Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Don’t Underestimate the Mobilizing Force of Abortion

      by

      Poland recently ousted its right-wing, nationalist Law and Justice Party. In 2020, a party-appointed tribunal severely restricted the country’s abortion rights, sparking nationwide protests and an opposition movement. After a trip to Poland, the Times Opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg came to recognize that similar dynamics could prevail in the United States in 2024. In this audio essay, she argues that Joe Biden’s campaign should take note of what a “powerful mobilizing force the backlash to abortion bans can be.”(A full transcript of this audio essay will be available by Monday, and can be found in the audio player above.)Illustration by Akshita Chandra/The New York Times; Photograph by Getty ImagesThe Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, X (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram.This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Jillian Weinberger. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering by Isaac Jones and Sonia Herrero. Original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      El informe del fiscal especial exculpa a Biden pero es un desastre político

      by

      Una investigación concluyó que el mandatario era “bienintencionado” pero tenía “mala memoria”. El presidente salió a ofrecer declaraciones en un intento por realizar control de daños políticos.La decisión del jueves de no presentar cargos penales contra el presidente Joe Biden por mal manejo de documentos clasificados debió haber sido una exoneración legal inequívoca.En su lugar, fue un desastre político.La investigación, sobre el manejo de los documentos por parte de Biden después de ser vicepresidente, concluyó que era un “hombre bienintencionado de avanzada edad con una mala memoria” y que tenía “facultades disminuidas en la edad avanzada”, afirmaciones tan sorprendentes que pocas horas después motivaron un enérgico y emotivo intento de control de daños políticos por parte del presidente.The president defended his ability to serve when questioned by reporters on his memory and age during a news conference, hours after a special counsel cleared him of criminal charges in the handling of classified documents.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesLa noche del jueves, hablando a las cámaras desde la Sala de Recepciones Diplomáticas de la Casa Blanca, Biden arremetió contra el informe de Robert K. Hur, el fiscal especial, acusando a los autores del informe de “comentarios irrelevantes” sobre su edad y capacidad mental.“No saben de lo que están hablando”, dijo rotundamente el presidente.Biden pareció objetar especialmente la afirmación incluida en el informe de que durante las entrevistas con los investigadores del FBI no pudo recordar en qué año murió su hijo Beau.“¿Cómo diablos se atreve a mencionar eso?”, dijo el presidente, mientras parecía contener las lágrimas. “Cada Día de los caídos hacemos un servicio para recordarlo al que asisten amigos y familiares y la gente que lo amaba. No necesito a nadie, no necesito a nadie que me recuerde cuándo falleció”.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Tucker Carlson’s Putin Interview Puts Him Back on Center Stage, for Now

      by

      Mr. Carlson’s interview with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia put him back on center stage for the first time since his Fox News show was canceled.Last spring, it seemed Tucker Carlson might have reached the end of his fiery path through American media and politics.Fox News canceled his top-rated show, depriving Mr. Carlson of his nightly platform in prime time. But it kept him under a contract, worth more than $15 million a year, that prohibited him from taking a job with a rival.Under the old rules of the legacy media, Mr. Carlson would have been off the air and out of sight through the end of the 2024 election, when his contract runs out. But Mr. Carlson is no typical television star. And what was once normal in his industry is increasingly archaic, shattered by the new rules — or lack thereof — of the fractured online media world.In landing an exclusive interview with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — released on Thursday on the social network X and Mr. Carlson’s own streaming site, Tucker Carlson Network — the host returned, at least for a moment, to the center of American politics.The two-hour interview gave him a bullhorn to an American audience just as many congressional Republicans worked to block a vital lifeline of American military aid to Ukraine.It also accomplished Mr. Carlson’s goal of recapturing the spotlight. For the first time since his defenestration from Fox, his name was once again on the lips of major national and international figures, the kind of buzz on which Mr. Carlson has long thrived.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Marianne Williamson Suspends Her Long-Shot Challenge Against Biden

      by

      Marianne Williamson, the self-help author, is suspending her long-shot campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, she said in a video address on Wednesday.Ms. Williamson on Tuesday placed a very distant third place in Nevada’s primary election, behind President Biden — who won nearly 90 percent of the vote — and behind “none of these candidates,” a ballot option that earned less than 6 percent of the vote. She had put significant effort into campaigning in the state before the primary, but ultimately drew under 3 percent of the vote.She also placed a very distant second in the South Carolina primary, with just over 2 percent of the vote, but she topped Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota — who had so far been Mr. Biden’s most significant rival.It was Ms. Williamson’s second attempt at running for president. She had earned some publicity early in the Democratic debates during her first run in 2020, but dropped out of the race before the first votes were cast.Ms. Williamson made it further this time, lasting through two official presidential primaries, as well as the unsanctioned New Hampshire primary that will award no delegates in the nominating contest. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      In New York, Biden Courts Big-Money Donors and Attacks a ‘Dangerous’ Trump

      by

      In drawing rooms and ballrooms of the elite in Manhattan, any enthusiasm for a second Biden term seemed to be mingled with fear about the thought of a second one for Donald J. Trump.There is one thing a president can do when Congress is an ungovernable mess, polling numbers are blinking red and crises abroad show no signs of resolving themselves. And that thing is: get out of town.President Biden traveled to New York on Wednesday to headline three fund-raisers, where he presented himself as the last line of defense against the re-election of Donald Trump and as a dedicated — if imperfect — leader who had been around long enough to recognize the existential threat Mr. Trump poses to democratic institutions, including the presidency.“It is dangerous for us to be engaged in this kind of politics, because it ends up dragging us all to the bottom,” Mr. Biden said during his third reception, where his voice had lowered to a whisper after a day of shaking hands, taking selfies and delivering speeches.“It’s not that I’m so good, but you have to have someone who can beat somebody.”Mr. Biden also pre-empted criticism of his age by joking that he was not 81, but “40 times two.” But in the drawing rooms and ballrooms of New York City, any enthusiasm for a second Biden term seemed to be mingled with fear about the thought of a second one from Mr. Trump.Groups lined streets in Manhattan to see the president’s motorcade.Kent Nishimura for The New York Times“We’re here for him, and for the next four years,” said Maureen White, a Democratic donor and the host of Mr. Biden’s third reception of the day, as she stood next to the president. “But we’re also here because the consequences of not electing Joe Biden are terrifying.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Ronna McDaniel, R.N.C. Chairwoman, Plans to Step Down

      by

      The chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, has told former President Donald J. Trump she is planning to step down shortly after the South Carolina primary on Feb. 24, according to two people familiar with the plans.Mr. Trump is then likely to promote the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, Michael Whatley, as her replacement, according to several people familiar with the discussions. Under the arcana of the committee’s rules, however, Mr. Trump cannot simply install someone. A new election must take place, and Mr. Whatley could face internal party dissent.Ms. McDaniel has faced months of pressure, a campaign from Trump-allied forces to unseat her and growing dissatisfaction and anxiety in the Trump camp about the strained finances of the R.N.C. as the general election cycle begins early.Mr. Trump likes Mr. Whatley for one overwhelming reason, according to people who have discussed him with the former president: He is “a stop the steal guy,” as one of the people described him. He endorses Mr. Trump’s false claims about mass voter fraud and Mr. Trump believes he did a good job delivering North Carolina, a 2020 swing state, to him.Mr. Whatley has baselessly claimed that election security efforts from Republicans in North Carolina stopped Democrats from cheating. He is also currently the general counsel at the Republican National Committee and has endorsed efforts to develop new voting laws.Mr. Trump and his associates have made focusing on election security a signature point they plan to push in a general election. There has been no evidence of widespread fraud related to the 2020 voting, and Mr. Trump’s allies lost dozens of court challenges. Mr. Trump has told associates that he thinks the R.N.C. needs to spend more money on “election integrity” in the 2024 race. Mr. Trump’s team is also focused on hiring teams of poll watchers, which the North Carolina G.O.P. did during the midterms in 2022.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity

      by

      The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he was immune to charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election, ruling that he must go to trial on a criminal indictment accusing him of seeking to overturn his loss to President Biden.The 3-0 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed Mr. Trump a significant defeat, but was unlikely to be the final word on his claims of executive immunity. Mr. Trump is expected to continue his appeal to the Supreme Court — possibly with an intermediate request to the full appeals court.Still, the panel’s 57-page ruling signaled an important moment in American jurisprudence, answering a question that had never been addressed by an appeals court: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?The question is novel because no former president until Mr. Trump had been indicted, so there was never an opportunity for a defendant to make — and courts to consider — the sweeping claim of executive immunity that he has put forward.The panel, composed of two judges appointed by Democrats and one Republican appointee, said in its decision that, despite the privileges of the office he once held, Mr. Trump was subject to federal criminal law like any other American.“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.”The panel’s ruling came nearly a month after it heard arguments on the immunity issue from Mr. Trump’s legal team and from prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith. While the decision was quick by the standards of a normal appeal, what happens next will be arguably more important in determining when or whether a trial on the election subversion charges — now set to start in early March — will take place.. More