Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump apuesta a que EE. UU. tolerará una recesión a fin de revivir la industria manufacturera

      by

      El presidente ofrece razones para imponer aranceles, como los ingresos, la influencia sobre los competidores y la creación de empleo. Pero el pasado sugiere una historia más compleja.Las guerras comerciales simultáneas del presidente Donald Trump con Canadá, México, China y la Unión Europea equivalen a una enorme apuesta económica y política: que los estadounidenses soporten meses o años de penuria económica a cambio de la lejana esperanza de reindustrializar el corazón de Estados Unidos.Es enormemente arriesgado. En los últimos días, Trump ha reconocido, a pesar de todas sus seguras predicciones de campaña de que “vamos a tener un auge como nunca antes hemos tenido”, que Estados Unidos puede dirigirse hacia una recesión, impulsada por su programa económico. Pero, en público y en privado, ha estado argumentando que “una ligera perturbación” en la economía y los mercados es un pequeño precio a pagar por traer de vuelta a Estados Unidos los puestos de trabajo en la industria manufacturera.Sus socios políticos más cercanos están redoblando la estrategia. “La política económica del presidente Trump es sencilla”, escribió el vicepresidente JD Vance en las redes sociales el lunes. “Si inviertes y creas empleo en Estados Unidos, serás recompensado. Reduciremos las normativas y los impuestos. Pero si construyes fuera de Estados Unidos, estarás solo”.La última vez que Trump intentó algo así, durante su primer mandato, fue un fracaso. En 2018 impuso aranceles del 25 por ciento al acero y del 10 por ciento al aluminio, sosteniendo que estaba protegiendo la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos y que, en última instancia, los aranceles crearían más puestos de trabajo en Estados Unidos. Los precios subieron y se produjo un aumento temporal de unos 5000 puestos de trabajo en todo el país. Durante la pandemia, se levantaron algunos de los aranceles, y hoy la industria emplea aproximadamente al mismo número de estadounidenses que entonces.Sin embargo, lo más preocupante fue la serie de estudios posteriores que demostraron que el país perdió decenas de miles de puestos de trabajo —más de 75.000, según un estudio— en las industrias que dependían de las importaciones de acero y aluminio. La producción por hora de los fabricantes de acero estadounidenses también había descendido, mientras que la productividad de la industria manufacturera en general en Estados Unidos aumentó.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

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Are Liberal Democrats Really ‘Bewildered’?

      by

      To the Editor:Re “Join My Bewildered Liberals Book Club,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, Feb. 23):I had previously read the books recommended by Mr. Kristof in his column. I take from them many of the same lessons he reiterates. I did find, though, his “bewildered liberals” characterization insulting. Many of us are frustrated, certainly, but not bewildered.As someone who graduated from college, but also worked for three different unions over a 40-year career, I have had firsthand experience with the travails of working men and women. But I part company with Mr. Kristof in laying so much of the blame for President Trump’s rise on misguided, liberal “elites,” who supposedly disdain or dismiss working people.Working men and women abandoned the labor movement in large numbers over the last four decades in part because their U.S.-based unions were ill equipped to deal with cheap, foreign competition that eliminated so many of their jobs.That competition was fostered by offshoring promoted by U.S. corporate and political elites from both sides of the aisle. But workers disarmed themselves politically and economically by too often blaming and abandoning unions in the face of that competition, instead of using the leverage that organizing provides to elect and influence more local, state and congressional allies.Elections have consequences, and until working people vote in their own interests again, aspiring despots like President Trump and Vice President JD Vance will win elections and workers will lose them.Doug AllenTruckee, Calif.To the Editor:I would add to Nicholas Kristof’s “Bewildered Liberals Book Club” list the sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s two excellent books about why low-income white people feel shamed and abused by liberals: “Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right” (2016), based in rural Louisiana, and “Stolen Pride: Loss, Shame and the Rise of the Right” (2024), focused on Pikeville, Ky.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Why Do Republicans Want to Dismantle the Education Department?

      by

      President Trump’s fixation reinvigorated the debate over the role of the federal government in education, and created a powerful point of unity between the factions of his party.Two months after the Education Department officially opened its doors in 1980, Republicans approved a policy platform calling on Congress to shut it down.Now, more than four decades later, President Trump may come closer than any other Republican president to making that dream a reality.Though doing away with the agency would require an act of Congress, Mr. Trump has devoted himself to the goal, and is said to be preparing an executive order with the aim of dismantling it.Mr. Trump’s fixation has reinvigorated the debate over the role of the federal government in education, creating a powerful point of unity between the ideological factions of his party: traditional establishment Republicans and die-hard adherents of his Make America Great Again movement.“This is a counterrevolution against a hostile and nihilistic bureaucracy,” said Christopher F. Rufo, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank and a trustee of New College of Florida.Here is how the party got to this moment.Conservatives make their argument.During his 1982 State of the Union address, President Ronald Reagan called on Congress to eliminate both the Energy Department and the Education Department.Bettmann, via Getty ImagesWe 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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      In Speech to Congress, Trump Is Expected to Boast About DOGE Cuts and Ukraine

      by

      President Trump is expected to boast about his assault on the federal bureaucracy and his efforts to upend global relationships during an address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, even as his administration faces lawsuits over his domestic agenda and Europe rebukes him over his treatment of Ukraine.Addressing his largest television audience since his return to power, Mr. Trump is expected to speak about the speed with which he has pushed through reductions in border crossings, cuts to government through the Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, and a slew of executive orders. He is also expected to emphasize the need to pass his legislative agenda, which includes some $4 trillion in tax cuts.“He’s going to talk about the great things he’s done: The border’s secure, the waste he’s finding with DOGE,” said Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who speaks frequently with Mr. Trump. “He’s going to keep laying out his vision, where he wants the country to go.”For Mr. Trump, it will be a remarkable return to a chamber — and a prime-time, nationwide audience — he last addressed five years ago, before voters ousted him from office and replaced him with Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Trump’s return has set in motion a rapid-fire series of actions designed to overturn decades of policy and diplomacy.During his first term, the president delivered an annual speech to Congress that included a mix of exaggerations and grievance-filled attacks on his enemies. He is poised to do the same again on Tuesday night, using one of the largest platforms that any modern president gets during his time in the Oval Office.Mr. Trump hinted on Monday that he might use the speech to extend his public feud with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine after the Oval Office blowup between the two leaders last week. Asked by a reporter whether a deal to share rare-earth minerals was still possible after the shouting, Mr. Trump said that “I’ll let you know,” adding: “We’re making a speech, you probably heard.”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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Breaking Things We Can’t Just Fix

      by

      President Trump is doing damage to America that could take a generation or more to repair. The next election cannot fix what Trump is breaking. Neither can the one after that.To understand the gravity of the harm Trump has inflicted on the United States in the first month and a half of his presidency, a comparison with the Cold War is helpful. Republicans and Democrats often had sharp differences in their approach to the Soviet Union — very sharp. The parties would differ, for example, on the amount of military spending, on the approach to arms control and on American military interventions against Soviet allies and their proxies.Deep disagreement over Vietnam helped drive American political debate, both within and between parties, for more than a decade. During the Reagan era, there were fierce arguments over the MX, a powerful intercontinental ballistic missile, and over the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe.These differences were important, but they were less important than the many points of agreement. Both parties were committed to NATO. Both parties saw the Soviet Union as the grave national security threat it was. For decades, both parties were more or less committed to a strategy of containment that sought to keep Soviet tyranny at bay.At no point did Americans go to the polls and choose between one candidate committed to NATO and another candidate sympathetic to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The very idea would have been fantastical. American elections could reset our national security strategy, but they did not change our bedrock alliances. They did not change our fundamental identity.Until now.Consider what happened in the Oval Office on Friday. Trump and Vice President JD Vance ambushed President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine on live television. Vance accused Zelensky of being “disrespectful,” and Trump attacked him directly:You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III. You’re gambling with World War III and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country — this country — that’s backed you far more than a lot of people say they should.Trump’s attack on Zelensky is just the latest salvo against our allies. Back in office, Trump has taught our most important strategic partners a lesson they will not soon forget: America can — and will — change sides. Its voters may indeed choose a leader who will abandon our traditional alliances and actively support one of the world’s most dangerous and oppressive regimes.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Shocked by Trump Meeting, Zelensky and Ukraine Try to Forge a Path Forward

      by

      For months leading into the American elections last fall, the prospect of a second Trump presidency deepened uncertainty among Ukrainians over how enduring American support would prove in a war threatening their national survival.After President Volodymyr Zelensky’s disastrous meeting with President Trump in the White House on Friday, many Ukrainians were moving toward a conclusion that seemed perfectly clear: Mr. Trump has chosen a side, and it is not Ukraine’s.In one jaw-dropping meeting, the once unthinkable fear that Ukraine would be forced to engage in a long war against a stronger opponent without U.S. support appeared to move exponentially closer to reality.“For Ukraine, it is clarifying, though not in a great way,” Phillips O’Brien, an international relations professor at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, said in an interview. “Ukraine can now only count on European states for the support it needs to fight.”An immediate result was that Ukrainians, including opposition politicians, were generally supportive of Mr. Zelensky on Saturday for not bending to Mr. Trump despite tremendous pressure.Maryna Schomak, a civilian whose son’s cancer diagnosis has been complicated by the destruction of Ukraine’s largest children’s cancer hospital by a Russian missile strike, said that Mr. Zelensky had conducted himself with dignity.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Oil Companies Wanted Trump to Lower Costs. Tariffs Are Raising Them.

      by

      President Trump’s promise during last year’s election to make it far easier to drill for oil and gas thrilled energy executives who believed his policies would lower their costs and help them make a lot more money.Those hopes are now fading. Thanks to Mr. Trump’s tariffs, the oil and gas industry is contending with rising prices for essential materials like steel pipes used to line new wells.That has not yet translated into a meaningful change in U.S. drilling activity or production expectations, but companies have begun revising budgets to reflect higher materials costs. Decisions made today about which wells to drill will affect production many months from now.Oil refineries are separately bracing for a tariff on Canadian oil, which some of them need to produce gasoline, diesel and other fuels.At the same time, consumers have grown jittery about the economy and the price of oil has fallen about 10 percent since just before Mr. Trump took office, to around $70 a barrel. Oil companies tend to drill less when prices fall.The combination could complicate Mr. Trump’s stated desire to juice U.S. oil and natural gas production, which are already at or near record highs.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Tim Walz Will Not Run for Minnesota’s Senate Seat

      by

      Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, who rose from relative obscurity to become the Democratic nominee for vice president last year, will not run for his state’s open Senate seat in 2026 and will instead begin the process to seek a third term as governor, his spokesman said Wednesday.“Governor Walz is not running for the United States Senate,” said Teddy Tschann, Mr. Walz’s spokesman. “He loves his job as governor and he’s exploring the possibility of another term to continue his work to make Minnesota the best state in the country for kids.”By staying out of the contest to replace Senator Tina Smith, a Minnesota Democrat who is not seeking re-election in 2026, Mr. Walz effectively kicks off a primary contest for the Senate seat that could be competitive should Republicans field a well-financed candidate.It also positions Mr. Walz, who won national attention for his “Midwestern dad” persona and football-coach background when he and Vice President Kamala Harris ran against Donald J. Trump, to potentially enter the 2028 Democratic presidential primary. During an interview with a Dutch television station last week, Mr. Walz said he was “not ruling out” running for president.Focusing on re-election also allows Mr. Walz to avoid what would have been an awkward Senate primary contest against his lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan, who announced her campaign for the seat last week. Mr. Walz and Ms. Flanagan, who had been political allies for two decades, had a falling out over shared campaign finances when Mr. Walz returned to Minnesota from the presidential campaign trail.Several other Minnesota Democrats have said they are considering running for Ms. Smith’s Senate seat. They include Keith Ellison, the state’s attorney general, Representatives Angie Craig and Ilhan Omar, and Melissa Hortman, the Democratic leader in the Minnesota state house. Mr. Walz is not expected to endorse a candidate in the primary.On the Republican side, Royce White, a former professional basketball player who lost a 2024 Senate race to Senator Amy Klobuchar, has said he will run, along with Adam Schwarze, a former Navy SEAL. Michelle Tafoya, a former television sports broadcaster who has become a regular on the right-wing commentary circuit, has also said she is considering running for the seat.No one has yet entered the race for governor of Minnesota. Mr. Walz coasted to general election victories in 2018 and 2022, though the state has been much closer in two of the last three presidential elections. More