attitude on a lot of issues, such as free speech, which has begun to worry me a bit.Mangu-Ward: Bullish, always. Politics ruins everything it touches, but not everything is politics.Bruni: Finally, should Democrats be brutally victory-minded and just swap out Joe and Kamala for Taylor and Travis?Mangu-Ward: I just said politics ruins everything it touches! Must you take Taylor from us, too?Bruni: Fair point, Hulk. You have me there.Silver: It would be a very popular ticket! Taylor Swift will turn 35 only a month before Inauguration Day in 2024, I’d note.Bruni: You both have my thanks. Great chatting with you.Frank Bruni is a professor of journalism and public policy at Duke University, the author of the book “The Beauty of Dusk” and a contributing Opinion writer. He writes a weekly email newsletter.Katherine Mangu-Ward (@kmanguward) is the editor in chief of Reason magazine.Nate Silver, the founder and former editor of FiveThirtyEight and author of the forthcoming book “On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything,” writes the newsletter Silver Bulletin.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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How Haley, DeSantis and Other Republicans Could Beat Trump

      by

      In the movie “Back to the Future II,” Michael J. Fox’s character, Marty McFly, is transported to the fall of 2015 and encounters a world of self-tying shoes and hoverboards. He finds himself trying to make sense of how people behave and the choices they make.Lately, I too feel like I’ve been transported to autumn 2015.That fall, Republican Party officials, donors and operatives were brimming with hope that the field of presidential contenders facing Donald Trump would shrink, clearing the way for a one-on-one matchup between the then-unthinkable Mr. Trump and a more conventional nominee, like the senators Ted Cruz of Texas or Marco Rubio of Florida. As one Michigan donor put it, “Just like everyone else, I’m waiting for this field to consolidate, and it doesn’t seem to be consolidating.” Arguments ensued over which candidates should take the hint. If only the field were smaller, the thinking went, surely Mr. Trump would be defeated.If only, if only, if only. This line of thinking became an excuse for candidates who didn’t want to take any real swings at Mr. Trump. It was the field — not Mr. Trump — that was the problem. No top contender took him on aggressively. No one really hammered away at his weaknesses in the kind of sustained, nimble assault they would have needed to topple him from his position as the front-runner. And even as Mr. Trump’s opponents dropped out, some of their voters wound up drifting to Mr. Trump as a second choice, keeping him at the head of the pack.Something similar is happening today. From the Republican debates to the campaign trail, the other candidates aren’t making a real attempt to dent the front-runner’s lead; instead, they are sniping at one another, pleading with donors and engaging in magical thinking. While there is some truth that having more candidates helps Mr. Trump win the nomination, consolidating the field alone is not likely sufficient to defeat him.In Iowa, late October polling from NBC News, The Des Moines Register and Mediacom showed Mr. Trump at 43 percent among likely G.O.P. caucusgoers, and an analysis of those voters’ second-choice shows that a sizable number of Ron DeSantis’s voters would simply go to Mr. Trump were the Florida governor to withdraw from the race. And though the former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley has seen her fortunes improve dramatically since her first debate, she still trails Mr. Trump by a wide margin in her home state of South Carolina, according to the latest CNN polling.Mr. DeSantis is hoping for some fresh momentum in Iowa this week with the endorsement of the state’s governor, Kim Reynolds. But without bold new arguments from Mr. DeSantis, Ms. Haley or other rivals, it seems as though Donald Trump is increasingly inevitable as the Republican nominee. A shame, too; there is a sizable portion of the Republican electorate that likes Mr. Trump but claims to be open to a new direction. In early states like Iowa and New Hampshire, CBS News polling recently found that less than a quarter of primary voters are “Trump only” voters. The vast majority are “Trump and …” voters — people who are considering the former president but also alternatives.However, these voters aren’t hearing anyone clearly lay out the case for why a new direction is so critical — and they need to on Wednesday night in the third G.O.P. primary debate.To defeat Mr. Trump, something significant must change. Toughness is required. The math is clear. Mr. Trump’s opponents must take some of his voters from him. Republican candidates must make the case that Mr. Trump is also not the best that voters can do. That means directing at least as much fire at the front-runner as they do at their other adversaries. Mr. Trump’s strongest rivals have not compellingly answered this question: “If you support Donald Trump’s policies so much, why are you running against him?” It’s time they start giving an answer to voters.Candidates have avoided doing so because striking the right tone in this campaign is incredibly challenging. An attack that is too scathing can inspire a sort of antibody response in Republican voters, backfiring by activating the instinct to defend Mr. Trump. Chris Christie was booed at the Florida Freedom Summit last weekend and hasn’t gained traction in the polls because Republican voters are not looking for a candidate whose primary message is that they have been duped and that Donald Trump is a bad man.At the same time, the rest of the field has treated Mr. Trump far too gently. Speeches like one Mr. DeSantis gave on Saturday, which try to draw a contrast with Mr. Trump without saying his name, haven’t yet moved the needle. Vague platitudes about “fresh leadership” and “someone who can win” have not yet been paired with an effective explanation of why Mr. Trump is neither of those things, and as a result Republican voters don’t believe either is true.To beat Mr. Trump, the strategy can’t be weak or astringent. It should not scold, and certainly not demean the majority of Republican voters who do like Trump. It should take a tone more akin to “I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed” — and lay out why, in a sustained and convincing way every week from now through the Jan. 15 Iowa caucuses.Critically, it must echo and amplify the things that I’ve heard Trump voters who are still shopping around say to each other:But his mouth, they’ll say.“I don’t like when he makes things like a circus.”“It’s just tiring.”These are not attacks from the right flank on policy, nor attacks from centrists on his legal woes — these are truths that many of Mr. Trump’s own supporters will acknowledge in private conversation.Mr. Trump’s opponents should not shy away from pointing out how things were far from perfect during his presidency. As one Trump voter acknowledged in one of our recent Times Opinion focus groups, “He always said everything is wonderful and everything is beautiful and everything is amazing. Come on.”In Wednesday’s debate, even with Mr. Trump absent from the stage, he is looming over his rivals, and it is past the hour for them to act like it. They can try to raise more money, but they cannot raise more time.Take Ms. Haley. She can, for instance, make a strong case for her actions defending Israel during her tenure as U.N. ambassador, noting that while the world may have felt safer under Mr. Trump, his own personal drama with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has blinded him to the importance of supporting one of our most critical allies — and that this kind of self-interested behavior will keep Mr. Trump from doing what is necessary to support our friends and go after our enemies on the world stage in a second term. Based on new polling from The Times and Siena College, she can now also make a clear electability case that has thus far eluded Mr. DeSantis, and note that she is the safer, stronger bet against Mr. Biden in 2024.Taking Mr. Trump on directly is no easy task in a party that would vastly prefer him to be in the White House today. But avoiding the hard road has thus far put his adversaries on the path to defeat. At this stage of the primary, with the lead Mr. Trump holds, there is no longer an excuse for candidates to dance around the question of “Why you … and not Donald Trump?”Kristen Soltis Anderson is a Republican pollster and a moderator of the Times Opinion focus group series.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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Here’s Who Qualified for the Third Republican Presidential Debate

      by

      Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy and Tim Scott will meet again on the stage on Wednesday night, but Doug Burgum missed the cut.Five candidates have qualified for the third Republican presidential debate on Wednesday evening, the Republican National Committee announced on Monday.Former President Donald J. Trump, the dominant front-runner in the Republican primary, is skipping the debate, which will be held in Miami — less than 70 miles from Mr. Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago. Mr. Trump also did not participate in the previous two debates.The candidates who made the cut:Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and former United Nations ambassador.The entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.The Lineup for the Third Republican Presidential DebateFive candidates have made the cut for the third Republican debate on Nov. 8. Donald J. Trump will not participate.Each qualifying candidate had two polling paths to a debate podium: The candidates had to either poll at 4 percent or more in two national polls or at 4 percent in one national poll and at 4 percent in two state polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina — which hold contests early in the cycle. Each poll needed to survey at least 800 likely Republican voters and meet certain standards meant to reduce bias to qualify, according to the R.N.C.The candidates also had to have a minimum of 70,000 campaign donors, including at least 200 donors from 20 states or territories.Candidates had until Monday evening to meet these requirements. The candidates also had to pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee. Candidates signed this pledge for the previous two debates. Mr. Trump has refused to sign.The debate stage has narrowed considerably from the first event held in August. Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, a vocal Trump critic, qualified for the first debate but not the second or third.Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota also failed to qualify for the third debate after struggling to reach the required polling threshold. Mr. Burgum has weathered calls to drop out of the race as he hovers at about 1 percent in national polls.“Skipping the next debate isn’t going to stop us,” Mr. Burgum said in a statement on X, formerly known as Twitter. “I’ve been told ‘it’s impossible’ my entire life and always beat the odds.”Former Vice President Mike Pence appeared at the first two debates but dropped out of the race last week amid signs he would not qualify for this debate. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Republican National Committee Announces Fourth Debate Over Trump’s Objections

      by

      Over the objections of its front-runner, the party has set a date for a fourth primary debate that will take place in Tuscaloosa, Ala., next month.The Republican National Committee has set a date for the fourth debate of the 2024 primaries — over the objection of the party’s front-runner, Donald J. Trump — and incrementally ratcheted up the criteria to make the stage, according to a memo sent to campaigns on Friday.The next debate, the party told campaigns, will be in Tuscaloosa, Ala., on Dec. 6. Candidates will be required to have a minimum of 80,000 unique donors and to have reached 6 percent in two national polls, or in one national poll and in one poll in one of the four early states.The previous criteria had been 4 percent in the polls and 70,000 donors, a level that some of the candidates, including Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, had struggled to reach for the November debate in Miami, although Mr. Christie met it and Mr. Scott is expected to. Other debate attendees next week will be Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina and the businessman Vivek Ramaswamy.The debate field has been steadily shrinking: Former Vice President Mike Pence, who attended the first two debates, announced he was ending his 2024 bid last week, and Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota appears at risk of missing the next debate. Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who made the first debate, has fallen short of the criteria since.Mr. Trump and his top advisers have lobbied the party to cancel the remaining debates because he is so far ahead in the polls.In a statement last month, Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita of the Trump campaign had called for the party to nix all the debates, including next week’s contest in Miami, “in order to refocus its manpower and money on preventing Democrats’ efforts to steal the 2024 election.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly echoed versions of that thought on his social media website.In an interview on Friday at an Orlando hotel, Mr. Christie said he didn’t “love” the new criteria, calling the thresholds “arbitrary,” but said he would abide by them.While Mr. Christie expressed confidence that he would meet the higher bar for polling and donors, he also cautioned: “I think it distracts a bit from our efforts to campaign because you’ve got to focus on going and finding $1 donors to reach some arbitrary number. And there’s no question it’s arbitrary. Why is it 80? Why isn’t it 85? Why isn’t it 75? What’s that really mean anymore? So I don’t love it, but I’ll comply with it.”“My view is I wouldn’t have raised it at all, but I don’t get to make that call,” he said, adding that “we’re not at 80,000 as we sit here today, but we’ll go work on it.” More