Harris, Kamala D

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats, Seeing a Weaker Trump, Are Falling in Line Behind Biden

      by

      Concerns about the president’s age are being overcome by enthusiasm about his record so far, optimism about the G.O.P. field — and the absence of better options.PHILADELPHIA — Nine months ago, amid sky-high gas prices and legislative gridlock, anxious Democrats routinely offered the same assessments of President Biden as a candidate for re-election: too frail, too politically weak, too much of a throwback.But now, as Democratic National Committee members gather in Philadelphia for their winter meeting this week, nearly all have come to the same conclusion: It’s Biden or bust.After Democrats far exceeded their own expectations in the midterms, and now that they are facing the possibility of a rematch against a far more vulnerable Donald Trump, the bickering about Mr. Biden has subsided.With no other serious contenders making early moves to enter the race, the official party structure has united behind the president’s re-election bid — despite the inherent risks in an octogenarian candidate’s undertaking the rigors of a national campaign.Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey, who is chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, an organization full of members predisposed to imagine themselves in the White House, said any discussion of possible challenges had gone quiet in recent months.“I don’t hear any chatter of anybody considering taking him on in our party, and I think for good reason,” Mr. Murphy said. “What I see is a guy who’s still on top of his game.”While challenges to a sitting president are rare, the lack of even a whisper of intraparty opposition this year is notable given Mr. Biden’s already record-setting age as president. If he won, he would be 82 when sworn in for a second term.Mr. Biden greeted Avery Tierney, 9, of Marlton, N.J., at the D.N.C. gathering.Al Drago for The New York TimesIn Philadelphia, where delegates chanted “four more years” as Mr. Biden spoke on Friday evening, concerns about his age were confined to quiet conversations — a tacit recognition that the time had passed for Democrats to question the wisdom of nominating a member of the Silent Generation. Despite months of speculation about a restive bench of potential challengers, no serious Democratic contenders appear to be doing the kinds of donor outreach, staff hiring or visits to early-primary states that typically portend a presidential bid.Nor is there any clamoring for a primary race — to hedge Democratic bets or to ensure Mr. Biden addresses any perceived vulnerabilities well before a general election — even amid an expanding investigation into Mr. Biden’s mishandling of classified documents.The Democrats’ Primary CalendarA plan spearheaded by President Biden could lead to a major overhaul of the party’s presidential primary process in 2024.Demoting Iowa: Democrats are moving to reorder the primaries by making South Carolina — instead of Iowa — the first nominating state, followed by Nevada and New Hampshire, Georgia and then Michigan.A New Chessboard: President Biden’s push to abandon Iowa for younger, racially diverse states is likely to reward candidates who connect with the party’s most loyal voters.Obstacles to the Plan: Reshuffling the early-state order could run into logistical issues, especially in Georgia and New Hampshire.An Existential Crisis: Iowa’s likely dethronement has inspired a rush of wistful memories and soul-searching among Democrats there.“Let me ask you a simple question: Are you with me?” Mr. Biden asked the crowd of D.N.C. members on Friday night, to boisterous cheers. An even more overt acknowledgment is to be made on Saturday, when Democrats are set to vote on a measure that would make it vastly more difficult for a potential primary challenger to catch fire. A new primary calendar, devised by Mr. Biden and his advisers, would vault to the front a number of states that propelled him to the nomination in 2020, starting with South Carolina.Still, with the election 641 days away, much remains uncertain. The shape of the Republican field remains unclear, as does the country’s economic forecast. And while Mr. Biden intends to run for re-election, he is unlikely to announce his campaign until the early spring, according to people close to the president, and is still working through key details like hiring a campaign manager. (Were Mr. Biden not to run, Vice President Kamala Harris could benefit from the new calendar, which increases the influence of states where Black voters make up a large portion of the primary electorate.)Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey, the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said chatter about possible primary challengers to Mr. Biden had gone quiet.Bryan Anselm for The New York TimesMany Democrats feel warmly about Mr. Biden, a party stalwart for half a century, and are hesitant to appear disloyal or insensitive by publicly questioning his fitness for a second term. They are also keenly aware of how primary challenges weakened incumbent presidents: Several Biden allies pointedly mentioned Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s failed 1980 primary race against President Jimmy Carter, who then was defeated by Ronald Reagan..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Indeed, Mr. Biden’s age is one reason many Democrats are hoping that Mr. Trump, who at 76 is just four years younger, wins the G.O.P. nomination. After years of worrying about Mr. Trump’s political potency, many Democrats scarred from underestimating him in 2016 now see him as eminently beatable, especially by Mr. Biden.But some fear that a contest between Mr. Biden and a younger challenger, like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida or former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, could create a more challenging contrast for the president.“Trump would be a preferred candidate,” said Jay Jacobs, chairman of the New York State Democratic Committee, even as he said he believed Mr. Biden would be strong regardless and noted that Mr. DeSantis was untested on the national stage. But a younger nominee, he added, “mixes it up in a way that you don’t have any ability to judge how it will look going forward.”At a moment when Democrats regard the return of Mr. Trump, or the rise of someone practicing his style of politics, as a threat to democracy, there is enormous pressure from all corners of the party to avoid damaging Mr. Biden.“Speaking as a progressive, Biden was not my first choice for president, but I think he’s done an extremely good job with the hand that he’s been dealt,” said RL Miller, a climate activist and Democratic National Committee member from California. “I find the talk of 2024 challengers to him to be both disrespectful and distracting.”But elections are determined by voters, not party officials, and the Democratic base has concerns about another Biden bid, even if the party’s officials see the president as their strongest option. Majorities of Democrats in surveys conducted in December, a month after the party’s unexpected midterm successes, said they did not want Mr. Biden to seek re-election.“The majority of the party and Biden voters didn’t vote for Biden, they voted against Trump,” said Liano Sharon, a delegate from Michigan who voted for Biden in 2020. “If the party pushes Biden on the grass roots again, a lot of them aren’t going to show up, because of Biden’s policies, broken promises and other big problems,” including his concern that Mr. Biden was showing signs of decline.That view had little support in Philadelphia, however, where the only sign of opposition to a Biden re-election bid was a billboard on the back of a truck circling outside, advertising a group calling itself DontRunJoe.org. Its founder, Jeff Cohen, conceded as much: “We’re beating our heads against the wall here,” he said.Without a viable alternative willing to jump into the race, elected Democrats and top party officials find themselves like the dinner party guests in a horror-film spoof on “Saturday Night Live” last year who are terrified of a 2024 Biden candidacy but even more scared of the other possible candidates. Several Democratic officials brought up the sketch unprompted to describe their attachment to a Biden re-election bid.“What is the alternative? Like, who’s the alternative?” said Representative Ritchie Torres of New York, casting Mr. Biden as a strong contender with “the most consequential presidency in recent history.” He added, “If I’m asked who is best positioned to win in 2024, I’m unaware of an alternative to President Biden.”After Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois pledged allegiance to Mr. Biden, other big-name Democrats seen as White House material followed suit.Michelle Litvin for The New York TimesSo far, no prominent Democrats are taking even cursory steps to establish themselves as presidential timber. Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois made a much-remarked-upon trip to New Hampshire last summer, but he has pledged allegiance to Mr. Biden. Other big names, including Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, have followed suit.Only Marianne Williamson, the self-help author who ran a quixotic presidential campaign in 2020, has acknowledged mulling a primary challenge, citing concerns over a Democratic Party that she said had “swerved from its unequivocal and unabashed advocacy for the working people.”In an interview, Ms. Williamson said she would not run “simply to make a point” but to give Americans options. “The question I ask myself is not ‘What is my path to victory?’” she said. “My question is ‘What is my path to radical truth-telling?’ There are some things that need to be said in this country.”Absent more credible potential primary threats, Biden allies are reveling in a sense of vindication after a stressful midterm campaign. Mr. Biden, they say, will counter concerns about his age in his re-election campaign with arguments about the value of his long experience in government.“He’s always underestimated by people in his party and outside his party,” said former Representative Cedric L. Richmond, who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Biden at the White House, rattling off a list of the president’s legislative accomplishments. “They said he couldn’t win the presidency. He did.”But the next election may bear little resemblance to the last. Unlike in 2020, when Mr. Biden conducted much of his campaign over video from his basement because of the coronavirus, his re-election bid could require the kind of grueling travel that has long been customary in presidential contests. A noticeably more languid pace by Mr. Biden could set up a stark contrast if Republicans abandon Mr. Trump in favor of a younger nominee.Bill Shaheen, a D.N.C. member from New Hampshire, called Mr. Biden “physically fit” and energetic.But, drawing on personal experience, Mr. Shaheen, who is 79, added, “There’s only so much you can do when you’re our age.”Having helped run primary campaigns in New Hampshire for presidents as far back as Mr. Carter and campaigned for his wife, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Mr. Shaheen said they could be exhausting. “By the time the primaries were done, I was wiped out,” he said. “And the general election, as well — I mean, it is extremely physically demanding.”Still, Mr. Shaheen, who has strongly disagreed with Mr. Biden’s effort to reshuffle the presidential primary calendar — a move that would make New Hampshire the second contest alongside Nevada, rather than the first primary — said that if Mr. Biden wants to run again, “I want him to do it.”Kitty Bennett contributed research. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Kellyanne Conway: The Case for and Against Trump

      by

      Donald J. Trump shocked the world in 2016 by winning the White House and becoming the first president in U.S. history with no prior military or government experience. He upended the fiction of electability pushed by pundits, the news media and many political consultants, which arrogantly projects who will or will not win long before votes are cast. He focused instead on capturing a majority in the Electoral College, which is how a candidate does or does not win. Not unlike Barack Obama eight years earlier, Mr. Trump exposed the limits of Hillary Clinton’s political inevitability and personal likability, connected directly with people, ran an outsider’s campaign taking on the establishment, and tapped into the frustrations and aspirations of millions of Americans.Some people have never gotten over it. Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. There is no vaccine and no booster for it. Cosseted in their social media bubbles and comforted within self-selected communities suffering from sameness, the afflicted disguise their hatred for Mr. Trump as a righteous call for justice or a solemn love of democracy and country. So desperate is the incessant cry to “get Trump!” that millions of otherwise pleasant and productive citizens have become naggingly less so. They ignore the shortcomings, failings and unpopularity of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris and abide the casual misstatements of an administration that says the “border is secure,” inflation is “transitory,” “sanctions are intended to deter” Putin from invading Ukraine and they will “shut down the virus.” They’ve also done precious little to learn and understand what drives the 74 million fellow Americans who were Trump-Pence voters in 2020 and not in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.The obsession with Mr. Trump generates all types of wishful thinking and projection about the next election from both his critics (“He will be indicted!”) and his supporters (“Is he still electable?”). None of that is provable, but this much is true: Shrugging off Mr. Trump’s 2024 candidacy or writing his political obituary is a fool’s errand — he endures persecution and eludes prosecution like no other public figure. That could change, of course, though that cat has nine lives.At the same time, it would also be foolish to assume that Mr. Trump’s path to another presidency would be smooth and secure. This is not 2016, when he and his team had the hunger, swagger and scrappiness of an insurgent’s campaign and the “history be damned” happy warrior resolve of an underestimated, understaffed, under-resourced effort. It’s tough to be new twice.Unless what’s old can be new again. Mr. Trump’s track record reminds Republican primary voters of better days not that long ago: accomplishments on the economy, energy, national security, trade deals and peace deals, the drug crisis and the southern border. He can also make a case — one that will resonate with Republicans — about the unfairness and hypocrisy of social media censorship and alleged big tech collusion, as recent and ongoing revelations show. Mr. Trump, as a former president, can also be persuasive with Republican primary voters and some independents in making a frontal attack on the Biden administration’s feckless management of the economy, reckless spending and lack of urgency and competence on border control and crime.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesAccomplishing this will not be easy. Mr. Trump has both political assets to carry him forward and political baggage holding him back. For Mr. Trump to succeed, it means fewer insults and more insights; a campaign that centers on the future, not the past, and that channels the people’s grievances and not his own; and a reclamation of the forgotten Americans, who ushered him into the White House the first time and who are suffering economically under Mr. Biden.A popular sentiment these days is, “I want the Trump policies without the Trump personality.” It is true that limiting the name-calling frees up time and space for persuasion and solutions. Still, it may not be possible to have one without the other. Mr. Trump would remind people, it was a combination of his personality and policies that forced Mexico to help secure our border; structured new trade agreements and renewed manufacturing, mining and energy economies; pushed to get Covid vaccines at warp speed; engaged Kim Jong-un; played hardball with China; routed ISIS and removed Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful military commander; forced NATO countries to increase their defense spending and stared down Vladimir Putin before he felt free to invade Ukraine.When it comes to Donald J. Trump, people see what they wish to see. Much like the audio debate a few years ago, “Do you hear ‘Laurel’ or ‘Yanny’?,” what some perceive as an abrasive, scornful man bent on despotism, others see a candid, resolute leader unflinchingly committed to America’s interests.The case against Trump 2024 rests in some combination of fatigue with self-inflicted sabotage; fear that he cannot outrun the mountain of legal woes; the call to “move on”; a feeling that he is to blame for underwhelming Republican candidates in 2022; and the perception that other Republicans are less to blame for 2022 and have more recent records as conservative reformers.He also won’t have the Republican primary field — or the debate stage — to himself. If one person challenges Mr. Trump, it is likely five or six will jump into the race and try to test him, too. Possible primary challengers to Mr. Trump include governors with impressive records and huge re-election victories like such governors as Ron DeSantis of Florida, Kim Reynolds of Iowa and Greg Abbott of Texas; those who wish to take on Mr. Trump frontally and try to move the party past him, like Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey; those who can lay legitimate claim to helping realize Trump-era accomplishments like former Vice President Mike Pence and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; others who wish to expand the party’s recent down-ballot gains in racial and gender diversity to the presidential level, like former Gov. Nikki Haley and Senator Tim Scott, both of South Carolina.These are serious and substantive men and women, all of whom would be an improvement over Mr. Biden. For now, though, these candidates are like a prospective blind date. Voters and donors project onto them all that they desire in a perfect president, but until one faces the klieg lights, and is subjected to raw, relentless, often excessive scrutiny, and unfair and inaccurate claims, there is no way to suss out who possesses the requisite metal and mettle.The main talking point against Trump 2024 seems to be that Trump 2022 underperformed and that it left him a less-feared and less-viable candidate. Mr. Trump boasts that his general election win-loss record was 233-20 and that he hosted some 30 rallies in 17 states and more than 50 fund-raisers for candidates up for re-election, and participated in 60 TeleRallies and raised nearly $350 million in the 2022 cycle for Republican candidates and committees.Republican voters should be pleased that Mr. Trump and other Republican luminaries showed up and spoke up in the midterms. Mr. Trump wasn’t the only one who campaigned for unsuccessful candidates. Mr. DeSantis rallied in person for Kari Lake, Doug Mastriano and Tim Michels. Mr. Pence, Ms. Haley, and Mr. Pompeo endorsed Don Bolduc, for example. Even the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, seemed warm and hopeful about a few of the U.S. Senate candidates who came up short. In October 2021 Mr. McConnell claimed, “Herschel [Walker] is the only one who can unite the party, defeat Senator Warnock,” and in August 2022, “I have great confidence. I think [Mehmet] Oz has a great shot at winning [in Pennsylvania].”Damon Winter/The New York TimesContrast that to Joe Biden, who was unpopular and unwelcome on the campaign trail in the midterm elections. For seven years Mr. Trump hasn’t stopped campaigning, while one could say that Mr. Biden, who stuck close to home for much of 2020 and did relatively little campaigning in 2022, never truly started. It will be tough for Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris to avoid active campaigning when “Biden” and “Harris” are on the ballot.Any repeat by the 2024 Trump campaign of the disastrous mistakes in personnel, strategy and tactics of the 2020 Trump campaign may lead to the same 2020 result. With roughly $1.6 billion to spend and Joe Biden as the opponent, the 2020 election should have been a blowout. Instead, they proved the adage that the fastest way to make a small fortune is to have a very large one and waste most of it.Mr. Trump lost support among older voters, white men, white voters with a college degree, and independents, though he increased his vote share across notable demographics like Hispanics and Blacks. One wild card: Will the undercover, hidden 2016 Trump voter, those who wish to keep their presidential pick private from pollsters, return in 2024?Republicans must also invest in and be vocal about early voting. This is a competition for ballots, not just votes. As ridiculous as it was to vote nearly two months before Election Day and count the votes for three weeks thereafter, some of the state-based Covid-compelled measures for voting are now permanent. If these are the rules, adapt or die politically.Mr. Biden, for his part, will have his own record to run on, typical advantages of incumbency, powerful campaign surrogates who will join him in making the presidential race a referendum on Mr. Trump, and persistent calls for a third-party candidate who as a spoiler could do for Mr. Biden what Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton in 1992 — deliver the presidency to the Democrat with less than 45 percent of the popular vote.Whether the 2024 presidential election is a cage match rematch of Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump, or a combination of other candidates remains to be seen. Each of them has defied the odds and beat more than a dozen intraparty rivals to win their respective primaries. Each of them now faces calls for change, questions about the handling of classified documents and questions about age. For voters, vision matters. Winning the presidency is hard. Only 45 men (one twice) have been president. Hundreds have tried, many of them being told, “You can win!” even as they lost. Success lies in having advisers who tell you what you need to know, not just what you want to hear. And in listening to the people, who have the final say.Kellyanne Conway is a Republican pollster and political consultant who was Donald J. Trump’s campaign manager in 2016 and senior counselor to President Trump from 2017 to 2020. She is not affiliated with his 2024 presidential campaign.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.

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1), article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label {
      text-transform: uppercase;
      font-size: 1rem;
      font-weight: 600;
      line-height: 1.5rem;
      letter-spacing: 0.05em;

      }

      h1:first-letter {
      margin-left: 0;
      }

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1):after, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label:after {
      content: “Guest Essay”;
      display: block;
      color: white;
      }

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1) a:link, article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1) a:visited, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label {
      color: #D0021B;
      }

      @media screen and (min-width: 1024px){

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before{
      content: “”;
      width: 8.75rem;
      border: 1px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.25);
      unicode-bidi: normal;
      display: block;
      margin: -8px auto 35px;
      }

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(2),
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) > div > div:nth-of-type(2) p {
      font-weight: 100;
      -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;
      letter-spacing: 0.25px;
      margin-top: 10px;
      }

      }

      @media screen and (max-width: 1024px){
      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > div:nth-of-type(2) h1,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1{
      margin-bottom: 5px;
      }
      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:nth-of-type(1) a:link, article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:nth-of-type(1) a:visited {
      color: #D0021B;
      letter-spacing: 0.07em;
      font-size: 1rem;
      }

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1):after, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label:after{
      color: #111;
      }
      } More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Speaker, Speaker, What Do You See? I See MAGA Looking at Me.

      by

      Bret Stephens: Gail, remember “We Need to Talk About Kevin,” the unforgettable Lionel Shriver novel about a woman whose son murders his classmates? Maybe someone should write the sequel: “We Need to Talk About What They Did to Kevin.”Gail Collins: A book-length disquisition on Kevin McCarthy, Bret? I dunno. Always thought his strongest suit was that he was too boring to hate. But now that he’s apparently promised the Republican right wing everything but permission to bring pet ocelots to the House floor, I can see it.Bret: Too boring to hate or too pathetic to despise? I’ve begun to think of McCarthy almost as a literary archetype, like one of those figures in a Joseph Conrad novel whose follies make them weak and whose weakness leads them to folly.Gail: Love your literary allusions. But let’s pretend you’re in charge of the Republican Party — tell me what you think of him in general.Bret: A few honorable exceptions aside, the G.O.P. is basically split between reptiles and invertebrates. McCarthy is the ultimate invertebrate. He went to Mar-a-Lago just a short while after Jan. 6 to kiss the ring of the guy who incited the mob that, by McCarthy’s own admission, wanted to kill him. He hated Liz Cheney because of her backbone. But he quailed before Marjorie Taylor Greene because she has a forked tongue. He gave away the powers and prerogatives of the office of speaker in order to gain the office, which is like a slug abandoning its shell and thinking it won’t be stepped on. A better man would have told the Freedom Caucus holdouts to shove it. Instead, as a friend of mine put it, McCarthy decided to become the squeaker of the House.Gail: OK, Kevin is House squeaker forever.Bret: If there’s a silver lining here, it’s that the whole spectacle has shown voters what they get for voting for this Republican Party.Gail: Hey, you’re still in charge of Republicans. Now that they’re sort of in command, do you have hopes they’ll make progress on your priorities, like controlling government spending? Without, um, failing to make the nation’s debt payments ….Bret: Buried in the noise about McCarthy’s humiliation is that his opponents had some reasonable demands. One of them was to give members of Congress a minimum of 72 hours to read the legislation they were voting on. Another was to limit bills to a single subject. The idea is to do away with the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink spending packages that Congress has lately become way too fond of.Gail: Yeah, I can buy into that one.Bret: On the other hand, the idea that this Republican clown show is going to accomplish anything significant — particularly since doing so would require them to work with a Democratic president and Senate — is roughly the equivalent of Vladimir Putin leaving the vocation of vile despot to become a … cannabis entrepreneur. Not going to happen.So what do Democrats do?Gail: Well, one plus is that we don’t have to worry about the Republican House passing some terrible, nutty legislation since the Senate is there to put a halt to it. Interesting how much better obstruction looks when your party is doing the obstructing ….Bret: It’s almost — almost — enough to be grateful to people like Herschel Walker and Blake Masters for being such deliriously awful candidates.Gail: When it comes to positive action, like keeping the government running, I’d like to think the moderate Dems and the moderate Republicans could get together and come to some agreement on the basics. Do you think there’s a chance?Bret: What was the name of that Bret Easton Ellis novel? “Less Than Zero.” Bipartisanship became a four-letter word for most Republicans sometime around 2012. If we can avoid another useless government shutdown, I’ll consider it a minor miracle.On the other hand, all this is good for Democrats. In our last conversation, I predicted that McCarthy wouldn’t win the speakership and that Joe Biden would decide against a second term. I was wrong on the first. Now I’m beginning to think I was also wrong on the second, in part because Republicans are in such manifest disarray. What is your spidey sense telling you?Gail: Yeah, Biden knows 80 is old for another run, but the chance to take on Donald Trump again is probably going to be irresistible.Bret: Assuming it’s going to be Trump, which, increasingly, I doubt.Gail: You really think it’s going to be Ron DeSantis? My theory is that if the field opens up at all, there’ll be a swarm of Republican hopefuls, dividing the Trump opposition.Bret: It’ll be DeSantis or you can serve me a platter of crow. Never mind that Trump still managed to seal the deal for McCarthy’s speakership by winning over a few of the last holdouts. It still took him 15 ballots.Gail: But about Biden — if he did drop out, Democrats would have to figure out what to do about Kamala Harris. A woman, a minority, with the classic presidential training job. Yet a lot of people haven’t found her all that impressive as a potential leader.My vote would be for him to announce he’s not running instantly, and let all the other potential heirs go for it.Bret: How do you solve a problem like Kamala? My initial hope was that she’d grow into the job. That hasn’t seemed to happen. My second hope was that Biden would give her a task in which she’d shine. Didn’t happen either. My third hope was that Biden would ask her to fill Stephen Breyer’s seat on the Supreme Court and then nominate Gina Raimondo or Pete Buttigieg to the vice presidency, setting either of them up to be the front-runner in ’24 or ’28. Whoops again. Now Dems are saddled with their own version of Dan Quayle, minus the gravitas.Gail: Not fair to compare her to Dan Quayle. But otherwise OK with your plan. Go on.Bret: I also think Biden should announce he isn’t going to run, both on account of his age and the prospect of running against someone like DeSantis. But the argument is harder to make given the midterm results, Republican chaos, the sense that he’s defied the skeptics to pass a lot of legislation and the increasingly likely prospect that Ukraine will prevail over Russia this year and give him a truly historic geopolitical win.I just hope that if he does run, he switches veeps. It would … reassure the nation.Gail: So happy to hear you’re on a Biden fan track. Does that apply to his new plan for the Mexican border, too?Bret: Not a Biden fan, exactly, though I do root for a successful presidency on general principle. As for the border plan, the good news is that he finally seems to be recognizing the scale of the problem and promising tougher enforcement. It’s also good that he’s doing more for political refugees from oppressive countries like Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.Gail: And next …Bret: The right step now is to start pushing for realistic bipartisan immigration reform that gives Republicans more money for border wall construction and security in exchange for automatic citizenship for Dreamers, an expanded and renewable guest-worker visa that helps bring undocumented workers out of the shadows and a big increase in the “extraordinary ability” EB-1 visas for our future Andy Groves and Albert Einsteins. What do you think?Gail: I was waiting for you to get to the border wall itself, which we disagree about. Terrible symbol, awful to try to maintain and not always effective.Bret: All true, except that it paves the way for a good legislative compromise and can save lives if it deters dangerous border crossings.Gail: Moneywise, the border states deserve increased federal aid to handle their challenges. A good chunk should go to early childhood education, which would not only help the new arrivals but also local children born into non-English-speaking families.The aid should also go to states like New York that are getting busloads of new immigrants — some from those Arizona and Texas busing plots, but a good number just because they’re the newcomers’ choice destination.I believe there was a bipartisan plan hatched in the House that included citizenship for Dreamers — an obvious reform that, amazingly, we haven’t yet achieved. But bipartisan plans aren’t doing real well right now.Bret: It’s still worth a shot. I’m sorry Biden didn’t invest the kind of political capital into immigration reform that he did into the infrastructure and climate change bills. And if Republicans wind up voting down funding for a border wall out of spite for Dreamers, I can’t see how that helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Supporting them seems like smart politics at the very minimum.Before we go, Gail, one more point of note: We just passed the second anniversary of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. I was happy to see Biden honor the heroes of that day at a White House ceremony. Also happy to see the Justice Department continue to prosecute hundreds of cases. And appalled to watch Brazil’s right-wing loons try to imitate the Jan. 6 insurrectionists by storming their own parliament. Any suggestions for going forward?Gail: Well, what we really need to see is an effort by Republicans, some of whom were endangered themselves during the attack, but virtually none of whom have shown any interest in revisiting that awful moment — only one member of the party showed up for that ceremony.Now that Kevin McCarthy has his job in hand, let’s see him call for a bipartisan committee to come up with some suggestions. Ha ha ha.Sorry — don’t want to end on a snippy note.Bret: Not snippy at all. Truthful. We could start by requiring a civics course for all incoming members of Congress. Maybe some of them might learn that their first duty is to the Constitution, not to themselves.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris Swears In Karen Bass as LA’s Mayor

      by

      Vice President Kamala Harris swore in Ms. Bass in a ceremony that celebrated her historic win but also underscored the obstacles she will face.Karen Bass is the first woman and the second Black person to be elected mayor of Los Angeles. During her inaugural speech, Ms. Bass said her first act would be to declare a state of emergency on homelessness.Frederic J. Brown/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLOS ANGELES — Karen Bass was sworn in as the first female mayor of Los Angeles on Sunday and vowed to build consensus among elected leaders as Angelenos contend with racial tensions, surging homelessness and a new rise in coronavirus cases.Vice President Kamala Harris swore in Ms. Bass in a ceremony that celebrated her historic win but also underscored the obstacles she will face. Ms. Bass said that her first act as mayor on Monday would be to declare a state of emergency on homelessness.“If we are going to bring Angelenos inside and move our city in a new direction,” Ms. Bass said during her inaugural speech, which was interrupted by protesters at one point, “we must have a single strategy to unite our city and county and engage the state, the federal government, the private sector and every other stakeholder.”Ms. Bass, a former Democratic congresswoman who was on the shortlist to be President Biden’s 2020 running mate, won election against Rick Caruso, a billionaire real estate developer, in a hard-fought race that remained too close to call until a week after the election.Los Angeles, a city of four million people, has been rocked by a surge in post-pandemic homelessness and violent crime, prompting an outcry from citizens who say their quality of life has spiraled in recent years. A citywide poll conducted early this year by the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University found that for the first time since 2012, a majority of Angelenos felt the city was going in the wrong direction.The coronavirus itself also remains a scourge: Officials at the event required attendees to wear masks amid an alarming rise in case numbers in the city.Ms. Bass, 69, said she entered the race because the heightened racial divisions and civic unease reminded her of the unrest that preceded the riots that tore the city apart in 1992. In September, her home was burglarized. Ms. Bass, who has long been an advocate for liberal crime prevention policies, promised during her campaign to put more police officers on the streets.She has also promised to declare a state of emergency on homelessness and find homes for 17,000 homeless people in her first year. In practice, she will have to rely on a broad coalition of city and county officials to enact any sweeping plans to bolster social service programs. According to a September report from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, some 69,000 people are experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County.Fesia Davenport, the chief executive of Los Angeles County, attended Ms. Bass’s swearing-in ceremony. She said she was hopeful that the new mayor would collaborate with the county to help address homelessness.Ms. Davenport said she did not usually attend political events but made an exception this time.“I wanted to help celebrate and commemorate this momentous occasion,” Ms. Davenport said. “I really feel like she has signaled that she’s willing to tackle the really tough issues, not just manage them.”Though voters have said they are frustrated and cynical about whether a course correction is possible, thousands gathered at the Microsoft Theater on Sunday to celebrate the election of the first woman to lead the city and the second Black mayor after Tom Bradley, who retired in 1993 as the longest-tenured executive in Los Angeles history. Ms. Bass is the latest in a growing number of women who have been elected to local leadership positions.The ceremony featured musicians including Stevie Wonder — whose performance of “Living for the City” brought the new mayor to her feet — Chloe Bailey and the duo Mary Mary. The event also featured a reading from the poet Amanda Gorman, who ended with a line that drew a standing ovation: “Where there’s a will, there is women, and where there’s women, there’s forever a way.”Attendees wore rain jackets and carried umbrellas as they waited to go through security. Some were decked out in suits, others in sequins and Santa hats. While the lines wound through the L.A. Live complex, guests held out their phones to snap selfies in front of the theater’s marquee, showing Ms. Bass’s smiling face and her motto: “A New Day for Los Angeles.”Earle Charles, a professor at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, Calif., approached the front of the line for his first mayoral inauguration in Los Angeles, where he has lived for almost four decades. He said he is a longtime supporter of Ms. Bass and trusts her to carry through on her campaign promises.“One of the first things, of course, is to take care of the homeless situation,” said Mr. Charles, 69, who lives in Granada Hills in the San Fernando Valley. “To me, that’s the primary issue.”Other attendees agreed that homelessness should be at the top of the new mayor’s agenda. Bertha Scott-Smith, 54, said she felt as though Ms. Bass’s predecessor, Eric Garcetti, had not had the easiest time making real progress on the issue.“I hope she doesn’t meet that same pushback,” said Ms. Scott-Smith, who lives in the historically Black neighborhood of Leimert Park.She said that Ms. Bass’s inauguration felt like a historic moment, particularly with the vice president attending.Ms. Harris — the first female vice president, the first woman of color to hold her job, a former California attorney general and a former senator — flew to Los Angeles for the occasion with a planeload of Democrats. The roster included Delegate Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands and Representatives Frederica S. Wilson of Florida, Bobby L. Rush of Illinois, Nanette Barragán of California and Tony Cárdenas of California.Kirsten Allen, the vice president’s spokeswoman, said that Ms. Bass had asked Ms. Harris to swear her in, and the vice president obliged.“The vice president is invested in her success and knows what she’s up against,” Ms. Allen said, “and will do what she needs to do to make sure she’s successful.”At the ceremony, Tamaqua Jackson, wrapped in a beret and a scarf, said she believed in Ms. Bass’s ability to tackle homelessness and also help heal a splintered city.“She seems like she can bring Los Angeles together as one,” Ms. Jackson said, adding that she would like to see Ms. Bass “clean up” the City Council, which has been besieged by controversy in recent months.Ms. Jackson, 48, has lived in Los Angeles all her life, but this was her first mayoral inauguration, she said. She said the vice president’s appearance added to the appeal of attending in person.“That’s another high for me: To actually see two people I’ve voted for in person is awesome,” said Ms. Jackson, who works as a commercial driver. “Go women!”Soumya Karlamangla More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Democrats Should Run ____ in 2024

      by

      More from our inbox:A Welcome Gay Marriage Bill, But …Let’s Keep Funding Covid Vaccines Illustration by The New York Times; Photograph by Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Biden Is No Sure Thing for 2024. What About Buttigieg? Harris? Even Whitmer?,” by Frank Bruni (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 12):I was disappointed to see that you didn’t suggest Representative Tim Ryan, who lost the Senate race in Ohio, as a potential candidate for the 2024 Democratic Party presidential nomination. He is articulate, young, a moderate, a warrior for the working and middle class, and, like John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, perfectly suited to appeal to a broad range of Democrats and independents as a decent, reasonable choice during the current madness of the U.S. political landscape.His recent concession speech alone shows us how his values would enrich our country. He may not be well known outside of Ohio, but wasn’t Barack Obama in the same position before 2008?Glenn PetherickKingstowne, Va.To the Editor:As a Republican, I was dismayed and frustrated by the outcome of the midterm elections. If my party could not prevail in a climate of record inflation, rising interest rates, rampant crime, open borders, lousy public schools and spreading woke ideology, how could I possibly expect a better outcome in 2024?Then I read Frank Bruni’s article identifying Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Gretchen Whitmer as the most likely possibilities to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024. Thank you, Frank! You have given me renewed hope for a brighter future for my party.Joseph P. CunninghamHoustonTo the Editor:In your discussion of potential Democratic nominees for 2024, there are two other names that deserve mention. One is Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois. She lost both legs in Iraq, and I’d be eager to see her in a debate with the former president who got out of military service for — what was it again? — oh, that’s right, a bone spur.The other is the newly elected governor of Maryland, Wes Moore. As a Rhodes scholar and veteran, he has already compiled an impressive résumé, and at 44 years old is the same age as Ron DeSantis. I know he doesn’t have much experience yet, but then again neither did Barack Obama when he was elected.John J. ConiglioEast Meadow, N.Y.To the Editor:While many of the possible candidates highlighted have laudable credentials, I think Gina Raimondo has most of them beat. She is well seasoned, and not only has she had governing experience as Rhode Island’s governor from 2015 to 2021, but she was also treasurer and was able to stabilize the state pension plan. Many of the elections she’s won have been by a fairly wide margin.She spent earlier years as a venture capitalist, which gives her “street cred” with the business community. Her education encompasses economics and law at top-notch schools as well as having been a Rhodes scholar. I would think this background would have broad appeal and take us in a positive direction.Bonita WagnerStamford, Conn.To the Editor:It was hard to believe that Cory Booker did not make Frank Bruni’s A list of possible Democratic presidential candidates, or even the B, C or D lists. Cory Booker is a get-things-done senator, a passionate Democrat who speaks truth to power. He was the strongest debater on the primary stage in 2020. He has serious policy proposals and credibility.I wonder if he is perceived as too progressive.John PinskerAuburn, Wash.To the Editor:My response to Frank Bruni is: We must elect our first woman president! It is an embarrassment for the United States that we have had only male leaders.There are many highly qualified women candidates, but in my opinion, the most qualified and electable candidate is Amy Klobuchar. The Democrats cannot afford to nominate a progressive like Elizabeth Warren, as she would alienate moderates and independents.Ms. Klobuchar is smart, well spoken and experienced, with a good sense of humor. In addition, she is a respected senator who has worked successfully with both parties.Amy Klobuchar is a winner!Ruth MenkenMount Kisco, N.Y.To the Editor:I would suggest that Representative Adam Schiff be added to the list. He should be close to the top. True, he is from California, white and male. But he has served as a major spokesman for committees involved with the Trump impeachments and the Jan. 6 attack on our Capitol.I find him an articulate and timely transmitter of important information on national TV, making it understandable for a broad cross-section of our population.Russ YoumansCorvallis, Ore.A Welcome Gay Marriage Bill, But …Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in his opinion in the ruling that overturned the 50-year-old Roe v. Wade decision that the court also “should reconsider” precedents such as the one that enshrined marriage equality in 2015. Yana Paskova/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Gay Marriage Clears Hurdle in Senate Vote” (front page, Nov. 17):Senator Marco Rubio is quoted as saying that he knows “plenty of gay people in Florida that are pissed off about gas prices.” To Senator Rubio I ask: Are gay people not capable of feeling upset about gas prices and being worried about their marriage rights at the same time? Does it have to be one or the other?You also report that Senator John Cornyn views the bill as an attempt to scare gay people into thinking that the Supreme Court decision protecting gay marriage is in jeopardy. “I don’t believe it is,” Senator Cornyn said. To Senator Cornyn I ask: Have you learned nothing from the last Supreme Court term?Michael TaubWallingford, Pa.To the Editor:This newly proposed legislation that would allow same-sex marriages in all states also allows any business to retain the right to deny “services, facilities or goods” for weddings if they so choose. State-licensed businesses such as bakers, photographers, facilities and florists could legally refuse our L.G.B.T.Q. business.This proposed law still conveys discrimination and will continue to marginalize L.G.B.T.Q. citizens, and teach future Americans that we are “less than.” Still separate and still unequal.We await our Brown v. Board of Education ruling to affirm that we are all truly equal, and that no orientation or identity is better than another.Kate O’HanlanPortola Valley, Calif.The writer, a gynecologic oncologist, is former president of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.To the Editor:So 12 out of 50 Republican senators — fewer than a quarter — support letting gay people enjoy the same marriage rights as everyone else.It could not be more clear: The Republican Party of 2022 is the party of cruelty.Bruce BurgerSeattleLet’s Keep Funding Covid VaccinesWhile government funding helped to protect pharmaceutical companies in 2020 from the downsides of spending heavily on tricky vaccine research, there are no such assurances in 2022.Jack Guez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Falls Behind on Covid Vaccines as Funds Dry Up” (front page, Nov. 20):The U.S. risks making precisely the same budgeting decisions for pandemic preparedness that left the country vulnerable to outbreaks in the past. Neglect, panic, repeat is no way to manage catastrophic risks, particularly for events that, like Covid-19, could cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars.Douglas CriscitelloVienna, Va.The writer was an official at the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Which Midterm Polls Should We Be Taking With a Grain of Salt?

      by

      Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and Patrick Ruffini, a Republican pollster, to discuss the state of polling and of Democratic anxiety about polls ahead of the midterms.Frank Bruni: Amy, Patrick, as if the people over at Politico knew that the three of us would be huddling to discuss polling, it just published a long article about the midterms with the gloomy, spooky headline “Pollsters Fear They’re Blowing It Again in 2022.”Do you two fear that pollsters are blowing it again in 2022?Patrick Ruffini: It’s certainly possible that they could. The best evidence we have so far that something might be afoot comes from The Times’s own Nate Cohn, who finds that some of the Democratic overperformances seem to be coming in states that saw large polling errors in 2016 and 2020.Amy Walter: I do worry that we are asking more from polling than it is able to provide. Many competitive Senate races are in states — like Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — that Joe Biden won by supernarrow margins in 2020. The reality is that they are going to be very close again. And so an error of just three to four points is the difference between Democratic and Republican control of the Senate.Ruffini: This also doesn’t mean we can predict that polls will miss in any given direction. But it does suggest taking polls in states like Ohio, which Donald Trump won comfortably but where the Republican J.D. Vance is tied or slightly behind, with a grain of salt.Bruni: So what would you say specifically to Democrats? Are they getting their hopes up — again — in a reckless fashion?Walter: Democrats are definitely suffering from political PTSD. After 2016 and 2020, I don’t think Democrats are getting their hopes up. In fact, the ones I talk with are hoping for the best but not expecting such.Ruffini: In any election, you have the polls themselves, and then you have the polls as filtered through the partisan media environment. Those aren’t necessarily the same thing. On Twitter, there’s a huge incentive to hype individual polling results that are good for your side while ignoring the average. I don’t expect this to let up, because maintaining this hype is important for low-dollar fund-raising. But I do think this has led to a perhaps exaggerated sense of Democratic optimism.Bruni: Great point, Patrick — in these fractured and hyperpartisan times of information curation, polls aren’t so much sets of numbers as they are Rorschachs.But I want to pick up on something else that you said — “polls will miss in any given direction” — to ask why the worry seems only to be about overstatement of Democratic support and prospects. Is it possible that the error could be in the other direction and we are understating Republican problems and worries?Ruffini: In politics, we always tend to fight the last war. Historically, polling misses have been pretty random, happening about equally on both sides. But the last big example of them missing in a pro-Republican direction was 2012. The more recent examples stick in our minds, 2020 specifically, which was actually worse in percentage terms than 2016.Walter: Patrick’s point about the last war is so important. This is especially true when we are living in a time when we have little overlap with people from different political tribes. The two sides have very little appreciation for what motivates, interests or worries the other side, so the two sides over- or underestimate each other a lot.As our politics continue to break along educational attainment — those who have a college degree are increasingly more Democratic-leaning, those with less education increasingly more Republican-leaning — polls are likely to overstate the Democratic advantage, since we know that there’s a really clear connection between civic voting behavior and education levels.Ruffini: And we may be missing a certain kind of Trump voter, who may not be answering polls out of a distrust for the media, polling and institutions generally.Bruni: Regarding 2016 and 2020, Trump was on the ballot both of those years. He’s not — um, technically — this time around. So is there a greater possibility of accuracy, of a repeat of 2018, when polling came closer to the mark?Ruffini: The frustrating thing about all of this is that we just don’t have a very good sample size to answer this. In polls, that’s called an n size, like n = 1,000 registered voters. There have been n = 2 elections where Trump has been on the ballot and n = 1 midterm election in the Trump era. That’s not a lot.Bruni: We’ve mentioned 2016 and 2020 versus 2018. Are there reasons to believe that none of those points of reference are all that illuminating — that 2022 is entirely its own cat, with its own inimitable wrinkles? There are cats that have wrinkles, right? I’m a dog guy, but I feel certain that I’ve seen shar-pei-style cats in pictures.Walter: First, let’s be clear. Dogs are the best. So let’s change this to “Is this an entirely different breed?”I’m a big believer in the aphorism that history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme.Ruffini: Right. Every election is different, and seeing each new election through the lens of the previous election is usually a bad analytical strategy.Walter: But there are important fundamentals that can’t be dismissed. Midterms are about the party in charge. It is hard to make a midterm election about the out-party — the party not in charge — especially when Democrats control not just the White House but the House and Senate as well.However, the combination of overturning Roe v. Wade plus the ubiquitous presence of Trump has indeed made the out-party — the G.O.P. — a key element of this election. To me, the question is whether that focus on the stuff the Republicans are doing and have done is enough to counter frustration with the Democrats.Ruffini: 2022 is unique in that it’s a midterm cycle where both sides have reasons to be energized — Republicans by running against an unpopular president in a time of high economic uncertainty and Democrats by the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe. It’s really unique in the sweep of midterm elections historically. To the extent there is still an energized Republican base, polls could miss if they aren’t capturing this new kind of non-college, low-turnout voter that Trump brought into the process.Bruni: Patrick, this one’s for you, as you’re the one among us who’s actually in the polling business. In the context of Amy’s terrific observation about education levels and the Democratic Party and who’s more readily responsive to pollsters, what are you and what is your firm doing to make sure you reach and sample enough Republican and Trump-inclined voters?Ruffini: That’s a great question. Nearly all of our polls are off the voter file, which means we have a much larger set of variables — like voting history and partisan primary participation — to weight on than you might typically see in a media poll (with the exception of the Times/Siena polls, which do a great job in this regard). We’ve developed targets for the right number of college or non-college voters among likely voters in each congressional district. We’re also making sure that our samples have the right proportions of people who have registered with either party or have participated in a specific party’s primary before.But none of this is a silver bullet. After 2016, pollsters figured out we needed to weight on education. In 2020 we weighted on education — and we got a worse polling error. All the correct weighting decisions won’t matter if the non-college or low-turnout voter you’re getting to take surveys isn’t representative of those people who will actually show up to vote.Bruni: Does the taking of polls and the reporting on polls and the consciousness of polls inevitably queer what would have happened in their absence? I will go to my grave believing that if so many voters hadn’t thought that Hillary Clinton had victory in the bag, she would have won. Some 77,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — the margin of her Electoral College loss — are easily accounted for by overconfident, complacent Clinton supporters.Walter: In 2016, there were two key groups of people that determined the election. Those who never liked Clinton and those who disliked Trump and Clinton equally. At the end, those who disliked both equally broke overwhelmingly for Trump. And, those Democratic-leaning voters who didn’t like her at all were never fully convinced that she was a worthy candidate.Ruffini: I don’t worry about this too much since the people most likely to be paying attention to the daily movement of the polls are people who are 100 percent sure to vote. It can also work in the other direction. If the polls are showing a race in a red or blue state is close, that can motivate a majority of the party’s voters to get out and vote, and that might be why close races in those states usually resolve to the state fundamentals.Bruni: Evaluate the news media in all of this, and be brutal if you like. For as long as I’ve been a reporter, I’ve listened to news leaders say our political coverage should be less attentive to polls. It remains plenty attentive to polls. Should we reform? Is there any hope of that? Does it matter?Ruffini: I don’t think there’s any hope of this getting better, and that’s not the media’s fault. It’s the fault of readers (sorry, readers!) who have an insatiable appetite for staring at the scoreboard.Walter: We do pay too much attention to polls, but polls are the tool we have to capture the opinions of an incredibly diverse society. A reporter could go knock on 3,000 doors and miss a lot because they weren’t able to get the kind of cross-section of voters a poll does.Ruffini: Where I do hope the media gets better is in conducting more polls the way campaigns conduct them, which are not mostly about who is winning but showing a candidate how to win.In those polls, we test the impact of messages on the electorate and show how their standing moved as a result. It’s possible to do this in a balanced way, and it would be illuminating for readers to see, starting with “Here’s where the race stands today, but here’s the impact of this Democratic attack or this Republican response,” etc.Bruni: Let’s finish with a lightning round. Please answer these quickly and in a sentence or less, starting with this: Which issue will ultimately have greater effect, even if just by a bit, in the outcome of the midterms — abortion or gas prices?Walter: Abortion. Only because gas prices are linked to overall economic worries.Ruffini: Gas prices, because they’re a microcosm about concerns about inflation. When we asked voters a head-to-head about what’s more important to their vote, reducing inflation comes out ahead of protecting abortion rights by 67 to 29 percent.Bruni: Which of the competitive Senate races will have an outcome that’s most tightly tethered to — and thus most indicative of — the country’s mood and leanings right now?Walter: Arizona and Georgia were the two closest races for Senate and president in 2020. They should both be indicative. But Georgia is much closer because the G.O.P. candidate, Herschel Walker, while he’s still got some problems, has much less baggage and much better name recognition than the G.O.P. candidate in Arizona, Blake Masters.Ruffini: If Republicans are going to flip the Senate, Georgia is most likely to be the tipping-point state.Bruni: If there’s a Senate upset, which race is it? Who’s the unpredicted victor?Walter: For Republicans, it would be Don Bolduc in New Hampshire. They’ve argued that the incumbent, Senator Maggie Hassan, has low approval ratings and is very weak. It would be an upset because Bolduc is a flawed candidate with very little money or history of strong fund-raising.Ruffini: I’d agree about New Hampshire. The polling has shown a single-digit race. Republicans are also hoping they can execute a bit of a sneak attack in Colorado with Joe O’Dea, though the state fundamentals look more challenging.Bruni: You (hypothetically) have to place a bet with serious money on the line. Is the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis or “other”?Walter: It’s always a safer bet to pick “other.” One of the most difficult things to do in politics is what DeSantis is trying to do: not just to upend someone like Trump but to remain a front-runner for another year-plus.Ruffini: I’d place some money on DeSantis and some on “other.” DeSantis is in a strong position right now, relative to the other non-Trumps, but he hasn’t taken many punches. And Trump’s position is soft for a former president who’s supposedly loved by the base and who has remained in the fray. Time has not been his friend. About as many Republicans in the ABC/Washington Post poll this weekend said they didn’t want him to run as did.Bruni: Same deal with the Democratic presidential nominee — but don’t be safe. Live large. To the daredevil go the spoils. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or “other”?Walter: History tells us that Biden will run. If he doesn’t, history tells us that it will be Harris. But I feel very uncomfortable with either answer right now.Ruffini: “Other.” Our own polling shows Biden in a weaker position for renomination than Trump and Democrats less sure about who the alternative would be if he doesn’t run. I also think we’re underestimating the possibility that he doesn’t run at the age of 81.Bruni: OK, final question. Name a politician, on either side of the aisle, who has not yet been mentioned in our conversation but whose future is much brighter than most people realize.Walter: If you talk to Republicans, Representative Patrick McHenry is someone they see as perhaps the next leader for the party. There’s a lot of focus on Kevin McCarthy now, but many people see McHenry as a speaker in waiting.Ruffini: He’s stayed out of the presidential conversation (probably wisely until Trump has passed from the scene), but I think Dan Crenshaw remains an enormously compelling future leader for the G.O.P. Also in Texas, should we see Republicans capitalize on their gains with Hispanic voters and take at least one seat in the Rio Grande Valley, one of those candidates — Mayra Flores, Monica De La Cruz or Cassy Garcia — will easily be in the conversation for statewide office.Bruni: Thank you, both. I just took a poll, and 90 percent of respondents said they’d want to read your thoughts at twice this length. Then again, the margin of error was plus or minus 50 percent, and I’m not sure I sampled enough rural voters in the West.Frank Bruni (@FrankBruni) is a professor of public policy and journalism at Duke, the author of the book “The Beauty of Dusk” and a contributing Opinion writer. He writes a weekly email newsletter and can be found on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) is a co-founder of the Republican research firm Echelon Insights. Amy Walter (@amyewalter) is the publisher and editor in chief of The Cook Political Report.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

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Joe Biden Better Watch His Back

      by

      Could J.B. Pritzker be contemplating a run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2024?That’s not the first, second or seventh most important question in connection with the massacre in a Chicago suburb on July 4. But Politico raised it, at least implicitly, the following day, noting that the Illinois governor was taking advantage of the national spotlight on him to model a rage over gun violence that President Biden doesn’t always project.The Washington Post made the same observation. “In the view of many distraught Democrats, the country is facing a full-blown crisis on a range of fronts, and Biden seems unable or unwilling to respond with appropriate force,” wrote Ashley Parker and Matt Viser, who identified Pritzker as one of several Democratic leaders adopting a more combative tone. They mentioned Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, as another. Like Pritzker, Newsom is the subject of speculation about 2024. And he only fueled it in recent days by running television ads in Florida, a pivotal presidential election battleground, that attacked that state’s governor, Ron DeSantis, who could be a major contender for the Republican presidential nomination.As if November 2022 weren’t causing Democrats enough grief, November 2024 won’t wait. Biden’s age, dismal approval rating and seeming inability to inspire confidence in the party’s ranks have created an extraordinary situation in which there’s no ironclad belief that he’ll run for a second term, no universal agreement that he should and a growing roster of Democrats whose behavior can be read as preparation to challenge or step in for him. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.That’s not to say that incumbent presidents haven’t confronted competitive primaries before. Jimmy Carter did in 1980, against Ted Kennedy. George H.W. Bush did in 1992, against Pat Buchanan. Carter and Bush vanquished those challengers — only to be vanquished themselves in the general election.The doubts swirling around Biden recall the doubts that swirled around those men, but they’re intensified by our frenzied news environment. They’re also exacerbated by Democrats’ sense that the stakes of a Republican victory in 2024 — especially if the Republican is Donald Trump — are immeasurable.And the insistent and operatic airing of these misgivings is deeply worrisome, because I can’t see how they’re easily put to rest, not at this point, and they’re to some degree self-defeating.Pointing out Biden’s flaws and cataloging his failures is one thing — and is arguably constructive, inasmuch as it points him and his administration toward correction — but the kind of second-guessing, contingency planning and garment rending that many Democrats are currently engaged in is another. It threatens to seal Biden’s and his party’s fate.Republicans are so much better at putting a smiley face over their misfortunes, marketing dross as gold and pantomiming unity to a point where they actually achieve it. Their moral elasticity confers tactical advantages. Democrats shouldn’t emulate it, but they could learn a thing or two.Biden won the party’s nomination in 2020 not for random, fickle reasons but because Democrats deemed him a wiser, safer bet than many alternatives. Are Democrats so sure, two troubled years later, that the alternatives are much wiser and safer than he would be?He has dimmed since his inauguration — that’s indisputable. And the crisis of confidence around him is a difficult environment in which to campaign for a second term. If that gives him pause, if he’s hesitant in the least, he should announce as soon after the midterms as possible that he’s limiting himself to one term so that Pritzker, Newsom, Kamala Harris or any number of other prominent Democrats have ample time to make their cases for succeeding him.And if he’s all in? Then Democrats can’t have their knives out the way they do now. Our president is already bleeding plenty.For the Love of LyricsLaura Nyro in 1968.Michael Ochs Archives/Getty ImagesAfter the celebration of women in this feature’s previous installment, Michael Ipavec of Concord, N.H., wrote, “No love for Laura Nyro?” Anita Nirenberg of Manhattan posed the same question.Michael, Anita: Have faith. There is infinite love for Laura Nyro here.During college, I just about wore down my vinyl LP of “Eli and the Thirteenth Confession.” Then I moved on to “New York Tendaberry” and lingered on my favorite track, “You Don’t Love Me When I Cry,” which has the most melodramatic vocal performance this side of Jennifer Holliday’s “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going.”Nyro, who died in 1997 at the age of 49, was a prolific and prodigiously talented songwriter, one who, like Carole King and Karla Bonoff, was at times better known as the author of other musicians’ hits than as the singer of her own compositions. She was arguably more gifted with melodies than with words, but “Wedding Bell Blues” and “Sweet Blindness” are perfect blends of the two, and there are many great lines in “And When I Die,” which the group Blood, Sweat & Tears popularized:I’m not scared of dyingand I don’t really careIf it’s peace you find in dying,well, then let the time be nearSo I hereby add Nyro to our growing (but still woefully incomplete) pantheon of women lyricists, which already includes Joni Mitchell, Aimee Mann, Lucinda Williams and others. I also add Joan Armatrading, another of my college favorites. I thrilled to the straightforward yearning and palpable ache of Armatrading’s “Love & Affection” (“Now if I can feel the sun in my eyes / And the rain on my face / Why can’t I feel love”), which she always performed brilliantly. I admired the wit and wordplay in “Drop the Pilot,” with its Sapphic suggestiveness, and it has to be the only American pop song with the word “mahout” in it.The pantheon, I realize, shows my age (57) and generation, giving short shrift to younger singer-songwriters. The one who comes quickest to mind is Taylor Swift, whose sprawling catalog belies her 32 years. I’m not well versed in her work, so I turned to a former Duke student of mine, Allison Janowski, who’s the most devoted Swift stan I know. She gave me a brilliant mini-tutorial, beginning with the extended version of the song “All Too Well” and these lines, from different sections of it:We’re singin’ in the car, getting lost upstateAutumn leaves fallin’ down like pieces into place’Cause there we are again in the middle of the nightWe’re dancin’ ’round the kitchen in the refrigerator lightYou kept me like a secret, but I kept you like an oathAnd you call me up again just to break me like a promiseSo casually cruel in the name of being honestAllison, you’ve turned the teacher into an appreciative pupil.“For the Love of Lyrics” appears monthly(ish). To nominate a songwriter and song, please email me here, including your name and place of residence. “For the Love of Sentences” will return with the next newsletter; you can use the same link to suggest recent snippets of prose for it.What I’m ReadingMahershala Ali will star in a miniseries based on the novel “The Plot.”FilmMagic/FilmMagic for HBO, via Getty ImagesPage-turners by writers who take real care with language and bring moral questions into play aren’t that common, but “The Plot,” by Jean Hanff Korelitz, about a struggling writer who helps himself to someone else’s idea, definitely fits that bill. Although it came out last year, I only recently found my way to it — and enjoyed it despite spotting its biggest reveal well in advance. It’s being made into a mini-series starring Mahershala Ali. The mini-series “The Undoing” was based on Korelitz’s previous novel, “You Should Have Known,” which I’m listening to now and not liking as much.I also listened recently to “Blood Sugar,” by Sascha Rothchild, which was published this year and earned a place in Sarah Lyall’s roundup in The Times of the summer’s best thrillers. Rothchild, like Korelitz, is a keenly observant writer with many excellent metaphors up her sleeve. Her novel asks you to root for a woman who kills repeatedly — and not in self-defense — and it’s fun to behold Rothchild’s climb up that steep hill. But I wished the main hinge of the plot — the central death — were just a bit more interesting.Because Francis Fukuyama once announced “the end of history,” I’m automatically and reliably interested in his subsequent explanations of why history defied him and marched on. His new book, “Liberalism and Its Discontents,” in some measure summarizes what he’s already written or spoken about in shorter, discrete chunks. But it’s nonetheless an incisive, succinct look at how the United States and other countries arrived at the current crossroads for democracy.Given how many Republican candidates unabashedly echo Trump’s self-serving and democracy-subverting fantasy of a stolen 2020 presidential election, the fate of Democratic candidates in the looming midterms is crucial, as are the questions about the party’s positioning that Jason Zengerle raises in his most recent article for The Times Magazine.On a Personal NoteSadly, that’s not me.Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesI can’t defend the color scheme. Purple and yellow? It’s like you’re walking into a space for children to play pranks, not for adults to do planks.And the wordplay in the signage beside the weight-lifting equipment is a bit much (even for the prankish, plank-ish likes of me). No “gymtimidation”? I can think of better prohibitions against look-at-me preening than aren’t-I-clever portmanteaus.But I love Planet Fitness, the gym I chose when I’d had my fill of others, the gym that doesn’t put on biometrical airs (I’m looking at you, Orangetheory) or promise boot-camp brutalization or crow about the ablutions in its locker rooms, the gym that costs less per month than a movie with popcorn, the gym that’s content to be just a gym.I hesitate to write that because it sounds like I’m doing cardiovascular evangelism (trust me, or just look at me — I’m not) or getting a commission (I wish). What I’m really after is a metaphor. A moral. And for journalistic purposes, Planet Fitness provides just that.It’s an answer and an antidote to much of what’s depressing and exhausting about American life. In a country and era so intent on sorting us into strata of economic privilege and tiers of cultural sophistication, Planet Fitness is a kind of nowhere for everyone, blunt and big-tented, patronized for reasons of utility rather than vanity, with dozens of treadmills that have zero bells and whistles, upon which you find a true diversity of customers.I looked around the other day, which could have been any day, and spotted several apparently nonbinary hipsters. An older woman in a tracksuit used walking sticks to move from one exercise station to another. There were white people, Black people, brown people and as many body types as skin colors. No one sported athleisurewear by Lululemon or Gymshark. No one snapped selfies.Planet Fitness has been criticized for not doing justice to the second word in its name. In the past, it apparently gave members free pizza and bagels.And several years ago its chief executive officer, Chris Rondeau, made political donations — both to Donald Trump and to a conservative New Hampshire lawmaker with an anti-gay record — that contradicted the company’s inclusive messaging. That doesn’t please me.But in my experience at Planet Fitness, you can trust in the “judgment free zone” advertised in big letters on a back wall. That, I realize, is its own branding, its own shtick. And I suppose I’m making an anti-statement statement by going there.So be it. I find a cross-section of Americans there that I don’t find in many other places. I find the opposite of an enclave. Upon second thought, maybe it’s purple and yellow because red and blue are too loaded. Color me grateful. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Why Rick Scott and Mitch McConnell Are Feuding Over Midterm Elections

      by

      Senator Rick Scott has an 11-point plan to “rescue America.” Senator Mitch McConnell would rather he not.Republican insiders have long worried that they could blow a golden opportunity to retake the Senate this year. And while most are confident that a red wave will still wash enough of their candidates ashore in November to win a majority, some doubt occasionally creeps in.The latest reason: an ongoing disagreement between two of the top Republicans in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, and Rick Scott, the leader of the party’s campaign arm. At issue is the “11-Point Plan to Rescue America” that Scott has presented as a platform for the midterms, and that McConnell has emphatically rejected.And while Scott has said that the plan is just his opinion, developed using his own campaign funds, Democrats have been all too happy to pin its provisions on the Republican Party writ large.They’ve seized on one bullet point in particular, which reads: “All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game, even if a small amount. Currently over half of Americans pay no income tax.” That idea polls badly, according to Morning Consult, though other provisions of Scott’s plan are popular.On Thursday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee paid for a truck-mounted billboard to troll Senate Republicans during their one-day retreat. “Senate Republicans’ Plan: Raise Your Taxes,” the billboard read.Never mind that McConnell has brushed back Scott, telling reporters at the Capitol last week, “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people, and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years. That will not be part of a Republican Senate majority agenda. We will focus instead on what the American people are concerned about: inflation, energy, defense, the border and crime.”McConnell also made it clear who was in charge. “If we’re fortunate enough to have the majority next year, I’ll be the majority leader,” he said. “I’ll decide, in consultation with my members, what to put on the floor.”Scott defended himself last week in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, saying his plan had “hit a nerve” with Washington elites, whom he accused of misleading voters about the sustainability of federal deficits and entitlement programs.“Part of the deception is achieved by disconnecting so many Americans from taxation,” he wrote. “It’s a genius political move. And it is bankrupting us.”Scott’s plan has some powerful backers, including the Heritage Foundation, which plans to host him for an event later this month. The think tank has long advocated “broadening the base,” the preferred term on the right for increasing the number of Americans who are subject to taxation.A Guide to the 2022 Midterm ElectionsMidterms Begin: The Texas primaries officially opened the 2022 election season. See the full primary calendar.In the Senate: Democrats have a razor-thin margin that could be upended with a single loss. Here are the four incumbents most at risk.In the House: Republicans and Democrats are seeking to gain an edge through redistricting and gerrymandering, though this year’s map is poised to be surprisingly fairGovernors’ Races: Georgia’s contest will be at the center of the political universe, but there are several important races across the country.Key Issues: Inflation, the pandemic, abortion and voting rights are expected to be among this election cycle’s defining topics.“Conservatives in this country are demanding an ambitious, conservative agenda,” said Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation. “Therefore, it excites us to see members talking that way.”Democrats dust off a playbookScott’s plan is a fortuitous turn of events for Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, Democrats say.“Chuck, I’m sure, is salivating,” said Jim Kessler, a former Schumer aide who is now an executive vice president at Third Way, a center-left think tank.In the first sentence of a letter to his Senate colleagues this week, Schumer wrote, “As Senate Republicans debate their plan to increase taxes on millions of working Americans, Senate Democrats have focused on ways to get rising prices under control to help working families.”Senate Democrats are considering holding hearings, and possibly a series of votes, to highlight Scott’s plan and to force Republicans to take uncomfortable positions on it.It’s a playbook that Schumer has run before. In 1995, as a member of the House representing New York, he used Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” to accuse Republicans of trying to force cuts in popular spending programs. Gingrich, who became the speaker of the House in 1995 — either because or despite that plan, depending on whom you ask — has embraced Scott’s platform.“That was probably the first thing that Chuck did that showed him as a national political leader,” recalled Kessler. With Scott’s plan, he said of Schumer, “I’m sure he sees it and says to himself, ‘I’ve taken this apart before.’”Privately, Democrats are realistic about their chances of hanging onto the Senate, and say they must seize the “gift” Scott has given them to force Republicans onto the defensive. On the day of the State of the Union, for instance, Senate Democrats ran an ad accusing McConnell of fighting “for the same wealthy insiders who get rich by keeping prices high.”During their own retreat on Wednesday, Democrats heard a presentation by Geoff Garin, a pollster, that impressed many of the senators present. Garin’s surveys have found that more voters blame the coronavirus pandemic, “China and foreign supply chains” and “large corporations raising prices to increase their profits” than they do President Biden for inflation.“The bottom line here is that Democrats have a very strong case to prosecute on rising costs,” Garin said.Republicans see the attack on Scott as a desperation play in what could be a difficult election for Senate Democrats, who must defend incumbents in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and New Hampshire while trying to pick up seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.“If I were them, I would try to use it, too,” said Justin Sayfie, a Republican consultant who runs an influential Florida political news website. “But they’re going to have to put a lot of money behind it. How much penetration are they going to be able to get with a message about Rick Scott?”Two visions of how to winMcConnell and Scott have a fundamental difference of opinion about how to win the Senate, people who have studied both men say.There’s McConnell, the calculating insider, who is leery of putting forward a political agenda that could open Republicans up to Democrats’ attacks. Republicans have long memories of how, in past election cycles, Democrats have had success in accusing them of wanting to cut popular programs like Medicare and Social Security.“McConnell hates variables,” said Kessler, the former Schumer aide. “He’s like a boxer who likes to cut off the sides of the ring.”In January, when a reporter asked McConnell what his agenda might be if Republicans retake the majority, he replied simply: “That is a very good question. And I’ll let you know when we take it back.”Then there’s Scott, the ambitious outsider, a former businessman whose presidential aspirations are no secret. He’s rankled some of his fellow Republican senators by taking broad swipes at Washington — despite leading the committee in charge of electing more of them.And while they share the same goal of winning back the Senate, aides and allies of both men have sniped at one another through the press, particularly over their relationship with Donald Trump.Scott has cultivated a relationship with the former president — he made sure to send copies of his plan to Mar-a-Lago — while McConnell at times has condemned Trump, who in turn refers to the Senate minority leader as “the Old Crow.” Trump has even tried to recruit Scott as a future majority leader, according to a Politico account.McConnell’s office declined to comment.“There will always be critics, but we don’t waste much time worrying about the opinions of Democrat operatives or anonymous Washington consultants,” said Chris Hartline, the communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which Scott chairs. Asked what the Heritage Foundation would say to Senate leaders like McConnell, Roberts said, “We’re grateful for their service, and we’re looking forward to them embracing Senator Scott’s plan or coming up with a plan of their own.”What to read The U.S. Census Bureau says the 2020 census seriously undercounted the number of Hispanic, Black and Native American residents, even though its overall population count of 323.2 million was largely accurate, Michael Wines and Maria Cramer report.In February, the Consumer Price Index rose at its fastest pace in 40 years. Biden blamed Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, for the increase, though inflation has been a problem for months, Jeanna Smialek reports.As oil prices rise, many governments are working to boost global production, potentially neglecting longer-term efforts to cut use of fossil fuels to fight climate change. Brad Plumer, Lisa Friedman and David Gelles report.postcardVice President Kamala Harris called for an investigation into potential war crimes by the Russian military, during a visit to Poland on Thursday.Andrzej Lange/EPA, via ShutterstockTwo V.P.s, one message for UkraineThe world got a glimpse of two potential future presidents today, in what we’re told was a sheer coincidence.Vice President Kamala Harris was visiting Poland, where she met with the country’s leaders, called for an investigation into potential war crimes by the Russian military, held a round-table event with displaced survivors from the war in Ukraine and appeared with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada in a show of Western solidarity.It so happened that her predecessor, Mike Pence, was in Ukraine on the same day as Harris’s trip. Along with his wife, Karen, he met with some of the refugees who are living in camps near the border with Poland. As Pence noted on Twitter, more than 2 million Ukrainians have fled the country over the last 12 days, according to U.N. figures.Pence’s trip comes as the former vice president tries to establish himself as a leader of the Republican Party on foreign policy ahead of a possible 2024 run. Last week, Pence blasted unnamed people in the party who, he said, were “apologists for Putin,” the Russian leader.Our colleague, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, a White House correspondent, was traveling with Harris and sending dispatches from Poland all day long. According to a background briefing by an unnamed senior administration official, he reported, teams for the former vice president and the current vice president were “not in contact.”Thanks for reading. We’ll see you tomorrow.— Blake & LeahIs there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More