Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ‘This Is Grim,’ One Democratic Pollster Says

      by

      The predictive power of horse-race polling a year from the presidential election is weak at best. The Biden campaign can take some comfort in that. But what recent surveys do reveal is that the coalition that put Joe Biden in the White House in the first place is nowhere near as strong as it was four years ago.These danger signs include fraying support among core constituencies, including young voters, Black voters and Hispanic voters, and the decline, if not the erasure, of traditional Democratic advantages in representing the interests of the middle class and speaking for the average voter.Any of these on their own might not be cause for alarm, but taken together they present a dangerous situation for Biden.From Nov. 5 through Nov. 11, Democracy Corps, a Democratic advisory group founded by Stan Greenberg and James Carville, surveyed 2,500 voters in presidential and Senate battleground states as well as competitive House districts.In an email, Greenberg summarized the results: “This is grim.” The study, he said, found that collectively, voters in the Democratic base of “Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, LGBTQ+ community, Gen Z, millennials, unmarried and college women give Trump higher approval ratings than Biden.”On 32 subjects ranging from abortion to China, the Democracy Corps survey asked voters to choose which would be better, “Biden and the Democrats” or “Trump and the Republicans.”Biden and the Democrats led on six: women’s rights (ahead by 17 points), climate change (15 points), addressing racial inequality (10 points), health care (3 points), the president will not be an autocrat (plus 2) and protecting Democracy (plus 1). There was a tie on making democracy more secure.Donald Trump and the Republicans held leads on the remaining subjects, including being for working people (a 7-point advantage), standing up to elites (8 points), being able to get things done for the American people (12 points), feeling safe (12 points) and keeping wages and salaries up with the cost of living (17 points).In the case of issues that traditionally favor Republicans, Trump and his allies held commanding leads: patriotism (11 points), crime (17 points), immigration (20 points) and border security (22 points).Particularly worrisome for Democrats, who plan to demonize Trump as a threat to democracy, are the advantages Trump and Republicans have on opposing extremism (3 points), getting beyond the chaos (6 points) and protecting the Constitution (8 points).There is some evidence in both the Democracy Corp survey and in other polls that concerns specific to Biden — including his age and the surge in prices during his presidency — are driving the perception of Democratic weakness rather than discontent with the party itself.The survey found, for example, that Democratic candidates in House battleground districts are running even with their Republican opponents among all voters, and two points ahead among voters who say they are likely to cast ballots on Election Day.Along similar lines, a November 2023 NBC News poll found Trump leading Biden by two points, 46-44, but when voters were asked to choose between Trump and an unnamed Democratic candidate, the generic Democrat won 46-40.In a reflection of both Biden’s and Trump’s high unfavorability ratings, NBC reported that when voters were asked to choose between Biden and an unnamed generic Republican, the “Republican candidate” led Biden 48-37.Other nonpartisan polls describe similar Democratic weaknesses. A September Morning Consult survey found, for example, that “voters are now more likely to see the Republican Party as capable of governing, tackling big issues and keeping the country safe compared with the Democratic Party” and that “by a 9-point margin, voters also see the Democratic Party as more ideologically extreme than the G.O.P.”In the main, according to Morning Consult, these weaknesses result from declining confidence within Democratic ranks in their own party, rather than strong support for Trump and the Republican Party: “The trends against the Democratic Party are largely driven by worsening perceptions among its own voter base, which suggests that the party will have to rely more than ever on negative partisanship to keep control of the White House.”Morning Consult posed the same set of questions to voters about the political parties in 2020 and again this year in order to track shifting voter attitudes.Asked, for example which party is more “capable of governing,” 48 percent of voters in 2020 said the Democrats and 42 percent said the Republicans. This year, 47 percent said the Republicans and 44 percent said the Democrats.Similar shifts occurred on the question of which party will “keep the nation safe” and which party can “tackle the big issues.”In what amounts to a body blow to Biden and his Democratic allies, Republicans are now virtually tied with Democrats on a matter that has been a mainstay of Democratic support since the formation of the New Deal coalition during the Great Depression. A September 2023 NBC News survey “found that 34 percent of voters believe Republicans are better at looking out for the middle class, while 36 percent say the same of Democrats. The 2-point margin in favor of Democrats is the lowest it has been in the history of the poll.”“Democrats have held over 30 years as high as a 29-point advantage as being the party better able to deal with and handle issues of concern to the middle class, ” Bill McInturff, a partner in the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, which joined with the Democratic firm Hart Research to conduct the NBC poll, told me.Neil Newhouse, who is also a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, emailed me to say that the opinion trends among Black and Hispanic voters “are figures G.O.P.’ers could only dream about a few years ago.”Although many of those with whom I discussed the data voiced deep concern over Biden’s prospects, let me cite a couple of experts who are more optimistic.Simon Rosenberg, a veteran Democratic operative and former president of the New Democratic Network, emailed me a series of bullet points:The last four presidential elections have gone 51 percent-46 percent Democratic, best run for Dems since F.D.R.’s elections. Only 1 R — George W. Bush 2004 — has broken 48 percent since the 1992 election, and Dems have won more votes in seven of last eight presidential elections. If there is a party with a coalition problem, it is them, not us.Our performance since Dobbs remains remarkable, and important. In 2022 we gained in AZ, CO, GA, MI, MN, NH, PA over 2020, getting to 59 percent in CO, 57 percent in PA, 55 percent in MI, 54 percent in NH in that “red wave” year. This year we’ve won and outperformed across the country in every kind of election, essentially leaving this a blue wave year.We got to 56 percent in the WI SCOTUS race, 57 percent in Ohio, flipped Colorado Springs and Jacksonville, flipped the VA House, Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear grew his margin, we won mayoralties and school board races across the United States. Elections are about winning and losing, and we keep winning and they keep losing.In a recent post on his Substack, “Why I Am Optimistic About 2024,” Rosenberg elaborated:Opposition and fear of MAGA is the dominant force in U.S. politics today, and that is a big problem for super-MAGA Trump in 2024. Fear and opposition to MAGA has been propelling our electoral wins since 2018, and will almost certainly do so again next year.Alex Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, expressed similar optimism concerning Biden’s chances: “Once Democrats come to terms with the fact that Biden will be the nominee (and, more importantly, that Trump will in all likelihood be the G.O.P. nominee), a lot of the internal malaise expressed in current polls should dissipate.”When Biden begins campaigning in earnest, Theodoridis wrote,He will likely still come across as relatively competent and steady. And, while Trump always looms over G.O.P. politics, we will certainly see more coverage of him as G.O.P. nominee to remind less engaged Democrats and the few true independents that he is a deeply flawed figure who has and would again pose a real threat to our Republic.When voters finally make up their minds, Theodoridis predicted, “The anti-MAGA, pro-democracy, pro-reproductive-rights message that has boosted turnout and served Democratic candidates well the last two Novembers will likely do so again.”Jim Kessler, a senior vice president of Third Way, a Democratic think tank, is nowhere near as confident in Democratic prospects as Rosenberg and Theodoridis are. In an email, Kessler observed that polls at this time need to be taken with a grain of salt — remarking that in 1991, George H.W. Bush appeared to be the prohibitive favorite to win a second term and that in 2011, Mitt Romney was well ahead of President Barack Obama.In addition, Kessler wrote, in the past month,The price of gasoline has fallen 20 cents to a national average of $3.24 a gallon. Headline and core inflation have begun their final descent toward benign, historic levels. Interest rates have fallen about 40 basis points in the past several months. The so-called “misery index” (inflation + unemployment rate) could very well be at a level that is incumbent friendly.That said, Kessler continued, there are clear danger signs:Biden won in 2020 because he was perceived as having a more positive brand than the Democratic Party. That brand advantage over the Democratic Party is now gone. Exhibits A and B are crime and immigration. In 2020, Biden was perceived as tougher on crime and the border than the typical Democrat.In one primary debate, Kessler pointed out,Biden was the only candidate onstage not to raise his hand on a question that essentially could be interpreted as wanting open borders. He also loudly and repeatedly voiced his opposition to “defund the police” and never ran away from the 1994 crime bill that he authored in the Senate.That, in Kessler’s view, “is not the Joe Biden voters are hearing today. Voters actually hear almost nothing from the administration on crime or the border, and this allows the opposition to define them on an issue of great salience.”Biden, Kessler argued, has a credible record on tougher border enforcement and cracking down on crime, but he and other members of the administration don’t promote itbecause these are issues on which our active, progressive base is split. But if you are silent on these issues, it is like an admission of guilt to voters. They believe you do not care or are dismissive of their very real concerns. That means Biden must accept some griping from the left to get this story out to the vast middle.Will Marshall, president and founder of the center-left Public Policy Institute think tank, responded to my query with an emailed question: “Trump is Kryptonite for American democracy, so why isn’t President Biden leading him by 15 points?”Marshall’s answer:Biden’s basic problem is that the Democratic Party keeps shrinking, leaving it with a drastically slender margin of error. It’s losing working class voters — whites — by enormous, 30-point margins — but nonwhites without college degrees are slipping away too.The ascendance of largely white, college-educated liberals within party ranks, in Marshall’s view, haspushed Democrats far to the dogmatic left, even as their base grows smaller. Young progressives have identified the party with stances on immigration, crime, gender, climate change and Palestinian resistance that are so far from mainstream sentiment that they can even eclipse MAGA extremism.“Democrats,” Marshall wrote, in a line of argument similar to Kessler’s,have been aiming at the wrong target and have less than a year to adjust their sights. That means putting high prices and living costs front and center, embracing cultural pragmatism, confronting left-wing radicalism on the border, public safety and Israel and embracing a post-populist economics that speaks to working Americans’ aspirations for growth and upward mobility rather than their presumed sense of economic victimhood.Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, contended that the view of Biden and the Democratic Party as elitist and weak on the very values that were Democratic strengths in the past lacks foundation in practice. Instead, the adverse portrait of the Democrats represents a major success on the part of right-wing media — and a complicit mainstream media — in creating a false picture of the party.In a forthcoming paper, “Bridging the Blue Divide: The Democrats’ New Metro Coalition and the Unexpected Prominence of Redistribution,” Hacker said he and three colleagues found thatDemocrats have not changed their orientation nearly as much as critics of the party argue. In particular, the party has not shifted its emphasis from economic to social/identity issues, nor has it moderated its economic positions overall. Instead, it has placed a high priority on an ambitious economic program that involves a wider range of policy aims and instruments than in the past (including industrial policy and pro-labor initiatives as well as social and health policies and public investments) as well as levels of public spending that dwarf those contemplated by party elites in at least a half century.Why then, Hacker asked, is “the Democratic Party widely perceived to have abandoned pocketbook politics in favor of identity politics?”His answer:Conservative media have relentlessly focused on this critique and there’s strong evidence that media framing shapes how voters view the parties. Indeed, the role of the media in shaping the negative current climate — including more mainstream sources — should not be neglected. The obsessions of right-wing media with the “wokeness” of the Democratic Party seeps into the broader media coverage, and mainstream sources focus on criticisms of the Democrats, in part to uphold their nonpartisan ideal.Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, warned that there are major consequences that could result from the weakness of Biden’s support. In an email, Enos wrote:There is no doubt that Democrats and — given that the likely Republican nominee is a would-be authoritarian — Americans more generally should be alarmed by Biden’s poll numbers. He is saddled with the need to dig economic perceptions out of a deep inflationary hole, an unsteady international world and the view that his party went too far to the left on social issues.If the election were held today, Enos argued, “Biden would likely lose.”During the campaign, “Biden’s numbers will improve,” Enos wrote, but Biden faces a large number of idealistic young voters who maynever come back to him because they believe that he has abandoned the core values that animated their support in the first place. Faced with the reality of surging immigration across the southern border, Biden has largely failed to liberalize his administration’s approach to immigration — in fact, he has left much of the Trump era policies in place. To many young voters, who were first attracted to Biden’s social progressivism, such moves may feel like a betrayal. Additionally, Biden has seemed to greenlight Israel’s campaign of violence against civilians in Gaza. Especially for young voters of color, this seems like a betrayal and could cost Biden crucial states such as Michigan.Jonathan Weiler, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, stands somewhere between Rosenberg and Marshall.“There’s no gainsaying Biden’s poor polling numbers at the present,” Weiler wrote by email:However unhinged Trump appears increasingly to be, for now that’s an abstraction for many voters. In the meantime, what they see in ways that feel up close and personal are signs of an unsettled and unsettling world impinging on their day to day lives, including inflation, higher crime and a big increase in migrants across our southern border and into cities around the United States.On the plus side for Biden, Weiler wrote, “the data show clearly that inflation is trending substantially downward.” In addition,Violent crime has returned to prepandemic levels. Americans always think crime is going up, no matter what the data say. But if the actual drop in crime results in people thinking about it less, that could also lessen people’s sense of a chaotic and unsettled reality.Rogers Smith, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, made the case that Biden’s age and his visible infirmities interfere with his ability to reassure the electorate:The biggest factor that is neglected in many polls is the widespread belief that Biden is simply too old and insufficiently vigorous to remain president for four more years. This belief is reinforced by the reality that Biden does not inspire confidence in his vigor or energy in most of his public presentations. The problem is particularly acute among young voters but goes throughout the electorate, Democrats and Republicans alike. It means that voters don’t give much weight to Biden’s arguments on the issues.Democrats are trapped, Smith maintained:None will challenge Biden; he must choose to step aside. If he did so, he would feel compelled to support Kamala Harris. But most Democrats, and probably Biden himself, rightly believe that she would do even worse than he is doing.The one ace in the hole for Democrats is Donald Trump himself. As the center of attention in the elections of 2018, 2020 and even 2022, Trump was the key to Democratic victory. Trump is doing all he can to become the focus in 2024, but the question remains whether the Democrats, with Biden at the top of the ticket, can successfully demonize him again.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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Bowman Is Latest House Democrat to Face a Primary Over Israel Stance

      by

      George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, told The New York Times he would run against Mr. Bowman, a rising star of the Democratic left, next year.After months of public deliberation and prodding from donors aligned with Israel, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, said on Wednesday that he would mount a Democratic primary challenge against Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York.The decision set the stage for a potentially explosive contest next year that promises to test not only the growing Democratic divide over the war in the Middle East but the durability of the party’s progressive wing.In an interview, Mr. Latimer drew sharp contrasts between himself and Mr. Bowman, one of left’s most vocal critics of Israel. He dismissed the incumbent’s calls for a cease-fire as premature and called a recent protest outside the White House, where the congressman accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, a political stunt.“It’s about results, not rhetoric,” said Mr. Latimer, who has deep ties to the Democratic establishment. “So much of politics has turned into that sort of showmanship — how you look in front of the cameras.”He was expected to officially begin his campaign with a video announcement later on Wednesday, just days after returning from a wartime visit to the region.The nascent contest echoes primary fights breaking out from Pittsburgh to Detroit since Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 attack, as pro-Israel Democrats try to oust members of the House “Squad” pushing for a cease-fire. Like the other challengers, Mr. Latimer is expected to benefit from millions of dollars in outside spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and other special interest groups.The race in the New York City suburbs, though, may be uniquely complex. It pits a charismatic Black progressive with a growing national profile against an old-school white liberal with deep local support. And it will play out in a district that is both home to one of the country’s most influential Jewish communities and also nearly half Black or Latino.Mr. Latimer said he shared many of Mr. Bowman’s progressive priorities but would avoid the incumbent’s “showmanship.”Gregg Vigliotti for The New York TimesMr. Latimer tread carefully around many of those fault lines as he outlined his candidacy this week, insisting that he was preparing for a campaign that would go well beyond the issue of Israel.Mr. Latimer, in his second term as county executive, urged voters not to judge him on his age, 70, or the color of his skin. Citing his four decades in elected office, he said would continue many of the progressive priorities on housing, climate change and transportation that Mr. Bowman has championed. And he avoided outright attacks on the incumbent beyond charging that Mr. Bowman was more interested in making his name than tending to his district.“If you ignore that turf because you’re a national figure and more interested in being on the national stage, then you are neglecting the needs of that community,” Mr. Latimer said.The challenge comes at a moment of profound political vulnerability for Mr. Bowman, 47, and not just because of his stance on the war. The congressman is still dealing with the repercussions of pleading guilty in October to pulling a false fire alarm in a House office building. And he has just $185,000 in his campaign account, according to recent filings.AIPAC, which privately offered Mr. Latimer its support months ago, could easily swamp that amount on its own. Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for the group, declined to discuss the group’s spending plans this week but denounced Mr. Bowman as a representative of “the anti-Israel extremist fringe.”Mr. Bowman’s advisers and allies say defeating him may be far more difficult than his foes anticipate. Some of the left’s most influential figures were already lining up to fight back, determined to show the staying power of their movement three years after they first helped Mr. Bowman, a former middle school principal, topple a powerful three-decade incumbent, Eliot L. Engel.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Mr. Bowman’s best-known ally, circulated a fund-raising appeal on his behalf. Left-leaning groups, including New York’s Working Families Party and Justice Democrats, have pledged resources. For now, each appear to see value in framing the primary as a conflict as one with pro-Israel special interests, not the county executive.“It’s not a surprise that a super PAC that routinely targets Black members of Congress with primary challenges and is funded by the same Republican megadonors who give millions to election-denying Republicans including Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Ted Cruz have recruited a candidate for this race,” said Emma Simon, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bowman’s campaign.The primary battle is one Democrats had wished to avoid. The party already hopes to flip six Republican-held swing seats in New York next year, which is key to taking back the House majority. Some Democrats have expressed concern that a pro-Israel advertising blitz against Mr. Bowman would inadvertently tarnish the party’s candidates in competitive races in neighboring districts to the north and west.Now that the matchup is underway, though, it poses a quandary for Democratic leaders, particularly Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York.Mr. Jeffries, the top House Democrat, has said he would continue the party’s longstanding policy of supporting incumbents like Mr. Bowman, even if his own views on Israel are more conservative. But Mr. Latimer said he had not received a call from Mr. Jeffries asking him not to run, and the House leader may soon have to decide how hard to fight to protect Mr. Bowman.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.His allies argue that there is good reason to believe many voters agree with his views, but that for many, Israel will not be a decisive issue when they cast their primary ballots next June.About half of voters in the district, which stretches from the north Bronx through many of Westchester’s liberal suburbs, are Black and Latino, according to census data. The figure is even higher among Democratic primary voters. By comparison, about 10 percent of all voters and about 20 to 25 percent of Democratic primary voters are Jewish.Mr. Bowman has repeatedly said he is standing by his position on Israel for a simpler reason: He believes in it.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesHe summarized his views outside the White House last week, where he joined protesters calling on President Biden to support a bilateral cease-fire. He used terms that most Democrats have objected to, including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” in describing Israel’s deadly bombardment of Gaza, which has killed some 15,000 people, according to the local health authorities. He accused the United States of “being complicit” in those deaths. But he also condemned those targeting Israelis or Jews and repeated his earlier denunciations of Hamas.“Calling for cease-fire does not mean we support Hamas, does not mean we support the killing of Israelis or Jews, does not mean we support antisemitism,” he said. “We are calling for cease-fire because we don’t want anyone else to die.”In the interview, Mr. Latimer said he, too, was eager to see the bloodshed in Gaza end, but only after Hamas returned the remaining Israeli hostages it abducted on Oct. 7 and agreed “to step aside from violence.” Anything short of that would amount to unilateral disarmament by Israel, he argued.Mr. Latimer said he did not “know enough” to judge whether Israel’s counteroffensive had violated international law. “I’m not a secretary of state,” he said.He also rejected Mr. Bowman’s proposal for the United States to place conditions on the billions of military aid it provides to Israel. “That is a matter that I think is best left to the presidential administration,” Mr. Latimer said.He was more pointed about attempts by Mr. Bowman and his allies to build public pressure on Mr. Biden through protests and media appearances. Mr. Latimer called Mr. Bowman’s appearance outside the White House “the classic response of somebody who has been in government a couple of years.”“If you want to influence the policy of the president, you begin with the dialogue you have with your other members of Democratic Caucus,” he said. “When you have a consensus movement, that becomes more impressive to an executive.” More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Inside the Secret Meeting That Cleared the Way for Tom Suozzi’s Return

      by

      Gov. Kathy Hochul had been toying with blocking the former congressman’s nomination for the crucial special election to replace George Santos. Then a phone call came.With his successor, George Santos, expelled from Congress, Tom Suozzi appeared to be on the brink of a full-scale comeback campaign on Monday. Then he got a worrisome request: Gov. Kathy Hochul wanted to see him. In Albany. Tonight.Mr. Suozzi knew Ms. Hochul, a bitter rival, had been toying for weeks with trying to block him from becoming the Democratic nominee in a special election to replace Mr. Santos. So he cleared his schedule, fighting through three hours of rush-hour traffic to arrive at the Governor’s Mansion after nightfall.Inside, Ms. Hochul presented Mr. Suozzi with multiple demands, according to two people briefed on the previously unreported meeting. She wanted to see his battle plan; needed the Roman Catholic former congressman to agree to run as a full-throated defender of abortion rights; and sought assurances that he would not run ads damaging their party’s brand.Mr. Suozzi, 61, acceded to each request. Then he offered something else to soften the ground: an apology for aggressive personal tactics he deployed against Ms. Hochul in a 2022 primary campaign for governor, particularly for casting doubt on her family’s ethics.The meeting amounted to an unusual flex of power from a governor who has typically preferred making friends over harboring grudges. But the assurances made room for a crucial détente that has cleared the way for party leaders to formally announce Mr. Suozzi as their candidate as soon as Thursday.Governor Hochul wanted Mr. Suozzi to agree to a series of demands in exchange for her backing.Jeenah Moon for The New York Times“The governor will allow his nomination to move forward,” Brian Lenzmeier, Ms. Hochul’s campaign spokesman, said in a statement confirming the broad outlines of the meeting.Mr. Suozzi thanked Ms. Hochul for “a good meeting” that he said “cleared the air.”“At a time of strong political division, I offered to be another moderate voice as the governor works to solve problems and make progress,” he said.Mr. Suozzi will now have a little more than two months to prepare for what could be one of the most important off-year House contests in decades — the battle to replace Mr. Santos, a Republican, after his historic expulsion. A Democratic victory could undermine Republicans’ paper-thin House majority and build momentum ahead of next year’s general election.Ms. Hochul declared separately on Tuesday that the special election would take place on Feb. 13.It will be no easy fight. The district, which stretches from the outskirts of Queens through the affluent northern suburbs of Nassau County, voted for President Biden by eight points in 2020 but has moved sharply rightward since amid voters’ concerns over crime and rising costs. Elections analysts rate it a tossup.Republicans were still vetting more than a dozen candidates for their own nomination on Tuesday. Two front-runners had emerged, officials said: Mike Sapraicone, a retired New York Police Department detective, and Mazi Pilip, an Ethiopian-born former member of the Israel Defense Forces.Democrats nominally entertained other candidates in their own process, most notably Anna Kaplan, a state senator who had positioned herself to Mr. Suozzi’s left. She and others warned party leaders that Mr. Suozzi had real liabilities: He currently works for a lobbying firm, his 2022 primary run alienated some progressives and he has a history of losing key contests.But Mr. Suozzi long ago emerged as the ideal candidate for most party leaders. He held the seat for six years before relinquishing it to challenge Ms. Hochul, enjoys high name recognition and has a track record of bucking his party on issues like public safety and high taxes — positions that could help him win back voters who have flocked to Republicans.He also has close relationships to two of the party leaders with significant sway over their special election nominee: Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the top House Democrat, and Jay Jacobs, the chairman of the Nassau County and New York State Democratic Parties.Ms. Hochul was always the rub.Their mutual animosity had been well known to New York Democrats since last year’s primary for governor. Mr. Suozzi repeatedly referred to Ms. Hochul, the state’s first female leader, as an unqualified “interim governor.” He also accused her and her husband, a former federal prosecutor turned executive, of fostering a “culture of corruption” in Albany.It is unclear if she ever would have — or could have — unilaterally blocked Mr. Suozzi over Mr. Jeffries’s strong preference. But New York’s special election process granted Ms. Hochul unusual leverage to exact potential revenge. Unlike in normal contests, nominees for special elections are chosen by party leaders, not primary voters. That gave Ms. Hochul a double say, both as governor and as Mr. Jacobs’s de facto boss.On Monday night, she used it to her political advantage. After pushing Mr. Suozzi to make the case for his candidacy, including with polling and a fund-raising plan, the governor revisited two issues they clashed over as candidates.First, she said she would need Mr. Suozzi to vocally support abortion rights, including the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. Mr. Suozzi earned top marks from Planned Parenthood in Congress, but his past comments have led abortion rights advocates to question his commitment.The governor also sought to ensure he would not run advertisements disparaging his own party. Ms. Hochul and her allies have long believed that his campaign pronouncement on the threat of crime and corruption in the 2022 primary softened the ground for Republican attacks.Mr. Suozzi agreed, but Ms. Hochul let him drive away Monday night without her blessing. She would wait until after a night’s sleep to deliver the news. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Primaries Are Not the Most Democratic Way to Choose a Presidential Nominee

      by

      Is the Democratic Party making a mistake by renominating President Biden to face the likely Republican nominee, Donald Trump, in 2024? A nontrivial number of voices in and outside the party seem to think so.But it’s already a mostly moot point. The system Americans use to nominate presidential candidates is not well equipped to make swift strategic adjustments. Voters choose candidates in a sequence of state-level primaries and caucuses. Those contests select delegates and instruct them on how to vote at a nominating convention. It’s an ungainly and convoluted process, and politicians begin positioning themselves a year in advance to succeed in it.It wasn’t always this way, and it doesn’t have to be. Political parties in most democracies have the power to choose their leaders without going through a monthslong gantlet.The best way for a party to choose its leader is for that party to convene, confer and compromise on a candidate who serves its agenda and appeals to voters. The conventions of the mid-20th century, deeply flawed as they were, were designed for that purpose. If those flaws were fixed, they would be far better than what we use today.Should Mr. Biden run again or step aside? On the one hand, he has stubbornly low approval ratings, and a number of polls show him trailing Mr. Trump. On the other hand, polling a year out is often misleading, and so are job approval ratings in a polarized age. Mr. Biden is old, but so is Mr. Trump, and Mr. Biden defeated him last time.Replacing an incumbent president with another nominee is very rare and probably should be. But a convention could do it if necessary. In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson stepped down at the beginning of the year, and Democrats could realistically expect to find a nominee before Election Day.The system was different then. When Mr. Johnson decided not to run for re-election, he declared, “I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”The “and I will not accept” matters. Mr. Johnson was acknowledging that the party might nominate him even if he didn’t run. In 1968, when the decision was made at the national convention, the party could do that. That’s not something it can easily do today.Only a small fraction of states held primaries that year, and most of those didn’t commit delegates. Primaries were a tool to gauge public support, not make the final decision. Hubert Humphrey, the eventual nominee, won no primaries or caucuses. Instead, he won with support of unpledged delegates selected through state conventions — delegates who represented an older, more establishment part of the party.The apparent injustice of Mr. Humphrey winning the nomination without winning primaries was a big part of how we got to our current system. Many members of the Democratic Party felt that their perspectives weren’t well represented by those establishment delegates; their voices were being heard in the primaries and caucuses.The party set out to create a national convention that was more representative of the party, but what evolved was something else, the system we use today — the one that has all but locked us into a candidate almost a year out from Election Day.Early states winnow the field. The next states largely determine who the nominee is. States that vote late in the process often have little effect. Success depends on the ability to stand up a campaign in state after state in the first few months of the year, which in turn depends on the ability to raise money and attract media attention. It’s a process, not a simple decision.This system could produce a candidate who is battle tested by the primaries and otherwise broadly popular. It might also select a candidate who appeals narrowly to a group of dedicated followers, especially in early states, where a close victory can be leveraged into later success. (Think of Mr. Trump in 2016.)In no way does it let party leaders take stock of an awkward situation, such as what Democrats face now (low approval ratings for an incumbent) or, for that matter, what Republicans face (a front-runner facing multiple indictments).Party leaders are not completely helpless. In “The Party Decides,” the political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol and John Zaller and I argued that party activists and leaders could exert a lot of influence on their party’s choice — so much so that they typically get their way. When they can agree on a satisfactory candidate, they can help direct resources to that candidate and help that person stay in the race if he or she stumbles. (Think of Mr. Biden in 2020.)But that takes time. It is, at best, a blunt instrument (hence its failure among Republicans in 2016). The nomination is still won in the primaries, and an incumbent is especially hard to replace.Most democracies give far less power than that to a single political leader, even an incumbent or influential former leader. Healthy parties can limit their leaders.Empowering the Democrats to replace Mr. Biden or the Republicans to move on from Mr. Trump would come with costs. A party that could persuade a sitting president to stand down would also have the power to persuade outsiders, like Bernie Sanders and Mr. Trump, to not run at all.For some, giving party leaders this kind of influence is unsettling. It shouldn’t be. The job of choosing a nominee is complicated. It involves the strategic trade-off between what kind of candidate can win in November and what kind of candidate represents what the party wants in a leader.Letting the party make these decisions is not inherently undemocratic. Just as voters select members of Congress, who then gain expertise, forge compromises and bargain to make policy, so too could voters select party delegates, who would then choose nominees and shape their party’s platform.Polling and even primaries could continue to play a role. In many years, the voice of the party’s voters might speak loudly, and party leaders would simply heed it. In other years, such as for Democrats in 2008, voter preferences might be more mixed. It’s worth noting that in 2008, Democratic superdelegates (those not bound by the results of any primary) switched their support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama after seeing his appeal in the primaries. If all of the delegates had been free to switch, would the outcome have been the same? We don’t know, but in a representative democracy, elected representatives do often listen to voters.In other words, the development of a more active, empowered party convention would not have to be a return to the past. The nomination of Mr. Humphrey in 1968 was a problem, but it wasn’t because the decision was made at a convention. It was because the delegates at that convention didn’t represent the party’s voters.Moving the decision back to the convention would not be a trivial matter. Even if voters and politicians could adjust to the change — a big if — each party would need to select representative and competent delegates. Our experience with representative democracy should tell us that this is possible but far from inevitable.But such a convention would still be superior to the current system, in which a small number of voters in a handful of states choose from a pool of self-selected candidates who have been tested mostly by their ability to raise money and get attention in debates.Both of these systems have a claim to being democratic. But only the first would give the party the kind of agency implied by claims that it is making a mistake by renominating the incumbent.Hans Noel, an associate professor of government at Georgetown, is the author of “Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America” and a co-author of “Political Parties” and “The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform.”Source images by Drew Angerer, Rost-9D, and ajt/Getty ImagesThe 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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      R.F.K. Jr. Allies Say They’ll Spend Over $10 Million on Ballot Access

      by

      A super PAC backing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent presidential candidacy is leading the costly and legally complex effort, which the Democratic establishment is trying to fight.A super PAC backing the independent presidential candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is planning to spend $10 million to $15 million to get Mr. Kennedy on the ballot in 10 states, a substantial effort that, even if partly successful, could heighten Democratic concerns about his potential to play the role of spoiler in 2024.The hefty sum underscores the challenge facing Mr. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer and prominent purveyor of conspiracy theories, as he pursues his long-shot White House bid. It also shows the substantial financial support he has generated so far.The super PAC, American Values 2024, has raised at least $28 million. (The group last disclosed its unofficial fund-raising haul in early October, but has not filed official records since mandatory midyear reports with the Federal Election Commission in July, when it had $9.8 million on hand.) The group was planning to announce the strategy on Monday, according to a draft announcement reviewed by The New York Times.The states, which include several battlegrounds, are among the country’s most populous and carry, between them, 210 Electoral College votes — Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, New York and Texas.Mr. Kennedy’s campaign, as well as efforts from No Labels, the Green Party and other independent candidates, have worried President Biden’s campaign and its Democratic allies. They fear that such campaigns could siphon votes away from Mr. Biden and tilt the election toward his likely Republican opponent, former President Donald J. Trump.States make their own rules governing ballot access. Independent candidates must navigate a labyrinthine network governing signature collections and financial reporting requirements. The effort is time-consuming and expensive.Tony Lyons, the super PAC’s co-founder, said that the goal was to get Mr. Kennedy on the ballot in every state, but that the group was focusing on the 10 states where it expected the most difficulty, particularly in terms of expensive legal challenges. “That’s where we believe we can have the most impact,” he said.He said the campaign was working on its own ballot access efforts — the campaign’s website includes a sign-up for people who would like to be contacted by volunteers.In an interview this year, Ralph Nader, who twice ran for the presidency as the Green Party’s candidate, estimated that it would cost at least $5 million simply to collect signatures to qualify for ballots. The inevitable legal fights to defend ballot access, he said, would require many more millions of dollars.Marc Elias, one of the Democratic Party’s leading election lawyers, has been retained by the super PAC American Bridge to vet third-party and independent candidates’ ballot access in battleground states where such candidates could damage Mr. Biden.Mr. Elias said in an interview last month that he would work to make sure that any candidate who might be a threat to Mr. Biden followed the precise letter of the law when it comes to qualifying for the ballot.“The law is the law. The law requires candidates to get on the ballot in a certain way,” Mr. Elias said. “Once you have the rules you have for ballot access, you have to meet them and there’s no exception to it.”Mr. Kennedy entered the presidential race in April as a Democratic challenger to Mr. Biden, but ended his bid for the party’s nomination in October, arguing that Democrats’ primary system was rigged against him.From the outset, Mr. Kennedy has drawn support from disaffected Democrats, Republicans and independents, some of whom have been drawn to his anti-establishment message. A poll from The New York Times and Siena College that was released last month found that unfavorable opinions of Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump left an opening for independent candidates like Mr. Kennedy.Democrats are not alone in their concerns about Mr. Kennedy’s candidacy. The Republican National Committee, on the day he announced his independent bid, sent out an email titled “23 Reasons to Oppose RFK Jr.,” listing ways in which he has been aligned with Democrats in the past. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Talk About Abortion, Don’t Talk About Trump: Governors Give Biden Advice

      by

      At an annual gathering in Arizona, Democratic governors offered a series of explanations for the president’s political struggles and suggested ideas for selling voters on his re-election.America’s Democratic governors brag about booming local economies, preside over ribbon-cuttings of projects paid for with new federal legislation and have successfully framed themselves as defenders of abortion rights and democracy.Almost all of them are far more popular in their home states than the Democratic president they hope to re-elect next year.While President Biden is mired in the political doldrums of low approval ratings and a national economy that voters are sour on, Democratic governors are riding high, having won re-election in red-state Kentucky last month and holding office in five of the seven most important presidential battleground states.The governors, like nearly all prominent Democrats, are publicly projecting confidence: In interviews and conversations with eight governors at their annual winter gathering at the Arizona Biltmore in Phoenix over the weekend, they expressed on-the-record optimism that Mr. Biden would win re-election.But also like many Democrats, some privately acknowledged fears that former President Donald J. Trump could win a rematch with Mr. Biden. They also said that Mr. Biden, at 81 years old, might not compare well with a younger Republican like Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida or even former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.The governors offered a series of explanations for Mr. Biden’s political struggles and supplied free advice. Here are six ways they believe he can raise his standing ahead of next year’s election.Talk more about abortion.Mr. Biden barely says the word abortion in his public statements, a fact that frustrates fellow governors hoping he can, as many of them have, use anger over the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade to improve his political fortunes.“We should talk about all the threats to women’s health care, including abortion, and use that word specifically,” said Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. “We should be talking about it like that because Americans are awake. They are angry that this right could be stripped away and we are the only ones fighting for it.”On abortion politics, Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey acknowledged that “it’s widely known that this is probably an uncomfortable reality for him,” given that Mr. Biden, a practicing Catholic, once voted in the Senate to let states overturn Roe v. Wade and his stance on abortion rights has evolved over the years.Mr. Murphy said Mr. Biden must be forthright about discussing the likelihood that Republicans would aim to enact new abortion restrictions if they win control of the federal government in 2024 and emphasizing the Democratic position that decisions about abortion should be left to women and their doctors.“That has to be laid out in a much more crystal-clear, explicit, affirmative way,” he said.Stop talking about Trump.The governors broadly agreed that Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee. They don’t love Mr. Biden’s recent turn to focus more attention on his predecessor.“You’ve got to run for something and not against someone,” said Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky. That is easy for Mr. Beshear to say — he is among the nation’s most popular governors and just won re-election in a deep-red state.Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas urged the president to stop talking about Mr. Trump altogether. Be positive, she said, and let others carry the fight to Mr. Trump.“If I were in Biden’s shoes, I would not talk about Trump,” she said. “I would let other people talk about Trump.”Appeal to moderate Republicans and independents.Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota also said Mr. Biden needed to adopt some of Mr. Trump’s penchant for bragging.“He’s been modest for so long, to watch him do it now feels a little uncomfortable,” Mr. Walz said.Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina said his constituents were hoping Republicans would nominate someone other than Mr. Trump.Mr. Murphy said hopefully that Republicans supporting someone else in their primary might stay home or wind up voting for Mr. Biden next year.“What if Trump is the nominee? What’s the behavior pattern among the Haley, DeSantis and Chris Christie supporters? Where do they go?” Mr. Murphy said. “I find it hard to believe that a majority of them are going to Trump.”Tell people what Biden’s done.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, fresh off a prime-time Fox News debate against Mr. DeSantis that seemed meant in part to elevate the ambitious Mr. Newsom to the role of Mr. Biden’s leading defender, lamented “the gap between performance and perception.”He was one of several governors who said their constituents felt good about their lives but were pessimistic about the state of the country.“People feel pretty good about their states, feel pretty good about their communities, even their own lived lives,” Mr. Newsom said. “You ask, ‘How are you doing?’ They say, ‘We’re doing great, but this country’s going to hell.’”Mr. Newsom said Mr. Biden’s biggest problem was that he had not been able to communicate to voters that he is responsible for improvements in their lives.“People just don’t know the record,” he said. “They don’t hear it. They never see it.”In North Carolina, which last week became the 40th state to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Cooper said people who are newly eligible for health care were not likely to credit Mr. Biden or White House policies.“The people who are getting it don’t really associate it with anybody other than finally being able to get health care for themselves,” he said.Focus more attention on legislative achievements.The governors all seemed to agree that they would like to see Mr. Biden spend more time cutting ribbons and attending groundbreakings for new projects paid for by infrastructure, climate and semiconductor funding he signed into law.“I would be doing those morning, noon and night,” Mr. Murphy said.Ms. Kelly of Kansas, who won her red state twice, said Mr. Biden should announce the opening of new projects and factories because she said it would focus attention away from his age.“I would spend a lot of time doing those just because they’re relatively easy and they are energizing,” she said.And Mr. Walz, whom his fellow governors voted the new chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said Mr. Biden’s challenge would be explaining to people the future benefits of investments being made now.“The problem is going to be, it’s going to take us 20 years to build all this infrastructure out,” Mr. Walz said. “Whether they see it within the next 11 months or not, that’s what we need to tell the story.”Find some Democrats with enthusiasm.No governor at the Phoenix gathering expressed more desire to give Mr. Biden another term in the White House than Mr. Newsom, who used a 40-minute chat with reporters to take a victory lap from his debate with Mr. DeSantis, a ratings bonanza for the Fox News host Sean Hannity that doubled as the largest audience of the California governor’s political career.Mr. Newsom, who since the middle of last year has evolved from a friendly critic of Mr. Biden’s political messaging to one of his most enthusiastic supporters, said his fellow governors needed to perform like old-school politicians who could deliver a constituency for an ally through force of will by activating supporters to follow political commands.“We, the Democratic Party, need to get out there on behalf of the leader of the Democratic Party, Joe Biden, and make the case and do it with pride,” Mr. Newsom said. “We’ve got to wind this thing up.”The task may be difficult. Mr. Cooper described “a general malaise and frustration” that has Americans blaming Mr. Biden for forces often beyond his control.But Mr. Newsom said that if others were wary of carrying the torch for Mr. Biden in the next year, he was not afraid to do so all by himself.“If no one’s showing up doing stuff, I’m going to show up,” he said. “I can’t take it. I can’t take the alternative. I can’t even conceive it.” More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley’s Views on Social Security

      by

      More from our inbox:A Climate Protest at the OperaMore Trump Coverage? Brian Snyder/ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Haley Is Coming for Your Retirement,” by Paul Krugman (column, Nov. 28):Mr. Krugman is right in pointing out the inequality connected to proposals to raise the age at which one becomes eligible for Social Security. As he points out, the proposals are, “in effect, saying that the aging janitors must keep working (or be cast into extreme poverty) because rich bankers are living longer.”But it’s even worse than that. The problem of an impending shortfall of the Social Security Trust Fund is in significant part a consequence of our rising economic inequality. High-income people pay a smaller share of their income into Social Security because salary over $160,200 — the so-called “tax max” — is not subject to the Social Security tax.Also, there is no Social Security tax on income from capital (including dividends, interest, capital gains and rents), which tends to go to wealthy people. Consequently, as a larger and larger part of our national income goes to the rich, the share collected by the Social Security tax declines.The solution is not hard to envision: Raise the “tax max” and tax income from capital. Better yet, adopt a set of policies that would move us toward a more equal distribution of income.Arthur MacEwanCambridge, Mass.The writer is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Boston.To the Editor:As a member of Gen Z, I commend Nikki Haley for suggesting ideas to keep Social Security solvent. Raising the retirement age is not a pleasant thought, but tough times require tough decisions. Our national debt is at a record high, and interest repayments are reaching worrying levels. Changes have to be made if the country’s finances are to stay healthy. Numbers don’t lie.I, for one, do not expect to ever be able to collect Social Security, despite having paid 6.2 percent of my income into it over my entire working life. I would rather get rid of the tax altogether than continue to pretend that Social Security will still be around when I retire.I have absolutely zero faith that members of Congress will fix this problem; they have been kicking this can down the road for longer than I’ve been alive.Eric FuquaAtlantaTo the Editor:Paul Krugman’s piece on Nikki Haley makes it quite clear that she is far from the perfect candidate, but what it does not address is the critical role that she may play.The Economist recently described Donald Trump as the gravest danger to the world in 2024, and considering viable alternatives, apart from Nikki Haley, there is only one 81-year-old man with major failings of his own standing in Donald Trump’s way.Even with all her shortcomings, there are strong reasons to support Nikki Haley, as she may be best positioned to save our democracy and the world from Donald Trump.Jon LandauPhiladelphiaA Climate Protest at the OperaThe Metropolitan Opera House, center, at Lincoln Center.Kathy Willens/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Climate Protesters Interrupt Met Performance of Wagner’s ‘Tannhäuser’” (news article, nytimes.com, Dec. 1):The recent climate protest at the opera made my heart sink.I’m a climate activist. I’ve marched, I’ve lobbied, I’ve contacted legislators. I’m co-leader of a local chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a grass-roots organization that believes that effective change will come about through respectful dialogue — and the sheer force of numbers.I’m also a professional singer and an operagoer. And I cringe when I see protesters disrupt the arts to make their point. The very people who might be inclined to help contribute to the urgent cause of fighting global warming may well be sitting in that opera house. But these protesters chose to alienate them. How in the world is that productive?The most effective path toward change is to work with others, not against them. We need dedicated, respectful activists who do their work by finding common ground and then gently but insistently nudging all of us forward.What we don’t need is this kind of spectacle, which gives the rest of us climate activists a bad name, and serves as an affront to the music and art we all need to inspire us in a troubled world.Francesca Huemer KellyHighland Park, Ill.More Trump Coverage?For years, President Biden and Democrats have been happy to mostly ignore Donald J. Trump. But now their thinking appears to be changing as the 2024 election season begins to ramp up.Sophie Park for The New York Times, Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Democrats Want Trump Plastered All Over the News” (news article, Nov. 22):How soon we forget. Think back to Wednesday morning, Nov. 9, 2016. Whether you supported and voted for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, you were likely shocked when you heard the final results.Now, Democrats are hoping that heavy media coverage of Mr. Trump, assuming he is the nominee, will remind Americans of his flawed character, his lies, his legal troubles and his hate-filled rhetoric, and this will repel them.But back in 2015 and 2016, Mr. Trump was far from invisible, enjoying plenty of media coverage: as a failed TV star and businessman, as a clown and an entertainer, not to be taken seriously. The polls at the time were suggesting that Mrs. Clinton was the heavy favorite, so many Americans either stayed home or voted for Mr. Trump as a joke or an anti-Hillary statement.Why would we think next year’s coverage won’t still focus on Mr. Trump’s entertainment value as much as on his lies, his threats and his crimes?Democrats may ask for more news coverage, but we should be careful what we wish for.Betsy FrankMattituck, N.Y. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      There Are Politicians Who Lie More Than Is Strictly Necessary

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, this may sound a bit strange, but I’ve decided to be grateful for all the political debates going on around us. While the real world can get kinda depressing, the debate world is always ready to just chatter away.I want to hear your predictions on the Republican set-to coming this week. But first, did you watch the governors go at it? Gavin Newsom versus Ron DeSantis? What did you think?Bret Stephens: The idea for the governors’ debate was first mooted when it looked like DeSantis could be the Republican presidential nominee. Now he seems slightly less relevant than the moderator, Sean Hannity, as well as slightly more obnoxious. Which is … saying something.But I still think DeSantis got the better of Newsom on the substance of their arguments. What did you think?Gail: Thought DeSantis won in the sense that he sounded somewhat less dim than many of us expected.Bret: I never thought of DeSantis as a dummy. Just a jerk.Gail: Although having Sean Hannity continually tossing him softball questions helped.Bret: True.Gail: Newsom was quicker, and his answers were smarter. As to which state works better, Californians do have to spend a lot to live there, when it comes to housing, food, gas, etc., but Florida ranks 14th on those basics and that’s a whole lot closer to the top than DeSantis seemed to be claiming.Florida’s taxes are lower but way more regressive — heavy on sales and property taxes that burden the middle and working classes with very little of the social services California dedicates to the poor.Bret: Since Newsom became governor in 2019, roughly 2.3 million Californians have left the state, but fewer than 1.4 million have arrived, a net loss of close to a million people. This is a phrase that gets tossed around a lot, but in this case it’s literally true: People are voting with their feet. And they are going to red states like Florida and Texas, in part because California ranks last in the country in terms of affordability, violent crime rates are way above the national average and the state has the largest homeless population in the country.I’m no fan of DeSantis when it comes to his views about abortion or his petty battles with Disney. But as blue states go, the Golden State ain’t exactly a role model for Democratic governance.Gail: One thing I was thinking while watching the two of them have at it was that the whole scene was a good promotion for your version of conservatism. Whenever the conversation turned to social issues like abortion, DeSantis was toast. When the questions were about public spending, Newsom had to work a whole lot harder.Bret: It would have been better to have a Democrat from a purple state, like Kentucky’s Andy Beshear or North Carolina’s Roy Cooper, provide the Democratic counter to DeSantis’s extremism.Gail: Well, I’ll bet a whole bunch of other governors are out there waving their arms to volunteer if Fox News wants to go down this road again.Bret: I hope someone smart and sane like Chris Wallace can moderate the next one. And speaking of smart and sane, we lost Sandra Day O’Connor last week. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was often treated like a feminist saint, but as a pioneer for women and a legal powerhouse, O’Connor deserves more of the accolades.Gail: Super happy to applaud Sandra Day O’Connor, but Bret, I think she’d prefer if you celebrate her without dissing another female pioneer.Bret: Sorry, that came out wrong. Point taken.Gail: One of my favorite O’Connor stories was when William French Smith, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general at the time, called to interview her for the Supreme Court post. She cheerfully reminded him that she’d applied to his law firm when she graduated from Stanford Law, and the only job she was offered was secretary.O’Connor then served Smith and her other visitors a salmon mousse she prepared and answered all their questions brilliantly without mentioning that she was recovering from a hysterectomy at the time they dropped by.Bret: I’ll raise a toast to both O’Connor and Ginsburg for helping ensure that my daughters’ generation won’t have to put up with much of the sexism my mother’s generation had to suffer.Gail: Amen!Bret: And, more specifically to O’Connor, to salute her for helping save abortion rights for a generation with her vote in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, as well as for her impassioned and correct dissent in Kelo v. New London, in which she denounced the use of eminent domain to suit the needs of private developers over poorer private homeowners. She was a conservative who could speak up for the vulnerable. Also, a good reminder that it was a conservative president, Reagan, who nominated her to the court. History will remember them both well.Another historic figure we lost last week was Henry Kissinger. I’m guessing you weren’t a big fan?Gail: Well, Bret, I was a student during the Vietnam War era, and I can’t say I was ever a fan. I realize Kissinger’s approach to the war was much more complicated than we gave him credit for at the time. But still not feeling any compulsion to mourn.Bret: I knew Kissinger personally and once had a spectacularly, almost hilariously, unfriendly interview with him on the subject of China, in which he refused to answer most of my questions. I also disagreed with him about many things, though my criticisms were from the right, not the left. Arms control deals with the Kremlin, for instance, were always a mistake, since the Soviets could never be trusted to keep their word.Yet I couldn’t help but admire him. His books, especially “Diplomacy,” are guideposts for my thinking about foreign policy. He came to this country as a refugee, served it as a soldier, rose to the pinnacle of influence and had a concept about husbanding American power through what he called our “disastrous oscillations between overcommitment and isolation.” I think it’s better to learn from him than just to castigate him.Gail: Almost always a smart approach.Bret: Let’s talk about someone less controversial. How about Elon Musk telling the companies that won’t advertise on Twitter — sorry, X — to, er, go do something or other with themselves?Gail: Never claimed to be an expert on any twittery issues, but I do have a strong impression that Musk is one of those guys who had one great moment, capitalism-and-market-wise. But it turned out that was absolutely all he had, and once he took his billions down other paths, it was a disaster.Sorta scary he’s one of the richest guys on the planet. Your thoughts?Bret: I once called Musk “the Donald Trump of Silicon Valley,” because I thought he was basically a BS artist making a living off misdirected government subsidies for electric vehicles. That was unfair, especially considering the achievements of Tesla and SpaceX. He’s more like the Howard Hughes of Boca Chica — a technological and entrepreneurial visionary whose increasingly self-destructive behavior suggests he should probably lay off the drugs or whatever else he’s on.And then there’s his efforts to meddle in foreign policy and his endorsement of antisemitic conspiracy theories — which may make him more comparable to Henry Ford. Maybe I’ve been too soft on opinionated billionaires.Gail: Yeah, maybe what we need to do more of this holiday season is forget about Musk and Take a Lonely Billionaire Out to Lunch.Bret: Unless you’d prefer to take lonely George Santos out to lunch.Gail: Think anybody would give us a reservation? Can’t remember when a politician collected so many enemies for stuff that stupid. He’s going to spend the rest of his life known as the Campaign Contributions for Botox guy.Bret: Or as the Politician Who Lied More Than Is Strictly Necessary.Gail: Onward and upward. Bret, I promised we’d come back to this, so here goes: There’s another Republican debate coming up on Wednesday night. Might only be three people in it — your fave Nikki Haley, our friend DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy the, um, entrepreneur.I’m hoping Chris Christie might somehow manage to qualify. If we have to watch a quarreling batch of Republicans who will not get the presidential nomination, I’d at least like it to be diverting.Any predictions?Bret: Gary Lineker once described soccer as a game in which “22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans win.” That feels a bit like this Republican debate: Three or four adults chase the political football across the stage and at the end, Trump wins.I hope I’m wrong. But with Trump’s primary lead looking increasingly insurmountable, isn’t it time for you Democrats to, uh, panic?Gail: Joe Biden is the inevitable nominee, if he wants to run for another four years. No way you can dump a guy who’s done a really good overall job as president, who has a fine character and no scandals more pressing than the thing with his son, which many American voters find totally boring.Of course, we want someone younger than 81, but there’s no non-insulting way to rip the nomination away from him. And he’ll almost certainly be running against Trump, who we note every single week is almost as old and in way worse shape. And while Biden is certainly given to garbling his messages, he seldom comes up with total misstatements and lies.Plus we’re going to have a campaign in which one of the candidates is facing more felony indictments than most of America’s Most Wanted. Call me sad, but not panicked.Bret: Gail? I’m panicked.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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More