Primaries and Caucuses

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Your Iowa Caucus Questions, Answered

      by

      The state with the first balloting for 2024 is overflowing with candidates and reporters ahead of the Republican caucuses on Jan. 15. Here’s what to know.It’s the December before a presidential election, which means that Iowa is overflowing with candidates and reporters for its quadrennial caucuses.This year looks different, though — because Democrats have moved their first votes to other states, and because a single candidate so dominates the Republican field.Here’s what to know.What are the Iowa caucuses and how do they work?Though “primaries and caucuses” are often lumped together, they are not the same. Primaries operate the way most elections do: Voters cast ballots privately through early-voting or mail-in options, or at a polling site on Election Day. Caucuses, by contrast, require voters to attend at a specific hour and discuss their preferences publicly.At each local caucus in Iowa — in school gymnasiums, community centers and even churches — Republicans will make speeches in favor of their preferred candidates. Then caucusgoers will take a vote, and candidates’ delegates to the county convention will be nominated based on that vote. No remote participation, such as by mail or phone, will be allowed.You may have heard terms like “viability” and “realignment” in relation to the Iowa caucuses. Those refer to the Democrats’ traditional process, in which caucusgoers sorted themselves physically according to which candidate they supported. Candidates whose support was below a viability threshold were eliminated, and their supporters were able to realign with a viable candidate. Republicans do not have those procedures, and Democrats have dropped them.Caucuses have many critics because they are less accessible than primaries. There is no flexibility — people have to arrive on time and stay until the end — which means those who have to work or are otherwise unavailable at that hour are out of luck. People with disabilities often struggle to participate. So do people who feel unsafe, or simply uncomfortable, disclosing their political preferences.Most states that once held caucuses have switched to primaries, but Iowa is an exception.When are the caucuses?The Republican caucuses will be held on Jan. 15 at 7 p.m. local time.The Democratic caucuses will be held by mail. The first ballots — technically “preference cards” — will be mailed out on Jan. 12, and voters can request one until Feb. 19. Though Iowa Democrats can attend in-person gatherings on Jan. 15 to conduct other party business, they will not choose a presidential candidate then.Why are the Republican and Democratic caucuses different?The Iowa Republican Party and the Iowa Democratic Party control their own caucus procedures, and they have long chosen different ones. But the procedures are especially different this cycle because the Democratic National Committee changed its primary calendar at President Biden’s urging, while the Republican National Committee stuck to its old one.The Democrats’ rationale was to prioritize states more racially diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire, which are overwhelmingly white. Their first two states are now South Carolina, on Feb. 3, and Nevada, on Feb. 6, and Iowa is out of the early lineup. (By the D.N.C.’s schedule, New Hampshire would have voted on the same day as Nevada. But it refused to cede its first-in-the-nation primary status, which is enshrined in state law, and scheduled an unsanctioned primary for Jan. 23.)Why does Iowa go first (for Republicans)?Today, the answer is, “Because it always has.” A common argument is that, since Iowans have spent decades shouldering the responsibility of being first, they are uniquely well informed and engaged. They know how much power they hold to winnow presidential fields, this argument goes, and they take that responsibility more seriously than voters elsewhere would.Initially, though, Iowa got its spot by historical accident.After the chaos of the 1968 Democratic convention, Democrats changed their nominating process to give voters more say than party insiders. Until 1968, the party held popular votes in just a handful of states, while the rest chose a candidate at conventions; after 1968, the balance shifted strongly to popular votes in the form of primaries or caucuses.Iowa Democrats happened to schedule the earliest vote in 1972. Iowa Republicans, realizing the timing could work to the state’s benefit, followed suit in 1976 — and, on the Democratic side, Jimmy Carter took advantage of the Iowa caucuses that year to propel himself from relative obscurity to the front of the presidential pack.The power of going first thus clearly demonstrated, the Iowa Legislature passed a law requiring the state to continue scheduling its caucuses before any others.Jimmy Carter campaigning in Des Moines in 1976, the year Iowa catapulted his candidacy.Associated PressHow do the delegates work?Each precinct will be assigned a number of delegates to elect to a county convention based on the results of the caucus vote in that precinct.Over the ensuing months, the county and state conventions will confirm Iowa’s 40 delegates to the Republican National Convention, where the party’s presidential nominee will be officially chosen based on who wins a majority of the more than 2,000 delegates available nationwide.When do we typically have results?The leaders of each local Republican caucus will report results to the state party, which will tabulate and release the statewide results. This usually happens pretty quickly, within a few hours.Since Democrats are voting by mail this year, and Iowa is no longer first for them, their results won’t come until March 5.Why were there so many delays and problems in 2020?The Iowa Democrats’ reporting process collapsed in 2020, preventing them from releasing any significant results on the night of the caucuses and the full results for days.The caucusing itself went fairly smoothly, but a new app through which precincts were supposed to report their results failed and backup phone lines were jammed, so the state party couldn’t obtain the numbers. When the results were finally tabulated, they were full of errors and inconsistencies — products of manual calculations by precinct officials — and the party conducted a partial recanvass followed by a partial recount.A complicating factor was that the Iowa Democratic Party had promised to release multiple sets of results — not only the number of state-convention delegates each candidate had earned, which would determine the caucuses’ winner, but also how many supporters each candidate had in the first and second rounds of voting.That promise stemmed from 2016, when Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the caucuses by the tiniest of margins, and Mr. Sanders fought for an audit and accused the state party of a lack of transparency because it had not released the first- and second-round totals.Producing multiple tallies provided a more comprehensive picture and allowed for errors to be identified, but it worsened the delays when the systems failed.What is Iowa’s importance to the rest of the race?Iowa is all about momentum — the nebulous idea of who is rising and who is dead in the water, which can affect voters’ choices in other states.In terms of actual numbers, Iowa doesn’t matter much. It accounts for a tiny fraction of the delegates awarded nationwide. But its ability to set perceptions is so strong that candidates often drop out after doing poorly there, unless they have reason to believe they will do significantly better in New Hampshire. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Haley Comes Under Fire During Debate: ‘I Love the Attention, Fellas’

      by

      The perils of momentum.Within minutes of the opening question in the fourth Republican primary debate, Nikki Haley — the former ambassador to the United Nations who has been rising in the polls, though she is still far behind former President Donald J. Trump — found herself on the receiving end of well-practiced attacks from Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Vivek Ramaswamy.For the first 15 minutes, Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Ramaswamy took turns heaping criticism on Ms. Haley, at times cutting each other off before Ms. Haley had time to respond.When she did, she savored the moment.“I love all the attention, fellas — thank you for that,” Ms. Haley, the only woman in the race, quipped.The attacks began as Mr. DeSantis, midway through a defense of his floundering poll numbers, pivoted to claiming that Ms. Haley did not support his law that banned transition care for transgender minors. (Ms. Haley has said she opposes such care but deflected on Wednesday, instead saying she did not think a different law Mr. DeSantis signed went far enough.)Mr. Ramaswamy, avoiding answering a question about whether he was a “unifier,” instead took aim at Ms. Haley’s personal financial endeavors, claiming she had been “bankrupt” after she left the Trump administration and had quickly looked for ways to make money.“We weren’t bankrupt when I left the U.N. — we’re people of service,” Ms. Haley replied. “My husband is in the military, and I served our country as U.N. ambassador.”Her retort did little to halt the continued assault from Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Ramaswamy, who continued a joint argument that Ms. Haley would be beholden to her wealthy donors.Again, Ms. Haley shot back.“In terms of these donors that are supporting me, they’re just jealous,” Ms. Haley said of her two rivals. “They wish they were supporting them.” More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Our Columnists Aren’t Moderating Tonight’s Debate. Here’s What They’d Ask if They Were.

      by

      Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate, held in Tuscaloosa, Ala., will feature just four candidates — Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie — sparring over everything from abortion to Israel to former President Donald Trump. When we asked Times Opinion columnists and contributors what they would ask the candidates if they were moderating the debate, they came back to us with questions designed to test them on guns and crime, foreign wars and health care — exposing where the field stands on, say, military aid for Ukraine or a draconian state abortion ban. But above all, what they wanted to see was the moderators needling the candidates into taking a strong stance on the former president. Here were the responses:Maureen DowdGov. Haley, you have your first ad up about “moral clarity” and “chaos.” But you don’t mention Donald Trump. Why not?Should Donald Trump be prohibited from running for president because of Jan. 6 and all these federal charges?Kenny Holston for The New York TimesFrank BruniIf you’re elected president, would you consider pardoning Donald Trump if he’s convicted by a jury of one or more of the 91 felony counts he faces?Jamelle BouieThe Republican Party has lost the majority of the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections. Despite this, it has held the presidency for a total of 12 years because of the Electoral College. If you are the nominee in 2024 and you win the majority of the popular vote but lose the Electoral College, would you concede to Joe Biden?Ross DouthatGov. Haley, please name one United States military intervention in the last 30 years that you believe was a mistake, and explain why.Gov. DeSantis, while running for president in 2016, Donald Trump promised to replace Obamacare with some form of universal health care. Do you support repealing Obamacare with a measure that guarantees health insurance to all Americans? If not, why? If so, what would that measure be?Gov. Haley and Gov. DeSantis, if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, is there anything he could do between now and November 2024 that would make you refuse to support him against Joe Biden? If so, please specify.For all the candidates: The Western world is aging rapidly. The Republican Party currently stands for serious restrictions on immigration. Is there any public policy that your hypothetical administration would pursue that would encourage Americans to have more kids?Erin Schaff/The New York TimesNicholas KristofGuns are the leading cause of death for children in America today. And the states with the highest firearms mortality rates are mostly Republican states. Why is that, and what specific steps can we take to reduce gun deaths in America?President Reagan was known for standing up relentlessly to Moscow. Yet if Republicans continue to block President Biden’s requests for aid to Ukraine, isn’t Russia the big winner? Has the G.O.P. come full circle from confronting Russian aggression to becoming its best hope?Michelle CottleGov. Haley, immigration policy continues to be sacrificed on the altar of political gamesmanship. Border security is important, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. As president, how would you jump-start a push for bipartisan, comprehensive reform?Mr. Ramaswamy, what would it take for you to drop out of this race and spare Americans your troll-y nonsense? A column in The Daily Caller? Your own Fox News show? The promise of a midlevel cabinet post?Gov. DeSantis, why has your candidacy been sagging? What do you plan to do to turn it around?Gov. Christie, the base seems to hate you. How do you respond to people who worry that you staying in the race any longer is helping Donald Trump by preventing non-Trump voters from consolidating behind a challenger whose campaign is getting more traction?Oleg Petrasyuk/EPA, via ShutterstockPamela PaulA question for all: Confidence in the military, while still relatively high compared with confidence in other institutions, is the lowest it’s been in over 25 years, at the same time that the military is struggling to bring in recruits. What would you do to restore trust in the military and recruit more people to volunteer for the armed services?Thomas FriedmanGov. DeSantis, if you were in Congress today, would you vote with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to continue military and economic aid for Ukraine and sustain Kyiv in its war with Russia for the next year, or with the House isolationists against any further aid? If it is the latter, how would you react if Vladimir Putin publicly thanked you?Gov. Haley, the late Henry Kissinger became famous for his diplomacy, with President Nixon, for peeling China away from the Soviet Union back in the 1970s. If you were president today, would you consider attempting such a move with Xi Jinping’s China, or do you think we should confront Russia and China at the same time? How would that make America more secure?Gov. Haley, as possibly America’s first Indian American president, do you think we should get tougher with President Narendra Modi to limit his curtailments of Indian democracy, or are you OK with what he’s doing?Jose Luis Gonzalez/ReutersEzra KleinGov. DeSantis and Gov. Haley, in 2021, your states — Florida and South Carolina — had higher homicide rates per capita than New York and California. That was also true in 2020, and 2019, and 2018, and 2017, and 2016 and 2015. Why is that?Michelle GoldbergTwenty women are suing Texas after being denied abortions, including in cases of severely dangerous or nonviable pregnancies. Should Texas amend its abortion ban to create a health exemption?Mikala Compton/Austin American-Statesman, via Associated PressCharles BlowGov. DeSantis, you made your crusade against what you called “wokeness” a centerpiece of your governorship and a springboard for your presidential bid. You even wrote a book in which anti-wokeness was a central theme. But over the summer, polling showed that Republican voters were unlikely to be swayed by a narrow focus on rooting out left-wing ideology in schools, media, culture and business — and you didn’t mention the word “woke” in any of the first three debates. Did you overestimate the currency anti-wokeness would have with the Republican primary electorate, and do you regret such a laserlike focus on a single cultural topic?Tressie McMillan CottomOur constitutional right of “free speech” has become a partisan issue. This is having a chilling effect on research, education and public workers. How do you define “free speech”? What role should the president and Congress play in shaping the way that free speech intersects with public institutions?The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Bowman Is Latest House Democrat to Face a Primary Over Israel Stance

      by

      George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, told The New York Times he would run against Mr. Bowman, a rising star of the Democratic left, next year.After months of public deliberation and prodding from donors aligned with Israel, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, said on Wednesday that he would mount a Democratic primary challenge against Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York.The decision set the stage for a potentially explosive contest next year that promises to test not only the growing Democratic divide over the war in the Middle East but the durability of the party’s progressive wing.In an interview, Mr. Latimer drew sharp contrasts between himself and Mr. Bowman, one of left’s most vocal critics of Israel. He dismissed the incumbent’s calls for a cease-fire as premature and called a recent protest outside the White House, where the congressman accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, a political stunt.“It’s about results, not rhetoric,” said Mr. Latimer, who has deep ties to the Democratic establishment. “So much of politics has turned into that sort of showmanship — how you look in front of the cameras.”He was expected to officially begin his campaign with a video announcement later on Wednesday, just days after returning from a wartime visit to the region.The nascent contest echoes primary fights breaking out from Pittsburgh to Detroit since Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 attack, as pro-Israel Democrats try to oust members of the House “Squad” pushing for a cease-fire. Like the other challengers, Mr. Latimer is expected to benefit from millions of dollars in outside spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and other special interest groups.The race in the New York City suburbs, though, may be uniquely complex. It pits a charismatic Black progressive with a growing national profile against an old-school white liberal with deep local support. And it will play out in a district that is both home to one of the country’s most influential Jewish communities and also nearly half Black or Latino.Mr. Latimer said he shared many of Mr. Bowman’s progressive priorities but would avoid the incumbent’s “showmanship.”Gregg Vigliotti for The New York TimesMr. Latimer tread carefully around many of those fault lines as he outlined his candidacy this week, insisting that he was preparing for a campaign that would go well beyond the issue of Israel.Mr. Latimer, in his second term as county executive, urged voters not to judge him on his age, 70, or the color of his skin. Citing his four decades in elected office, he said would continue many of the progressive priorities on housing, climate change and transportation that Mr. Bowman has championed. And he avoided outright attacks on the incumbent beyond charging that Mr. Bowman was more interested in making his name than tending to his district.“If you ignore that turf because you’re a national figure and more interested in being on the national stage, then you are neglecting the needs of that community,” Mr. Latimer said.The challenge comes at a moment of profound political vulnerability for Mr. Bowman, 47, and not just because of his stance on the war. The congressman is still dealing with the repercussions of pleading guilty in October to pulling a false fire alarm in a House office building. And he has just $185,000 in his campaign account, according to recent filings.AIPAC, which privately offered Mr. Latimer its support months ago, could easily swamp that amount on its own. Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for the group, declined to discuss the group’s spending plans this week but denounced Mr. Bowman as a representative of “the anti-Israel extremist fringe.”Mr. Bowman’s advisers and allies say defeating him may be far more difficult than his foes anticipate. Some of the left’s most influential figures were already lining up to fight back, determined to show the staying power of their movement three years after they first helped Mr. Bowman, a former middle school principal, topple a powerful three-decade incumbent, Eliot L. Engel.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Mr. Bowman’s best-known ally, circulated a fund-raising appeal on his behalf. Left-leaning groups, including New York’s Working Families Party and Justice Democrats, have pledged resources. For now, each appear to see value in framing the primary as a conflict as one with pro-Israel special interests, not the county executive.“It’s not a surprise that a super PAC that routinely targets Black members of Congress with primary challenges and is funded by the same Republican megadonors who give millions to election-denying Republicans including Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Ted Cruz have recruited a candidate for this race,” said Emma Simon, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bowman’s campaign.The primary battle is one Democrats had wished to avoid. The party already hopes to flip six Republican-held swing seats in New York next year, which is key to taking back the House majority. Some Democrats have expressed concern that a pro-Israel advertising blitz against Mr. Bowman would inadvertently tarnish the party’s candidates in competitive races in neighboring districts to the north and west.Now that the matchup is underway, though, it poses a quandary for Democratic leaders, particularly Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York.Mr. Jeffries, the top House Democrat, has said he would continue the party’s longstanding policy of supporting incumbents like Mr. Bowman, even if his own views on Israel are more conservative. But Mr. Latimer said he had not received a call from Mr. Jeffries asking him not to run, and the House leader may soon have to decide how hard to fight to protect Mr. Bowman.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.His allies argue that there is good reason to believe many voters agree with his views, but that for many, Israel will not be a decisive issue when they cast their primary ballots next June.About half of voters in the district, which stretches from the north Bronx through many of Westchester’s liberal suburbs, are Black and Latino, according to census data. The figure is even higher among Democratic primary voters. By comparison, about 10 percent of all voters and about 20 to 25 percent of Democratic primary voters are Jewish.Mr. Bowman has repeatedly said he is standing by his position on Israel for a simpler reason: He believes in it.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesHe summarized his views outside the White House last week, where he joined protesters calling on President Biden to support a bilateral cease-fire. He used terms that most Democrats have objected to, including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” in describing Israel’s deadly bombardment of Gaza, which has killed some 15,000 people, according to the local health authorities. He accused the United States of “being complicit” in those deaths. But he also condemned those targeting Israelis or Jews and repeated his earlier denunciations of Hamas.“Calling for cease-fire does not mean we support Hamas, does not mean we support the killing of Israelis or Jews, does not mean we support antisemitism,” he said. “We are calling for cease-fire because we don’t want anyone else to die.”In the interview, Mr. Latimer said he, too, was eager to see the bloodshed in Gaza end, but only after Hamas returned the remaining Israeli hostages it abducted on Oct. 7 and agreed “to step aside from violence.” Anything short of that would amount to unilateral disarmament by Israel, he argued.Mr. Latimer said he did not “know enough” to judge whether Israel’s counteroffensive had violated international law. “I’m not a secretary of state,” he said.He also rejected Mr. Bowman’s proposal for the United States to place conditions on the billions of military aid it provides to Israel. “That is a matter that I think is best left to the presidential administration,” Mr. Latimer said.He was more pointed about attempts by Mr. Bowman and his allies to build public pressure on Mr. Biden through protests and media appearances. Mr. Latimer called Mr. Bowman’s appearance outside the White House “the classic response of somebody who has been in government a couple of years.”“If you want to influence the policy of the president, you begin with the dialogue you have with your other members of Democratic Caucus,” he said. “When you have a consensus movement, that becomes more impressive to an executive.” More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Big Donors Rally Around Nikki Haley

      by

      The former governor of South Carolina is winning support from some Democrats and business-minded conservatives as the G.O.P. candidate who can beat Donald Trump.Nikki Haley is beginning to gain in the polls and has won financial backing from donors such as Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic donor, and the Koch brothers.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesA bipartisan boost for HaleyAs the four remaining prominent Republican presidential contenders not named Donald Trump assemble for the latest G.O.P. primary debate tonight, just one will arrive with any sort of positive momentum.Nikki Haley is gaining traction as the leading anti-Trump Republican, particularly among Democrats and business-minded conservatives alike. But growing support from elites may not be enough to help her catch the former president.Reid Hoffman recently donated $250,000 to a super PAC supporting Haley. The LinkedIn co-founder and a major Democratic donor has funded an array of anti-Trump initiatives. His donation, first reported by The Times, is the latest sign that some Democrats see bolstering Haley as the best way to beat Trump.News of Hoffman’s contribution came after Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s C.E.O., urged liberals to back Haley. “Get a choice on the Republican side that might be better than Trump,” he said at the DealBook Summit last week. That’s on top of growing support from business-minded Republicans. The political network founded by Charles and David Koch recently endorsed Haley, and deep-pocketed donors including Stanley Druckenmiller and Andy Sabin have attended fund-raising events for her.A reality check: Despite skipping all of the Republican primary debates and facing a staggering array of criminal and civil trials, Trump still leads Haley and the rest of the G.O.P. field in polls.And support from Democrats and corporate moguls may not endear Haley to the Republican base that will start voting on the G.O.P. candidate next month: A recent fund-raising email from Trump argued that “globalist special interest donors from both parties” are forging “an unholy alliance to beat us.”Other Republican contenders are faring even worse. The campaign of Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, is in turmoil. Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, barely qualified for the debate and faces calls to drop out to avoid fracturing the anti-Trump opposition. And Vivek Ramaswamy, the outspoken “anti-woke” entrepreneur, is fading in the polls.Some donors are just throwing up their hands. Marc Rowan, the C.E.O. of Apollo Global Management, said that the 2024 race would come down to President Biden and Trump. “Personally, I’m disappointed,” he told Bloomberg on Tuesday.In other 2024 news: Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming representative who vehemently opposes Trump, is weighing a third-party presidential run. And Biden said “I’m not sure I’d be running” for re-election were Trump not in the race for the White House.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING The Supreme Court appears wary of broadly disrupting the U.S. tax code. In oral arguments for Moore v. United States, a majority of justices seemed to favor narrowly upholding a Trump-era one-time tax on foreign income. Legal experts warned that a broad ruling could lead to a redefinition of income, potentially requiring major portions of American tax law to be rewritten.CVS will change how its pharmacies are paid for drugs. The nation’s biggest pharmacy chain said it would move to a system based on how much it pays for medicines, rather than the current model that involves complex formulas. CVS said the new arrangement would give more insight into drug pricing, but skeptics argued that it may not lead to lower costs for consumers.The N.C.A.A.’s president proposes uncapped compensation for college athletes. Charlie Baker suggested that top schools set aside educational trust funds of a minimum of $30,000 annually for at least half of their athletes, and raise compensation for women. The plan — which would take a long time to put in effect — is aimed at helping protect the N.C.A.A. from antitrust inquiries.Patrick McHenry, the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, will retire. The North Carolina Republican, the first interim speaker and a champion of the crypto industry, said he wouldn’t seek re-election. Because of term limits, he wouldn’t be able to hold onto his chairmanship anyway, though his district will most likely remain in Republican hands.Bank bosses head to the Hill The heads of America’s biggest banks, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, are expected to go on the offensive on Wednesday at a Senate Banking Committee hearing, arguing that new regulation would help create further instability in the sector and harm borrowers.Capital rules will be in focus. Industry lobbying groups have pushed back in recent months against the so-called Basel III Endgame that would require banks to keep billions on their books as a backstop for potential losses. (Basel refers to the international banking standards committee.) The Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are among the regulators seeking higher capital requirements after the regional banking crisis set off by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.The hearing may be the bankers’ last best chance to push their case that the Basel proposal should be watered down or scrapped. In prepared remarks, Dimon said the proposal “would unjustifiably and unnecessarily increase capital requirements by 20-25 percent for the largest banks.” That would force lenders to pull back, creating “a harmful ripple effect on the economy, markets, businesses of all sizes and American households,” he said.The proposal would have an inflationary side effect, driving up the cost of credit for its clients, Solomon warned in his prepared remarks, which in turn “will likely get passed on to consumers.”The pushback comes as America’s lenders contend with a slew of challenges. High interest rates and a slowing economy have put the crimp on their core lending business. Banking watchdogs, meanwhile, remain concerned about lenders’ exposure to the pandemic-hit commercial real estate sector.Don’t expect progressive senators to be swayed. In a statement, the committee wrote that “while Wall Street banks argue that stronger rules to protect the public will be too expensive, they are actually making trillions of dollars in profits every year and paying C.E.O.s several hundred times more than their median workers.”Europe races to regulate A.I. The first big regulatory regime for artificial intelligence could be signed as early as Wednesday, with European Union lawmakers in the final stages of debating the A.I. Act. The rules wouldn’t take effect for 18 months, but they represent an effort by governments to catch up with the development of a transformative technology that has exploded into the public consciousness since the introduction of ChatGPT a year ago.Europe has long been one of the most aggressive tech regulators. From data privacy to tech sector M&A, the E.U. has often been ahead of others. But the fast pace of A.I. development is testing regulators’ ability to keep up. The A.I. Act was introduced in 2021, but the tech has advanced significantly during that time. Other governments are deliberating their own rules. President Biden issued an executive order in October focused on A.I. and national security; Japan is drafting nonbinding guidelines for the technology and China has imposed restrictions on certain types of A.I. Last month, Britain hosted an A.I. safety summit for tech leaders and policymakers that included the U.S. and China.E.U. lawmakers are trying to impose guardrails without killing innovation. Some say the rules need to address the underlying technology, and are pushing to stop the use of A.I. in biometric surveillance.But some member states want opt-out options. Last month, France, Germany and Italy came out against strict regulation of general-purpose A.I. models for fear of hurting domestic start-ups. Some member states also want exceptions for national security, defense and military purposes.The latest draft of the A.I. Act focuses on “high risk” uses, including law enforcement, school admissions and hiring. Some applications, like chatbots and software that creates manipulated images, will have to make clear to people that they are A.I.-generated. Congress takes on campus battles The presidents of Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania faced a congressional grilling on Tuesday over a growing wave of hate speech and antisemitism on their campuses that has angered some business leaders and prominent donors since the war in Gaza began in October.College leaders admitted to difficulties in confronting hate and preserving free speech. “I know that I have not always gotten it right,” Claudine Gay, Harvard’s president, told the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. She has come under intense pressure from influential professors, graduates and donors, including the former Treasury secretary Larry Summers and Pershing Square Capital Management’s Bill Ackman, to do more to protect students.After the hearing, Ackman called on all three to “resign in disgrace.” Summers said that Gay’s ideals were “just the right ones,” but that “there’s a lot of work to do.”Preserving students’ safety and civil rights has become a national focus. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights recently opened an investigation into complaints of antisemitism at Harvard. That came after a series of federal civil rights investigations into complaints of discrimination against students at some of America’s most prestigious universities, including Harvard, Penn and Columbia. Some schools have formed new task forces to address the growing concerns.The financial stakes are high. Schools that run afoul of civil rights laws could risk losing federal funding. Meanwhile, major university donors are using their clout to call attention to the rise of antisemitism on campus, pushing schools to do more to address the matter. These wealthy alumni are urging others to fight back, too.“We have our own war here in the U.S.,” Marc Rowan, the C.E.O. of Apollo Global Management, said at a recent fund-raiser. Rowan, who has criticized his alma mater, Penn, for its handling of antisemitism, renewed his call to hold the institutions accountable, “financially or otherwise.”THE SPEED READ DealsShares in British American Tobacco tumbled after the company announced a $31.5 billion write-down of its U.S. cigarette brands, six years after buying Reynolds American for $49 billion. (NYT)Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence start-up, xAI, filed to raise up to $1 billion in new capital. (The Verge)How Jeff Ubben’s second act, as an environmentally minded activist investor, fell apart. (FT)PolicyChina’s leader, Xi Jinping, is conducting a purge of the top ranks of the country’s political system, a move that could have implications for the global economy and regional stability. (Politico)A group of nuns that owns a stake in Smith & Wesson sued the gun maker, arguing that its sales and marketing strategy for the AR-15 rifle is putting shareholders’ investments at risk. (WSJ)Best of the restHollywood actors ratified their union’s labor deal with movie and television studios, but some had reservations about its guardrails on the use of artificial intelligence. (NYT)Israeli securities regulators said they found no trading abnormalities ahead of the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks, after researchers said they had found a spike in short-selling. (Bloomberg)Is it time to give up vinyl records in the name of climate change? (Guardian)We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com. More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Haley and DeSantis Face Off: What to Watch for in the GOP Debate

      by

      Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie will also be onstage, but much of the attention will be on the two Republicans best positioned to become the top challenger to Donald Trump.The debate stage in Tuscaloosa, Ala., will be down to four Republican presidential hopefuls on Wednesday — with the front-runner, Donald J. Trump, still absent — as the imperative to break from the dwindling pack grows more intense less than six weeks before the Iowa caucuses.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, are in a slugfest to claim the mantle of Mr. Trump’s main alternative, and all that would come with that: campaign donations, late endorsements and the possible votes of independents and even Democrats alarmed by Mr. Trump’s authoritarian language and plans to enact a more radical agenda.But the two other candidates onstage, the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, will do all they can to grab the spotlight in the hope of revitalizing their flagging campaigns.Here’s what to watch:Who will stand out on a less crowded stage?After the withdrawal from the presidential race of Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, there will be only four candidates on the debate stage on Wednesday night. Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesThe “will he or won’t he” speculation about whether Mr. Trump would participate in the previous debates in Wisconsin, California and Florida is gone ahead of the gathering in Alabama. The former president’s decision to sit out the events has not hurt his standing in the polls, and the question for many now is whether he would show up to a debate in the general election next fall.But as the field narrows by attrition, the final four will have more time to make an impression on Republican primary voters who have yet to decide.Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota on Monday became the latest candidate to drop from the race, although he had failed to make the stage for the last debate. The withdrawal of Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina will be felt more acutely, since he probably would have qualified for Wednesday’s event. His debate performances were largely unremarkable but he made a small splash in Miami last month when he showed up with his girlfriend.The most memorable lines of the last two debates involved Ms. Haley skewering Mr. Ramaswamy. In September, she told her younger rival, “Every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber,” and last month she called him “just scum.”Those lines raise an important question for Mr. DeSantis as he tries to fend off Ms. Haley’s rise in the polls: Can he take her on more directly and win?Mr. Ramaswamy appears likely to continue his strategy of denigrating and baiting all of his opponents except for Mr. Trump, though the efficacy of his insult-driven blitzkrieg seems to have diminished since he shocked the field in Milwaukee in August. In Iowa City on Saturday, he said he had been “brutally frank in the last debate,” adding, “I don’t intend to stop doing that now.”Mr. Christie faces a loftier question: Is his stated goal of thwarting another Trump presidency better served by dropping out and letting a rival consolidate the anti-Trump vote?Can Haley keep her winning streak alive?The former South Carolina governor has parlayed her debate performances into a real sense of momentum. Yes, she remains far behind Mr. Trump, the man who made her his first United Nations ambassador, in national polling, but her trajectory is on a slow, steady climb, unlike those of her onstage rivals.Wednesday’s debate is the first since the political network founded by the billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch endorsed Ms. Haley, promising to mobilize an army of grass-roots door knockers behind her. It is also the first since Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, began encouraging other major donors and Democrats to back her as the last hope of thwarting Mr. Trump’s nomination.She needs to reassure those new backers that they made a solid bet. To do that, she will have to find the zingers she used to dismantle Mr. Ramaswamy, and turn them on the candidate now in her sights, Mr. DeSantis.She still needs to figure out, however, whether she is the candidate for those inside her party and out who fear and loathe Mr. Trump, or whether she wants to appeal to Trump supporters as a fresh face to pick up his mantle. If she is the former, she may only get so far in a G.O.P. that still broadly approves of the former president. Appealing to Trump likers and loathers has been the trick that no Republican has solved.Can DeSantis wrest the mic from Ramaswamy?Mr. DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, though well-funded, have slipped in the polls.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesAfter taking glancing shots at Mr. Trump for months, Mr. DeSantis laid into him at length on Tuesday.He castigated Mr. Trump for bragging about the endorsement of a Black Lives Matter activist, for criticizing Mr. DeSantis’s strongly anti-abortion record, and for somehow blaming the Florida governor for the College Football Playoff selection committee’s snub of Florida State University, which was not selected to vie for the championship despite an undefeated season. (The University of Alabama, in Tuscaloosa, was the beneficiary of that snub, so watch for college football talk on Wednesday night.)But Mr. DeSantis’s main criticism was of Mr. Trump’s refusal to debate: “I don’t think he can stand there for two hours against me and come out on top,” he said. “I think they know that, and I think that’s why they’re not doing it.”Clashing with Mr. Trump is vital; after all, you can’t win the nomination without beating the front-runner. But Mr. DeSantis has to blunt Ms. Haley’s rise as well.In Tuscaloosa, Mr. DeSantis needs to take the microphone away from Mr. Ramaswamy, who has faded to fourth place in national polling averages. Ms. Haley, by contrast, is now solidly in second place in New Hampshire, neck and neck with Mr. DeSantis in Iowa and threatening him nationally.Mr. DeSantis’s pressing task is to reassert his status as the Trump alternative, and for him to do that, the debate cannot devolve again into a cage match between Ms. Haley and Mr. Ramaswamy.What is Chris Christie’s endgame?Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, barely qualified for Wednesday’s debate.John Tully for The New York TimesFor reasons of ego, unrelenting self-confidence or designs on his future, Mr. Ramaswamy, a political neophyte with nary an elected office to his name, is probably not leaving the primary race anytime soon. The money he is spending from his own bank accounts — $17 million as of Sept. 30 — can keep his campaign afloat as long as he wishes.Mr. Christie is, in many respects, Mr. Ramaswamy’s opposite, a career public servant without a vast fortune to tap, whose campaign’s raison d’être is to diminish Mr. Trump’s stature, not to lionize him as the 21st century’s greatest president. But the former New Jersey governor finds himself at a crossroads in Tuscaloosa.He barely made the debate stage, just qualifying under the Republican National Committee’s tightening requirements — polling at 6 percent or higher in national or early-state polling, and garnering 80,000 unique donors.And his third-place status in New Hampshire, with around 12 percent of the vote, could be seen either as a strength or as a spoiler for the aspirations of the candidate in second place, Ms. Haley, who needs a strong showing in the Granite State to slingshot her into the primary contest in her home state, South Carolina.Mr. Christie continues to denounce Mr. Trump’s fitness for office in ways his Republican rivals won’t, challenging the former president as a would-be dictator threatening to end democracy as we know it. But that line of attack has proved ineffective among Republican primary voters.Megyn Kelly is back. How will she handle the absent Trump?Megyn Kelly, right, preparing for a Republican presidential debate in Detroit during the 2016 campaign. Donald J. Trump attacked her during that cycle’s debates. Richard Perry/The New York TimesThe 2016 presidential campaign might seem like ancient history, but for many Americans, Mr. Trump’s treatment of Megyn Kelly, then a Fox News anchor, during the debates secured his reputation as a misogynist.After Ms. Kelly questioned him forcefully in one debate, he came back with, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” Ms. Kelly was defiant in the face of angry Trump supporters, declaring that she would “not apologize for doing good journalism.”Wednesday’s debate, which will be carried by a cable news newcomer, NewsNation, will have a considerably smaller audience than those Fox showdowns in 2015 and no Mr. Trump — but Ms. Kelly, who now hosts “The Megyn Kelly Show” on Sirius XM, will be back.No doubt, she will be tough on the four participants. The question is, how hard will she press them to take on Mr. Trump?Ms. Kelly will be sharing the moderators’ desk with Elizabeth Vargas of NewsNation and Eliana Johnson of the Washington Free Beacon, an all-female panel tilted to the right. The debate will be televised on the CW starting at 8 p.m. Eastern time, and streamed on the NewsNation website and the conservative social media site Rumble.Anjali Huynh More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Top Democratic Donor Gave $250,000 to a Nikki Haley Super PAC

      by

      Mr. Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, has funded an array of anti-Trump candidates and causes.When Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, urged Democratic donors last week to rally behind Nikki Haley to provide Republican voters an alternative to former President Donald J. Trump, it seemed a far-fetched plea.But at least one of the Democratic Party’s biggest financiers has already done exactly that.Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn and a major Democratic donor, recently gave $250,000 to a super PAC supporting Ms. Haley, the former South Carolina governor who has gained momentum in recent weeks in the 2024 Republican primary race. The donation, which has not been previously reported, was confirmed by Dmitri Mehlhorn, a political adviser to Mr. Hoffman.The pro-Haley super PAC, SFA Fund Inc., was asked specifically by Mr. Hoffman’s political team if it would take money from Mr. Hoffman, given that he is a Democrat who actively supports President Biden, Mr. Mehlhorn said. The super PAC, he added, said yes.The pro-Haley super PAC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.SFA Fund Inc. has been one of the biggest players in the 2024 Republican primary race, spending more than $33 million on advertising and other expenses. Its biggest contributors in the first half of the year were Jan Koum, a co-founder of WhatsApp, who gave $5 million, and the venture capitalist Tim Draper, who gave $1.25 million. Mr. Koum has since given an additional $5 million, which Puck News first reported.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?  More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Primaries Are Not the Most Democratic Way to Choose a Presidential Nominee

      by

      Is the Democratic Party making a mistake by renominating President Biden to face the likely Republican nominee, Donald Trump, in 2024? A nontrivial number of voices in and outside the party seem to think so.But it’s already a mostly moot point. The system Americans use to nominate presidential candidates is not well equipped to make swift strategic adjustments. Voters choose candidates in a sequence of state-level primaries and caucuses. Those contests select delegates and instruct them on how to vote at a nominating convention. It’s an ungainly and convoluted process, and politicians begin positioning themselves a year in advance to succeed in it.It wasn’t always this way, and it doesn’t have to be. Political parties in most democracies have the power to choose their leaders without going through a monthslong gantlet.The best way for a party to choose its leader is for that party to convene, confer and compromise on a candidate who serves its agenda and appeals to voters. The conventions of the mid-20th century, deeply flawed as they were, were designed for that purpose. If those flaws were fixed, they would be far better than what we use today.Should Mr. Biden run again or step aside? On the one hand, he has stubbornly low approval ratings, and a number of polls show him trailing Mr. Trump. On the other hand, polling a year out is often misleading, and so are job approval ratings in a polarized age. Mr. Biden is old, but so is Mr. Trump, and Mr. Biden defeated him last time.Replacing an incumbent president with another nominee is very rare and probably should be. But a convention could do it if necessary. In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson stepped down at the beginning of the year, and Democrats could realistically expect to find a nominee before Election Day.The system was different then. When Mr. Johnson decided not to run for re-election, he declared, “I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”The “and I will not accept” matters. Mr. Johnson was acknowledging that the party might nominate him even if he didn’t run. In 1968, when the decision was made at the national convention, the party could do that. That’s not something it can easily do today.Only a small fraction of states held primaries that year, and most of those didn’t commit delegates. Primaries were a tool to gauge public support, not make the final decision. Hubert Humphrey, the eventual nominee, won no primaries or caucuses. Instead, he won with support of unpledged delegates selected through state conventions — delegates who represented an older, more establishment part of the party.The apparent injustice of Mr. Humphrey winning the nomination without winning primaries was a big part of how we got to our current system. Many members of the Democratic Party felt that their perspectives weren’t well represented by those establishment delegates; their voices were being heard in the primaries and caucuses.The party set out to create a national convention that was more representative of the party, but what evolved was something else, the system we use today — the one that has all but locked us into a candidate almost a year out from Election Day.Early states winnow the field. The next states largely determine who the nominee is. States that vote late in the process often have little effect. Success depends on the ability to stand up a campaign in state after state in the first few months of the year, which in turn depends on the ability to raise money and attract media attention. It’s a process, not a simple decision.This system could produce a candidate who is battle tested by the primaries and otherwise broadly popular. It might also select a candidate who appeals narrowly to a group of dedicated followers, especially in early states, where a close victory can be leveraged into later success. (Think of Mr. Trump in 2016.)In no way does it let party leaders take stock of an awkward situation, such as what Democrats face now (low approval ratings for an incumbent) or, for that matter, what Republicans face (a front-runner facing multiple indictments).Party leaders are not completely helpless. In “The Party Decides,” the political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol and John Zaller and I argued that party activists and leaders could exert a lot of influence on their party’s choice — so much so that they typically get their way. When they can agree on a satisfactory candidate, they can help direct resources to that candidate and help that person stay in the race if he or she stumbles. (Think of Mr. Biden in 2020.)But that takes time. It is, at best, a blunt instrument (hence its failure among Republicans in 2016). The nomination is still won in the primaries, and an incumbent is especially hard to replace.Most democracies give far less power than that to a single political leader, even an incumbent or influential former leader. Healthy parties can limit their leaders.Empowering the Democrats to replace Mr. Biden or the Republicans to move on from Mr. Trump would come with costs. A party that could persuade a sitting president to stand down would also have the power to persuade outsiders, like Bernie Sanders and Mr. Trump, to not run at all.For some, giving party leaders this kind of influence is unsettling. It shouldn’t be. The job of choosing a nominee is complicated. It involves the strategic trade-off between what kind of candidate can win in November and what kind of candidate represents what the party wants in a leader.Letting the party make these decisions is not inherently undemocratic. Just as voters select members of Congress, who then gain expertise, forge compromises and bargain to make policy, so too could voters select party delegates, who would then choose nominees and shape their party’s platform.Polling and even primaries could continue to play a role. In many years, the voice of the party’s voters might speak loudly, and party leaders would simply heed it. In other years, such as for Democrats in 2008, voter preferences might be more mixed. It’s worth noting that in 2008, Democratic superdelegates (those not bound by the results of any primary) switched their support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama after seeing his appeal in the primaries. If all of the delegates had been free to switch, would the outcome have been the same? We don’t know, but in a representative democracy, elected representatives do often listen to voters.In other words, the development of a more active, empowered party convention would not have to be a return to the past. The nomination of Mr. Humphrey in 1968 was a problem, but it wasn’t because the decision was made at a convention. It was because the delegates at that convention didn’t represent the party’s voters.Moving the decision back to the convention would not be a trivial matter. Even if voters and politicians could adjust to the change — a big if — each party would need to select representative and competent delegates. Our experience with representative democracy should tell us that this is possible but far from inevitable.But such a convention would still be superior to the current system, in which a small number of voters in a handful of states choose from a pool of self-selected candidates who have been tested mostly by their ability to raise money and get attention in debates.Both of these systems have a claim to being democratic. But only the first would give the party the kind of agency implied by claims that it is making a mistake by renominating the incumbent.Hans Noel, an associate professor of government at Georgetown, is the author of “Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America” and a co-author of “Political Parties” and “The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform.”Source images by Drew Angerer, Rost-9D, and ajt/Getty ImagesThe Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More