Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Authors of ‘How Democracies Die’ Overestimated the Republicans

      by

      One of the most influential books of the Trump years was “How Democracies Die” by the Harvard government professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. Published in 2018, it served as a guide to our unfolding ordeal. “Over the past two years, we have watched politicians say and do things that are unprecedented in the United States — but that we recognize as having been the precursors of democratic crisis in other places,” they wrote.Because that volume was prescient about how Donald Trump would try to rule, I was surprised to learn, in Levitsky and Ziblatt’s new book, “Tyranny of the Minority,” that they were shocked by Jan. 6. Though they’ve studied violent insurrections all over the world, they write in this new book, “we never imagined we’d see them here. Nor did we ever imagine that one of America’s two major parties would turn away from democracy in the 21st century.”What astonished them the most, Levitsky told me in an interview last week, “was the speed and the degree to which the Republican Party Trumpized.” In “How Democracies Die,” he and Ziblatt had reproved Republicans for failing to stop Trump’s rise to power. But at the time, he said, “we didn’t consider or call the Republican Party an authoritarian party. We did not expect it to transform so quickly and so thoroughly.”“Tyranny of the Minority” is their attempt to make sense of how American democracy eroded so fast. “Societal diversity, cultural backlash and extreme-right parties are ubiquitous across established Western democracies,” they write. But in recent years, only in America has a defeated leader attempted a coup. And only in America is the coup leader likely to once again be the nominee of a major party. “Why did America, alone among rich established democracies, come to the brink?” they ask.A disturbing part of the answer, Levitsky and Ziblatt conclude, lies in our Constitution, the very document Americans rely on to defend us from autocracy. “Designed in a predemocratic era, the U.S. Constitution allows partisan minorities to routinely thwart majorities, and sometimes even govern them,” they write. The Constitution’s countermajoritarian provisions, combined with profound geographic polarization, have locked us into a crisis of minority rule.Liberals — myself very much included — have been preoccupied by minority rule for years now, and you’re probably aware of the ways it manifests. Republicans have won the popular vote in only one out of the last eight presidential elections, and yet have had three Electoral College victories. The Senate gives far more power to small, rural states than large, urbanized ones, and it’s made even less democratic by the filibuster. An unaccountable Supreme Court, given its right-wing majority by the two-time popular-vote loser Trump, has gutted the Voting Rights Act. One reason Republicans keep radicalizing is that, unlike Democrats, they don’t need to win over the majority of voters.All liberal democracies have some countermajoritarian institutions to stop popular passions from running roughshod over minority rights. But as “Tyranny of the Minority” shows, our system is unique in the way it empowers a minority ideological faction at the expense of everyone else. And while conservatives like to pretend that their structural advantages arise from the judicious wisdom of the founders, Levitsky and Ziblatt demonstrate how many of the least democratic aspects of American governance are the result of accident, contingency and, not least, capitulation to the slaveholding South.It’s worth remembering that in 2000, when many thought George W. Bush might win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College, Republicans did not intend to quietly accept the results. “I think there would be outrage,” Representative Ray LaHood, a Republican from Illinois, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The Bush camp planned to stoke a “popular uprising,” in the words of The Daily News, quoting a Bush aide: “The one thing we don’t do is roll over. We fight.”Most Democrats, however, feel little choice but to acquiesce to a system tilted against them. Depending on the Constitution for protection from the worst abuses of the right, they’re reluctant to delegitimize it. Besides, America’s Constitution is among the hardest in the world to change, another of its countermajoritarian qualities.Levitsky and Ziblatt don’t have any shortcuts for emerging from the straitjacket of minority rule. Rather, they call on readers to engage in the glacial slog of constitutional reform. Some people, Ziblatt told me, might think that working toward institutional reforms is naïve. “But the thing that I think is really naïve is to think that we can just sort of keep going down this path and that things will just work out,” he said.Personally, I don’t know anyone who is confident that things will just work out. It’s possible that, as The New York Times reports, Trump’s Electoral College edge is fading because of his relative weakness in battleground states, but he could still, running on a nakedly authoritarian platform, be re-elected with a minority of the vote. I asked Levitsky and Ziblatt how, given their work on democracy, they imagine a second Trump term unfolding.“I think the United States faces a high risk of serious and repeated constitutional crisis, what I would call regime instability, quite possibly accompanied by some violence,” said Levitsky. “I’m not as worried about the consolidation of autocracy, Hungary or Russia-style. I think that the opposition forces, civil society forces, are probably too strong for that.” Let’s hope that this time he’s not being too optimistic.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

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Covid Hero or ‘Lockdown Ron’? DeSantis and Trump Renew Pandemic Politics

      by

      The Florida governor has recently highlighted his state’s response to the coronavirus in hopes of striking some distance from Donald Trump.Hank Miller, a 64-year-old Iowa farmer, started paying attention to Gov. Ron DeSantis during the coronavirus pandemic, when the Florida governor was a constant presence on Fox News highlighting the reopening of his state.While Mr. Miller voted for former President Donald J. Trump in 2016 and 2020, he now plans to support Mr. DeSantis, in part, he said, because he was “disappointed” with Mr. Trump for following the advice of the nation’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, whom Mr. DeSantis has said should be prosecuted.“I liked how DeSantis responded to the pandemic,” Mr. Miller said at a coffee shop in Grundy Center, Iowa, where Mr. DeSantis campaigned on Saturday. “He didn’t just shut things down.”Mr. DeSantis, far behind Mr. Trump in the polls in Iowa and nationally, is clearly hoping that such feelings are widespread among Republican primary voters. The governor’s record on Covid-19 provides perhaps his strongest contrast with the former president, whose administration spearheaded the development of the coronavirus vaccines that are now deeply unpopular with the Republican base.The virus could be an important wedge issue for Mr. DeSantis, who at times has struggled to provide voters with a clear case for why he would be a better president than Mr. Trump, the Republican front-runner. But there are questions about whether a pandemic that many Americans see as long over will resonate with the electorate in 2024.Now, a recent resurgence of Covid-19 cases is giving Mr. DeSantis a chance to press the argument. In response to the uptick, a small number of schools, universities and hospitals have told students, patients and employees to wear masks again. Mr. DeSantis and other Republicans have seized on that as evidence that the Covid-19 debate, which they frame as a civil rights battle, is far from over.Mr. DeSantis emphasized that point during his swing through Iowa on Saturday. “When you have people going back to restrictions and mandates, this shows that this issue has not died,” he told reporters outside the coffee shop in Grundy Center. “This shows that if we don’t bring accountability with my administration, they are going to keep trying to do this.”Since returning to the campaign trail after Hurricane Idalia, which hit Florida last month, Mr. DeSantis has seemingly made the virus his No. 1 issue. He has appeared repeatedly this past week on Fox News and other conservative media outlets lauding his pandemic policies, and has done interviews with local news media outlets in Iowa and New Hampshire. He even held a news conference in Jacksonville — in his role as governor — to promote the way he handled the virus.“I can tell you here in Florida, we did not and we will not allow the dystopian visions of paranoid hypochondriacs to control our health policies, let alone our state,” Mr. DeSantis said on Thursday at the event in Jacksonville, which, in the absence of formal policy announcements, had the feel of a campaign rally.Mr. DeSantis is taking advantage of an apparent shift in the national mood on the virus, even among Democrats. Only 12 percent of Americans say they typically wear a mask in public, according to a poll conducted in August by Yahoo News and YouGov.President Biden joked with reporters at the White House about the fact that he was not wearing a mask days after the first lady, Jill Biden, was diagnosed with Covid-19.Al Drago for The New York TimesAfter the first lady, Jill Biden, was recently diagnosed with Covid-19, President Biden joked with reporters at the White House about the fact that he was not wearing a mask. Although he had tested negative, Mr. Biden said he was told he needed to continue masking for 10 days.“Don’t tell them I didn’t have it on when I walked in,” Mr. Biden said, holding up his mask.As Mr. DeSantis has elevated the issue of Covid-19 once more, the Trump campaign has responded by accusing Mr. DeSantis of hypocrisy, pointing out that he did issue shut down orders and at one point praised Dr. Fauci.“Lockdown Ron should take a look in the mirror and ask himself why he’s trying to gaslight voters,” Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, said in a statement.But while many Republican governors shut down their states at the pandemic’s start, Mr. DeSantis was early to fully reopen.Mr. Trump, who was always skeptical of masking and other public health measures, has also begun talking about Covid-19 restrictions on the trail.“The radical Democrats are trying hard to restart Covid hysteria,” Mr. Trump said on Friday at a rally in Rapid City, S.D. He has also downplayed the role Dr. Fauci played in his administration.Still, as Republican candidates try to resuscitate the pandemic as a political issue, they may face virus weariness.During Mr. DeSantis’s Saturday bus tour through Iowa, several voters said in interviews that the pandemic was not a top concern for them going into 2024, even if they admired the governor’s record.“We don’t need to hear about it,” said Dave Sweeney, a retired farmer who said he was trying to decide between supporting Mr. DeSantis, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina and the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. “It’s not really an issue anymore.”It’s possible that audiences in places like New Hampshire, which imposed more stringent public health measures than Iowa, may be more receptive.In the run-up to his presidential campaign, Mr. DeSantis signed a series of public health laws in Florida that he often points to on the trail, including ones banning mask and vaccine mandates. He also instigated a state grand jury investigation into possible “misconduct” by scientists and vaccine manufacturers. (No charges have been brought.)While Mr. DeSantis says his Covid-19 policies protected Floridians from government overreach and kept the economy going, the state suffered a disproportionate number of coronavirus deaths during the Delta wave of the virus in 2021, after Mr. DeSantis stopped preaching the virtues of vaccines, a New York Times investigation found.During Mr. DeSantis’s recent bus tour through Iowa, several voters said in interviews that the pandemic was not a top concern for them going into 2024.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesStill, such criticisms are unlikely to matter in a Republican primary where many voters discount the severity of a virus that has killed more than a million Americans since 2020.“I think it’s a common cold,” said Roger Hibdon, 32, an engineer from Grundy Center. “I’m not worried about it.”Michael Gold More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why Is Joe Biden So Unpopular?

      by

      Joe Biden is an unpopular president, and without some recovery, he could easily lose to Donald Trump in 2024.By itself, this is no great wonder: His two predecessors were also unpopular at this stage of their presidencies, also endangered in their re-election bids.But with Trump and Barack Obama, there were reasonably simple explanations. For Obama, it was the unemployment rate, 9.1 percent in September 2011, and the bruising battles over Obamacare. For Trump, it was the fact that he had never been popular, making bad approval ratings his presidency’s natural default.For Biden, though, there was a normal honeymoon, months of reasonably high approval ratings that ended only with the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. And since then, it’s been hard to distill a singular explanation for what’s kept his numbers lousy.The economy is better than in Obama’s first term, inflation is ebbing, and the feared recession hasn’t materialized. The woke wars and Covid battles that disadvantaged Democrats are no longer central, and the post-Roe culture wars seem like friendlier terrain. Biden’s foreign policy team has defended Ukraine without (so far) a dangerous escalation with the Russians, and Biden has even delivered legislative bipartisanship, co-opting Trumpian promises about industrial policy along the way.This has created mystification among Democratic partisans as to why all this isn’t enough to give the president a decent polling lead. I don’t share that mystification. But I do think there’s real uncertainty about which of the forces dragging on Biden’s approval ratings matter most.Start with the theory that Biden’s troubles are mostly still about inflation — that people just hate rising prices and he isn’t credited with avoiding a recession because wage increases have been eaten up by inflation until recently.If this is the master issue, then the White House doesn’t have many options beyond patience. The administration’s original inflationary sin, the overspending in the American Rescue Plan Act, isn’t going to be repeated, and apart from the possibility of an armistice in Ukraine relieving some pressure on gas prices, there aren’t a lot of policy levers to pull. The hope has to be that inflation continues to drift down, real wages rise consistently and in November 2024, Biden gets the economic credit he isn’t getting now.But maybe it’s not just the economy. Across multiple polls, Biden seems to be losing support from minority voters, continuing a Trump-era trend. This raises the possibility that there’s a social-issues undertow for Democrats, in which even when wokeness isn’t front and center, the fact that the party’s activist core is so far left gradually pushes culturally conservative African Americans and Hispanics toward the G.O.P. — much as culturally conservative white Democrats drifted slowly into the Republican coalition between the 1960s and the 2000s.Bill Clinton temporarily arrested that rightward drift by deliberately picking public fights with factions to his left. But this has not been Biden’s strategy. He’s moved somewhat rightward on issues like immigration, in which progressivism’s policy vision hit the rocks. But he doesn’t make a big deal about his differences with his progressive flank. I don’t expect that to change — but it might be costing him in ways somewhat invisible to liberals at the moment.Or maybe the big problem is just simmering anxiety about Biden’s age. Maybe his poll numbers dipped first in the Afghanistan crisis because it showcased the public absenteeism that often characterizes his presidency. Maybe some voters now just assume that a vote for Biden is a vote for the hapless Kamala Harris. Maybe there’s just a vigor premium in presidential campaigns that gives Trump an advantage.In which case a different leader with the same policies might be more popular. Lacking any way to elevate such a leader, however, all Democrats can do is ask Biden to show more public vigor, with all the risks that may entail.But this is at least a strategy, of sorts. The hardest problem for the incumbent to address may be the pall of private depression and general pessimism hanging over Americans, especially younger Americans, which has been worsened by Covid but seems rooted in deeper social trends.I don’t see any obvious way for Biden to address this issue through normal presidential positioning. I would not recommend updating Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech with the therapy-speak of contemporary progressivism. I also don’t think the president is suited to be a crusader against digital derangement or a herald of religious revival.Biden got elected, in part, by casting himself as a transitional figure, a bridge to a more youthful and optimistic future. Now he needs some general belief in that brighter future to help carry him to re-election.But wherever Americans might find such optimism, we are probably well past the point that a decrepit-seeming president can hope to generate it himself.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

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      In Post-Roe America, Nikki Haley Seeks a New Path on Abortion for G.O.P.

      by

      In crafting an anti-abortion message that doesn’t alienate moderate Republicans and swing voters, her approach has won both supporters and detractors.In May 2016, Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina walked down the aisle of the statehouse, beaming and shaking hands, after signing legislation that would largely outlaw abortion in the state after 20 weeks of pregnancy.Still, she wanted to be sure social conservatives knew where she stood. So her office arranged a second, entirely ceremonial signing a few weeks later at Hidden Treasure Christian School, an evangelical academy for children with disabilities in the heart of South Carolina’s conservative Upstate region.Standing alongside the staunchly anti-abortion lawmakers who sponsored the bill, and flanked by dozens of children, Ms. Haley made clear that her support for their cause was not just political, but also personal.“I am not pro-life because the Republican Party tells me to be,” she said, promoting her support for the ban, which prohibited abortion even in cases of rape or incest. “I’m pro-life because all of us have had experiences of what it means to have one of these special little ones in our life, to lose one, to know what it takes and how hard it is to get one.”Seven years later, Ms. Haley’s abortion politics have not changed much. The same cannot be said for the country.As governor of South Carolina in 2016, Ms. Haley signed a law banning abortion after 20 weeks. She held a ceremonial signing a few weeks later at a Christian school, surrounded by children. Lauren Petracca/Greenville News, via USA Today NetworkAt campaign events, in speeches before anti-abortion groups and from the primary debate stage, Ms. Haley has cast herself as an empathetic seeker of compassionate “consensus” on one of the nation’s most divisive social issues.“We need to stop demonizing this issue,” she said at the first Republican debate in Milwaukee last month. “It’s personal for every woman and man. Now, it’s been put in the hands of the people. That’s great.”The Supreme Court’s overturning of federal abortion rights transformed an issue long considered settled by broad swaths of the American public into a political hammer for Democrats. The rapid shift has forced Ms. Haley and other Republicans to thread the needle between what she calls her “unapologetically pro-life” record and the broad majorities of American voters who support some form of abortion rights.Some Republicans see Ms. Haley as pioneering a path forward on what’s become a damaging issue for their party since the 2022 decision. They believe her message could be acceptable to their party’s conservative, anti-abortion base without alienating moderate Republicans and swing voters. For Ms. Haley, the approach is part of a larger strategy to position herself as a more electable alternative to Donald Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.Tudor Dixon, the Republican candidate for governor in Michigan last year, warned that Republicans would lose the messaging fight over abortion again in 2024 unless they adopted a stance similar to Ms. Haley’s that is more focused on compassion and finding common ground. Ms. Dixon lost her own race after facing a barrage of Democratic attacks over her opposition to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest.“Democrats are trying to make anybody who is pro-life the enemy of women,” Ms. Dixon said in an interview. “It felt so good to see a strong, caring woman come at this message from a personal and loving perspective.”Ms. Haley’s approach to abortion is part of a broader campaign strategy to cast herself as a more electable alternative to some of her Republican rivals. Kenny Holston/The New York TimesIn a closed-door meeting this week that was first reported by NBC News, Senate Republicans discussed new polling indicating that voters now saw the term “pro-life” as synonymous with being against abortion with no exceptions, according to a person who attended.The polling, conducted by a super PAC tied to Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, also found that female politicians such as Ms. Haley were better received as messengers for the Republican position on the issue. The group urged Republican senators to do a better job of explaining more nuanced and broadly popular positions, including supporting exceptions to restrictions for rape, incest and the health of the mother.Mr. Trump, the front-runner in the 2024 G.O.P. primary race, has also urged Republicans to embrace less stringent restrictions, while resisting pressure from anti-abortion activists to embrace a 15-week federal ban. Such a ban is widely unpopular: Polling conducted last month by The New York Times/Siena College found that 64 percent of independent voters and 57 percent of female voters oppose it.While she offers little in the way of policy specifics, Ms. Haley flatly dismisses the push for a 15-week federal ban as unrealistic, given that Republicans fall short of the margin needed to pass such a proposal through the Senate. Instead, Ms. Haley stakes out broad areas of what she sees as national agreement, including a ban on “late term” abortions, encouraging adoption, providing contraception and not criminalizing women who have the procedure.Those efforts by Ms. Haley and others to soften their approach face opposition from more strident anti-abortion activists, who view the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe as a starting point on the issue, not the end of it.“We need a national defender of life who will boldly articulate their pro-life position,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the head of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a prominent anti-abortion political group. “The pro-life movement must have a nominee who will boldly advocate for consensus in Congress, and as president will work to gather the votes necessary in Congress. Dismissing this task as unrealistic is not acceptable.”Supporters and campaign strategists say Ms. Haley’s approach reflects her personal experiences. In college, she watched a friend worry that her rape would result in an unwanted pregnancy. She later struggled with infertility, and underwent fertility treatments to have her two children. Her husband, Michael Haley, was adopted as a young child, an experience that made him, she said, “reason No. 1” for her opposition to abortion.“I don’t know if any of the others on that debate stage or Trump can do what she has done, and go out there and talk about this in this way where it’s understanding and compassionate and empathic and it’s coming from a position of real knowledge,” said Jennifer Nassour, the former head of the Massachusetts Republican Party, who is backing Ms. Haley. “She’s the only leader who can take such a divisive issue and bring everyone together on it.”Ms. Haley’s record tells a slightly more complicated story. During her time in South Carolina, Ms. Haley pushed her conservative state to restrict and limit abortion access.As a state legislator, she backed bills mandating ultrasound tests and a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion could be performed. In 2005, she voted for a bill granting constitutional rights of due process and equal protection to a zygote, the fertilized egg cell that forms after conception. And, four years later, she co-sponsored legislation mandating that a “right to life” begins at the point when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg, several weeks before a pregnancy can generally be detected.Such bills have been used by opponents of abortion to try to grant constitutional rights to embryos and fetuses. Those fetal personhood laws, as they are broadly known, could provide a legal framework not just for banning abortion but for limiting access to in vitro fertilization and contraception.“My record on abortion is long and clear,” Ms. Haley said in an April speech to the Susan B. Anthony anti-abortion group. “I voted for every pro-life bill that came before me.”After she became governor in 2011, Ms. Haley backed legislation granting a fetus that survives a failed abortion — a rare occurrence — the same medical treatment rights as a person. She signed a law prohibiting private insurance companies from covering an abortion procedure without the purchase of a separate policy rider. And she signed the 20-week ban in 2016.In 2016, Wendy Nanny, the sponsor of the 20-week ban in the state legislature, saw the legislation as a step toward the ultimate goal of ending abortion rights in America. Ms. Haley, she said, backed that effort.“She was always supportive of anything we tried to do that was pro-life,” Ms. Nanny said. “I never had any kind of pushback from her office.”That anti-abortion record could be hard for Ms. Haley — and other Republicans who supported similar legislation across the country for years — to outrun in a general election. In the decade before Roe was overturned, Republican legislators enacted roughly 600 laws restricting abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group that supports abortion rights. Voters view those records differently in the post-Roe world, in which abortion is now all but banned in 18 states, including South Carolina.Molly Murphy, a Democratic pollster, doubted whether Ms. Haley could square her “respectful and middle-ground, compromise approach” with a decade-long record of “actually not doing that when in office.” Republicans, she said, have far to go before voters will give them the benefit of the doubt on the issue.“Those candidates trying to walk back their previous positions on abortion look incredibly political and non-trustworthy,” Ms. Murphy said. “Their credibility is so low on this issue that voters just fundamentally believe Republicans want to ban abortion.”But for now, as she tries to win a Republican primary, Ms. Haley’s message is finding an audience among voters seeking an alternative to Mr. Trump. As she waited for Ms. Haley to speak in Manchester, N.H., on Wednesday, Betty Gay, a Republican former state representative, praised her approach.“I think abortion is a horrible form of birth control, but there are some circumstances that require it,” said Ms. Gay, who was still undecided about the primary but does not plan on backing Mr. Trump. “I don’t want either of the extremes.” More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Resilience Leaves Major Republican Donors in Despair

      by

      The party’s big donors have made clear their distaste for the former president. Now, as he barrels toward the nomination, they are reacting with a mix of hand-wringing, calls to arms and fatalism.On Labor Day, Eric Levine, a New York lawyer and Republican fund-raiser, sent an email to roughly 1,500 donors, politicians and friends.“I refuse to accept the proposition that Donald Trump is the ‘inevitable’ Republican nominee for President,” he wrote. “His nomination would be a disaster for our party and our country.”Many of the Republican Party’s wealthiest donors share that view, and the growing sense of urgency about the state of the G.O.P. presidential primary race. Mr. Trump’s grip on the party’s voters is as powerful as ever, with polls in Iowa and New Hampshire last month putting him at least 25 percentage points above his nearest rivals.That has left major Republican donors — whose desires have increasingly diverged from those of conservative voters — grappling with the reality that the tens of millions of dollars they have spent to try to stop the former president, fearing he poses a mortal threat to their party and the country, may already be a sunk cost.Interviews with more than a dozen Republican donors and their allies revealed hand-wringing, magical thinking, calls to arms and, for some, fatalism. Several of them did not want to be identified by name out of a fear of political repercussions or a desire to stay in the good graces of any eventual Republican nominee, including Mr. Trump.“If things don’t change quickly, people are going to despair,” Mr. Levine said in an interview. He is among the optimists who believe Mr. Trump’s support is not as robust as the polls suggest and who see a quickly closing window to rally behind another candidate. In Mr. Levine’s 2,500-word Labor Day missive, he urged his readers to pick Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.Other schools of thought exist. Some donors have backed Mr. Trump’s rivals despite believing that he is unbeatable in the primaries. These donors are banking, in part, on the chance that Mr. Trump will eventually drop out of the race because of his legal troubles, a health scare or some other personal or political calculation.Fred Zeidman, a Texas businessman who is an enthusiastic backer of Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, said he had given her a blunt assessment of her prospects last month.“You’re at 2 percent, and he’s at 53 percent,” he recalled telling her, in only a slight exaggeration of Mr. Trump’s polling advantage. “He ain’t going to erode that much. Something needs to happen to him for you to overtake him.”Privately, many donors said that the primary contest so far — especially the first Republican debate last month, in which Mr. Trump did not take part — had felt like a dress rehearsal for a play that would never happen. One donor’s political adviser called it “the kids’ table.”One Texas-based Republican fund-raiser, who has not committed to a candidate and insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations, said he regularly told major donors that like it or not, Mr. Trump would be the nominee.“Intellectually, their heads explode,” the fund-raiser said. He said many donors were “backing off” rather than supporting a candidate, reflecting a fundamental belief that nobody can defeat Mr. Trump.Many donors have said that the primary contest so far — especially the first Republican debate last month, in which Mr. Trump did not take part — has felt like a dress rehearsal for a play that will never happen.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesLarge-dollar Republican donors, even those who enthusiastically or reluctantly backed Mr. Trump in 2016 and 2020, have made no secret of their wish to move on in 2024.Some big donors have stuck with Mr. Trump, though not nearly as many as in past cycles, at least not so far — a super PAC backing Mr. Trump has reported just 25 contributions of $100,000 or more. They include $2 million from the casino magnate Phil Ruffin and $1 million from the former real estate developer Charles Kushner, the father of Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Mr. Trump pardoned the elder Mr. Kushner on his way out of office.Major donors, particularly those in the tier just below the billionaire power players, have seen their influence wane in recent elections, a trend inextricably bound up in Mr. Trump’s continued hold on Republican voters. The explosive growth of small-dollar contributions — a phenomenon that, on the Republican side, has overwhelmingly favored Mr. Trump — reflects a widening disconnect between voters’ sympathies and the interests of big donors.The conservative commentator Bill Kristol, who has become a pariah in his party over his longstanding opposition to Mr. Trump, said he told donors and their advisers at the beginning of the year that if they were serious about defeating Mr. Trump, they had to spend money in a concerted effort to persuade Republican voters that he should not be the nominee.The hope was that, by Labor Day, Mr. Trump’s poll numbers would be in the 30s, Mr. Kristol explained. Instead, he said, “they’ve done nothing, and Trump is at 50 percent.”Mr. Kristol said he was not sure if donors had a kind of “learned helplessness,” or if they were just wary of offending Mr. Trump and his supporters. “I think, ultimately, they tell themselves they could live with him,” he said.“We know what a world would look like if real conservative elites really decided they wanted to get rid of Donald Trump,” Mr. Kristol said. “And that’s not the world we are living in.”If there was any hope among big donors that the various investigations into Mr. Trump would undermine his popular support, such dreams have faded. Each successive indictment — four since late March — has brought waves of financial contributions and new energy to his poll numbers.Some donors expressed incredulity that Mr. Trump would be able to run for president while fighting off the charges. He faces a busy calendar of trials next year that is likely to grow only more complex.“I don’t see how he’s going to deal with these huge legal problems,” said the Long Island-based metals magnate Andy Sabin, who is backing Mr. Scott. “I don’t really care about his numbers. I think he’s got enough other stuff going on. All of these trials start — who knows? We are in uncharted territory.”Mr. Sabin conceded that Mr. Trump had a “very solid base,” adding that he would “almost have to murder somebody” for people to turn on him. “People think he’s God.”Many major donors, even those who believe Mr. Trump committed crimes and who think his actions surrounding Jan. 6, 2021, were abhorrent, said they believed the indictments were politically motivated. Some also suggested that the indictments had temporarily inflated his poll numbers, by keeping him in the news and fueling voter outrage on his behalf.“I fundamentally believe Trump’s numbers are artificial,” said Jay Zeidman, a Texas-based health care investor and major fund-raiser for Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida (and the son of Fred Zeidman). “I’m not saying they are making them up — I don’t think there’s real strength behind those numbers.”He continued: “I think you have to be patient, and let the gravity of the situation he’s in take hold. This election is not about vindicating one man. This is not a referendum on Trump.”Mr. Zeidman, like others, said he believed Mr. Trump would lose the presidential race and drag down Republican candidates for Senate and the House. “I believe that Republican primary voters need to understand the opportunity they have to win a very winnable presidential election.”Dan Eberhart, a private equity and energy executive who is also backing Mr. DeSantis, said that he expected Mr. Trump’s legal troubles to weigh him down, and that he believed most voters were looking for a second choice.“By the time Super Tuesday comes around, Trump is going to have been beaten in Iowa, and the dam is going to burst,” he predicted. “Once someone else is viable, I think you’re going to see him quickly melt.”Then, Mr. Eberhart said, donors who have not committed to a candidate will come out of the woodwork: “They are actively holding their breath, wanting a solution to Trump but not knowing what it is.”As some donors have cast about for a late entrant to the race who could challenge Mr. Trump, the name that comes up most often is Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia.Mr. Levine addressed the Youngkin question in his essay, saying: “Waiting for someone else to get into the race is not an option.” (Mr. Youngkin has not ruled out a run and has said he is focused on Virginia’s state legislative elections this fall; with each passing day, the logistical barriers to entry grow higher.)Bill Bean, an Indiana-based real-estate executive and backer of former Vice President Mike Pence, said the field would narrow until there was a “clear alternative” to Mr. Trump.Mr. Bean backed Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign in 2020, and supported the policy decisions he made as president. “But I would like to see us move forward,” he said. “I want to look at the future in a positive way. I hear that a lot more than maybe the poll numbers show.”Ruth Igielnik More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Kristi Noem, Likely to Endorse Trump, Kicks Off Fight to Be His V.P.

      by

      At a rally on Friday, Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota threw her support behind the former president, whose large lead in polls has stirred speculation about the No. 2 job.Donald J. Trump’s resilience in polls of the Republican presidential primary field is shifting attention to what, for the moment at least, is the only truly competitive national race for 2024: the contest to be his running mate.Speculation over Mr. Trump’s potential vice president — a decision that would rest solely with him — has remained an undercurrent in the primary race as his rivals for the nomination, including former Gov. Nikki Haley and Senator Tim Scott, a pair of South Carolina Republicans, regularly distance themselves from questions about their possible interest in the No. 2 job.One Republican welcoming those questions has been Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota. She isn’t running for the White House, and she recently told Fox News that “of course” she would consider joining a ticket with Mr. Trump.Ms. Noem, 51, fueled further vice-presidential conjecture by endorsing the former president at a rally on Friday evening in her home state.“Tonight, Mr. President, my message is clear: It is an honor to have you with us in South Dakota,” Ms. Noem said in front of a crowd of thousands in Rapid City. “You made America great again once. Let’s do it again.”Mr. Trump took the stage, briefly hugging Ms. Noem and exchanging words. Then, for a quick second, a graphic reading “TRUMP NOEM 2024” flashed on the giant screen above the stage.“Kristi is a warrior for American values,” Mr. Trump said, going on to compliment her handling of the coronavirus pandemic and her policies in South Dakota.“I get endorsements, some good, some bad,” he said. “Some don’t mean anything. Hers means a lot.”While South Dakota holds little sway in the Republican presidential primary contest — and even less in a general election — Ms. Noem’s endorsement is noteworthy, because only eight of the nation’s 26 Republican governors have publicly picked sides so far.Beyond Ms. Noem, just three — Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, Jim Justice of West Virginia and Henry McMaster of South Carolina — have backed Mr. Trump. Two others — Ron DeSantis of Florida and Doug Burgum of North Dakota — are running against him.“Everybody should consider it,” Ms. Noem told Fox News about a potential vice-presidential slot. “If President Trump is going to be back in the White House, I’d do all I can to help him be successful.”Still, Mr. Trump is said to be giving little direct thought to a running mate.Some close to the former president said that was most likely rooted in superstition that such consideration would jeopardize his own nomination. Others said he had devalued the position, viewing it as little more than a White House staff position that carries little political sway with voters.Mr. Trump raised eyebrows among some associates with private, offhand comments that Mr. Scott had not received much coverage for his performance during the first Republican presidential debate. Mr. Scott has been mentioned as a potential vice-presidential pick even though he is currently running against Mr. Trump, who didn’t participate in his party’s first debate.Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, said the vice-presidential speculation showed that “everyone knows President Trump will be the nominee and he continues to dominate every single poll.”Along with Mr. Scott, other Republican candidates mentioned as potential running mates for Mr. Trump have included Ms. Haley and the businessman Vivek Ramaswamy. Mr. Trump’s two-time running mate, former Vice President Mike Pence, has split with the former president over the 2020 election results. This week, he cast Mr. Trump’s populism as “a road to ruin” for the party.In a radio interview this week, Mr. Trump told Hugh Hewitt, a conservative talk show host, that he was unlikely to make an early decision on a vice president — brushing aside the idea that his running mate could help campaign next spring when the former president is facing multiple criminal trials.“There’s never been a vice president that got a president elected, because it doesn’t work that way,” Mr. Trump said. “It sounds good and everything, but the president gets himself elected.”Mr. Trump endorsed Ms. Noem for governor in 2018, and she was an ardent ally during his presidency. When she hosted him in 2020, her laudatory public remarks prompted speculation that she was hoping to replace Mr. Pence on the Republican ticket.Ms. Noem changed her tune somewhat after Republicans fell short of expectations in last year’s midterm elections. In an interview with The New York Times at the time, Ms. Noem — who was frequently cited as a potential 2024 candidate — floated the thought that she did not believe Mr. Trump offered “the best chance” for Republicans.Still, Ms. Noem stayed out of a crowded Republican primary in which Mr. Trump is far and away the front-runner, and she has more recently voiced support for him in cable news appearances.On Thursday, she told the conservative news channel Newsmax that she would “in a heartbeat” consider being Mr. Trump’s running mate if asked.Maggie Haberman More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Said to Have Told Blake Masters He’d Lose Senate Primary to Kari Lake

      by

      Neither potential candidate has entered the race to unseat Senator Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona.Former President Donald J. Trump on Sunday called Blake Masters, the failed Arizona Senate candidate considering a second run next year, and told him he didn’t think Mr. Masters could win a primary race against Kari Lake, the former news anchor who ran unsuccessfully for governor last year, according to two people briefed on the conversation.Mr. Trump’s delivery of this blunt political assessment — which could indicate that Mr. Trump may endorse Ms. Lake if she has a relatively open path to the nomination — is at odds with Mr. Trump’s posture so far this political cycle, in which he has shown more restraint in endorsing candidates than he had in the 2022 midterms.Mr. Trump’s call on Sunday came days after a report that Mr. Masters, a 37-year-old venture capitalist, was preparing to make a second run for the Senate in the swing state after his loss to Senator Mark Kelly, the Democratic incumbent, in 2022.Ms. Lake, who lost a bitter contest with Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, is looking at announcing a Senate campaign in the first half of October, two people familiar with the matter said. The race to unseat Senator Kyrsten Sinema, a former Democrat who last year became an independent, is expected to be a crowded one in a state where the Republican Party is fractured.Last year, Mr. Trump endorsed both Mr. Masters, a political newcomer and an anti-immigration hard-liner who has close ties to the populist New Right, and Ms. Lake, who embraced Mr. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election with particular intensity.Mr. Masters parlayed Mr. Trump’s endorsement and around $15 million from the billionaire Peter Thiel into a victory in a hard-fought Republican primary. At the time, Republican leaders resented Mr. Trump’s intervention, believing he had propped up a weak candidate.Mr. Trump went on an endorsement spree ahead of the 2022 midterms, backing several candidates who won their primaries only to go on to lose what Republican leaders considered to be winnable Senate races, including Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, the former football star Herschel Walker in Georgia and Mr. Masters.By contrast, so far in this cycle, Mr. Trump, the dominant front-runner for the G.O.P. presidential nomination, has endorsed only one Republican Senate candidate who isn’t an incumbent, and it was a safe choice: Representative Jim Banks of Indiana, who is backed by the Republican establishment and is regarded as a lock for that seat.Mr. Trump’s comparative caution is by design and serves not only his own interests but also those of the same Republican leaders who despaired of his interventions in 2022 midterm primaries.A spokesman for Mr. Trump, Steven Cheung, said he would not comment on any private conversations “that the president may or may not have had.” Mr. Masters did not respond to a request for comment.The call between the former president and Mr. Masters was described by two people familiar with it who insisted on anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the private conversation. One of the people said Mr. Trump had not definitively ruled out supporting Mr. Masters’s candidacy and that in conversations with others, Mr. Trump had left open the possibility that Ms. Lake might not run.In a statement shared by an aide, Ms. Lake said, “I am strongly considering getting in the race and will be making my final decision in the coming weeks,” and cast herself as someone who would be loyal to Mr. Trump in the Senate. Sheriff Mark Lamb of Pinal County is already in the race.A person close to Mr. Masters who was not authorized to speak publicly stressed that Mr. Masters “believes the party needs a candidate with a proven ability to fund-raise and campaign and is prepared to run in the absence of such a candidate.”Mr. Masters has told associates that he thinks another “bloody” primary would hurt the party’s chances of winning the seat — and that a battle against Ms. Lake would surely be bloody, according to the person close to him. Mr. Masters has also privately questioned whether Ms. Lake will run, that person said.The person said Mr. Masters had seriously considered announcing his candidacy shortly after Labor Day but that no plans were set.Mr. Trump’s skepticism about Mr. Masters long predates their weekend conversation. The former president has told associates he thinks Mr. Masters was a “bad candidate” in 2022, according to two people who have spoken to the former president.Among Mr. Trump’s complaints about Mr. Masters was that he had tempered some of his comments related to Mr. Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. When Mr. Masters said in a debate in October 2022 that he hadn’t seen evidence of widespread fraud in the state, Mr. Trump called him, in a moment captured by a Fox News camera.“If you want to get across the line, you’ve got to go stronger on that one thing,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Masters. “That was the one thing, a lot of complaints about it.” Then he mentioned Ms. Lake, then the Republican nominee for governor.“Look at Kari — Kari’s winning with very little money,” Mr. Trump said. “And if they say, ‘How is your family?’ She says, ‘The election was rigged and stolen.’ You’ll lose if you go soft. You’re going to lose that base.”Regardless of Mr. Trump’s motivations, his more cautious approach to endorsements has been appreciated by party leaders. Mr. Trump has told several people that he made too many endorsements in the 2022 midterms — including some for people who have yet to endorse him in his own race for president — and that he plans to be less involved this time, according to two people with direct knowledge of his comments.Mr. Trump has established a strong relationship with Senator Steve Daines of Montana, the chair of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm. Mr. Daines’s endorsement of Mr. Trump for president months ago was a strategic move: It gave him entree with the Republican Party’s most influential figure in the hopes of getting him to support the committee’s favored candidates, or at least to refrain from attacking them.To that end, Mr. Trump has quietly helped Mr. Daines by telling two House Republicans running for Senate — Representatives Matt Rosendale of Montana and Alex Mooney of West Virginia — that he would not endorse them in Senate primaries in their states. In West Virginia, Mr. Daines has issued a statement supportive of a different candidate: the state’s governor, Jim Justice.A person with direct knowledge confirmed those conversations, adding that part of Mr. Trump’s motivation for delivering the messages was his anger at the anti-tax Club for Growth, a one-time ally that more recently has attacked him. The Club for Growth is spending money to support Mr. Mooney and potentially could do the same for Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Trump’s conversations with Mr. Rosendale and Mr. Mooney were first reported by CNN.A spokesman for Mr. Rosendale could not be reached for comment.In a statement attacking Mr. Justice as part of the “big-spending D.C. swamp uniparty,” Mr. Mooney’s campaign manager, John Findlay, noted that “the congressman has endorsed President Trump and would of course like to have his endorsement again.” He added, “As of now, President Trump has chosen to stay neutral.” More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis, Undaunted by Florida Storms, Shrugs Off Climate Change

      by

      The Florida governor, who has cast himself as a Teddy Roosevelt-style conservationist, sounds far different as a presidential candidate, pledging to expand fossil fuel production and fight electric-vehicle mandates.During his 2018 run for governor, Ron DeSantis not only pledged to protect Florida’s Everglades and waterways, he also acknowledged that humans played a role in exacerbating the climate change that threatened them.“I think that humans contribute to what goes on around us,” Mr. DeSantis told the editorial board of The Florida Times-Union, a Jacksonville newspaper, according to a recording obtained by The New York Times.“The resiliency and some of the sea-level rise, we have to deal with that,” he added, although he pointedly said he was “not Al Gore,” referring to the former Democratic vice president who reinvented himself as a climate change activist.Now running for president five years later, the Florida governor no longer repeats his previous view that humans affect the climate, even as scientists say that the hurricanes battering his state are being intensified by man-made global warming. Those storms include Hurricane Idalia, which killed three people this month, and last year’s catastrophic Hurricane Ian, which killed 150 Floridians.On the debate stage last month, Mr. DeSantis declined to raise his hand when a moderator asked the Republican candidates if they thought human behavior was causing climate change. His campaign and the governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment about his views.Instead, Mr. DeSantis has seemingly reverted to an old Republican Party line that climate change is happening naturally, without being accelerated by human behavior like the burning of fossil fuels. Decades of scientific research contradict that position. And it is also out of step with what polling shows many Americans believe.On the 2024 campaign trail, Mr. DeSantis has promised to ramp up domestic oil and gas production and fight against mandates on the introduction of electric vehicles — the kinds of steps that could worsen the sea-level rise that is flooding coastal cities in Florida and around the world. Mr. DeSantis says he is simply being realistic about the country’s economic and national security needs.Asked to describe his climate plan in an interview on Fox Business last month, Mr. DeSantis said: “It’s going to be to rip up Joe Biden’s Green New Deal.” (Mr. Biden’s policies do not actually go as far as the so-called Green New Deal, a wide-ranging climate proposal from progressives in Congress.)As the governor of a traditionally purple state on the front lines of climate change, Mr. DeSantis has been confronted with clear evidence that the environment is changing. But he has largely tried to treat global warming’s symptoms — funding local projects to address flooding and storm surge, for instance — rather than take steps to address what climate scientists say are the human-made underlying causes, such as by cutting back on the use of fossil fuels.Mr. DeSantis has also cast himself as a conservationist in the Teddy Roosevelt mold, embracing a brand of environmentally friendly outdoor-ism long pushed by Republicans in Florida — where swimming, boating, fishing and hunting are popular and profitable — as well as in Western states. That philosophy led him, especially early in his tenure, to attack the state’s powerful sugar industry, which contributes to water and air pollution.“In terms of environment, what I care about is the environment people enjoy,” Mr. DeSantis said in a radio interview this year. “I want to conserve Florida, leave it to God better than we found it.”More recently, however, he rejected roughly $350 million in federal funding for energy efficiency initiatives. And in a nod to the nation’s culture wars, he gave tax breaks to people who bought gas stoves.Florida environmentalists describe Mr. DeSantis’s mixed record as one that gave them optimism early on in his administration but has since left them feeling somewhat disappointed. Mr. DeSantis’s narrow but intense focus on Everglades restoration felt “very hopeful out of the gate,” said Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades, a nonprofit advocacy group. “But the follow-through has been problematic and lacking.”The governor created a toxic algae task force, she noted, but the group’s scientific recommendations had mostly been ignored. And projects to lessen climate change’s impact have not taken a comprehensive approach, she said.“‘Resilience’ has become a euphemism for installing diesel-powered pumps at the shoreline to keep developed areas dry,” she said. “That approach is not going to serve Florida in the long term.”At the first Republican debate last month, Mr. DeSantis reacted angrily when a Fox News moderator asked the candidates onstage to raise their hands if they thought human behavior was causing climate change.“We’re not school children,” Mr. DeSantis said. “Let’s have the debate.”But he did not answer the question, instead jumping into an attack on the “corporate media” and President Biden’s response to the wildfires in Maui. One of the moderators, Bret Baier, followed up: “Is that a yes? Is that a hand raise?”Mr. DeSantis stared at the camera without speaking, allowing another candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, to jump in. “I think it was a hand raise for him,” Mr. Ramaswamy said.“No, no, no,” Mr. DeSantis replied. “I didn’t raise a hand.”In contrast, nearly half of Americans believe that climate change is “mostly” caused by human activity, according to a poll by Ipsos released in May. Roughly a quarter said climate change was mostly caused by natural patterns. (Smaller percentages said that it was “not really happening” or that they did not know its cause.)There is a clear partisan divide, however. Among Republicans, only 22 percent of people said climate change was mostly caused by human activity, compared with 75 percent of Democrats.Mr. Biden seemed to weigh in last weekend during a visit to Florida after Idalia. “Nobody intelligent can deny the impact of the climate crisis anymore,” he said.President Biden visiting a Florida community affected by Hurricane Idalia this month. Climate change has become a clearly partisan issue, with only 22 percent of Republicans saying in a recent poll that climate change was mostly caused by human activity, compared with 75 percent of Democrats.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesIn an interview with Fox News that aired on Wednesday, Mr. DeSantis shot back. “The idea that we’ve not had powerful storms until recently, that’s just not factually true,” he said, adding that Democrats were trying to “politicize the weather.”But scientists say that climate change is making hurricanes more powerful, though not more frequent, as warmer ocean waters strengthen and sustain those storms. The proportion of the most severe storms — Categories 4 and 5 — has increased since 1980, when satellite imagery began reliably tracking hurricanes.When Mr. DeSantis ran for governor in 2018, relations between Florida Republicans and environmentalists had hit a low point. Under Rick Scott, the Republican governor at the time, state officials said they had been warned against even using the phrases “climate change” or “global warming.” (Mr. Scott said there was no policy banning those terms.) Toxic algae blooms were choking many of Florida’s beautiful bays, canals and rivers.Mr. DeSantis made improving water quality one of his top campaign issues. Other Republicans, including Representatives Vern Buchanan and Brian J. Mast, whose districts were being harmed by the harmful algae, also campaigned on water quality. The G.O.P. had used the issue to attract independent and crossover Democratic voters at a time when Florida was still a true political battleground.The message, said Jacob Perry, who ran Mr. Mast’s 2016 campaign, was intended to be: “This isn’t your father’s Republican Party.”Mr. DeSantis appeared to embrace a similar approach.“The environment was a big reason he won that race,” said Stephen Lawson, Mr. DeSantis’s 2018 communications director, who added that it was one of the top reasons, if not the leading one, that he was able to appeal to swing voters.As a candidate in the 2018 Republican primary for governor, he criticized his party’s close ties to the sugar industry, which had supported his opponent. He said he backed “resiliency” but did not want to be a climate “alarmist.” Once elected, he seemed to relish signing off on billions of dollars to restore state waterways and the Everglades.During his first year in office, his environmental policies gave Mr. DeSantis the veneer of a center-right governor. He appointed the state’s first chief science officer and hired a “chief resilience officer,” whose job description included a mandate to prepare the state for the “impacts of climate change, especially sea-level rise.”He signed the first bill passed by the Republican-held Legislature that directly addressed climate change, after what a Republican state senator acknowledged had been a “lost decade” of inaction. This year, Mr. DeSantis vetoed legislation that would have allowed electric utilities to impose fees on property owners who install solar panels.But Mr. DeSantis has made other decisions that let down conservationists during his governorship. He limited local governments from making stringent environmental regulations. He backed the building of new rural highways known as the “roads to nowhere.”On the campaign trail, Mr. DeSantis does not often talk about what his environmental policies would be as president. But he has suggested in broad terms that reducing fossil fuel emissions would be a good thing, while saying that the free market is a more appropriate tool for doing so than government intervention.At a barbecue in New Hampshire last month, he laid out some of his positions on climate change in response to a voter’s question, taking the opportunity to criticize Democrats for pushing renewable energy in the United States while China and India continue to rely on oil and gas.“They’ve taken this position that you can never burn a fossil fuel,” Mr. DeSantis said. “That is not going to work for our economy.”But in a reflection of how divisive climate change — and science more generally — has become for Republicans, the governor almost did not get to answer the question. The man who asked it was bombarded with boos and catcalls from other members of the audience until the event’s host, former Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, asked for civility.“Science!” one woman in the crowd jeered sarcastically. “Facts!”Ruth Igielnik More