Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Secret Service Suspends Six Agents Over Trump Assassination Attempt

      by

      The announcement comes near the anniversary of the shooting at Donald J. Trump’s campaign rally in Butler, Pa.The Secret Service said on Thursday that it was suspending six agents involved in securing the site of a campaign rally where a gunman tried to assassinate Donald J. Trump last summer.The suspensions range from 10 to 42 days, without pay, the agency said in a statement just days before the first anniversary of the shooting. It did not give a sense of timing for the suspensions or name the agents, citing privacy law. All six had been placed on restricted duty after the rally while the agency conducted an internal review.The Secret Service came under intense scrutiny after a 20-year-old gunman was able to fire several shots at Mr. Trump while he spoke onstage at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., on July 13, 2024. A volunteer firefighter in the crowd that day, Corey Comperatore, was killed and two other attendees were injured. The gunman was killed by the Secret Service.It was the first assassination attempt since 1981 to wound a current or former president — a bullet grazed Mr. Trump’s ear. There were immediate demands for changes at the Secret Service, and the agency’s competency was called into question.Multiple inquiries into the failures, including from Congress, came to similar conclusions and led to dozens of recommendations to change systemic problems. In the midst of the scrutiny, there was a second attempt on Mr. Trump’s life. While Mr. Trump golfed in Florida in September, agents shot at a suspect who was hiding near the outer edge of the course.But the sense of urgency to address the issues at the Secret Service dissipated after Election Day. The lawmakers who demanded accountability and changes have said very little publicly about the agency since Mr. Trump returned to the Oval Office.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

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Treats Tariffs More as a Form of Power Than as a Trade Tool

      by

      Instead of viewing tariffs as part of a broader trade policy, President Trump sees them as a valuable weapon he can wield on the world stage.President Trump’s allies often describe him as a 40-year devotee of tariffs who, stymied by his first-term advisers, is finally able to put his long-held economic theory into practice.But while Mr. Trump spoke about tariffs off and on before becoming a presidential candidate, he usually described his broader grievance about trade in terms of other countries or companies “ripping off” the United States. It is since Mr. Trump became a candidate in 2015 that he has talked about tariffs in earnest, describing them as a tool that he could easily deploy to rebalance the country’s economic footing.“We are going to have 10 percent to 20 percent tariffs on foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years, we are going to charge them 10 percent to 20 percent to come in and take advantage of our country because that is what they have been doing,” Mr. Trump said in August 2024, one of many comments he made in that race emphasizing he would impose sweeping tariffs if he won, far beyond those in his first term.Mr. Trump’s latest retreat this week from his own self-imposed tariff deadlines underscores the challenge he has faced in treating tariffs as a quick-fix — a tool that he asserts will bring in lots of money for the country while swiftly resetting trade relationships.A review of Mr. Trump’s comments about tariffs over the decades shows he has often been fairly vague on the topic, and only more recently came to describe them as the centerpiece of his approach to trade.Far more frequent and durable has been Mr. Trump’s repeated refrain that other countries are turning the United States into “suckers.” His references to tariffs often came as part of his description of a feeling of national injury that became common as the country’s manufacturing base began eroding. That attentiveness to trade as an issue, even absent a cohesive policy plan, helped Mr. Trump win in 2016.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How Crypto Lobbying Won Over Trump

      by

      Just over a year ago, while sitting around a table in an ornate meeting room at Mar-a-Lago, David Bailey and a group of top Bitcoin executives made a pitch to Donald J. Trump.They were looking for a savior.For years, cryptocurrency companies had endured a sweeping crackdown in Washington — a cascade of lawsuits, regulatory attacks and prosecutions that threatened the industry’s survival.Mr. Trump wasn’t an obvious sympathizer. He had once dismissed Bitcoin as a “scam.” But he welcomed the executives into his private club in Florida because the industry had suddenly gotten his attention. Mr. Bailey was mobilizing crypto investors to vote for Mr. Trump and had called on his colleagues to raise $100 million for the election effort.At Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Bailey brought along representatives of several large Bitcoin mining firms — an energy-guzzling sector that has drawn noise complaints and environmental concerns. They pitched Mr. Trump on the economic benefits of Bitcoin, before pivoting to a bold request: Could Mr. Trump write a supportive post on his social media site?The proposed language was included at the bottom of a bullet-pointed meeting agenda, according to a copy reviewed by The New York Times. Mr. Trump said he would “consider it,” Mr. Bailey, who runs the digital currency firm BTC Inc., recalled in an interview. “We had no idea if that was going to happen.”That night, Mr. Trump fired off a Truth Social post containing the exact message proposed by the executives: “We want all the remaining Bitcoin to be MADE IN THE USA!!! It will help us be ENERGY DOMINANT!!!”

      .css-m0b4as{max-width:600px;margin:0 auto;display:block;}.css-m0b4as:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none !important;text-decoration:none !important;}.nytapp-vi-homepage .container-margin-none .css-m0b4as,.NYTApp #programming-list .container-margin-none .css-m0b4as{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-m0b4as,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-m0b4as{margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;}}.css-1eu3oi1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;padding-bottom:20px;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-npk1al{padding-left:10px;}.css-61i2mm{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.75rem;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03rem;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03rem;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03rem;letter-spacing:0.03rem;display:block;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-4z4bzs > :last-child{margin-bottom:20px;}.css-4z4bzs > :not(:first-child){margin-top:0.25rem;}.container-margin .css-4z4bzs{margin-top:20px;}.css-4z4bzs > :last-child{margin-bottom:10px;}.css-10r0njy{width:70px;height:70px;background-color:#d9e1e3;border-radius:4px;width:81px;height:81px;}.css-wwq616{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:bold;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1rem;margin-bottom:2px;font-size:1rem;line-height:1rem;margin-bottom:5px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-wwq616{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.125rem;}}.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-wwq616,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-wwq616{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;margin-bottom:0;display:block;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-wwq616,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-wwq616{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.1875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-wwq616{font-size:1rem;line-height:1rem;}}.css-1qudybh{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;line-height:1rem;font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-tertiary,#5A5A5A);font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1qudybh{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.125rem;}}.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-1qudybh,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-1qudybh{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.1875rem;display:block;margin-top:2px;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-1qudybh,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-1qudybh{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.1875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1qudybh{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;}}.css-89khpe{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;padding-bottom:20px;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);padding-bottom:10px;}.css-m0b4as{max-width:600px;margin:0 auto;display:block;}.css-m0b4as:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none !important;text-decoration:none !important;}.nytapp-vi-homepage .container-margin-none .css-m0b4as,.NYTApp #programming-list .container-margin-none .css-m0b4as{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-m0b4as,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-m0b4as{margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;}}.css-1eu3oi1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;padding-bottom:20px;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-npk1al{padding-left:10px;}.css-61i2mm{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.75rem;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03rem;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03rem;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03rem;letter-spacing:0.03rem;display:block;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-4z4bzs > :last-child{margin-bottom:20px;}.css-4z4bzs > :not(:first-child){margin-top:0.25rem;}.container-margin .css-4z4bzs{margin-top:20px;}.css-4z4bzs > :last-child{margin-bottom:10px;}.css-10r0njy{width:70px;height:70px;background-color:#d9e1e3;border-radius:4px;width:81px;height:81px;}.css-wwq616{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:bold;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1rem;margin-bottom:2px;font-size:1rem;line-height:1rem;margin-bottom:5px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-wwq616{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.125rem;}}.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-wwq616,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-wwq616{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;margin-bottom:0;display:block;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-wwq616,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-wwq616{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.1875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-wwq616{font-size:1rem;line-height:1rem;}}.css-1qudybh{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;line-height:1rem;font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-tertiary,#5A5A5A);font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1qudybh{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.125rem;}}.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-1qudybh,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-1qudybh{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.1875rem;display:block;margin-top:2px;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-1qudybh,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-1qudybh{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.1875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1qudybh{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;}}.css-89khpe{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;padding-bottom:20px;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);padding-bottom:10px;}Key Players Trying to Sway Trump on CryptoDavid BaileyChief executive of BTC Inc.David SacksSilicon Valley venture capitalist and White House crypto czarBrad GarlinghouseChief executive of RippleStuart AlderotyChief legal officer of RippleCharles HoskinsonFounder of Input OutputPaul ManafortFormer Trump campaign chairmanBill ZankerLongtime Trump business partnerTracy Hoyos-LópezBitcoin advocate and former prosecutorBrian BallardMajor Trump-fundraiser and lobbyistReince PriebusFormer White House chief of staffEric TrumpThe president’s middle sonWe 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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How Insularity Defined the Last Stages of Biden’s Career

      by

      Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s aides did not want him to speak with me.For months, as I worked on a book about the 2024 presidential election, I made multiple requests for an interview with Mr. Biden. One of my co-authors had sat down with President-elect Donald J. Trump, and we felt it was critical to talk to Mr. Biden. But the former president’s aides said he was working on a memoir, and that would conflict with my book.Yet when I reached Mr. Biden on his cellphone in late March, he answered and agreed to talk. He broke his silence on his successor to criticize the early weeks of Mr. Trump’s second term. “I don’t see anything he’s done that’s been productive,” the former president said.When I asked if he had any regrets about dropping out of the presidential race, Mr. Biden said, in a detached tone, “No, not now. I don’t spend a lot of time on regrets.” Then he hung up because he was boarding an Amtrak train.My brief conversation with Mr. Biden prompted a cascade of concern among his top aides. One screamed at me for calling the former president directly. Others texted furiously, trying to figure out how I had obtained Mr. Biden’s phone number.Mr. Biden had seemed open to continuing the conversation, but my subsequent calls went straight to voice mail. His automated greeting simply said, “Joe.”Two days later, that greeting was replaced by a message from Verizon Wireless: “The number you dialed has been changed, disconnected or is no longer in service.”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

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Gender Gap That Ate the Democrats

      by

      Much of the analysis of the 2024 election focused on Democratic losses among working-class minorities, especially Hispanic and Black voters. But the dominant theme of the contest was, in fact, the broader shift of men of all races and ethnicities to the Republican Party.If men had supported Kamala Harris at the same level as women did, Harris would have won the popular vote and possibly the Electoral College. Donald Trump beat her by 2.28 million votes, in an election that saw the male vote for the Democratic presidential nominee fall by 3.54 million from 2020 to 2024 and the female vote fall by just over 844,000.The Democratic Party lost ground in the 2024 election among almost all demographic groups — white people, Black people, Latinos, the young, rural and exurban voters — but all the defections had one thing in common: Democratic losses were significantly greater among men than among women.These developments are well documented in two extensive election analyses by organizations that offer some of the best demographic studies of voting patterns: “What Happened in 2024” by Catalist, a liberal voter-study firm, and “Behind Trump’s 2024 Victory, a More Racially and Ethnically Diverse Voter Coalition” by Pew Research.Catalist found that in 2024 Harris, the second woman to run for president as the Democratic nominee, received just 1 percent less support than Joe Biden did in 2020 from white women, while Harris’s backing from white men fell by four percentage points. Among Black voters, Harris saw a one-point drop among women and an eight-point decline among Black men; among Latinos, Harris lost seven points among women, 12 points among men.Catalist summarized its findings on the differences between the partisan shifts of men and women:The partisan gender gap remains high and grew in 2024. Women have long been more likely to support Democrats than men do. The gender gap in partisan preferences increased in 2024: women continued to support Harris (55 percent support) at roughly the same levels that they supported Biden in 2020 (56 percent). But men moved toward Trump in 2024, from 48 percent support for Biden in 2020 to 42 percent support for Harris in 2024.The most severe declines in Democratic voting, according to Catalist, “were concentrated among the younger cohorts of voters, particularly young men. For instance, support for Democrats from 2020 to 2024 among young Black men dropped from 85 percent to 75 percent and support among young Latino men dropped from 63 percent to 47 percent.”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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Grip That Race and Identity Have on My Students

      by

      In the spring of 2023, in a cramped classroom in the Hudson Valley, I taught an undergraduate seminar on the courage to think about race in unconventional ways. It revolved around reading books by Frederick Douglass, James Weldon Johnson and Albert Murray. These minds had shaped and refined my thinking about the idea of America, the fundamentally mongrel populations that inhabit it, as well as the yet-to-be-perfected flesh-and-blood nation of the future we might one day bring forth in unison.Early in the semester, as I waxed exuberant about the unifying possibilities of the 2008 election, I was met by a conference table ringed with blank stares. For my clever and earnest students, I realized, the earth-shattering political achievements of the beleaguered but still unfolding present were nothing but the vaguest rumor of an abstract history.“Professor,” a diligent young woman from Queens who described herself as Latina and applied a no-nonsense activist lens and corresponding vocabulary to most engagements with the world, voiced what all her classmates must have been thinking. “I was 4 years old in 2008. I don’t know what you’re talking about!”Their experience of this country, and themselves, couldn’t have differed more from my own, or from many of the 19th- and 20th-century authors on our syllabus. I assigned these writers because they had so courageously laid the intellectual and moral framework that a figure like Barack Obama would one day harness.I am old enough now to appreciate that there can be only one politician in your lifetime who can truly move you to dream. I feel lucky to have had that experience through Mr. Obama. My students that semester — white, Latino and Asian teens and 20-somethings whose political views had been forged in relation to the reactionary populism of Donald Trump and through a certain skepticism of the American idea itself — had yet to encounter such an inspirational figure. Race pessimism, even a kind of mass learned helplessness, was instead the weather that enveloped them.When my friend Coleman Hughes guest-lectured on his case for colorblindness, several of them were visibly unnerved, suggesting that the idea itself was a form of anti-Blackness. Most maintained that one could no more “retire” from race, as Adrian Piper — another of the authors we wrestled with — aspired to do, than one could teleport up from the classroom.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Book Review: ‘2024,’ by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf

      by

      “2024,” a campaign book by three seasoned political journalists, immerses readers in the chaos and ironies of the race for the White House.2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac ArnsdorfIn “2024,” the latest 400-page dispatch from last year’s presidential contest, the authors, a trio of veteran journalists from different august papers — Josh Dawsey (The Wall Street Journal), Tyler Pager (The New York Times) and Isaac Arnsdorf (The Washington Post) — write that “there was a view popular among some political insiders that this election had been over before it was started.”The authors end up arguing that things were not so fated, but reading what they have to report, I couldn’t help feeling those political insiders had a point. In this account, Biden’s operation resembles its candidate: listless, semi-coherent, sleepwalking toward calamity. It exists for its own sake, impervious to outside input, pushed along by inertia alone. The Trump campaign — at least after his first indictment provides a burst of energy and purpose — appears driven, disciplined, capable of evaluating trade-offs and making tough decisions. Trump seems to want to win; Biden just wants to survive.Things do change when Kamala Harris enters the fray. She gives Trump a run for his money, but her campaign is held back from the start by the slow-moving disaster that made it necessary in the first place.“2024” is a well-paced, thorough and often (darkly) humorous account of the two-year campaign season that began when Donald Trump announced he was running for president again — at a Mar-a-Lago launch so disorganized and halfhearted, the authors write, that even sycophantic Trump allies admitted it was “a dud.”It is also perhaps the smelliest campaign book I can recall. Trump reflects on his future over fried shrimp and tartar sauce. A Biden aide picks at eggs and bacon in a lonely hotel restaurant. At a desultory Trump news conference in the summer of 2024, packages of sausage and gallons of milk are laid out as props to highlight rising food prices; flies circle the meat “spoiling in the August sun.”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

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Can Democrats Find Their Way on Immigration?

      by

      The Democrats onstage saw themselves as morally courageous. American voters, it turned out, saw a group of politicians hopelessly out of touch.Standing side by side at a primary debate in June 2019, nine of the party’s candidates for president were asked to raise their hand if they wanted to decriminalize illegal border crossings. Only one of them held still.Six years later, the party remains haunted by that tableau. It stands both as a vivid demonstration of a leftward policy shift on immigration that many prominent Democratic lawmakers and strategists now say they deeply regret, and as a marker of how sharply the country was moving in the other direction.Last year, 55 percent of Americans told Gallup that they supported a decrease in immigration, nearly twice as many as in 2020, and the first time since 2005 that a majority had said so. The embrace of a more punitive approach to illegal immigration includes not only white voters but also working-class Latinos, whose support Democrats had long courted with liberal border policies.“When you have the most Latino district in the country outside of Puerto Rico vote for Trump, that should be a wake-up call for the Democratic Party,” said Representative Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, who saw Mr. Trump win every county in his district along the border with Mexico. “This is a Democratic district that’s been blue for over a century.”The Trump administration is pursuing the harshest crackdown on immigrants since World War II, an effort many Democrats see as a national crisis.Gabriel V. Cárdenas for The New York TimesWe 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