More stories

  • in

    Candidates Look to Cash In on First G.O.P. Debate — Especially Haley and Pence

    Campaigns saw the nationally televised event, the first of the 2024 campaign, not just as a way to reach voters, but also as an appeal to donors big and small.Eric J. Tanenblatt, a top fund-raiser for former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, woke up Thursday morning in his Milwaukee hotel room to dozens of enthusiastic text messages and emails from donors expressing admiration for Ms. Haley’s performance, particularly her command of foreign policy and handling of questions about abortion.“Donors who have been sitting on the sidelines are now taking another look,” said Mr. Tanenblatt, an Atlanta businessman who has known Ms. Haley since she was a state legislator and attended the debate Wednesday night. “Obviously I am somewhat biased, but I think last night was a really good night for Nikki Haley.”Mr. Tanenblatt was not alone in his assessment. In conversations with more than a dozen Republican donors — including undecided backers and some who support other candidates — Ms. Haley was singled out as the night’s standout. The question now becomes whether her debate performance will translate into dollars.For years, the Republican money class has been seeking an alternative — any alternative — to former President Donald J. Trump. In some ways, donors were the most consequential audience for Wednesday night’s debate, and many of them, including those who have not yet backed a candidate this cycle, were in Milwaukee.While the official fund-raising totals won’t be known until October, when campaign quarterly filings are due, there were signs within hours of the debate — flurries of text messages, requests for introductions to campaigns and reports of fresh contributions — that the candidates’ performances, even if they might not change hearts and minds, could move piles of cash.A spokeswoman for Ms. Haley declined to release detailed numbers, but said the campaign had raised more money online in the 24 hours after the debate than it had on any day since the campaign started. “The response to Nikki’s debate performance has been overwhelming,” said the spokeswoman, Nachama Soloveichik.Former Vice President Mike Pence, whom the donors also identified as having a good night onstage, also saw an uptick, according to his campaign. Marc Short, a top adviser to Mr. Pence, said it had taken in at least 1,000 new contributions overnight. While most were smaller donors — valuable because they can sustain a campaign in the long term — “the bigger breakthrough last night was the major donors,” he said, including some who had funded other candidates but held back on Mr. Pence.“I think there’s been a large number of supporters who have been on the sidelines but have been looking for some of that spark,” Mr. Short said. “I think many of them saw that last night.”The immediate feedback reflected the traditional sympathies of major Republican donors. They favored candidates who they felt came off as authoritative but not obnoxious, with established résumés and hawkish foreign policy views. They also, naturally, tended to see their preferred candidates’ performances through hopeful eyes.These tendencies have proved to be blind spots before, especially in the face of the unwavering support of the small donor base that remains fiercely loyal to Mr. Trump. Several major donors downplayed the significance of the immediate returns, saying that no debate-dollar bump could surmount Mr. Trump’s popularity. Some who attended the debate described it as something of a social occasion or a sideshow.Unsurprisingly, the candidate who most defended — and sounded like — Mr. Trump on Wednesday night, Vivek Ramaswamy, was also the candidate who most rankled the high-dollar donors. Several of them said they thought Mr. Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur and author, had overplayed his hand, citing his bombast and confrontational style.“Vivek made a complete jackass out of himself,” said Andy Sabin, a major donor to Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. “He is so clueless about what’s going on in this country.”But his performance appeared to have appeal for some small-dollar donors. A spokeswoman for Mr. Ramaswamy, Tricia McLaughlin, said the campaign raised $625,000 in the 24 hours after the start of the debate — the biggest single fund-raising day of the campaign, with an average donation size of $38.“Unlike some donor-favorite candidates onstage,” Ms. McLaughlin said, “Vivek is not worried about what the donor class has to say about his politics and performance, which is why he is unconstrained in speaking the truth.”Mr. Sabin said he thought Mr. Scott had “done what he was supposed to do,” but the crowded, fast-paced format, in which candidates frequently talked over the moderators, made it hard for Mr. Scott to stand out. Money is less of a concern for Mr. Scott than for Mr. Pence or Ms. Haley: His campaign had $21 million on hand at the end of June, and groups supporting him have spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising in the early states.“Tim stayed out of trouble and out of the fray, had good answers,” Mr. Sabin said. “He probably should have been more involved in this, but I don’t think that had anything to do with him.”A major donor to Senator Tim Scott said the debate’s crowded, fast-paced format made it hard for the candidate to stand out.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesGov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who went into the debate with the highest poll numbers of any candidate on the stage, was also quieter than many had expected.Some unaffiliated donors said it was a missed opportunity for Mr. DeSantis. Among the backers of other candidates, Bill Bean, an Indiana businessman and longtime supporter of Mr. Pence, said Mr. DeSantis “did not have that moment where he just separated himself from the whole field that I think some people were looking for.”The days after the debate kicked off a major slate of campaign travel and new ads for Mr. DeSantis, according to Jay Zeidman, a major DeSantis fund-raiser. “We view this as the turn of a new chapter,” he said — a reference, in part, to the turbulence of the governor’s campaign in recent months, as his poll numbers have lagged. Mr. DeSantis’s super PAC, Never Back Down, confirmed that it would spend $25 million on ads in Iowa and New Hampshire in the next two months, a buy that was first reported by The Washington Post.Mr. Pence, who has struggled to gain traction in the race and still lags far behind his rivals in fund-raising, spoke the most of any candidate on the stage last night, and many donors took notice.“There was a lot of energy there,” said Mr. Tanenblatt, the Haley donor. “I think that surprised people.”Several bundlers and donors — some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they still plan to support Mr. Trump — suggested that Mr. Pence’s performance and steadfast appeal to evangelicals were likely to help him in Iowa, which is crucial to his campaign.Before Wednesday’s debate, Mr. Bean, who has given $100,000 to a super PAC supporting Mr. Pence, hoped that Mr. Pence would have the opportunity to “show the American people who he really is.”That objective was largely met, Mr. Bean said, although he felt the debate format was too fast-paced and chaotic to give any candidate enough time to cover significant topics.“The biggest thing that was accomplished last night,” Mr. Bean said, was that Mr. Pence “moved past the Jan. 6 issue, which I thought was probably the biggest single thing out there that he had to do.” More

  • in

    Raising a Hand for Donald Trump, the Man in the Mug Shot

    One by one, some with a little hesitation, six hands went up on the debate stage Wednesday night when the eight Republican candidates answered whether they would support Donald Trump for president if he were a convicted criminal. Hand-raising is a juvenile and reductive exercise in any political debate, but it’s worth unpacking this moment, which provides clarity into the damage that Mr. Trump has inflicted on his own party.Six people who themselves want to lead their country think it would be fine to have a convicted felon as the nation’s chief executive. Six candidates apparently would not be bothered to see Mr. Trump stand on the Capitol steps in 2025 and swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, no matter if he had been convicted by a jury of violating that same Constitution by (take your choice) conspiracy to obstruct justice, lying to the U.S. government, racketeering and conspiracy to commit forgery, or conspiracy to defraud the United States. (The Fox News hosts, trying to race through the evening’s brief Trump section so they could move on to more important questions about invading Mexico, didn’t dwell on which charges qualified for a hand-raise. So any of them would do.)There was never any question that Vivek Ramaswamy’s hand would shoot up first. But even Nikki Haley, though she generally tried to position herself as a reasonable alternative to Mr. Ramaswamy’s earsplitting drivel, raised her hand. So did Ron DeSantis, after peeking around to see what the other kids were doing. And Mike Pence’s decision to join this group, while proudly boasting of his constitutional bona fides for simply doing his job on Jan. 6, 2021, demonstrated the cognitive dissonance at the heart of his candidacy.Only Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson demonstrated some respect for the rule of law by opposing the election of a criminal. Mr. Hutchinson said Mr. Trump was “morally disqualified” from being president because of what happened on Jan. 6, and made the interesting argument that he may also be legally disqualified under the 14th Amendment for inciting an insurrection. Mr. Christie said the country had to stop “normalizing” Mr. Trump’s conduct, which he said was beneath the office of president. Though he was accused by Mr. Ramaswamy of the base crime of trying to become an MSNBC contributor, Mr. Christie managed to say something that sounded somewhat forthright: “I am not going to bow to anyone when we have a president of the United States who disrespects the Constitution.” For this Mr. Christie and Mr. Hutchinson were both roundly booed.It’s important to understand the implications of what those six candidates were saying, particularly after watching Mr. Trump turn himself in on Thursday at the Fulton County Jail to be booked on the racketeering charge and 12 other counts of breaking Georgia law. Only Mr. Ramaswamy was willing to utter the words, amid his talk about shutting down the F.B.I. and instantly pardoning Mr. Trump, saying Mr. Trump was charged with “politicized indictments” and calling the justice system “corrupt.”“We cannot set a precedent where the party in power uses police force to indict its political opponents,” he said. “It is wrong. We have to end the weaponization of justice in this country.”This is the argument that Mr. Trump has been making for months, of course, but when more than three-fourths of the main players in the Republican field supports it, it essentially means that a major political party has given up on the nation’s criminal justice system. The party thinks indictments are weapons and prosecutors are purely political agents. The rule of law hardly has a perfect record in this country and its inequities are many, but when a political party says that the criminal justice system has become politicized, and that the indictments of three prosecutors in separate jurisdictions are meaningless, it begins to dissolve the country’s bedrock.Mr. Pence said he wished that issues surrounding the 2020 election had not risen to criminal proceedings, but they did, because two prosecutors chose to do their jobs faithfully, just as the former vice president did on Jan. 6. He piously told the audience that his oath of office in 2017 was made not just to the American people, but “to my heavenly father.” But any religious moralizing about that oath was debased when he said he was willing to support as president a man whose mug shot was taken Thursday at a squalid jail in Atlanta, who was fingerprinted and had his body dimensions listed and released on bond like one of the shoplifters and car burglars who were also processed in the jail the same day.Apparently Thursday’s proceedings were a meaningless farce to Mr. Pence, Ms. Haley and the other four. But most Americans still have enough respect for the legal system that they don’t consider being booked a particularly frivolous or rebellious act. The charges against Mr. Trump are not for civil disobedience or crimes of conscience; they accuse him of grave felonies committed entirely for the corrupt purpose of holding onto power.Being booked and mug-shotted for these kinds of crimes represents degradation to most people, despite the presumption of innocence that still applies at the trial level. How does a parent explain to a child why a man in a mug shot might be the nation’s next leader? That should be a very difficult conversation, unless you happen to be a Republican candidate for president.Source photographs by Erik S Lesser/EPA, via Shutterstock and Fulton County Sheriff’s Office, via Associated Press.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, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    Vivek Ramaswamy Is Happy to Be Talked About, Even if His Name Is Said Wrong

    At the debate and on the campaign trail, rivals, pundits and voters have stumbled on his name. (Rhymes with “cake,” he says.)To former Vice President Mike Pence, he’s “Vih-veck.” To a “Fox and Friends” panelist on Thursday morning, he was “Vee-veck.” And to some Iowa voters, it’s “Vy-vick” — if they said his name at all.Vivek Ramaswamy, a tech entrepreneur running for president who has climbed the polls in recent weeks, has branded himself as a political newcomer who, despite participating in his first Republican debate Wednesday night, seemed at ease bringing the event to near-chaos several times as he sparred with the likes of Mr. Pence and Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor.A different hurdle he may face, however, is getting others to say his name correctly.The son of Indian Americans, Mr. Ramaswamy has both leaned into and away from his racial background. He has often expressed gratitude that his parents immigrated to the “greatest nation on Earth,” and on Wednesday, he echoed a line from former President Barack Obama’s speech onstage when he introduced himself as a “skinny guy with a funny last name.” (Mr. Ramaswamy has said that “Vivek” rhymes with “cake” and pronounces his last name “Rah-muh-swah-mee.”)When Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, asked after the debate why Mr. Ramaswamy hadn’t corrected the mispronunciation sooner, the candidate laughed and said, “I appreciate best efforts.”Karthick Ramakrishnan, the director of AAPI Data, said that because Mr. Ramaswamy is running as an “insurgent candidate with radical ideas,” it “wouldn’t make sense for him to start policing, or suggesting how others should be pronouncing his name.” (One of the “10 commandments” in Mr. Ramaswamy’s platform asserts that “reverse racism is racism.”)“It’s a recognition that different people may be at different stages along the way in terms of even knowing who he is and how to pronounce his name,” Mr. Ramakrishnan said. “He is trying to activate a generational kind of debate and divide in America that needs to be addressed and to move away from racial identity politics.”Nicole Holliday, a linguistics professor at Pomona College, attributed the struggle for some to pronounce names correctly to a number of factors, including a sentiment that “English speakers in general expect to be accommodated everywhere in the world” and a lack of foreign language training in the United States from an early age.Past presidential candidates from diverse racial backgrounds have faced racist insults related to their names. In 2020, David Perdue, then a senator from Georgia, faced a backlash after he appeared to make fun of Kamala Harris’s name at a rally just before the November election: “Ka-ma-la, Ka-ma-la, Kamala-mala-mala, I don’t know, whatever.” And some critics of Mr. Obama often invoked his middle name — Hussein — to falsely claim that he was Muslim.Of the few prominent South Asians in G.O.P. politics, many have used names friendly to a less-diverse voter base. Bobby Jindal, the former Republican governor of Louisiana, changed his name from Piyush to Bobby when he was young. And Nikki Haley, another Indian American in the 2024 presidential race, has long used Nikki, her middle name, instead of her first name, Nimarata.While the overwhelming majority of Indian Americans are Democrats, a 2020 survey of Indian American voters found that almost 60 percent said they would be open to supporting an Indian American candidate “regardless of their party affiliation.”Mr. Ramaswamy’s name mispronunciations are all too familiar for South Asian Americans, said Sara Sadhwani, a political science professor at Pomona College. But, she noted, the acknowledgment of such mispronunciations by Mr. Hannity and others may point to a “slow recognition” among Republicans that “not only do we need to diversify, but we’ll have to be respectful to some extent of the folks who we’re able to bring to the table.”Beyond his name, Mr. Ramaswamy may “hit a ceiling” as a result of his Hindu faith, predicted Mr. Ramakrishnan, the AAPI Data founder.On Wednesday, the conservative commentator Ann Coulter made a comment largely condemned as racist, on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, that “Nikki and Vivek are involved in some Hindu business, it seems. Not our fight.” (Ms. Haley was raised Sikh but later converted to Christianity.)“Ann can tweet whatever she wants to,” Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Ramaswamy campaign, said of the comment. “Vivek has traveled this country and is very grateful for the warm support he has received from Christian voters across the country.” More

  • in

    On Immigration, Republican Candidates Show Little Disagreement at Debate

    Donald Trump’s signature issue from 2016 still reverberates powerfully and prompts aggressive rhetoric on ways to shore up the southern U.S. border.Asked whether he would send special forces into Mexico to combat drug cartels, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida didn’t hesitate to swing for the fences.“Yes, and I will do it on day one,” he said.He pledged to declare a national emergency and added: “When these drug pushers are bringing fentanyl across the border, that is going to be the last thing they do. We are going to use force and leave them stone-cold dead.”Republicans participating in the first presidential debate on Wednesday traded barbs and clashed repeatedly over abortion, climate change and how much fealty they owe to former President Donald J. Trump.But, when it came to immigration, there was little disagreement, only efforts to outdo each other in offering aggressive recommendations for military responses to unauthorized immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border. The overwhelming majority of illicit substances are brought into the United States in commercial vehicles coming through official ports of entry, rather than by migrants, according to law enforcement.Former Vice President Mike Pence did say that the United States would partner with the Mexican military, “and we will hunt down and destroy the cartels that are claiming lives in the United States.”During the debate, there were almost no evocations of immigration as one of the triumphant strains in the American tapestry, just a steady drumbeat of menace. In part, that reflects the degree to which Donald Trump’s signature issue has become so ingrained in the Republican playbook and psyche.But it also reflects the steady toll from drugs smuggled across the border, especially fentanyl, and the bitter trail of addiction and death that has stalked Americans across barriers of race, geography and class.As a result, like so much else in Republican politics, proposals that were once fringe have become mainstream since Mr. Trump made the border a core issue of his 2016 campaign and, once elected, of his domestic political agenda.Cars lining up to cross into the U.S. via Tijuana, Mexico, earlier this year. Drug smuggling across the border has been cited by Republican candidates as a main reason to secure the border.Guillermo Arias/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesRepublican candidates in this campaign cycle have picked up his baton, embracing ideas that would have been deemed unthinkable before the Trump presidency.For months, they have amped up their rhetoric about the southern border, raising the prospect of sending military troops to target drug cartels and stop what they call an invasion of migrants. And polls show growing frustration among many demographic groups, including Democrats, about the influx of migrants, which has created chaotic scenes at the border in recent years and strained cities, from New York to Denver, where many of the arrivals have ended up.But there are clear partisan divides, with two-thirds of Republicans saying that there should be fewer immigrants and asylum-seekers allowed into the country, compared to about a quarter of Democrats, according to an Associated Press poll earlier this year.A poll by Gallup in July found that the percentage of Americans who believe immigration is a “good thing” is the lowest since 2014. The poll found a growing minority — 41 percent — of Americans believe immigration should be decreased, with Republicans far more likely to say so than Democrats. Still, a majority of Americans polled remain largely supportive of immigration and opposed to decreasing the number of immigrants.The political fallout has been especially sharp in New York, where more than 100,000 migrants have arrived, with nearly 60,000 of those staying in shelters.A poll released this week by the Siena College Research Institute found that large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents in both the city and upstate New York believe the migrants, many of them asylum-seekers, pose a “serious problem” for the state.Roughly 46 percent of voters said that migrants resettling in New York in the last two decades have been more of a “burden” than a “benefit” to the state. Nearly 60 percent said that “New Yorkers have already done enough for new migrants and should now work to slow the flow” rather than “accept new migrants and work to assimilate them into New York.”Unauthorized border crossings have declined in recent months, a result of measures that the Biden administration has introduced to enable people to enter the United States in a more orderly fashion, such as by making an appointment on a government mobile app for an interview with U.S. authorities at the border or being sponsored by a relative already in the country.During Wednesday’s debate, the fentanyl crisis loomed large, with the candidates invoking overdose deaths as emblematic of the border crisis.Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina called for firing 87,000 newly hired I.R.S. agents and doubling the number of border patrol agents. “The most pressing need of the American people is our southern border,” he said.“If we spend $10 billion, we could finish the wall,” he said. “For $5 billion more, we could have the military-grade technology to surveil our southern border to stop the flow of fentanyl and save 70,000 Americans a year. “Vivek Ramaswamy, who has called for securing the border by any means necessary, including with military force, said that resources the United States has been sending to Ukraine should be employed instead to “protect against the invasion across our southern border.”Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, called for the detention of everyone entering the country unlawfully.But in a rare sentiment respectful of immigration at the debate, he said, “We have so many wonderful people from around the world who are waiting in line following the law to try to come here and pursue the American dream. Those people are waiting and waiting and waiting because we haven’t dealt with the problem of the folks who are here.”President Biden has repeatedly reminded Americans that only Congress can fix the broken immigration system. But, in an increasingly polarized political environment, prospects for a legislative solution backed by both parties have only become dimmer. More

  • in

    Our Writers Pick the Winners, Losers and ‘the Star of the Evening’ From the First Republican Debate

    Welcome to Opinion’s commentary for the first Republican presidential primary candidate debate, held in Milwaukee on Wednesday night. In this special feature, Times Opinion writers and contributors rank the candidates on a scale of 0 to 10: 0 means the candidate probably didn’t belong on the stage and should have dropped out before the debate […] More

  • in

    It’s Clear That Ron DeSantis Is No Longer on the Rise, but Someone Else Is

    In a crowded debate, you can tell which candidates are seen as the greatest threat because they take the most incoming fire from their rivals.During the Republican presidential primary debate on Wednesday night, that person wasn’t Ron DeSantis, who was once considered Donald Trump’s greatest threat, but Vivek Ramaswamy, a 38-year-old political upstart with little chance of actually securing the nomination.Watching the DeSantis campaign collapse has been an extraordinarily edifying spectacle.There would have been no DeSantis without Trump. Trump endorsed DeSantis for governor of Florida when DeSantis was struggling against a strong Republican opponent for the party’s nomination. DeSantis rode Trump’s endorsement to victory.So, there was always something in the DeSantis campaign that knew that he was Macbeth coming to kill his king. The only problem was that DeSantis had ambition, but not the bloodlust. He lacks the courage, which is ironic given that he wrote a book before his run titled “The Courage to Be Free.”Instead of making the case to voters that Trump was unfit, he is counting on Trump’s martyrdom being his downfall. His gamble has yet to pay off.In addition, DeSantis has a chronic personality problem. He simply doesn’t connect with people. He smiles the way a Doberman bares its teeth: It feels forced, aggressive and dangerous. You feel like you should retreat from it. And when he’s not forcing a smile, he reflexively scowls. He has a resting wince face.He is not just emotionally aloof, but completely detached. He abides in aggression because the rest of the emotional range has either atrophied or failed to develop in the first place. In fact, during debate prep in 2018, one of his advisers told him that on the debate stage he would need to write “LIKABLE” in all caps at the top of his note pad.On Wednesday, DeSantis dispensed with that advice. He leaned into the aggression. But no one engaged. No one even responded. He was largely ignored by the other candidates, and the only thing that cuts deeper than disparagement is indifference.Instead, Ramaswamy was the target onstage, and he ate up the attention.Ever since the rise of Barack Obama and Republicans’ unseemly reaction to it, the party has entertained exotica. In 2011, Herman “9-9-9” Cain surged in the G.O.P. field for a while. In 2015, Ben “no Muslims as president” Carson led Trump in the polls for a moment.They are the amuse-bouche, the tasty appetizer before the party gets serious and sits for the meal.Now it is Ramaswamy’s turn.At one point, Chris Christie attempted to insult Ramaswamy by saying that “the last person at one of these debates who stood in the middle of the stage and said, ‘What’s a skinny guy with an odd last name doing up here,’ was Barack Obama, and I’m afraid we’re dealing with the same type of amateur.”Ramaswamy glowed at the comparison and shot back: “Give me a hug just like you did to Obama, and you’ll help elect me just like you did to Obama too.”Let’s be clear: Vivek, you are no Barack.You have a shallow, CliffsNotes understanding of the issues, but because you speak with speed and confidence, polished diction and a toothy grin, the incoherence is disguised by the delivery. Ramaswamy is the kind of person who gets hired for charisma rather than competence.At points, it seems obvious that he is being intentionally contrarian, outlandish and provocative in his proposals and pronouncements in order to provoke a reaction and garner more attention. In doing so, he is the personification of click bait.He is also positioning himself as inseparable from Trump. Not a competitor of Trump, but a superfan. He doesn’t want to replace him; he wants to merge with him. Ramaswamy is so close to the former president that he’s like the joey in the pouch to Trump’s kangaroo.This ingratiates him not only to Trump’s voters but to Trump himself, because Trump appreciates nothing more than devotion and loyalty.This had to hurt DeSantis. He is consumed by a class complex. As DeSantis wrote in his book, he was a “blue-collar kid,” an every-Sunday-service Catholic, who made his way to the Ivy League, where he believed his wealthy classmates looked down on the working class as not “sufficiently sophisticated.” He is still fighting to prove that he belongs, to prove that his worldview is not only valid but superior.And along comes Ramaswamy, also wealthier and more polished than him, to once again steal his shine, to make him feel small and insignificant.There were points during the debate when Ramaswamy sparred with Mike Pence and Chris Christie while literally looking past DeSantis as if he wasn’t there.DeSantis didn’t crash and burn Wednesday night. He made no real errors. He stayed on message and forcefully delivered his points. But the debate delivered its own point to him: His star is setting while another rises.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 and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More

  • in

    When Is the Second Debate, and Who Will Be There?

    The Republican National Committee will hold its second primary debate on Sept. 27 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California.Eight Republicans clawed their way onto the stage on Wednesday for the first presidential primary debate, with some using gimmicks and giveaways to meet the party’s criteria.That may not cut it next time.To qualify for the second debate, which will be held on Sept. 27 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., candidates must register at least 3 percent support in a minimum of two national polls accepted by the Republican National Committee, according to a person familiar with the party’s criteria. That is up from the 1 percent threshold for Wednesday’s debate.Organizers will also recognize a combination of one national poll and polls from at least two of the following early nominating states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The R.N.C. is also lifting its fund-raising benchmarks. Only candidates who have received financial support from 50,000 donors will make the debate stage, which is 10,000 more than they needed for the first debate. They must also have at least 200 donors in 20 or more states or territories.Candidates will still be required to sign a loyalty pledge promising to support the eventual Republican nominee, something that former President Donald J. Trump refused to do before skipping Wednesday’s debate. He has suggested that he is not likely to participate in the next one either.As of Wednesday, seven Republicans were averaging at least 3 percent support in national polls, according to FiveThirtyEight, a polling aggregation site.That list included Mr. Trump, who is leading Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida by an average of more than 30 percentage points; the multimillionaire entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy; former Vice President Mike Pence; Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina; Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and Mr. Trump’s United Nations ambassador; and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.Based on the R.N.C.’s polling requirements, Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas governor, are in jeopardy of not qualifying for the second debate, which will be televised by Fox Business.Both candidates resorted to unusual tactics to qualify for the first one.Mr. Burgum, a wealthy former software executive, offered $20 gift cards to anyone who gave at least $1 to his campaign, while Politico reported that Mr. Hutchinson had paid college students for each person they could persuade to contribute to his campaign. More

  • in

    Republicans’ Debate Clashes Highlight Party’s Policy Splits

    At the first presidential debate for the 2024 race, the rivals were divided over issues including Ukraine, abortion and the economy.The Republican presidential candidates clashed on Wednesday night over military support for Ukraine, government spending, abortion policy and the behavior of former President Donald J. Trump — who declined to participate — while uniting to assail the agenda of President Biden in the first primary debate of the 2024 election cycle.The debate, which grew contentious and fiery at times, underscored the rifts within the Republican Party and the sharp policy shifts that the United States could experience if Mr. Biden is defeated by one of his Republican challengers next year. The candidates generally painted a dark picture of a United States gripped by inflation and an influx of immigrants. But fault lines emerged over how forcefully to confront Russia, how far abortion restrictions should go, the causes of climate change and the fate of Mr. Trump, who was described by one moderator as the “elephant not in the room.”Although the candidates are still refining their policy platforms, the debate offered the first glimpse at how their agendas would differ from one another and from a second Trump administration.What to do about TrumpMost of the candidates responded cautiously when asked if they would support Mr. Trump if he is convicted of any crimes but wins the party’s nomination. But the most direct clash over the issue was between Vivek Ramaswamy, the upstart businessman, and Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey.Mr. Ramaswamy emerged as an ardent defender of Mr. Trump, calling him the best president of the 21st century and accusing Mr. Biden of sending a police force after him. Mr. Christie, who was met with boos from the audience, responded that Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results were beneath the office of the presidency and that he would always uphold the Constitution.The debate then shifted to the question of whether Mr. Trump should be pardoned of any crimes. Mr. Ramaswamy said unequivocally that if elected, he would pardon the former president, while Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s former vice president, suggested that he would consider it if Mr. Trump showed contrition for his actions.The line of questioning was especially tricky for Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has tried to steer clear of commenting on Mr. Trump’s legal troubles. When pressed to answer whether Mr. Pence did the correct thing when he certified the 2020 election, Mr. DeSantis eventually acknowledged that the former vice president did his duty and then quickly tried to move on.The uncertain fate of Ukraine aidThe stakes of the presidential election are particularly high for Ukraine, which is heavily reliant on U.S. support to fend off Russia’s invasion. Without offering many specifics, Mr. Trump has suggested that he would broker a deal to quickly end the war, and on Wednesday his rivals were deeply divided over whether to continue providing Ukraine with military and economic aid.The argument over Ukraine highlighted how the views within the Republican Party over foreign policy have diverged between the more anti-interventionist, “American First” wing and the camp that wants to extend American influence around the world and promote democracy.Mr. DeSantis said that additional support for Ukraine should be contingent on Europe’s providing more aid. Mr. Ramaswamy said that he would not support an increase in funding, calling the situation “disastrous” and declaring that the money should be redirected to protect the U.S. southern border.However, Mr. Pence, Mr. Christie and Nikki Haley, the former ambassador to the United Nations during the Trump administration, offered forceful cases for defending Ukraine. Mr. Christie described the atrocities that he saw during a visit to Ukraine this month, and Mr. Pence said that the United States needed to stop President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia from spreading totalitarianism around the world.Ms. Haley called Mr. Putin a murderer and said that allowing Ukraine to fall would empower other American adversaries, such as China.Putting limits on abortionAbortion continues to be a fraught topic for Republicans. They have been generally supportive of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year, which eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, but they have differing opinions about whether anti-abortion measures should be left to the states and how far they should go.Republicans are under pressure from anti-abortion activists to endorse a 15-week federal ban; however, several Republicans oppose such bans.Mr. DeSantis demurred when asked about whether he would support a six-week federal ban and criticized Democrats for backing abortions later in pregnancy. Ms. Haley described the notion of a federal ban as unrealistic, suggesting that Republicans would never have sufficient votes to pass such legislation. She also called for lawmakers to stop “demonizing” people over the issue and work toward a consensus around adoption and contraception policies.Other candidates, such as Mr. Pence, took more ardent positions on abortion. Supporting a 15-week federal ban — which he has challenged his rivals to embrace — the former vice president called curbing abortions a “moral issue” that should not be left to the states. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina echoed that sentiment, saying that it would be “unethical” for a president to be supportive of states such as California and New York that allow abortions further along in pregnancy.Bashing ‘Bidenomics’The biggest area of agreement among the Republican candidates was on the economy, which they said was failing because of higher prices and interest rates that have made it harder to buy houses and cars.None of the candidates have released detailed economic plans, but all of them are broadly supportive of extending the 2017 tax cuts that are scheduled to expire in 2025 and rolling back regulations. Onstage, they also agreed that the national debt, which has topped $32 trillion, is a serious problem facing the economy.Republicans usually blame big-spending Democrats for the national debt, but on Wednesday night Ms. Haley pointed a finger at members of her own party. She called out Republicans for passing more than $2 trillion in pandemic spending in 2020 and said that Mr. Trump, Mr. Pence, Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Scott have all backed policies that have added to the national debt.Calling for spending cuts and an end to earmarks, Ms. Haley said it was disingenuous to point to Democrats as solely responsible for the nation’s debt burden.“The truth is that Biden did not do this to us,” Ms. Haley said. “Our Republicans did this to us, too.” More