Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares76 Views

      in Elections

      The Democratic Blind Spot That Wrecked 2024

      by

      The 2022 election went better than Democrats could have hoped. The party picked up governor’s mansions and state legislatures and expanded their Senate majority. It held down losses in the House. The promised “red wave” never crashed ashore. Perhaps it would have been better if it had.Looking back, the seeds of Democrats’ 2024 wipeout were planted in the quasi-victory of 2022. Three things happened in the aftermath. The pressure on President Biden not to run for re-election, and the possibility of a serious primary challenge if he did run, evaporated. Democrats persuaded themselves of a theory of the electorate that proved mistaken. And as a result, the Biden-Harris administration avoided the kind of hard, post-defeat pivot that both the Clinton and Obama administrations were forced to make after the midterm defeats of 1994 and 2010.In 2020, Democrats had worried over Biden’s age, but were comforted, in part, by the soft signals he sent that he would serve only one term. “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” he said in 2020. By mid-2022, as Biden signaled his intention to run again, the party was growing alarmed. In June of that year, The Times interviewed nearly 50 Democratic officials and found that among “nearly all the Democrats interviewed, the president’s age — 79 now, 82 by the time the winner of the 2024 election is inaugurated — is a deep concern about his political viability.”Nor was the public thrilled about the results the Biden administration was delivering. In October of 2022, amid widespread anger over inflation, the Times-Siena poll found Biden with a 38 percent job approval rating and trailing Trump in a hypothetical rematch.If Democrats had been wiped out in the midterms, the pressure on Biden to be the transitional figure he’d promised to be would have been immense. If he’d run again despite that pressure, he might have faced serious challengers. But Democrats fared far better than they had expected. The president’s saggy approval rating and the widespread anger at inflation were nowhere to be found in the election results. In their first referendum under Biden, Democrats did much better than they had under Clinton or Obama. Any pressure on Biden to step aside — and any possibility of a real primary challenge — ended.In its place, a new theory of the electorate emerged, based on the way Democrats over-performed in contested states, like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and underperformed in safe states, like New York and California. There were two coalitions: the MAGA coalition and the anti-MAGA coalition. The anti-MAGA coalition was bigger, but it needed to be activated by the threat of Donald Trump or the Dobbs abortion ruling. A slew of special election victories in 2023 seemed to confirm the theory. Democrats were winning elections they had no business winning, given Biden’s low approval rating and public anger over inflation. But the anti-MAGA coalition’s hatred of Trump had changed the electoral math.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 Shares62 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Wins Arizona, Reversing the State’s Blue Trend

      by

      The victory added to the list of battleground states that Mr. Trump lost in 2020 and flipped back four years later.President-elect Donald J. Trump has won Arizona and its 11 electoral votes, The Associated Press said on Saturday night, flipping yet another swing state and bringing his final Electoral College tally to 312. With his victory in Arizona, Mr. Trump has now won all seven of this year’s battleground states.Mr. Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in Arizona is a reversion to the state’s traditionally conservative status: It has voted for a Democrat only twice since the 1940s, including in 2020, when Joseph R. Biden Jr. eked out a win over Mr. Trump by just over 10,000 votes.But this year, Democrats appeared to be fighting an uphill battle from the start in Arizona, a border state where voters expressed fury over the migrant crisis and deep economic concerns over the cost of housing and the high prices of everyday goods, like groceries and gasoline.Near a polling location in Guadalupe, Ariz., on Tuesday.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesRepublicans outnumber Democrats in the state, so Ms. Harris needed to persuade the significant number of Arizona independents and moderate Republicans to vote for her. And there were signs she might have been able to do so: Independents, especially white women in the Phoenix suburbs, had been drifting left, and Democrats hoped they would be motivated by protecting reproductive rights and denying Mr. Trump another term.Instead, it was Mr. Trump who put together a winning coalition, keeping enough of the state’s Republicans in line while also securing the votes of enough independents. Polls had also long suggested he was cutting into the Latino vote, a fast-growing and crucial voting bloc in Arizona that Democrats had been relying on as part of their coalition.Ms. Harris appeared to have the superior ground game in Arizona, with her campaign and allied groups, like unions, working efficiently to knock on doors and turn out voters. Mr. Trump’s operation, meanwhile, relied heavily on outside committees to do that work, an untested strategy for Republicans.Still, conservative groups like Turning Point seemed well-prepared, knocking on doors throughout the summer and fall and urging lower-propensity conservative voters to return their ballots early — a shift from 2020, when Mr. Trump was more adamant in maligning early voting. Republicans were encouraged by the early vote numbers in Arizona this year, hoping they would be enough to forestall a late surge from Democrats. More

    • 113 Shares74 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Won’t Have Haley or Pompeo in New Administration

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump ruled out roles for Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo, who served in his previous administration.President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Saturday that he would not invite Nikki Haley, his former ambassador to the United Nations, or Mike Pompeo, his former secretary of state, to join his incoming administration.Mr. Trump’s announcement on Truth Social, his social media platform, was an early indication of the decision-making process of the president-elect as he navigates the ideologic differences within the Republican Party.Days after his election win over Vice President Kamala Harris, Mr. Trump’s team has already started his first formal transition meetings and ramped up the process for building his new cabinet.By ruling out Mr. Pompeo and Ms. Haley, Mr. Trump was rejecting two Republicans who had backed U.S. support for Ukraine at a time when Mr. Trump and many of his allies have pushed to curtail American aid for allies and military involvement overseas.“I will not be inviting former Ambassador Nikki Haley, or former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, to join the Trump Administration, which is currently in formation,” Mr. Trump said in the post. “I very much enjoyed and appreciated working with them previously, and would like to thank them for their service to our Country.”Mr. Trump was also turning away two top officials in his first administration who in recent years had shared criticism of him.Many in Mr. Trump’s orbit, including David Sacks, a major Trump donor, viewed Mr. Pompeo as being too eager to use the military overseas. Mr. Trump also likely did not forget that, in 2023, Mr. Pompeo warned during the Conservative Political Action Conference that Republicans should not follow “celebrity leaders with their own brand of identity politics — those with fragile egos who refuse to acknowledge reality.”Days later, during an interview with Fox News, Mr. Pompeo claimed he was not talking about Mr. Trump, while also criticizing his former boss’s fiscal policy.Mr. Pompeo in 2022 also criticized Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents after the F.B.I. raided his home in Mar-a-Lago.“No one gets to keep classified information outside of a place classified information should be. That is certainly true,” Mr. Pompeo said, while also denouncing the Justice Department for its handling of the case.Ms. Haley was also Mr. Trump’s last rival to drop out of the race for the Republican nomination. Just days before the election, Ms. Haley said the Trump campaign’s rhetoric was driving away women and minorities, citing the racist and misogynistic remarks by speakers at a Trump rally held at Madison Square Garden in October.“This bromance and this masculinity stuff, it borders on edgy to the point that it’s going to make women uncomfortable,” Ms. Haley said. Despite repeated offers to provide advice to the campaign, Mr. Trump mostly kept her at a distance during his presidential run. Mr. Trump’s gamble to mobilize men, despite them historically voting less than women, would end up paying off.Both Mr. Pompeo and Ms. Haley did eventually vocally support Mr. Trump and endorse his nomination. More

    • 150 Shares81 Views

      in Elections

      At Women’s March Event, Organizers Say They Are Preparing a ‘Comeback Tour’

      by

      At a demonstration on Saturday, the crowd was small and enthusiasm was lacking. But organizers are planning a big march ahead of the inauguration.On Saturday, after former President Donald J. Trump’s re-election dashed progressives’ hopes of a new era for women’s rights and other left-wing causes, Women’s March held a hastily arranged protest-cum-dance party outside the headquarters of a conservative think tank in Washington. Only about a few hundred people showed up.The first Women’s March, held in the aftermath of Mr. Trump’s 2017 inauguration, drew hundreds of thousands of people to the National Mall in Washington to protest what they feared would be an assault on reproductive rights, immigrants and civil rights under his administration. But this week, Women’s March organizers are grappling with despair among their base that the president they oppose has been elected to a second term, and questions about where the movement is headed.The goal of the Saturday afternoon event was to reinvigorate the organization’s progressive base after the election and perhaps to unleash some anger at the Heritage Foundation, the think tank that had designed a policy playbook for a second Trump administration, Project 2025, whose goals included aggressively curtailing access to abortion. The foundation did not immediately respond on Saturday evening to a request for comment.“You are not going to take our joy,” said Rachel O’Leary Carmona, the executive director of Women’s March, before singing along to the music.But while a band and a D.J. played upbeat songs at top volume, the crowd did not do much more than sway to the beat.The hastily arranged protest doubled as a dance party outside the headquarters of a conservative think tank.Tierney L. Cross 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

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is About to Face the Choice That Dooms Many Presidencies

      by

      As happens every time a new president is elected, Donald Trump is experiencing a sudden role reversal. His campaign to earn support from voters has ended abruptly and a new one has begun among donors and activists to earn his support for their priorities. The election was about tax cuts, or maybe cryptocurrency, the arguments go. What Americans really want, sir, is fewer protections on the job and a weaker safety net.This is the first moment when presidencies go wrong. Rather than prepare to govern on behalf of the electorate that put them in power — especially the independent swing voters who by definition provide the margin of victory in a two-party system — new presidents, themselves typically members of the donor and activist communities, convince themselves that their personal preferences are the people’s as well. Two years later, their political capital expended and their agendas in shambles, their parties often suffer crushing defeats in midterm elections.As he looks toward his new term, Mr. Trump could claim a mandate to lead however he wishes, huddle with his supporters at Mar-a-Lago and then see how much of their agenda he can advance before his popularity falls too far to effect further change. That is the formula that has left a nation seemingly resigned to the loss of both common purpose and institutional competence. It is not a formula for a successful presidency, let alone for making America great again.He has another option. He is an iconoclastic leader with a uniquely unfiltered relationship to the American people and a disdain for the chattering class of consultants. He is also the first president since Grover Cleveland to get a second shot at a first term. He has already experienced the bruising tax fight that helped bring his approval rating down to 36 percent a year after his inauguration, the failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the loss of more than 40 House seats and control of the chamber in a midterm election. In the early hours of Wednesday morning, he made a promise to “every citizen” that he would “fight for you, for your family and your future” and that “this will truly be the golden age of America.” Achieving that will require focusing on the challenges and respecting the values broadly shared by not only his voters, but also many others who might come to support him.Take immigration. A promise to secure the border has long been a central aspect of Mr. Trump’s appeal, and Democrats are now clambering to get on his side of the issue. A Trump administration serving American voters would stanch the flow of migrants with tough border enforcement and asylum restrictions, reverse the Biden administration’s lawlessness by removing recent arrivals and protect American workers and businesses by mandating that employers use the E-Verify program to confirm the legal status of the people who work for them. That program, which strikes at the harm that illegal immigration does to American workers, is wildly popular. A recent survey of 2,000 adults conducted by my organization, American Compass, in partnership with YouGov, found 78 percent support overall and 68 percent support even among Democrats. Law-abiding businesses tend to like it, too — they’re tired of getting undercut by competitors that get away with breaking the rules.That’s the path to solving the problem. Mr. Trump will hear a lot of counterarguments from the affluent and influential class that builds its business model on underpaid, undocumented labor, especially in industries such as construction and hospitality, where he has personal experience, as well as in agriculture. Those voices are likely to suggest that instead he condescend to the masses with border theater and hostile rhetoric, while expanding temporary worker programs. To this end, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who opposes the E-Verify program on libertarian grounds, has already been mentioned as a potential candidate for secretary of agriculture. Moves like that will keep the guests at Mr. Trump’s golf clubs happy but ensure growing frustration and disillusion elsewhere.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 Shares68 Views

      in Elections

      Howard Lutnick Is Scouting Trump’s Nominees. Some Will Oversee His Interests.

      by

      Howard Lutnick, co-chair of the president-elect’s transition team and a Wall Street financier, is leading the search for appointees while still running his businesses.The financier Howard Lutnick has been given a high-profile assignment from President-elect Donald J. Trump, one that raises questions about the Wall Street executive’s dual role and what he might gain from it.As co-chair of the transition team, Mr. Lutnick is in charge of identifying 4,000 new hires to fill the second Trump administration, including antitrust officials, securities lawyers and national security advisers who have global expertise.But Mr. Lutnick has not stepped away from running financial firms that serve corporate clients, traders, cryptocurrency platforms and real estate ventures around the world — all of which are regulated by the same agencies whose appointees he is helping to find.Given his sprawling business interests, it’s not known how Mr. Lutnick might keep from violating the transition’s own code of ethics, which echo federal conflict-of-interest guidelines for transition team members. The Trump transition guidelines say that individuals who work on the team must disqualify themselves from matters that may directly conflict with their own financial interests or those of an organization with which they do business.It is not clear whether Mr. Lutnick, who gained national attention when many of his employees died in the 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, has signed the code of ethics or whether he has recused himself from providing lists of possible nominees for any specific agencies that have oversight of his businesses.Mr. Lutnick declined an interview request from The New York Times. People who work with Mr. Lutnick say that he is careful about separating his private business from his transition work.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 Shares62 Views

      in Elections

      Could the Bond Market Stymie Trump’s Economic Plans?

      by

      Some fiscal hawks worry that Trump’s policies would increase the deficit and fuel inflation.With Republicans poised to seize control of Congress, Donald Trump’s economic plans could face little legislative resistance. The president-elect has vowed to escalate tariffs, extend a corporate tax cut and introduce tax breaks on tips and Social Security benefits, policies that some fiscal hawks worry would increase the federal deficit, and with it, inflation.But even if Trump faces meager resistance on Capitol Hill, another force may temper his policies: the bond market.While stocks just pulled off a record-setting week, with the S&P 500 gaining roughly 5 percent since Election Day, a volatile bond market signals that investors have some worries that an unchecked Trump agenda might stimulate growth but worsen the country’s debt burden.“If the Trump administration runs excessively stimulative fiscal policy, with lots of spending and tax cuts, leading to even wider deficits, I think then that may cause the bond vigilantes to push yields up to levels that create problems for the economy,” Ed Yardeni, the president of Yardeni Research, told DealBook.Yardeni, a veteran Wall Street analyst, coined the term “bond vigilantes” in the 1980s to describe the influence that frustrated bondholders can have on the policy agendas of politicians and central bankers. He sees a potential for bond vigilantes to pose a risk to the Trump agenda, too.The United States sells Treasury bonds and notes to fund big parts of the federal government. These auctions provide the lifeblood of the U.S. economy, and the yields on Treasuries are viewed as a real-time gauge of the country’s financial health. Yields tend to climb when investors anticipate economic growth accelerating inflation, and expect the Fed may have to raise rates to slow the economy. Higher yields mean the government pays more to borrow.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 Shares86 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats and the Case of Mistaken Identity Politics

      by

      Some Democrats are finally waking up and realizing that woke is broke.Donald Trump won a majority of white women and remarkable numbers of Black and Latino voters and young men.Democratic insiders thought people would vote for Kamala Harris, even if they didn’t like her, to get rid of Trump. But more people ended up voting for Trump, even though many didn’t like him, because they liked the Democratic Party less.I have often talked about how my dad stayed up all night on the night Harry Truman was elected because he was so excited. And my brother stayed up all night the first time Trump was elected because he was so excited. And I felt that Democrats would never recover that kind of excitement until they could figure out why they had turned off so many working-class voters over the decades, and why they had developed such disdain toward their once loyal base.Democratic candidates have often been avatars of elitism — Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and second-term Barack Obama. The party embraced a worldview of hyper-political correctness, condescension and cancellation, and it supported diversity statements for job applicants and faculty lounge terminology like “Latinx,” and “BIPOC” (Black, Indigenous, People of Color).This alienated half the country, or more. And the chaos and antisemitism at many college campuses certainly didn’t help.“When the woke police come at you,” Rahm Emanuel told me, “you don’t even get your Miranda rights read to you.”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