Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Sees Antisemitism in Only One Direction: On the Left

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump on Monday blamed Democrats for antisemitism at an event commemorating the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, then claimed there was no antisemitism in the ranks of the Republican Party, even as his own endorsed candidate for governor in North Carolina is at the center of a scandal involving antisemitic remarks.Mr. Trump’s comments, delivered to more than 100 invited guests at his private resort in Doral, Fla., were softer than past speeches addressing the conflict in the Middle East. He shied away from direct attacks against his political opponents or from insulting Jews who support them, instead taking swipes at the Biden administration in an address that veered between solemn memorial and political rally.Before Mr. Trump’s remarks, a rabbi led a ceremony in which a number of Jewish leaders and elected officials lit memorial candles and delivered remarks to honor the more than 1,200 people killed when Hamas attacked Israel last year. Event organizers left a section of chairs empty on either side of the stage with photos of hostages who remain in Gaza, a statement about their continued captivity.But the energy changed with Mr. Trump’s arrival. He stood basking in applause and gave a small shuffling dance as “God Bless the U.S.A.,” his typical entrance music, played. He opened his remarks by talking about the hurricane approaching Florida, then indirectly criticized the Biden administration’s response to Hurricane Helene.Mr. Trump then decried the Oct. 7 attack. He vowed to back Israel’s right to defend itself, once again insisting that Israel had to finish its war quickly, and he called for the United States to play a stronger role in bringing about the end of conflict in the Middle East. “You have no idea the role that the United States has to play in order to get that ball over the goal line,” he said.Mr. Trump did not blame the Biden administration for the Mideast conflict. But as he blamed “the leadership of this country” for a rise in antisemitism — ignoring the rise in reported antisemitic acts during his presidency — someone in the crowd called out “what leadership?”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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris’s ’60 Minutes’ Interview: Seven Takeaways

      by

      Vice President Kamala Harris sat for an interview with “60 Minutes” that was broadcast on Monday night and, in a departure from some of her recent appearances on cable news and podcasts, she was repeatedly pressed on questions she did not initially answer.During a sit-down with the show’s correspondent Bill Whitaker, Ms. Harris did not reveal new domestic policy proposals or share how she would pay for some of those she has already put forward. But she did expound on her views about two foreign leaders causing enormous headaches for President Biden’s administration: Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president.Less than a month before Election Day, Ms. Harris’s interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” — the longstanding most-watched news program on television — came at a moment of increased exposure and pressure. She is set to appear on three major shows on Tuesday and at a Univision town-hall event on Thursday that is aimed at Spanish-speaking viewers.Here are seven takeaways from Ms. Harris’s appearance on “60 Minutes,” which also interviewed her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota.Harris was in control of her message, but avoided repeated pushback.From the opening seconds, Ms. Harris seemed calm and in command of the points she wanted to make — and she did not stray from them despite repeated follow-up questions. She avoided pushback when asked to detail how to end the yearlong war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. And she declined repeatedly to say whether the Biden-Harris administration should have acted earlier to restrict illegal immigration into the United States.When Mr. Whitaker asked her if the administration had lost all sway over Mr. Netanyahu, Ms. Harris said, “The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.”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

      Athens Democracy Forum: Where Is Global Politics Headed?

      by

      Voters have more opportunities than ever in 2024 to shape history in their countries, but war, technology and other forces pose a powerful threat, experts said.This article is from a special report on the Athens Democracy Forum, which gathered experts last week in the Greek capital to discuss global issues.Jordan Bardella, the 29-year-old far-right leader who nearly became France’s prime minister last summer, warned last week that his country’s existence was imperiled by Muslim migrants who shared the same militant Islamist ideology as the Hamas-led assailants who committed deadly attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.“We have this Islamist ideology that is appearing in France,” he said. “The people behind it want to impose on French society something that is totally alien to our country, to our values.“I do not want my country to disappear,” he said. “I want France to be proud of itself.”The politician — whose party, the National Rally, finished first in the initial round of parliamentary elections in June, before being defeated by a broad multiparty coalition in the second and final round — spoke in an onstage conversation at the Athens Democracy Forum, an annual gathering of policymakers, business leaders, academics and activists organized in association with The New York Times.The defeat of Mr. Bardella and his party by a broad anti-far-right coalition were a sign of the endurance of liberal democratic values in the West. Yet his rapid rise as a political figure in France also comes as a warning that the basic tenets of liberal democracy are constantly being tested — and like never before in the postwar period.The year 2024 has been the year of elections: More of them were held than ever before in history. Some four billion people — more than half of humankind — have been, or will be, called to the ballot box in dozens of elections around the world. They include the 161 million U.S. voters heading to the polls on Nov. 5.Elections are the unquestionable cornerstone of democracy: the process by which voters choose the leaders and lawmakers who will rule over them. Voters’ ability to make an informed choice rests on their access to accurate and verified news and information about the candidates and their parties.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Harris Has a Glock, She Says on ’60 Minutes’

      by

      Vice President Kamala Harris has a Glock. And she has taken it to the shooting range.In a wide-ranging interview that ran on Monday night during a “60 Minutes” election special on CBS News, Ms. Harris revealed more details about her firearm, which she had teased last month in an interview with Oprah Winfrey.“I have a Glock, and I’ve had it for quite some time,” she told her “60 Minutes” interviewer, Bill Whitaker. “Look, Bill, my background is in law enforcement, so there you go.” When he asked if she had fired it, Ms. Harris laughed. “Of course I have,” she said. “At a shooting range. Yes, of course I have.”In her September chat with Ms. Winfrey, Ms. Harris said, “If somebody breaks in my house, they’re getting shot,” which elicited laughter from the host and the crowd.Ms. Harris has been talking about guns in a new way for a Democrat, with a focus on “freedom,” while also saying she supports red-flag laws and universal background checks, policies she has long backed.And she has changed her stance on other gun issues. In 2019, she said she supported a rule that assault-weapons owners sell their guns to the government. At the time, she was among five Democratic candidates in the 2020 race who supported mandatory buybacks. In July, her campaign said this was no longer Ms. Harris’s position. She supports a ban on assault weapons but does not demand buybacks.Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Ms. Harris’s running mate, is also an avid shooter and has said he uses a shotgun to hunt pheasants.Before he joined the ticket, Mr. Walz previously received an A rating from the National Rifle Association, which once endorsed him, but that plummeted to an F after he began supporting tighter gun restrictions as governor.“I know guns. I’m a veteran. I’m a hunter. I was a better shot than most Republicans in Congress, and I have the trophies to prove it,” Mr. Walz said in his speech at the Democratic convention in August. “I believe in the Second Amendment, but I also believe that our first responsibility is to keep our kids safe.” More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Oct. 7: For Jews in America, a Time of Reflection

      by

      More from our inbox:Republicans’ Plans to Challenge the VoteVanderbilt’s Leader: Why the College Rankings Are Flawed Mark Peterson/ReduxTo the Editor:Re “The Year American Jews Woke Up,” by Bret Stephens (column, Oct. 6):Mr. Stephens paints a disconcerting portrait of life for Jews in America, one that rings true for my family, as well as for those whom my organization works to serve. He does us a great service, and spurs us to find solutions to the problem and antidotes for the poison.To that end, the American Jewish Congress is about to launch a nationwide competition — a solutions challenge — that invites young American Jews to offer their views on how their country can best grapple with the increasingly rampant antisemitism in our midst.We hope this exercise will also demonstrate to the collective American conscience how deserving of support our Jewish citizens are. Has America forgotten the brave role played by Jews in the country’s defiant civil rights movement?Antisemitism existed before Oct. 7 and will, alas, exist in some quarters till the end of time. What is incumbent upon the Jewish community now is to quickly adapt to an ugly new reality and reimagine how Jewish identity and life in America can continue to flourish in conditions of adversity.This challenge will define the future not just of our Jewish compatriots, but also of America’s democracy.Daniel RosenNew YorkThe writer is president of the American Jewish Congress.To the Editor:Bret Stephens claims that the line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism has been blurred. As a proud Jew who is highly critical of today’s Israel and supportive of the Palestinian struggle, I see no blur; I see a bright red line.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Las encuestas indican las elecciones más reñidas de la historia contemporánea de EE. UU.

      by

      Las número más recientes del Times/Siena muestran a Harris por delante en Míchigan y Wisconsin, y con una ventaja razonable en el Segundo Distrito de NebraskaKamala Harris en Wayne, Michigan, en agosto. Lidera Michigan por un punto en nuestro último sondeo.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesSigue aquí las actualizaciones en directo de las elecciones de 2024.El viernes concluimos nuestra oleada de encuestas posdebate del New York Times y el Siena College en los estados en disputa, junto con un vistazo especial a Ohio y su carrera hacia el Senado.Kamala Harris estuvo a la cabeza entre los votantes probables por un punto porcentual en Michigan, dos puntos en Wisconsin y nueve puntos en el Segundo Distrito Congresional de Nebraska. Donald Trump lideró en Ohio por seis puntos entre los votantes probables, 50 por ciento a 44 por ciento (en 2020 ganó el estado por ocho puntos).Cuando se añaden al panorama las otras encuestas recientes del Times/Siena, la conclusión es clara: se trata de unas elecciones extremadamente reñidas.Imaginemos, por un momento, que las últimas encuestas del Times/Siena en cada estado clave acertaran. No lo harán, por supuesto, pero este es el resultado que se obtendría en el Colegio Electoral:Harris 270, Trump 268.En términos de conteo electoral, sería la elección presidencial moderna más reñida de Estados Unidos.Si se promedian las seis encuestas que hicimos en los principales estados en disputa (nos saltamos Nevada en nuestra ronda más reciente), Trump va a la delantera por una media de solo 0,6 puntos.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Harris Hits Back at Republican Criticism of Childless Women

      by

      For the first time, Vice President Kamala Harris dismissed criticism from some Republicans that she does not have biological children, saying in a podcast interview on Sunday that much of the commentary was “meanspirited” and misunderstood women who either can’t have children or simply did not want to.In an appearance on the podcast “Call Her Daddy,” which is popular with Gen Z and millennial women, Ms. Harris discussed reproductive rights and economic issues. She addressed comments from Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the governor of Arkansas, who recently suggested that having biological children helped with her humility — a virtue she implied Ms. Harris lacked.“I don’t think she understands that there are a whole lot of women out here who, one, are not aspiring to be humble,” Ms. Harris told the host, Alex Cooper. “Two, a whole lot of women out here who have a lot of love in their life, family in their life and children in their life. And I think it’s really important for women to lift each other up.”When the conversation turned to attacks by Republicans against “childless cat ladies,” Ms. Harris called the criticism, popularized by past comments by Senator JD Vance of Ohio, former President Donald J. Trump’s running mate, “mean and meanspirited.” Ms. Harris referred to her stepchildren, Cole and Ella Emhoff, as her children.“I love those kids to death,” Ms. Harris said. “And family comes in many forms. I think that increasingly, you know, all of us understand that this is not the 1950s anymore.”The “Call Her Daddy” interview was part of several appearances that Ms. Harris will make this week with news outlets and niche podcasts or radio shows. Several of the platforms are considered to be friendly to her, or at least far less probing than a traditional news interview would be.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris Can Beat Donald Trump at Protecting America

      by

      It’s a truism that female candidates for high office face obstacles that men don’t. Less acknowledged is that women face different obstacles each from the other. Individually and generationally, women confront their own particular impossible dilemmas.Hillary Clinton’s dilemma was how to be forceful without coming off as fatally unfeminine, of seeming like a male impostor by virtue of being ambitious. Kamala Harris’s quandary is different. She’s not having to bat down accusations that her ambition makes her unwomanly, in part because she chose not to make breaking the glass ceiling a theme of her campaign. Her particular Achilles’ heel — pointed out by her opponent, who, whatever his manifest unfitness for the job, does have a talent for identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities — is contained in the word “protection.”That’s the insinuation behind so many of the attacks on Ms. Harris’s presidential quest: How’s she going to protect voters who, knocked around by everything from contagion to inflation to war, feel unsafe and insecure? As much as the Harris campaign promotes “joy,” the national mood radiates fear — of exposure, threat, bodily harm. How’s a woman supposed to protect us from that? Protection is an area of American culture that is resolutely gendered. The problematic dynamics that traditionally govern protection of home and hearth also govern our politics, an arena in which, historically, women have been granted neither protector nor protected status.In the public sphere, as in the personal, he who would dominate offers to protect. Forty-seven years ago, the feminist philosopher Susan Rae Peterson identified the syndrome of the “male protection racket,” asking, “Since the state fails them in its protective function, to whom can women turn for protection?” She explained that “women make agreements with husbands or fathers (in return for fidelity or chastity, respectively) to secure protection. From whom do these men protect women? From other men, it turns out.” She continued: “There is a striking parallel between this situation and tactics used by crime syndicates who sell protection as a racket. The buyer who refuses to buy the protective services of an agency because he needs no protection finds out soon that because he refuses to buy it, he very definitely needs protection. Women are in the same position.”Or as Mae West putatively said: “Every man I meet wants to protect me. I can’t figure out what from.”Donald Trump has it figured out. “Sadly, women are poorer than they were four years ago,” he told a Pennsylvania rally in late September. Also: “less healthy,” “less safe on the streets” and “more stressed and depressed and unhappy.” In a part of his speech aimed explicitly at female voters, he added, “I will fix all of that and fast, and at long last this nation, and national nightmare, will end.” Women, he promised, “will no longer be abandoned, lonely or scared. You will no longer be in danger.” Why? “You will be protected, and I will be your protector.”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