Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares90 Views

      in Elections

      California Shifts Rightward on Crime in an Election Fueled by Frustration

      by

      Voters in the Democratic-run state overwhelmingly approved a measure to impose harsher sentences for crimes and were on their way to ousting two progressive district attorneys.California has shown no signs of going Republican anytime soon, but in Tuesday’s elections the reliably liberal state lurched to the right in ways that might surprise other Americans.Fed up with open-air drug use, “smash-and-grab” robberies and shampoo locked away in stores, California voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure, Proposition 36, that will impose harsher penalties for shoplifting and drug possession. Voters in Oakland and Los Angeles were on their way to ousting liberal district attorneys who had campaigned on social justice promises to reduce imprisonment and hold the police accountable. And statewide measures to raise the minimum wage, ban the forced labor of inmates and expand rent control, all backed by progressive groups and labor unions, were heading toward defeat.Amid a conservative shift nationally that included Donald J. Trump’s reclamation of the White House, voters in heavily Democratic California displayed a similar frustration, challenging the state’s identity as a reflexively liberal bastion.And Mr. Trump appears to have gained ground in California compared with four years ago, based on initial election returns, despite facing Vice President Kamala Harris in her home state. (She was still ahead by nearly 18 percentage points after a vote count update on Thursday, but Joseph R. Biden Jr. won in 2020 by 29 points.)The mood this year was “very negative about the direction of the country especially, but also the state,” said Mark Baldassare, who is a political scientist and the statewide survey director for the Public Policy Institute of California. “Lots of concerns about the direction of the economy, and worries about the cost of living and public safety.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares69 Views

      in Elections

      Powell, Fed Chair, Will Likely Face Heavy Pressure From Trump

      by

      The chair of the Federal Reserve made clear he would not resign, even under pressure. But pressure from the White House is likely, market watchers say.Jay Powell, the Fed chair, with President Trump during more tranquil times in 2017.Carlos Barria/ReutersPowell pushes back Jay Powell and the Fed may have pulled off the improbable soft landing in taming inflation while not crashing the economy into recession, proving many a Wall Street naysayer wrong.But an even bigger wildcard looms in another Donald Trump presidency — what Trump 2.0 might mean for interest rates, Fed independence and the Fed chair’s own job.That tension burst into the open at the Fed’s news conference on Thursday. The usually dry event had moments of high drama that nearly overshadowed the decision to cut the benchmark lending rate by a quarter percentage point. Powell delivered a forceful “no” when asked by Victoria Guida of Politico if he would consider resigning if Trump asked.He delivered a more emphatic response when pressed by another reporter on whether the president had the legal authority to fire him. “Not permitted under the law,” Powell said.Trump has made waves by saying that a president should have a say in rates policy. And suggestions have circulated from inside the president-elect’s camp that he would sideline Powell if re-elected — something Trump flirted with during his first term after appointing Powell in 2017.The S&P 500 advanced as the news conference wore on, closing at another record, and Treasury bonds also rallied.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 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      Luego de la derrota de Harris, los demócratas buscan a quién culpar

      by

      Un Partido Demócrata deprimido y desmoralizado está iniciando el doloroso camino hacia un futuro en gran medida fuera del poder, mientras sus líderes se enfrentan a lo mucho que subestimaron el resurgimiento de Donald Trump en la nación.El repudio nacional al partido dejó atónitos a muchos demócratas que habían expresado una confianza “nauseabunda” sobre sus posibilidades en las últimas semanas de la contienda. Mientras rebuscaban entre los restos de sus derrotas, no encontraron respuestas fáciles a por qué los votantes rechazaron tan decisivamente a sus candidatos.En más de dos decenas de entrevistas, legisladores, estrategas y funcionarios ofrecieron una letanía de explicaciones sobre el fracaso de la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris, y casi todas ellas encajaban perfectamente en sus nociones preconcebidas de cómo ganar en política.Las críticas discretas, en llamadas telefónicas, chats grupales y sombrías reuniones de equipo, fueron un anticipo entre bastidores de la batalla intrapartidista que se avecina, una en la que los demócratas caerían rápidamente en las desavenencias ideológicas que han definido a su partido durante gran parte de la era Trump.Lo indiscutible fue lo mal que les fue a los demócratas. Perdieron la Casa Blanca, cedieron el control del Senado y parecían abocados a la derrota en la Cámara de Representantes. Obtuvieron peores resultados que hace cuatro años en ciudades y suburbios, pueblos rurales y ciudades universitarias. Un primer análisis de los resultados realizado por el New York Times reveló que la inmensa mayoría de los más de 3100 condados del país se habían inclinado hacia la derecha desde la victoria del presidente Biden en 2020.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

    • 138 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      On the Ballot, Abortion Rights Proved More Popular Than Kamala Harris

      by

      In states like Arizona and Nevada, some voters split their tickets, supporting abortion rights measures while also backing Donald Trump.Democrats headed into the election hoping that abortion rights initiatives would drive support for Kamala Harris in states where the measures appeared on the ballot, including two presidential swing states, Arizona and Nevada.But while the ballot measures, broadly put, performed well on Tuesday, succeeding in seven out of 10 states, Ms. Harris and other Democrats underperformed them across the map.In both Arizona and Nevada, more than 60 percent of voters approved measures to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions, though more votes remained to be counted on Thursday. But Donald J. Trump appeared on track to win both states, according to New York Times estimates. Abortion rights initiatives also passed in Missouri and Montana, two states Mr. Trump won easily.Even as a growing share of women said abortion access was central to their vote, pre-election polling suggested that it wasn’t voters’ top concern overall. Fifteen percent of likely voters in an October national New York Times/Siena College poll said abortion was the most important issue in their vote for president, but roughly twice as many listed the economy, or inflation.The voters who cited abortion as their top concern favored Ms. Harris, 88 percent to 11 percent, and the voters who prioritized economic issues favored Mr. Trump, 72 percent to 24 percent.In states where the ballot measures passed but Mr. Trump won or was leading, voters had, in effect, split their tickets, supporting abortion rights in their states while also backing a candidate who took credit for overturning Roe v. Wade, which had established a nationwide right to abortion. Ms. Harris had made protecting abortion rights a central theme of her campaign.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

    • 163 Shares69 Views

      in Elections

      Lo que los votantes de Estados Unidos le están diciendo a las élites

      by

      Hemos entrado en una nueva era política. Durante los últimos 40 años, más o menos, hemos vivido en la era de la información. Quienes pertenecemos a la clase educada decidimos, con cierta justificación, que la economía posindustrial sería construida por gente como nosotros, así que adaptamos las políticas sociales para satisfacer nuestras necesidades.Nuestra política educativa impulsó a muchos hacia el camino que nosotros seguíamos: universidades de cuatro años para que estuvieran calificados para los “trabajos del futuro”. Mientras tanto, la formación profesional languidecía. Adoptamos una política de libre comercio que llevó empleos industriales a países de bajo costo para que pudiéramos concentrar nuestras energías en empresas de la economía del conocimiento dirigidas por personas con títulos universitarios avanzados. El sector financiero y de consultoría creció como la espuma, mientras que el empleo manufacturero se marchitaba.Se consideró que la geografía no era importante: si el capital y la mano de obra altamente calificada querían concentrarse en Austin, San Francisco y Washington, en realidad no importaba lo que ocurriera con todas las demás comunidades que quedaron olvidadas. Las políticas migratorias facilitaron que personas con un alto nivel educativo tuviesen acceso a mano de obra con salarios bajos, mientras que los trabajadores menos calificados se enfrentaban a una nueva competencia. Viramos hacia tecnologías verdes favorecidas por quienes trabajan en píxeles, y desfavorecimos a quienes trabajan en la industria manufacturera y el transporte, cuyo sustento depende de los combustibles fósiles.Ese gran sonido de piezas en movimiento que has oído era la redistribución del respeto. Quienes ascendían en la escala académica eran aclamados, mientras que quienes no lo hacían se volvían invisibles. La situación era especialmente difícil para los hombres jóvenes. En la secundaria, dos tercios de los alumnos del 10 por ciento superior en las clases son chicas, mientras que aproximadamente dos tercios de los alumnos del decil inferior son chicos. Las escuelas no están preparadas para el éxito masculino; eso tiene consecuencias personales de por vida, y ahora también a nivel nacional.La sociedad funcionó como un vasto sistema de segregación, elevando a quienes estaban mejor dotados académicamente por encima de todos los demás. En poco tiempo, la brecha de los diplomas se convirtió en el abismo más importante de la vida estadounidense. Los graduados de secundaria mueren nueve años antes que las personas con estudios universitarios. Mueren seis veces más por sobredosis de opiáceos. Se casan menos, se divorcian más y tienen más probabilidades de tener un hijo fuera del matrimonio. Tienen más probabilidades de tener obesidad. Según un estudio reciente del American Enterprise Institute, el 24 por ciento de quienes han terminado como mucho la preparatoria no tienen amigos cercanos. Tienen menos probabilidades que los graduados universitarios de visitar espacios públicos o unirse a grupos comunitarios y ligas deportivas. No hablan en la jerga adecuada de justicia social ni mantienen el tipo de creencias sofisticadasi que son marcadores de virtud pública.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 Shares124 Views

      in Elections

      ‘El Estados Unidos de Trump’: el regreso que señala un país diferente

      by

      La semana pasada, en su mitin de clausura en la Elipse, Kamala Harris despreció a Donald Trump como un caso atípico que no representaba a Estados Unidos. “Eso no es lo que somos”, declaró.De hecho, resulta que eso es exactamente lo que somos. Al menos la mayoría de nosotros.La suposición de que Trump representaba una anomalía que por fin sería relegada al montón de cenizas de la historia fue arrastrada el martes por la noche por una corriente republicana que barrió con los estados disputados y con la comprensión de Estados Unidos alimentada durante mucho tiempo por su élite dirigente de ambos partidos.La clase política ya no puede desechar a Trump como una interrupción temporal de la larga marcha del progreso, un caso fortuito que de algún modo se coló en la Casa Blanca con una estrafalaria y única victoria en el Colegio Electoral hace ocho años. Con este regreso ganador para recuperar la presidencia, Trump se ha establecido como una fuerza transformadora que está rehaciendo Estados Unidos a su imagen y semejanza.El desencanto populista con la dirección de la nación y el resentimiento contra las élites demostraron ser más profundos y más hondos de lo que muchos en ambos partidos habían reconocido. La campaña de Trump, impulsada por testosterona, aprovechó la resistencia a elegir a la primera mujer presidenta.Y aunque decenas de millones de electores siguieron votando contra Trump, este volvió a aprovechar la sensación de muchos otros de que estaban perdiendo el país que conocían, asediado económica, cultural y demográficamente.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

    • 163 Shares87 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About COP29 and How the U.S. Election Affects Climate Talks

      by

      Diplomats and leaders from around the world are gathering for annual climate negotiations. Here’s what they’re all about and what Donald Trump’s victory means for the meeting.United Nations climate talks are starting in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Monday.The meeting will come just days after the election victory of Donald J. Trump, who has dismissed global warming as a hoax, and at the end of what will probably be the hottest year in recorded history. Extreme weather, much of it made more intense by climate change, is wreaking havoc around the globe.Against that backdrop, diplomats and heads of state from nearly 200 countries are gathering to try to chart a path forward. Here’s a concise guide to the meeting.What to know:What is COP29?When is COP29?Where is COP29?What is the main goal?Who will attend?How will the U.S. election result affect COP29?How will wars affect COP29?What is COP29?It’s an annual gathering of the 197 countries that have agreed to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Those countries, the parties to the convention, come together every year and try to update their plans to address climate change.COP stands for Conference of the Parties. This is the 29th such gathering.In recent years, COP has grown from a relatively insular meeting of diplomats and policy experts into an enormous event that attracts tens of thousands of attendees, including business executives, the leaders of nonprofit groups and activists.When is COP29?The event is scheduled to take place from Nov. 11 to Nov. 22, but the gatherings have a history of going into overtime as negotiators scramble to secure final agreements.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 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is On Track to Win the Popular Vote

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump has already sealed a comfortable majority in the Electoral College. But he is also on course to do something he didn’t do in his first successful campaign for the White House: win the popular vote.The latest count suggests Mr. Trump will win more votes nationally in Tuesday’s election than his defeated rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, making him the first Republican to prevail in the popular vote in 20 years.Though votes were still being counted in some states, as of Thursday morning Mr. Trump had received more than 72.6 million votes, against around 68 million for Ms. Harris, a gap of around 4.6 million votes.The last Republican presidential candidate to win more votes than his opponent was former President George W. Bush in 2004, when he won re-election against John F. Kerry. The last Republican before him to do so was George H.W. Bush, the sitting vice president who defeated Michael Dukakis in 1988.The tally is a further measure of the scale of Mr. Trump’s win and another blow to Democrats. The consensus among pollsters before Election Day was that while Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris would run neck and neck in the Electoral College votes that decide the presidency, Ms. Harris would likely gain more votes overall.The assumption was partly based on recent elections. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore, but prevailed in the Electoral College. In the 2016 election, Mr. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, but some Democrats took comfort in the fact that she had gained nearly three million more votes nationally than he did. More