Harris, Kamala D

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Las encuestas indican las elecciones más reñidas de la historia contemporánea de EE. UU.

      by

      Las número más recientes del Times/Siena muestran a Harris por delante en Míchigan y Wisconsin, y con una ventaja razonable en el Segundo Distrito de NebraskaKamala Harris en Wayne, Michigan, en agosto. Lidera Michigan por un punto en nuestro último sondeo.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesSigue aquí las actualizaciones en directo de las elecciones de 2024.El viernes concluimos nuestra oleada de encuestas posdebate del New York Times y el Siena College en los estados en disputa, junto con un vistazo especial a Ohio y su carrera hacia el Senado.Kamala Harris estuvo a la cabeza entre los votantes probables por un punto porcentual en Michigan, dos puntos en Wisconsin y nueve puntos en el Segundo Distrito Congresional de Nebraska. Donald Trump lideró en Ohio por seis puntos entre los votantes probables, 50 por ciento a 44 por ciento (en 2020 ganó el estado por ocho puntos).Cuando se añaden al panorama las otras encuestas recientes del Times/Siena, la conclusión es clara: se trata de unas elecciones extremadamente reñidas.Imaginemos, por un momento, que las últimas encuestas del Times/Siena en cada estado clave acertaran. No lo harán, por supuesto, pero este es el resultado que se obtendría en el Colegio Electoral:Harris 270, Trump 268.En términos de conteo electoral, sería la elección presidencial moderna más reñida de Estados Unidos.Si se promedian las seis encuestas que hicimos en los principales estados en disputa (nos saltamos Nevada en nuestra ronda más reciente), Trump va a la delantera por una media de solo 0,6 puntos.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Harris Hits Back at Republican Criticism of Childless Women

      by

      For the first time, Vice President Kamala Harris dismissed criticism from some Republicans that she does not have biological children, saying in a podcast interview on Sunday that much of the commentary was “meanspirited” and misunderstood women who either can’t have children or simply did not want to.In an appearance on the podcast “Call Her Daddy,” which is popular with Gen Z and millennial women, Ms. Harris discussed reproductive rights and economic issues. She addressed comments from Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the governor of Arkansas, who recently suggested that having biological children helped with her humility — a virtue she implied Ms. Harris lacked.“I don’t think she understands that there are a whole lot of women out here who, one, are not aspiring to be humble,” Ms. Harris told the host, Alex Cooper. “Two, a whole lot of women out here who have a lot of love in their life, family in their life and children in their life. And I think it’s really important for women to lift each other up.”When the conversation turned to attacks by Republicans against “childless cat ladies,” Ms. Harris called the criticism, popularized by past comments by Senator JD Vance of Ohio, former President Donald J. Trump’s running mate, “mean and meanspirited.” Ms. Harris referred to her stepchildren, Cole and Ella Emhoff, as her children.“I love those kids to death,” Ms. Harris said. “And family comes in many forms. I think that increasingly, you know, all of us understand that this is not the 1950s anymore.”The “Call Her Daddy” interview was part of several appearances that Ms. Harris will make this week with news outlets and niche podcasts or radio shows. Several of the platforms are considered to be friendly to her, or at least far less probing than a traditional news interview would be.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris Can Beat Donald Trump at Protecting America

      by

      It’s a truism that female candidates for high office face obstacles that men don’t. Less acknowledged is that women face different obstacles each from the other. Individually and generationally, women confront their own particular impossible dilemmas.Hillary Clinton’s dilemma was how to be forceful without coming off as fatally unfeminine, of seeming like a male impostor by virtue of being ambitious. Kamala Harris’s quandary is different. She’s not having to bat down accusations that her ambition makes her unwomanly, in part because she chose not to make breaking the glass ceiling a theme of her campaign. Her particular Achilles’ heel — pointed out by her opponent, who, whatever his manifest unfitness for the job, does have a talent for identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities — is contained in the word “protection.”That’s the insinuation behind so many of the attacks on Ms. Harris’s presidential quest: How’s she going to protect voters who, knocked around by everything from contagion to inflation to war, feel unsafe and insecure? As much as the Harris campaign promotes “joy,” the national mood radiates fear — of exposure, threat, bodily harm. How’s a woman supposed to protect us from that? Protection is an area of American culture that is resolutely gendered. The problematic dynamics that traditionally govern protection of home and hearth also govern our politics, an arena in which, historically, women have been granted neither protector nor protected status.In the public sphere, as in the personal, he who would dominate offers to protect. Forty-seven years ago, the feminist philosopher Susan Rae Peterson identified the syndrome of the “male protection racket,” asking, “Since the state fails them in its protective function, to whom can women turn for protection?” She explained that “women make agreements with husbands or fathers (in return for fidelity or chastity, respectively) to secure protection. From whom do these men protect women? From other men, it turns out.” She continued: “There is a striking parallel between this situation and tactics used by crime syndicates who sell protection as a racket. The buyer who refuses to buy the protective services of an agency because he needs no protection finds out soon that because he refuses to buy it, he very definitely needs protection. Women are in the same position.”Or as Mae West putatively said: “Every man I meet wants to protect me. I can’t figure out what from.”Donald Trump has it figured out. “Sadly, women are poorer than they were four years ago,” he told a Pennsylvania rally in late September. Also: “less healthy,” “less safe on the streets” and “more stressed and depressed and unhappy.” In a part of his speech aimed explicitly at female voters, he added, “I will fix all of that and fast, and at long last this nation, and national nightmare, will end.” Women, he promised, “will no longer be abandoned, lonely or scared. You will no longer be in danger.” Why? “You will be protected, and I will be your protector.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris Meets With Arab and Muslim Leaders in Michigan

      by

      Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday met with Arab and Muslim leaders while campaigning in Michigan, a crucial battleground state where roiling discontent over the United States’ backing of Israel’s war in Gaza and its escalating attacks in Lebanon could threaten her support.“The big takeaway was that she fully understands the severity of the situation, she absolutely understands the impact this has had on our communities, and the potential impact this could have on voters,” said Wa’el Alzayat, the chief executive of Emgage Action, a group that mobilizes Muslim American voters and has endorsed Ms. Harris.During the meeting, which took place backstage at a rally in Flint, Mich., Muslim and Arab leaders pressed Ms. Harris to work toward ending the war in Gaza, expressed concerns about the civilian casualties and about tens of thousands of people being displaced in Lebanon, Mr. Alzayat said.He added that Ms. Harris, who was joined by her campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, said she understood the frustrations in the community and was committed to finding a path to peace. The meeting was originally scheduled for 10 minutes but ran for 20, sending a strong message about “the gravity of the current moment we’re in,” he said.Ms. Harris’s campaign said in a statement that she expressed her concern for the “scale of suffering in Gaza,” and outlined her goal to end the war in Gaza, which started after Hamas attacked Israel nearly one year ago, on Oct. 7. The vice president also expressed her desire to secure the release of hostages taken during the attack, and continue to ensure Israel’s security while also seeing to it that Palestinian people can “realize their right to dignity, freedom, self-determination.”Ms. Harris also expressed her concern about civilian casualties and displacement in Lebanon, and reiterated the Biden administration’s desire for a diplomatic solution and preventing a regional war, the campaign said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris Visits North Carolina to Check on Hurricane Response

      by

      Vice President Kamala Harris met with North Carolina and federal emergency officials on Saturday in Charlotte as she continued to help oversee the disaster response in the Southeast after Hurricane Helene.Ms. Harris participated in a storm response briefing at a North Carolina Air National Guard base at Charlotte’s airport, where she was joined by Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Mayor Esther Manheimer of Asheville, N.C., which was particularly hard-hit.The vice president praised local officials and residents for their response to the storm.“I’ve been seeing and hearing the stories from here in North Carolina about strangers who are helping each other out, giving people assistance in every way that they need, including shelter, food, and friendship and fellowship,” she said.Ms. Harris’s trip to Charlotte was her second trip this week to assess the storm’s toll in the Southeast, and it served as a reminder that in addition to running for president she continued to have duties to fulfill as the vice president.In addition to reviewing the official storm response, Ms. Harris visited a volunteer center, where she briefly joined them making packages of donated necessities — including things like canned food, formula, diapers and flashlights — for North Carolinians stranded by the storm.While the deadly storm and the conflict in the Middle East have at times diverted Ms. Harris from the campaign trail as she turns to her official duties, her aides and allies have said they believe having voters see Ms. Harris act as the vice president could make her appear presidential and empathetic to voters in a key battleground state.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      America Needs a President

      by

      Last week’s column was devoted to uncertainties about how the next president would handle the deteriorating situation in Ukraine, where America’s proxy and ally is slowly losing ground to Russia, while the United States seems trapped by its commitment to a maximal victory and unable to pivot to a strategy for peace.One could argue that the Middle East suddenly presents the opposite situation for the United States: After the last two weeks of warmaking and targeted assassinations, the position of our closest ally seems suddenly more secure, while our enemies look weaker and more vulnerable. Israel is dealing blow after blow to Hezbollah and Iran’s wider “axis of resistance,” the Iranian response suggests profound limits to their capacities, and the regional balance of power looks worse for America’s revisionist rivals than it did even a month ago.Look deeper, though, and both the strategic deterioration in Eastern Europe and the strategic improvement in the Middle East have something important in common. In both cases, the American government has found itself stuck in a supporting role, unable to decide upon a clear self-interested policy, while a regional power that’s officially dependent on us sets the agenda instead.In Ukraine this is working out badly because the government in Kyiv overestimated its own capacities to win back territory in last year’s counteroffensive. In the Middle East it’s now working out better for U.S. interests because Israeli intelligence and the Israeli military have been demonstrating a remarkable capacity to disrupt, degrade and destroy their foes.In neither case, though, does the world’s most powerful country seem to have a real handle on the situation, a plan that it’s executing or a clear means of setting and accomplishing its goals.Or as The Wall Street Journal reported this week, as Israel takes the fight to Hezbollah, “the Biden administration increasingly resembles a spectator, with limited insight into what its closest Middle East ally is planning — and lessened influence over its decisions.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      JD Smirks His Way Into the Future

      by

      When I’ve covered the campaigns of women on presidential tickets, the question invariably arises: “Is she tough enough to be commander in chief?”With the bubbly Geraldine Ferraro, a lot of voters had their doubts.There was less worry with Hillary Clinton. She was a gold-plated hawk who voted to let President George W. Bush invade Iraq and persuaded President Barack Obama to join in bombing Muammar el-Qaddafi’s Libya.It is not surprising, with cascading conflicts, that Republicans are leveling the toughness question at Kamala Harris. This week the Trump/Vance campaign released an ad called “Weakness.” (Donald Trump also ran an ad called “Weakness” against Nikki Haley, a hawk.)The ad’s subtext is clearly gender, trying to exploit Kamala’s problems winning over Black and white working-class men.In a Times/Siena College poll last month, 55 percent of respondents said Trump was respected by foreign leaders while 47 percent said that of Harris.The ad claims Harris is not tough enough to deal with China, Russia, Iran or Hamas. It features actors playing Vladimir Putin, Hamas fighters and a tea-sipping ayatollah watching videos of the candidate who wants to be the first woman president. It ends with four clips of Kamala dancing — a lot better than Trump does — and a clip of Trump walking on a tarmac with a military officer and a Secret Service agent. The tag line is: “America doesn’t need another TikTok performer. We need the strength that will protect us.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump vs. Harris Would Be Nothing Without Myths

      by

      Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are making their appeals to the American electorate on the basis of personality, character and policy. But they are also framing themselves as actors in the American story — the events of the recent past and the deeper narrative of U.S. history carried by the symbol-rich stories of our national mythology.There has been very little common ground expressed between the parties in this election, except the belief that a victory by the opposition would be apocalyptic. Even when they invoke the same historical references, they present them in radically different ways. To Democrats, Jan. 6 was a shameful assault on democracy. To many Republicans, it was a patriotic protest of a rigged election.It’s as if we are living in two different countries, each with a different understanding of who counts as American.Each candidate is trying to pitch the contest to voters as a heroic episode in the unfolding of American history and invites them to imagine themselves as players in the narrative.In the “story wars,” Mr. Trump has an advantage over Ms. Harris: Conservatives have devised over decades a store of established mythological American “scripts,” something liberals have failed to do.Among the big issues at stake in the 2024 election, for both the campaigns and the country, is no less than shaping what it means to be an American and who gets to have power.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More