Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Tim Walz Heads Home to the Minnesota State Fair

      by

      Shortly after Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota was tapped by Vice President Kamala Harris to be her running mate, a photo of Mr. Walz at the Minnesota State Fair in 2019 went viral.He wore a gold University of Minnesota T-shirt, a maroon University of Minnesota hat emblazoned with the Gophers mascot and a smile that his face could barely contain. In his arms was a small, sleeping piglet.It was peak Midwestern dad energy — one of the regular-guy reasons that Ms. Harris chose him to join the Democratic ticket despite his limited national profile. Over the last few weeks, Mr. Walz has been on a whirlwind tour introducing himself to the rest of the country. He has campaigned before crowds of over 10,000 in battleground states like Wisconsin and Georgia; hosted fund-raisers in California and Maryland; and completed his transformation into a party leader with a rousing speech accepting the vice-presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.But Mr. Walz will need no introduction when he steps back onto the grounds of the Minnesota State Fair in St. Paul on Sunday, where he is expected to make a campaign stop.“Oh, he is?!” asked Keri Huber, an archivist at the fair. To be sure, it was no surprise to her, but she had yet to hear the news because, she explained, she had been on the grounds, working nonstop.Like other state fairs happening across the nation, the Minnesota State Fair, affectionately known as the Great Minnesota Get Together, has a storied political tradition as a spot to woo voters in a less-scripted forum. Over the years, it has been an opportunity for once and future officeholders to appear, well, normal, while chowing down pronto pups — which, depending on whom you ask, are not so different from corn dogs — and buckets of Sweet Martha’s cookies and posing for photos.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 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Young Americans Can’t Keep Funding Boomers and Beyond

      by

      You know the expression “OK, Boomer”? Better said as “Boomer OK.” That’s because the social safety net in the United States is increasingly favoring the old over the young. And this affects our political views and the security of future generations.Younger Americans have valid reason for disgruntlement: Big shifts in income and wealth are dramatically favoring their elders. Under almost every president since 1980, 80 percent of the real growth in domestic spending has gone to Social Security and health care, with Medicare the most expensive health program, according to calculations based on federal data. As a share of GDP, all other domestic outlays combined have declined.Our current tax system also largely does not help Americans, most of whom are younger, pay for their higher education. That wasn’t as big a deal in the 1960s or 1970s, when the average college graduate most likely had little or no student debt. Today, the average taken out each year is about seven times that in 1971, in part because state governments have stripped colleges and universities of funding. This is happening at a time when owning a house is increasingly out of reach. The median price has risen from about 3.5 times median annual income in 1984 to 5.8 times in 2022.So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that today, younger generations are more likely to fall into lower-income classes than their parents or grandparents. Nearly a half century ago, it was the reverse. And in 1989, the median net worth of Americans aged 35 to 44 was nearly 75 percent of those aged 65 to 74. By 2022, that ratio had fallen to one-third.The why is simple. Unlike most other spending, Congress effectively designed Medicare in 1965 and Social Security in the 1970s in such a way that outlays would increase forever faster than our national income. That’s partly because Medicare costs keep rising along with medical prices and new treatments and because Social Security benefits are designed to increase for each new generation along with inflation and wages. And we’re living longer, which means more years of benefits.Today, tax revenues are so committed to mandatory spending, largely for older Americans, and to interest on the national debt (which has quadrupled as a share of G.D.P. since 1980) that few revenues are left for everything else. So, unless we borrow to pay for it, there’s little for education, infrastructure, environment, affordable housing, reducing poverty, or the military.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’s Team, With a Wink, Insists She’s an Underdog

      by

      Her campaign’s message that Democrats are losing, which she never voiced when President Biden was tanking the ticket, is an artful attempt to lower expectations.Days before the debate that ended up cutting off President Biden’s path to a second term, his campaign chief, Jen O’Malley Dillon, defiantly set expectations: “We are going to win,” she said in an interview with the news site Puck.Fast-forward 10 weeks. Democrats have a more popular nominee in Vice President Kamala Harris, torrents of grass-roots campaign cash that Mr. Biden could have only dreamed of, a well-received convention and a running mate who has energized the party’s liberal base.Ms. O’Malley Dillon somehow seems less optimistic.“Make no mistake,” she wrote in a campaign memo released on Sunday morning. “We head into the final stretch of this race as the clear underdogs.”How can it be that a campaign that by all metrics is better off than it was in late June is now pushing a narrative that things are worse than they were when Mr. Biden was in the race?It is because the Harris operation, like any campaign riding a wave of momentum, is suddenly worried about overconfidence. The New York Times’s polling average has shown her ahead since Aug. 6, the day she unveiled Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota as her running mate. And the mood carried over from the Democratic National Convention is hardly one of a party despairing about its chances against former President Donald J. Trump.Mr. Biden never declared his campaign an underdog. Neither did Ms. Harris until July 27. Before that, with Mr. Biden still running, she had nothing but confidence in public. Several times in the post-debate period, as Mr. Biden’s campaign began to look like a rolling catastrophe, Ms. Harris declared that they would be re-elected.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Former Miss Teen USA Contestant Rebukes Vance for Using Her Flub to Attack Harris

      by

      Caite Upton wrote on social media that “online bullying needs to stop,” after JD Vance posted a clip of her mangled answer from the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant to mock Kamala Harris.Senator JD Vance of Ohio, who since becoming former President Donald J. Trump’s running mate in July has been criticized on several occasions for comments demeaning women, found himself again embroiled in controversy this week when he used a viral clip of a beauty pageant contestant’s meltdown to attack Vice President Kamala Harris.On Thursday, Mr. Vance shared a video clip from the 2007 Miss Teen USA competition in which Caite Upton, who was representing South Carolina, gave a mangled answer to a question about why many Americans could not locate the United States on a map.“BREAKING: I have gotten ahold of the full Kamala Harris CNN interview,” Mr. Vance wrote on X.That evening, CNN was set to broadcast the first major interview with Ms. Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee. Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. quickly reposted Mr. Vance’s post, writing: “This is total Fake News from JD. We all know that Kamala isn’t that articulate.”In a social media post on Friday, Ms. Upton objected to Mr. Vance’s dredging up the 17-year-old clip of her pageant struggles, remarks that were reported by The Post and Courier of Charleston, S.C., and later deleted, after she appeared to have deactivated her account on X.“Regardless of political beliefs, one thing I do know is that social media and online bullying needs to stop,” she wrote, according to the newspaper.A representative for Ms. Upton, who competed in the pageant under the name Lauren Caitlin Upton, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday.In 2015, Ms. Upton told New York magazine that the embarrassment she felt over the viral video had led to depression and thoughts of suicide.When Mr. Vance was asked whether he had been aware of Ms. Upton’s mental health challenges during an appearance on CNN on Friday, he said that he had not at the time he posted the clip.“My heart goes out to her, and I hope that she’s doing well,” he said.When asked whether he wanted to apologize, Mr. Vance said that he did not have regrets.“Politics has gotten way too lame,” he said, adding, “I’m not going to apologize for posting a joke, but I wish the best for Caitlin.” More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Conservative Moms, Charmed by Trump, Would Rather Avoid His Misogyny

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump spoke at a convention of the Moms for Liberty in Washington.It didn’t look like a typical Trump rally.There were trays of mini-cupcakes and macarons. There were squadrons of helicopter moms buzzed off white wine. The excited women were wandering around the basement of a Marriott in downtown Washington, waiting for former President Donald J. Trump to show.It was the Joyful Warriors summit thrown by a bunch of agitated parents known as the Moms for Liberty, a conservative activist group that was founded during the Covid pandemic. The group, which has more than 130,000 members across the country, has become quite influential in Republican politics.Their parental preoccupations were made apparent by the programming and pamphleteering on display. There were panels called “What Does It Mean to Abolish the Department of Education?” and “Moms Know Best: Protecting Kids from Secret Gender Transitions in Schools.” There was literature on child sex trafficking and on the damage wrought by Covid-era school closures, and there were copies of a book titled “Take Two Aspirin and Call Me By My Pronouns: Why Turning Doctors Into Social Justice Warriors is Destroying American Medicine.”The Moms For Liberty can get a bit carried away — one of their local chapters once accidentally quoted Adolf Hitler (“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future”) and then issued an apology disavowing the Führer (“We should not have quoted him in our newsletter”) — but still, their summit on Friday made for a good case study. It was packed with the sort of voters Mr. Trump hopes can help him win in November: fired-up suburban women.The attendees of the summit are among the voters whom Mr. Trump needs to win over.Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters“These are women that have largely never been political,” Tiffany Justice, the group’s co-founder, said. “They’re people who, in the busiest time of their lives, realized that they needed to get involved in politics.”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

      Criticizing Trump, Harris Says Arlington Is ‘Not a Place for Politics’

      by

      Donald J. Trump’s campaign filmed him at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, which led to a confrontation between one of his political aides and a cemetery official. Vice President Kamala Harris excoriated former President Donald J. Trump on Saturday for his visit on Monday to Arlington National Cemetery, where his campaign’s filming of him in a heavily restricted area caused a confrontation between one of his political aides and a cemetery official. In her first public comments on the situation, Ms. Harris said that Mr. Trump had desecrated a solemn place that should be free of politics when he appeared there for a wreath-laying ceremony for 13 service members who were killed in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan during the withdrawal of U.S. troops three years ago. “Let me be clear: the former president disrespected sacred ground, all for the sake of a political stunt,” Ms. Harris wrote on X. Ms. Harris wrote that she had visited Arlington National Cemetery several times as vice president and that she would never attempt to use that setting for activities related to the campaign. “It’s not a place for politics,” she wrote. Mr. Trump, in recent days, has hit back hard at critics of his visit to the cemetery, saying that families of some of the fallen service members had asked him to take photos with them there. Soldiers at the Tomb of the Unknowns during former President Donald J. Trump’s visit, on Monday in Arlington, Va.Doug Mills/The New York TimesRepresentatives for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saturday, but his allies rushed to his defense, including his running mate, Senator JD Vance of Ohio.“President Trump was there at the invitation of families whose loved ones died because of your incompetence,” Mr. Vance wrote on X, responding directly to Ms. Harris. “Why don’t you get off social media and go launch an investigation into their unnecessary deaths?”The Trump campaign has repeatedly criticized the chaotic withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan in 2021 during the Biden-Harris administration, which the former president has sought to cast as weak and dysfunctional. President Biden made the final decision to end America’s nearly 20-year military occupation in Afghanistan. But it was Mr. Trump who clinched a deal with the Afghan Taliban, setting a timeline for the U.S. exit.At a campaign event on Thursday in Potterville, Mich., Mr. Trump said that he was honored to take photos with the family members of some of the fallen service members at the cemetery and that Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris had “killed their children” with their “incompetence.” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Maybe We Are Asking Presidential Candidates the Wrong Questions

      by

      If the goal of the CNN interview with Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota was to relitigate the campaign controversies of the last month — to get the candidates to talk about the major narratives of the election so far — then it was a rousing success. Harris easily dispatched questions about her identity and gave a strong defense of President Biden’s record. Walz, likewise, made short work of the charge that he had misled the public when he spoke about using one fertility treatment when it was actually another, similar treatment.But if the goal was to learn something about a prospective President Harris — to gain insight into how she might make decisions, order priorities and approach the job of chief executive — then I think the interview was not a success. Not so much for Harris or the viewing public.It might be interesting to journalists to know how Harris explains her changing views from 2019, when she ran for the Democratic nomination, to now, when she is the nominee. But it is not at all clear to me that it is interesting to viewers, who may be less concerned with how she deals with the question and more concerned with the actual substance of what she wants to do as president. A soft-focus question about a photograph, however iconic, seems less valuable than a question about Harris’s view of the presidency now that she’s spent almost four years in the passenger’s seat as vice president.Speaking for myself, I am less interested in hearing candidates navigate controversies or speak to narratives than I am in hearing them talk, for lack of a better term, about their theory of the office. How does a candidate for president conceptualize the presidency? What would she prioritize in office and how would she handle an endless onslaught of crises and issues that may, or may not, demand her attention? How does she imagine her relationship with Congress and how would she try to achieve her goals in the face of an opposition legislature? How does she imagine her relationship with the public and what value does she place on communication and the bully pulpit? Are there presidents she most admires — and why? Are there presidential accomplishments that stand out and how so? What are the worst mistakes a president can make? Why do you want this job in the first place?I can think of other questions along these lines, but you get the gist. To know what candidates for president think about the office and their role in it is, I believe, a better guide to what they may do in the White House than almost anything else. The only thing better is prior experience. These kinds of questions may not make for the most scintillating television, but I think they could provide the kind of insights that could actually help Americans decide what they want out of a national leader.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Has the Spread of Tipping Reached Its Limit? Don’t Count on It.

      by

      Americans are being asked to tip more often and in more places than ever before: at fast food counters and corner stores, at auto garages and carwashes, even at self-checkout kiosks. That has rankled many customers and divided both employers and tipped workers.It may soon get worse. Both major-party presidential candidates have embraced proposals to eliminate income taxes on tips, a move that would, in effect, subsidize tipping and prompt more businesses to rely on it.Economists across the political spectrum have panned the tax idea, arguing that it is unfair — favoring one set of low-wage workers over others — and could have unintended consequences. Even some tipped workers and groups that represent them are skeptical, worrying that over the long term the policy could result in lower pay.But the debate alone underscores how service-sector workers have emerged from the pandemic as an economically and politically potent force. The spread of tipping in recent years was, in part, a result of the intense demand for workers, and the leverage it gave them. The presidential candidates’ dueling proposals signal that they see the nation’s roughly four million tipped workers as a constituency worth wooing.“I do think it’s a reflection of this change in which people are finally hearing and recognizing that these workers matter,” said Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage, an advocacy organization. “Tipped workers had never seen their needs named in any way by any presidential candidate, ever.”Ms. Jayaraman isn’t a fan of the tax exemption idea, though she is optimistic that the attention being paid to the issue could lead to policies she considers more important. One is the elimination of the subminimum wage, which allows businesses in some states to pay workers as little as $2.13 an hour as long as they receive enough in tips to bring them up to the full minimum wage.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