More stories

  • in

    Christie to Ramaswamy at Debate: ‘So Shut Up for a Little While’

    Chris Christie had had enough.After standing mostly silent for the first 25 minutes of the Republican presidential debate, Mr. Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, stepped into the spotlight — and in front of an attack on Nikki Haley by Vivek Ramaswamy — with the blunt force that has become his political trademark.“Let me tell you something,” Mr. Christie barked at Mr. Ramaswamy, waving his hand after Mr. Ramaswamy suggested Ms. Haley was lacking basic knowledge about the war in Ukraine. “This is the fourth debate that you would be voted in the first 20 minutes as the most obnoxious blowhard in America. So shut up for a little while.”Mr. Ramaswamy managed a quick laugh, and quickly tried to interrupt. But Mr. Christie maintained control of the microphone, yelling at his rival across the stage in Alabama that he wasn’t finished speaking. Mr. Ramaswamy, who has been aggressive with his debate disruptions, stood down.But not for long. Mr. Ramaswamy bided his time, and then it got ugly.“Chris, your version of foreign policy experience was closing a bridge from New Jersey to New York,” Mr. Ramaswamy soon shot back, scowling at Mr. Christie across the stage and wagging his right index finger at him.It was a dig at Mr. Christie’s most devastating political moment, when his administration in New Jersey effectively shut down a busy bridge to New York as political retribution against a small-town mayor who hadn’t endorsed his re-election bid. And Mr. Ramaswamy had another sharp dig in store aimed at Mr. Christie’s weight.“So do everybody a favor,” Mr. Ramaswamy told Mr. Christie. “Just walk yourself off that stage, enjoy a nice meal and get the hell out of this race.” More

  • in

    Defending Trump, Ramaswamy Rattles Off Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories

    Vivek Ramaswamy’s defense of Donald J. Trump at Wednesday’s debate quickly devolved into a laundry list of far-right conspiracy theories.After attacking his opponents for turning on Mr. Trump after supporting him, Mr. Ramaswamy took aim at “the deep state” as the real enemy of the American people.That amorphous entity, Mr. Ramaswamy claimed, clearly had a role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.“Why am I the only person, on this stage at least, who can say that Jan. 6 now does look like it was an inside job?” Mr. Ramaswamy said. (Dozens of criminal indictments and bipartisan congressional investigations rebut Mr. Ramaswamy’s argument.)While Mr. Trump has tried to make those convicted of crimes for their actions on Jan. 6 into political martyrs, the assertion that the riot was somehow an “inside job” is more often confined to the fever swamps of conspiracy theories.As if reading a far-right message board, Mr. Ramaswamy continued, claiming that the 2020 election was stolen by “big tech” (several intelligence agencies called it “the most secure in American history”) and that the 2016 election, which Mr. Trump won, was also “stolen from him by the national security establishment” because of the investigation into allegations that his campaign had colluded with Russia.And Mr. Ramaswamy claimed that the “great replacement theory” — the racist idea that minorities, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to replace white Americans — was not a conspiracy theory but instead a “basic statement of the Democratic Party’s platform.”The “great replacement theory” has been creeping into the conservative mainstream, popularized by hosts like Tucker Carlson, and has been referenced by several mass shooters. More

  • in

    Christie Lashes Out at Trump as a ‘Dictator’ and a ‘Bully’

    For more than 15 minutes, three of the four Republican candidates on the debate stage fended off sharp questions from Megyn Kelly and made a case for their electability. But as they attacked one another’s records, former President Donald J. Trump, the dominant front-runner in the race, was notably absent from the conversation.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mr. Trump’s fiercest critic among his Republican opponents, took notice.“I look at my watch now. We’re 17 minutes into this debate,” Mr. Christie said to Ms. Kelly. “And except for your little speech in the beginning, we’ve had these three acting as if the race is between the four of us.”Mr. Christie, referring to Mr. Trump as “the fifth guy” and “Voldemort, he who shall not be named,” mocked the former president as a coward who “doesn’t have the guts to show up and stand here” — and denounced the other candidates for fighting among themselves while ignoring their strongest opponent, who skipped Wednesday’s debate to attend a private fund-raiser.Referring to Mr. Trump as a “dictator,” a “bully” and an “angry, bitter man,” Mr. Christie criticized his opponents on the debate stage — Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis — as too timid to criticize the former president. Maybe, he suggested, they were unwilling to do so because “they have future aspirations,” an allusion to succeeding Mr. Trump or becoming a member of his administration.“This is the problem with my three colleagues. They’re afraid to offend,” Mr. Christie said. Referring to the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, he added, “And if you’re afraid to offend Donald Trump, then what are you going to do when you sit across from President Xi?”Mr. Christie also pointed to Mr. Trump’s statements about his plans to go after his political enemies if elected to a second term, in an attempt to make the case to Trump supporters that the former president is unfit to return to the White House.“There’s no bigger issue in this race than Donald Trump,” Mr. Christie said, later adding, “This is an angry, bitter man who now wants to be back as president because he wants to exact retribution on anyone who has disagreed with him.”His comments reflected a debate strategy of sharply criticizing Mr. Trump — even if the former president is physically absent, and even if the attacks get Mr. Christie booed by Trump supporters in the audience.Mr. Christie has sought a face-to-face confrontation with Mr. Trump, and he has often expressed his frustration about having to compete against a front-runner who doesn’t want to face his opponents in a debate. More

  • in

    Haley Comes Under Fire During Debate: ‘I Love the Attention, Fellas’

    The perils of momentum.Within minutes of the opening question in the fourth Republican primary debate, Nikki Haley — the former ambassador to the United Nations who has been rising in the polls, though she is still far behind former President Donald J. Trump — found herself on the receiving end of well-practiced attacks from Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Vivek Ramaswamy.For the first 15 minutes, Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Ramaswamy took turns heaping criticism on Ms. Haley, at times cutting each other off before Ms. Haley had time to respond.When she did, she savored the moment.“I love all the attention, fellas — thank you for that,” Ms. Haley, the only woman in the race, quipped.The attacks began as Mr. DeSantis, midway through a defense of his floundering poll numbers, pivoted to claiming that Ms. Haley did not support his law that banned transition care for transgender minors. (Ms. Haley has said she opposes such care but deflected on Wednesday, instead saying she did not think a different law Mr. DeSantis signed went far enough.)Mr. Ramaswamy, avoiding answering a question about whether he was a “unifier,” instead took aim at Ms. Haley’s personal financial endeavors, claiming she had been “bankrupt” after she left the Trump administration and had quickly looked for ways to make money.“We weren’t bankrupt when I left the U.N. — we’re people of service,” Ms. Haley replied. “My husband is in the military, and I served our country as U.N. ambassador.”Her retort did little to halt the continued assault from Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Ramaswamy, who continued a joint argument that Ms. Haley would be beholden to her wealthy donors.Again, Ms. Haley shot back.“In terms of these donors that are supporting me, they’re just jealous,” Ms. Haley said of her two rivals. “They wish they were supporting them.” More

  • in

    Ron DeSantis Assailed the Florida State Playoff Snub. Will He Do It at Alabama?

    An undefeated college football team out of Tallahassee, nudged out of contention in a high-stakes competition by a dominant old favorite?It makes sense that Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida might have taken the plight of the Florida State Seminoles a bit personally, and why, when he takes the stage at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa for the Republican primary debate on Wednesday night, it may be especially hostile terrain.On Sunday, the College Football Playoff selection committee picked the Alabama Crimson Tide — a perennially successful team with a 12-1 record — over the unbeaten Seminoles to round out the four-team bracket that will compete for the national championship.The decision has not gone over well, prompting outrage (the Seminoles’ coach said he was “disgusted and infuriated”); existential doubt (what is an undefeated season even worth?); and conspiracy theories (including the notion that ESPN, which broadcasts the championship, and its parent company, Disney, tipped the scale against Mr. DeSantis for political retribution).Mr. DeSantis went with outrage. On Sunday, he wrote on social media: “What we learned today is that you can go undefeated and win your conference championship game, but the College Football Playoff committee will ignore these results.”On Tuesday, he said that he would ask for his proposed state budget to include $1 million for litigation expenses that might arise from what he called the College Football Playoff’s “really, really poor decision” to exclude Florida State.It did not help that former President Donald J. Trump, in criticizing the decision, took yet another opportunity to troll Mr. DeSantis by suggesting that the fault might lie with him. “Florida State was treated very badly by the ‘Committee,’” Mr. Trump wrote Monday on Truth Social. “They become the first Power Five team to be left out of the College Football Playoffs. Really bad lobbying effort…Lets blame DeSanctimonious!!!”What the selection committee did not say explicitly — but to which any Alabama students in the audience at the debate will doubtless attest — is that, on balance, it viewed Alabama as the better team: The Crimson Tide won a more challenging conference, and Florida State had lost its starting quarterback to a broken leg. (The selection committee’s rules do note that “unavailability of key players” can play into its decisions.)Put simply, the Alabama debate is not going to be an ideal venue for Mr. DeSantis to air his grievances.Fortunately for him, none of the other candidates have a particular claim to Tuscaloosa, or to teams that made the playoff. Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, went to the University of Delaware but is a longtime Notre Dame fan.Vivek Ramaswamy, a Harvard graduate, is from Ohio. (Mr. DeSantis graduated from Yale, whose football team beat Harvard this year in the annual Harvard-Yale game, but didn’t find any bowl invitations in the mail.)And Nikki Haley — the former governor of South Carolina and Mr. DeSantis’s principal rival in the Republican race to supplant Mr. Trump — graduated from Clemson.Alabama’s celebrated head coach, Nick Saban — a longtime friend of Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, as it happens — does have a connection to Mr. DeSantis’s home state: He spent two unremarkable years as the head coach of the Miami Dolphins before leaving for Tuscaloosa in 2007. More

  • in

    Colorado Supreme Court Takes Up Trump’s Eligibility to Be President

    A district court judge ruled last month that the 14th Amendment barred insurrectionists from every office except the nation’s highest. “How is that not absurd?” one justice asked of that notion.The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the question of whether former President Donald J. Trump is barred from holding office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies people who engaged in insurrection against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it.Several of the seven justices appeared skeptical of arguments made by a lawyer for Mr. Trump, including the core one that a district court judge relied on in a ruling last month ordering Mr. Trump to be included on the Colorado primary ballot: that Section 3 did not apply to the presidency. The Colorado Supreme Court is hearing an appeal of that ruling as part of a lawsuit brought by Republican and independent voters in the state who, in seeking to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot, have contended the opposite.“How is that not absurd?” Justice Richard L. Gabriel asked of the notion that the lawmakers who wrote Section 3 in the wake of the Civil War had intended to disqualify insurrectionists from every office except the nation’s highest.Section 3 lists a number of positions an insurrectionist is disqualified from holding but not explicitly the presidency, so challenges to Mr. Trump’s eligibility rely on the argument that the presidency is included in the phrases “officer of the United States” and “any office, civil or military, under the United States.” It also does not specify who gets to decide whether someone is an insurrectionist: election officials and courts, as the petitioners argue, or Congress itself, as Mr. Trump’s team argues.Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Scott Gessler, suggested on Wednesday that the lawmakers had trusted the Electoral College to prevent an insurrectionist from becoming president, and that they had known the Northern states held enough electoral power after the Civil War to prevent a Confederate leader from winning a national election anyway.Justice Gabriel did not seem satisfied, and neither did colleagues who jumped in with follow-up questions. Justice Monica M. Márquez asked why lawmakers would have chosen the “indirect” route of blocking someone only through the Electoral College. And Justice Melissa Hart asked whether Mr. Gessler’s interpretation of Section 3 would have allowed Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy, to become 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?  More

  • in

    ‘This Is Grim,’ One Democratic Pollster Says

    The predictive power of horse-race polling a year from the presidential election is weak at best. The Biden campaign can take some comfort in that. But what recent surveys do reveal is that the coalition that put Joe Biden in the White House in the first place is nowhere near as strong as it was four years ago.These danger signs include fraying support among core constituencies, including young voters, Black voters and Hispanic voters, and the decline, if not the erasure, of traditional Democratic advantages in representing the interests of the middle class and speaking for the average voter.Any of these on their own might not be cause for alarm, but taken together they present a dangerous situation for Biden.From Nov. 5 through Nov. 11, Democracy Corps, a Democratic advisory group founded by Stan Greenberg and James Carville, surveyed 2,500 voters in presidential and Senate battleground states as well as competitive House districts.In an email, Greenberg summarized the results: “This is grim.” The study, he said, found that collectively, voters in the Democratic base of “Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, LGBTQ+ community, Gen Z, millennials, unmarried and college women give Trump higher approval ratings than Biden.”On 32 subjects ranging from abortion to China, the Democracy Corps survey asked voters to choose which would be better, “Biden and the Democrats” or “Trump and the Republicans.”Biden and the Democrats led on six: women’s rights (ahead by 17 points), climate change (15 points), addressing racial inequality (10 points), health care (3 points), the president will not be an autocrat (plus 2) and protecting Democracy (plus 1). There was a tie on making democracy more secure.Donald Trump and the Republicans held leads on the remaining subjects, including being for working people (a 7-point advantage), standing up to elites (8 points), being able to get things done for the American people (12 points), feeling safe (12 points) and keeping wages and salaries up with the cost of living (17 points).In the case of issues that traditionally favor Republicans, Trump and his allies held commanding leads: patriotism (11 points), crime (17 points), immigration (20 points) and border security (22 points).Particularly worrisome for Democrats, who plan to demonize Trump as a threat to democracy, are the advantages Trump and Republicans have on opposing extremism (3 points), getting beyond the chaos (6 points) and protecting the Constitution (8 points).There is some evidence in both the Democracy Corp survey and in other polls that concerns specific to Biden — including his age and the surge in prices during his presidency — are driving the perception of Democratic weakness rather than discontent with the party itself.The survey found, for example, that Democratic candidates in House battleground districts are running even with their Republican opponents among all voters, and two points ahead among voters who say they are likely to cast ballots on Election Day.Along similar lines, a November 2023 NBC News poll found Trump leading Biden by two points, 46-44, but when voters were asked to choose between Trump and an unnamed Democratic candidate, the generic Democrat won 46-40.In a reflection of both Biden’s and Trump’s high unfavorability ratings, NBC reported that when voters were asked to choose between Biden and an unnamed generic Republican, the “Republican candidate” led Biden 48-37.Other nonpartisan polls describe similar Democratic weaknesses. A September Morning Consult survey found, for example, that “voters are now more likely to see the Republican Party as capable of governing, tackling big issues and keeping the country safe compared with the Democratic Party” and that “by a 9-point margin, voters also see the Democratic Party as more ideologically extreme than the G.O.P.”In the main, according to Morning Consult, these weaknesses result from declining confidence within Democratic ranks in their own party, rather than strong support for Trump and the Republican Party: “The trends against the Democratic Party are largely driven by worsening perceptions among its own voter base, which suggests that the party will have to rely more than ever on negative partisanship to keep control of the White House.”Morning Consult posed the same set of questions to voters about the political parties in 2020 and again this year in order to track shifting voter attitudes.Asked, for example which party is more “capable of governing,” 48 percent of voters in 2020 said the Democrats and 42 percent said the Republicans. This year, 47 percent said the Republicans and 44 percent said the Democrats.Similar shifts occurred on the question of which party will “keep the nation safe” and which party can “tackle the big issues.”In what amounts to a body blow to Biden and his Democratic allies, Republicans are now virtually tied with Democrats on a matter that has been a mainstay of Democratic support since the formation of the New Deal coalition during the Great Depression. A September 2023 NBC News survey “found that 34 percent of voters believe Republicans are better at looking out for the middle class, while 36 percent say the same of Democrats. The 2-point margin in favor of Democrats is the lowest it has been in the history of the poll.”“Democrats have held over 30 years as high as a 29-point advantage as being the party better able to deal with and handle issues of concern to the middle class, ” Bill McInturff, a partner in the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, which joined with the Democratic firm Hart Research to conduct the NBC poll, told me.Neil Newhouse, who is also a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, emailed me to say that the opinion trends among Black and Hispanic voters “are figures G.O.P.’ers could only dream about a few years ago.”Although many of those with whom I discussed the data voiced deep concern over Biden’s prospects, let me cite a couple of experts who are more optimistic.Simon Rosenberg, a veteran Democratic operative and former president of the New Democratic Network, emailed me a series of bullet points:The last four presidential elections have gone 51 percent-46 percent Democratic, best run for Dems since F.D.R.’s elections. Only 1 R — George W. Bush 2004 — has broken 48 percent since the 1992 election, and Dems have won more votes in seven of last eight presidential elections. If there is a party with a coalition problem, it is them, not us.Our performance since Dobbs remains remarkable, and important. In 2022 we gained in AZ, CO, GA, MI, MN, NH, PA over 2020, getting to 59 percent in CO, 57 percent in PA, 55 percent in MI, 54 percent in NH in that “red wave” year. This year we’ve won and outperformed across the country in every kind of election, essentially leaving this a blue wave year.We got to 56 percent in the WI SCOTUS race, 57 percent in Ohio, flipped Colorado Springs and Jacksonville, flipped the VA House, Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear grew his margin, we won mayoralties and school board races across the United States. Elections are about winning and losing, and we keep winning and they keep losing.In a recent post on his Substack, “Why I Am Optimistic About 2024,” Rosenberg elaborated:Opposition and fear of MAGA is the dominant force in U.S. politics today, and that is a big problem for super-MAGA Trump in 2024. Fear and opposition to MAGA has been propelling our electoral wins since 2018, and will almost certainly do so again next year.Alex Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, expressed similar optimism concerning Biden’s chances: “Once Democrats come to terms with the fact that Biden will be the nominee (and, more importantly, that Trump will in all likelihood be the G.O.P. nominee), a lot of the internal malaise expressed in current polls should dissipate.”When Biden begins campaigning in earnest, Theodoridis wrote,He will likely still come across as relatively competent and steady. And, while Trump always looms over G.O.P. politics, we will certainly see more coverage of him as G.O.P. nominee to remind less engaged Democrats and the few true independents that he is a deeply flawed figure who has and would again pose a real threat to our Republic.When voters finally make up their minds, Theodoridis predicted, “The anti-MAGA, pro-democracy, pro-reproductive-rights message that has boosted turnout and served Democratic candidates well the last two Novembers will likely do so again.”Jim Kessler, a senior vice president of Third Way, a Democratic think tank, is nowhere near as confident in Democratic prospects as Rosenberg and Theodoridis are. In an email, Kessler observed that polls at this time need to be taken with a grain of salt — remarking that in 1991, George H.W. Bush appeared to be the prohibitive favorite to win a second term and that in 2011, Mitt Romney was well ahead of President Barack Obama.In addition, Kessler wrote, in the past month,The price of gasoline has fallen 20 cents to a national average of $3.24 a gallon. Headline and core inflation have begun their final descent toward benign, historic levels. Interest rates have fallen about 40 basis points in the past several months. The so-called “misery index” (inflation + unemployment rate) could very well be at a level that is incumbent friendly.That said, Kessler continued, there are clear danger signs:Biden won in 2020 because he was perceived as having a more positive brand than the Democratic Party. That brand advantage over the Democratic Party is now gone. Exhibits A and B are crime and immigration. In 2020, Biden was perceived as tougher on crime and the border than the typical Democrat.In one primary debate, Kessler pointed out,Biden was the only candidate onstage not to raise his hand on a question that essentially could be interpreted as wanting open borders. He also loudly and repeatedly voiced his opposition to “defund the police” and never ran away from the 1994 crime bill that he authored in the Senate.That, in Kessler’s view, “is not the Joe Biden voters are hearing today. Voters actually hear almost nothing from the administration on crime or the border, and this allows the opposition to define them on an issue of great salience.”Biden, Kessler argued, has a credible record on tougher border enforcement and cracking down on crime, but he and other members of the administration don’t promote itbecause these are issues on which our active, progressive base is split. But if you are silent on these issues, it is like an admission of guilt to voters. They believe you do not care or are dismissive of their very real concerns. That means Biden must accept some griping from the left to get this story out to the vast middle.Will Marshall, president and founder of the center-left Public Policy Institute think tank, responded to my query with an emailed question: “Trump is Kryptonite for American democracy, so why isn’t President Biden leading him by 15 points?”Marshall’s answer:Biden’s basic problem is that the Democratic Party keeps shrinking, leaving it with a drastically slender margin of error. It’s losing working class voters — whites — by enormous, 30-point margins — but nonwhites without college degrees are slipping away too.The ascendance of largely white, college-educated liberals within party ranks, in Marshall’s view, haspushed Democrats far to the dogmatic left, even as their base grows smaller. Young progressives have identified the party with stances on immigration, crime, gender, climate change and Palestinian resistance that are so far from mainstream sentiment that they can even eclipse MAGA extremism.“Democrats,” Marshall wrote, in a line of argument similar to Kessler’s,have been aiming at the wrong target and have less than a year to adjust their sights. That means putting high prices and living costs front and center, embracing cultural pragmatism, confronting left-wing radicalism on the border, public safety and Israel and embracing a post-populist economics that speaks to working Americans’ aspirations for growth and upward mobility rather than their presumed sense of economic victimhood.Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, contended that the view of Biden and the Democratic Party as elitist and weak on the very values that were Democratic strengths in the past lacks foundation in practice. Instead, the adverse portrait of the Democrats represents a major success on the part of right-wing media — and a complicit mainstream media — in creating a false picture of the party.In a forthcoming paper, “Bridging the Blue Divide: The Democrats’ New Metro Coalition and the Unexpected Prominence of Redistribution,” Hacker said he and three colleagues found thatDemocrats have not changed their orientation nearly as much as critics of the party argue. In particular, the party has not shifted its emphasis from economic to social/identity issues, nor has it moderated its economic positions overall. Instead, it has placed a high priority on an ambitious economic program that involves a wider range of policy aims and instruments than in the past (including industrial policy and pro-labor initiatives as well as social and health policies and public investments) as well as levels of public spending that dwarf those contemplated by party elites in at least a half century.Why then, Hacker asked, is “the Democratic Party widely perceived to have abandoned pocketbook politics in favor of identity politics?”His answer:Conservative media have relentlessly focused on this critique and there’s strong evidence that media framing shapes how voters view the parties. Indeed, the role of the media in shaping the negative current climate — including more mainstream sources — should not be neglected. The obsessions of right-wing media with the “wokeness” of the Democratic Party seeps into the broader media coverage, and mainstream sources focus on criticisms of the Democrats, in part to uphold their nonpartisan ideal.Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, warned that there are major consequences that could result from the weakness of Biden’s support. In an email, Enos wrote:There is no doubt that Democrats and — given that the likely Republican nominee is a would-be authoritarian — Americans more generally should be alarmed by Biden’s poll numbers. He is saddled with the need to dig economic perceptions out of a deep inflationary hole, an unsteady international world and the view that his party went too far to the left on social issues.If the election were held today, Enos argued, “Biden would likely lose.”During the campaign, “Biden’s numbers will improve,” Enos wrote, but Biden faces a large number of idealistic young voters who maynever come back to him because they believe that he has abandoned the core values that animated their support in the first place. Faced with the reality of surging immigration across the southern border, Biden has largely failed to liberalize his administration’s approach to immigration — in fact, he has left much of the Trump era policies in place. To many young voters, who were first attracted to Biden’s social progressivism, such moves may feel like a betrayal. Additionally, Biden has seemed to greenlight Israel’s campaign of violence against civilians in Gaza. Especially for young voters of color, this seems like a betrayal and could cost Biden crucial states such as Michigan.Jonathan Weiler, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, stands somewhere between Rosenberg and Marshall.“There’s no gainsaying Biden’s poor polling numbers at the present,” Weiler wrote by email:However unhinged Trump appears increasingly to be, for now that’s an abstraction for many voters. In the meantime, what they see in ways that feel up close and personal are signs of an unsettled and unsettling world impinging on their day to day lives, including inflation, higher crime and a big increase in migrants across our southern border and into cities around the United States.On the plus side for Biden, Weiler wrote, “the data show clearly that inflation is trending substantially downward.” In addition,Violent crime has returned to prepandemic levels. Americans always think crime is going up, no matter what the data say. But if the actual drop in crime results in people thinking about it less, that could also lessen people’s sense of a chaotic and unsettled reality.Rogers Smith, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, made the case that Biden’s age and his visible infirmities interfere with his ability to reassure the electorate:The biggest factor that is neglected in many polls is the widespread belief that Biden is simply too old and insufficiently vigorous to remain president for four more years. This belief is reinforced by the reality that Biden does not inspire confidence in his vigor or energy in most of his public presentations. The problem is particularly acute among young voters but goes throughout the electorate, Democrats and Republicans alike. It means that voters don’t give much weight to Biden’s arguments on the issues.Democrats are trapped, Smith maintained:None will challenge Biden; he must choose to step aside. If he did so, he would feel compelled to support Kamala Harris. But most Democrats, and probably Biden himself, rightly believe that she would do even worse than he is doing.The one ace in the hole for Democrats is Donald Trump himself. As the center of attention in the elections of 2018, 2020 and even 2022, Trump was the key to Democratic victory. Trump is doing all he can to become the focus in 2024, but the question remains whether the Democrats, with Biden at the top of the ticket, can successfully demonize him again.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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More