Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares17 Views

    After Criticism, Harris’s $900 Million Group Tries to Lay Out a Future

    by

    Future Forward, the big-money group supporting Kamala Harris’s presidential bid last year, resurfaced after her loss with an event in California.Ever since Vice President Kamala Harris lost the election in November, a big-money group that had raised over $900 million to support her but ultimately failed in its efforts has kept a low profile — even as Ms. Harris’s advisers have publicly second-guessed its approach to the campaign.But a closed-door conference this week hosted by the super PAC, Future Forward, at a luxury seaside hotel in California made plain that the group does not plan to fade away.Future Forward drew some of the biggest names in Democratic politics to the Ritz-Carlton resort in Half Moon Bay, Calif., south of San Francisco, to brief donors on what it thought went wrong last year — and what could come next.Attendees included potential future presidential candidates, such as Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and seven-figure Democratic donors, some of whom had questions about why Future Forward was unable to help Ms. Harris win.At an event on Thursday with passed hors d’oeuvres like mini lobster rolls and short-rib tostones and a dinner featuring heirloom tomato carpaccio, beef tenderloin and seared sea bass, Chauncey McLean, the group’s leader, gestured to criticism of what he called the group’s “reputation” — a dependence on polling and testing and randomized trials.“Those are all just fancy ways of saying we listen to voters and try to gauge whether any of the things we do actually work,” Mr. McLean said, according to a person in the room. The group declined to comment.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

    More stories

    • 138 Shares117 Views

      in Elections

      Fact-Checking Trump’s False Claims in His First 100 Days in Office

      by

      The president’s dizzying efforts to reconfigure the global economy, reshape the federal government and restrict immigration have been undergirded by a nonstop distortion of facts.President Trump, intent on enacting an expansive agenda, has moved at a dizzying pace in the first 100 days of his term, issuing a barrage of executive actions and seeking to expand the scope of his presidential power.Underlying those efforts is a nonstop distortion of basic facts as Mr. Trump has sought to reconfigure the global economy, reshape the federal government and restrict immigration.To justify his executive actions and policies, Mr. Trump has relied on false, misleading and hyperbolic claims, deflecting blame for catastrophes, boasting about purported achievements and trying to seek leverage with Ukraine in negotiating a peace deal with Russia.Here is a fact-check of Mr. Trump’s often-repeated claims.Federal CutsImmigrationTrade and the EconomyMilitary and International ConflictsFederal CutsIn his breakneck effort to transform the federal bureaucracy, Mr. Trump has offered misleading justifications. He has often echoed dubious claims about so-called fraud made by Elon Musk, the billionaire leading the cost-cutting initiative known as the Department of Government Efficiency.What Was Said“Could you mention some of the things that your team has found, some of the crazy numbers, including the woman that walked away with about $30 million?”— in a February appearance with Mr. MuskWe 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

    • 175 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      Canadian Snowbirds Bought Into the American Dream in Palm Springs. Was It a Mirage?

      by

      On the night of the 2024 presidential election, Ken James, a retired engineer from Calgary, Alberta, was at his second home in Palm Springs, Calif., watching with dismay as the results rolled in.Mr. James, 68, called his wife back in Calgary. “If he gets back in, I’m selling,” he recalled her saying of Donald Trump.Mr. James is among hundreds of thousands of Canadians, many of them snowbirds, who each year flock to Palm Springs, a sunbaked resort city about 110 miles east of Los Angeles that is known for its midcentury architecture, otherworldly desert and art scene. For nearly five months a year, when temperatures are often below freezing in Calgary, Mr. James and his wife spend languid days by the pool, hike sweeping canyons and enjoy live music beneath the stars at the local saloon.But in recent months — as President Trump has announced a 25 percent tariff on certain Canadian goods and threatened the nation’s sovereignty — they and other Canadians are reconsidering their future in Palm Springs. The trend is part of a broader slump in tourism as international travelers say they feel unwelcome in the United States.Two Canadian airlines recently slashed flights to Palm Springs International Airport, citing a drop in demand.Joyce Lee for The New York TimesIn Palm Springs, some are selling or abandoning plans to buy vacation homes. Others are canceling trips or cutting their winter visits short.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

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Raised $239 Million for Inauguration, More Than Doubling His Own Record

      by

      The staggering amount, disclosed in a filing with the Federal Election Commission, was driven by corporate America’s eagerness to win the president’s favor.President Trump raised $239 million for his inauguration festivities in January, a norm-shattering amount fueled by corporate America’s desire to curry favor with a famously transactional president.The total, disclosed in a filing with the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, is more than double the previous record of $107 million set by Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee in 2017. About 140 different people or companies gave at least $1 million to the effort, including blue-chip companies like JPMorgan Chase, Delta Air Lines and Target.The committee, known formally as the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee, is required by federal law to report the names of donors and the dollar amounts for contributions over $200 to the F.E.C. no more than 90 days after the Jan. 20 ceremony. It is not required to report how it spent the money.Many of the donations to Mr. Trump’s inauguration were previously announced — such as $1 million each from tech giants like Meta and Amazon — in part because companies wanted it known widely that they were backing Mr. Trump’s formal return to power. But the report revealed a few names not well-publicized, including several friends of Elon Musk, such as tech investors like John Hering, Ken Howery and Keith Rabois, who each gave $1 million. (Neither Mr. Musk, a top presidential adviser, nor any of his companies donated.)The three largest contributions came from a poultry producer, Pilgrim’s, which donated $5 million; a crypto company, Ripple Inc., which donated just under that; and Warren Stephens, a Republican donor who gave $4 million on the same day, Dec. 2, that Mr. Trump named him as his pick to be ambassador to Britain.Inaugurations, even with several days of elaborate dinners and other events, have never cost anything near roughly a quarter-billion dollars, and the amount raised by the committee will resurface questions about where any leftover funds might go. The committee has not said how much money it has spent, but the president’s allies have said that the remaining amount will be funneled to other Trump-sponsored projects, primarily a nonprofit organization that will build his presidential library.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 Shares137 Views

      in Elections

      In Trump Attack on Harvard, Punishment Before Proof

      by

      The legal underpinnings of the administration’s broadsides against universities and schools stretch precedents and cut corners.In the White House’s campaign against Harvard University, the punishment came swiftly.The Trump administration has frozen $2.2 billion in grants to the school, while seeking to exert unprecedented control over hiring, impose unspecified reforms to its medical and divinity schools, block certain foreign students from enrolling and, potentially, revoke its tax-exempt status.It is a broadside with little precedent. And, as with the White House’s other attacks on universities, colleges and even K-12 schools, the legal justifications have been muddled, stretched and, in some instances, impossible to determine.“It’s punishment before a trial, punishment before evidence, punishment before an actual accusation that could be responded to,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education and the U.S. Department of Education’s third-ranking official during the Obama administration. “People talk about why higher ed hasn’t responded. Well, how can you fight a shadow in this way?​”The legality of each threat varies. In more typical times, some of the individual punishments might be validated by lengthy investigations in which a university would have a right to defend itself.But taken together, law professors and education experts said, the immediacy of the sanctions and threats conveyed an unmistakable hostility toward Harvard and other schools in the president’s sights. The broad vendetta, they said, could weaken the legal argument for each individual action.“You can’t make decisions — even if you have the power to do so — on the basis of animus,” said Brian Galle, a Georgetown University law professor who teaches about taxation policy and nonprofit organizations. “Those aren’t permissible reasons that the government can act. And so what’s interesting about the fact that it’s doing all of these things to Harvard at the same time, is that undermines the legitimacy of each of them individually.”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 Shares156 Views

      in Elections

      Trump-Allied Prosecutor Sends Letters to Medical Journals Alleging Bias

      by

      An interim U.S. attorney is demanding information about the selection of research articles and the role of N.I.H. Experts worry this will have a chilling effect on publications.A federal prosecutor has sent letters to at least three medical journals accusing them of political bias and asking a series of probing questions suggesting that the journals mislead readers, suppress opposing viewpoints and are inappropriately swayed by their funders.The letters were signed by Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. He has been criticized for using his office to target opponents of President Trump.Some scientists and doctors said they viewed the letters as a threat from the Trump administration that could have a chilling effect on what journals publish. The health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has said he wants to prosecute medical journals, accusing them of lying to the public and colluding with pharmaceutical companies.One of the letters was sent to the journal Chest, published by the American College of Chest Physicians. The New York Times obtained a copy of the letter.The Times confirmed that at least two other publishers had received nearly identically worded letters, but those publishers would not speak publicly because they feared retribution from the Trump administration.In the letter to Chest, dated Monday, Mr. Martin wrote, “It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications like CHEST Journal are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates.”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 Shares171 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Names Interim U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, Bypassing Schumer

      by

      Senator Chuck Schumer had said he would block the permanent appointment of Jay Clayton, the president’s choice to head one of the nation’s most prestigious prosecutor’s offices.President Trump has appointed Jay Clayton, who served as the top Wall Street enforcer during Mr. Trump’s first term, to be the interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, the president said in a social media post on Wednesday.The action came after Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and minority leader, said he would block Mr. Trump’s nomination of Mr. Clayton, 58, for the U.S. attorney post, using a prerogative given to home-state senators. Mr. Schumer made his move after weeks in which some liberal Democrats had made scathing attacks on him for doing too little to resist Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump said in his Truth Social post that he would continue to pursue Mr. Clayton’s Senate confirmation. Mr. Clayton, a lawyer at the firm Sullivan & Cromwell who has never been a prosecutor, served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2017 to 2020.“During my first term, Jay served with great distinction as the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and earned the respect of everyone,” Mr. Trump said in the post.The Southern District, which is based in Manhattan, has long been considered one of the most prestigious federal prosecutor’s offices in the country. It is known for handling high-profile cases involving public corruption, national security, international terrorism, fraud on Wall Street and other white-collar crime and sex trafficking.The district, which includes Manhattan, the Bronx and several upstate counties, has long been referred to jokingly as the Sovereign District, a nod to its prized past independence. Its alumni have included former U.S. attorneys general, F.B.I. directors and countless judges.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

    • 150 Shares193 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Condemns Trump Over Social Security in First Speech Since Leaving Office

      by

      In Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s first extensive speech since he left office, he accused the Trump administration of “taking a hatchet” to the Social Security Administration.In his first expansive public comments since leaving the White House, former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. spoke out against the Trump administration’s cuts to the Social Security Administration.AJ Mast for The New York TimesJoseph R. Biden Jr. forcefully defended Social Security in a speech to disability advocates in Chicago on Tuesday, condemning the Trump administration for “taking a hatchet” to the Social Security Administration.In his first expansive public comments since leaving the White House, Mr. Biden said that President Trump had taken aim at Social Security, doing “damage and destruction” to a program that millions of Americans depend on.“Social Security deserves to be protected for the good of the nation as a whole,” Mr. Biden said, adding that Trump officials are applying a Silicon Valley mantra of “move fast and break things” to the government. “Well, they’re certainly breaking things. They’re shooting first and aiming later.”Mr. Trump has promised not to cut Social Security benefits for the 73 million Americans enrolled, but offices around the country have been flooded with calls and questions from Americans who are worried that changes to their benefits and to their local Social Security offices may be imminent.At local offices, many staff members have taken buyouts or early retirements promoted by the Trump administration’s cost-cutting efforts, leading to longer phone waits and lines. The Social Security Administration has said it wants to shed thousands of jobs at its headquarters.Mr. Biden said that during his own administration, the Social Security Administration cut wait times, improved antifraud measures and made the appeals system for benefits more uniform.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

    • 75 Shares185 Views

      in Elections

      The Vibe Shifts Against the Right

      by

      Alex Kaschuta’s podcast, “Subversive,” used to be a node in the network between weird right-wing internet subcultures and mainstream conservatism. She hosted men’s rights activists and purveyors of “scientific” racism, neo-reactionary online personalities with handles like “Raw Egg Nationalist” and the Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters. Curtis Yarvin, a court philosopher of the MAGA movement who wants to replace democracy with techno-monarchy, appeared on the show twice. In 2022, Kaschuta spoke at the same National Conservatism conference as Ron DeSantis and Marco Rubio.Finding progressive conventional wisdom hollow and unfulfilling, Kaschuta was attracted to the contrarian narratives and esoteric ideas of the thinkers and influencers sometimes known as the “dissident right.” They presented liberal modernity — with its emphasis on racial and gender equality, global cooperation, secularism and orderly democratic processes — as a Matrix-like illusion sustained by ideological coercion, and themselves as the holders of freedom-giving red pills.For Kaschuta, who lives in Romania, the promise of a more authentic, organic society, freed from the hypocrisies of the existing order, was apparently inviting. “There’s always been something tantalizing about the idea that the world is not how it is presented to you,” she wrote on her blog. “A frontier opens up.”But over the last couple of years, that frontier started seeming to her more like a dead end. Recently, she abandoned the movement. “The vibe is shifting yet again,” Kaschuta wrote on X last week. “The cumulative IQ of the right is looking worse than the market.”Kaschuta is not alone; several people who once appeared to find transgressive right-wing ideas scintillating are having second thoughts as they watch Donald Trump’s administration put those ideas into practice. The writer Richard Hanania once said that he hated bespoke pronouns “more than genocide,” and his 2023 book, “The Origins of Woke: Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics,” provided a blueprint for the White House’s war on D.E.I. But less than three months into Trump’s new term, he regrets his vote, telling me, “The resistance libs were mostly right about him.”Nathan Cofnas, a right-wing philosophy professor and self-described “race realist” fixated on group differences in I.Q., wrote on X, “All over the world, almost everyone with more than half a brain is looking at the disaster of Trump (along with Putin, Yoon Suk Yeol, et al.) and drawing the very reasonable conclusion that right-wing, anti-woke parties are incapable of effective governance.” (Yoon Suk Yeol is South Korea’s recently impeached president.)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