Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Tennessee Law Making School Board Culture Wars Even Worse

      by

      FRANKLIN, Tenn. — “What happens when a child sounds out the word ‘lesbian’ and turns to their teacher and asks, ‘What is a lesbian?’”Trisha Lucente, the mom of a local kindergartner, has come before the Williamson County school board to voice her distress over the district’s continued use of Epic, a digital library app containing more than 40,000 children’s books and videos. Ms. Lucente and like-minded parents have complained about several titles that they consider inappropriate. Anything touching on race, gender or sexuality can set off alarms in conservative circles here. (A book on sea horses came under fire recently. The fact that male sea horses get pregnant was seen as promoting the idea of gender fluidity.)In response, the school system temporarily shut down access to the library to conduct a review — prompting an outcry from supporters of the app — then reinstated it while allowing parents to opt out their kids.Ms. Lucente finds the compromise unacceptable. What happens when a child who has been opted out overhears the lesbian question, she demands. “What position does that put our teachers in? What are they supposed to say to that?” The Epic situation, she contends, is just another example of how the board and administration are dividing the community and “failing our children and our teachers.”Ms. Lucente is not the only one with strong feelings on the matter. Multiple parents and teachers at the meeting rise to praise Epic. One teenager, a junior at Franklin High School, asserts that “censorship is stupid” and scolds adults who would “shield” students from learning about racism, antisemitism and other uncomfortable aspects of history and humanity.Welcome to Williamson County, a hot spot in the ongoing culture war engulfing America’s public schools. An affluent, highly educated, politically conservative enclave just south of Nashville, Williamson has seen its share of school-related drama over the years. In 2015, for instance, conservatives here were fired up about a seventh-grade social studies unit that some viewed as Islamic indoctrination.The trauma of the Covid pandemic has driven tensions to a new level. Last August, the district drew national attention after a mob of parents, protesting the board’s vote to impose a temporary mask mandate, turned feral. One pro-mask dad was swarmed, cursed at and threatened as he made his way from the meeting back to his car. “You can leave freely, but we will find you!” a protester raged in a video that went viral.The district has since sought to curtail the hostilities. The 25 residents who signed up to speak at this month’s meeting were allowed precisely one minute each, with a timer keeping everyone on track. Officials warned at the outset that disruptive speakers would have their remarks terminated and that those who felt unsafe could have a sheriff’s deputy escort them to their vehicles.Williamson County is obviously not the only community dealing with such frictions. School boards across the nation are being dragged onto the front lines of partisan battles. Vaccination requirements, diversity and inclusion efforts, books that make certain people feel icky — these issues and more have prompted ugly, overheated confrontations, some of them violent. Outside groups are fanning the flames, as are cynical politicians looking to juice their careers. (See: DeSantis, Ron, governor of Florida.) The day-to-day concerns of running a school district (boring stuff like budgeting and approving contracts for vendors) are increasingly being overshadowed by partisan agendas.Many people would look at the spiraling circus and think: This is bad. Low-level, nonpartisan school boards are not where these radioactive political issues should be hashed out. Someone should find a way to reduce the heat on these public servants.Instead, Tennessee’s Republican-controlled legislature went the other way: passing a law last fall that allows for partisan school board elections, setting up a system that not only codifies the existing toxicity but also promises to exacerbate it. So much for putting students first.The overwhelming majority of school board races around the country are nonpartisan. This was the case in Tennessee until Republican lawmakers, during an emergency session called to deal with Covid-related issues, rammed through legislation permitting county parties to hold primary elections to select school board nominees, who can then list their party affiliations on the general election ballots. It was a controversial move, and the opposition included state Democrats, droves of educators and school board officials and even some Republicans.The law’s supporters insist that partisan contests will give voters a clearer sense of school board candidates and their values and, more broadly, that they will increase involvement and public interest in what are typically low-profile races.Critics of the new system counter that the law will change the fundamental nature of the position — and not in a good way. Among their biggest fears: To win their party’s primaries, candidates will need to focus more on hot-button issues that appeal to base voters, leading to more and fiercer culture clashes. Campaigns will require more money and more partisan brawling, discouraging many people from running. Those who skip the primaries and run in general elections as independents will be at a disadvantage. (America’s two-party system is not kind to independent candidates at any political level.) And as time goes on, the pool of people who choose to run will be composed less of civic-minded parents than of partisan warriors and careerist politicians.Not all of the county parties opted to hold school board primaries this cycle, and many voters are likely not yet aware of the change. But even at this early stage, there are signs that the new law’s supporters and its detractors are both right.Pretty much everyone plugged into this drama acknowledges that the newly partisan contests have increased interest and participation in school board races.Jim Garrett is the chair of the Davidson County Republican Party, which is holding primaries for its candidates running for the Metropolitan Nashville school board. Nashville is among Tennessee’s bluer regions, where Democrats have an electoral edge. Even so, with the new system, he says, more Republicans are running, and they are raising more money. “It looks like the cost of a campaign is going to be about double what it used to be,” he estimates.The local G.O.P. is also investing more in these races. For the first time, Davidson Republicans are arranging training sessions for school board candidates. These races weren’t a focus in previous elections, says Mr. Garrett. “They are a focus now.”There hasn’t yet been special training on the Democratic side. But the county party is happy to connect candidates to campaign vendors and other resources, says its chairwoman, Tara Houston. The party has also tasked a special committee to come up with a platform outlining its basic values on public education, which Democratic school board hopefuls will be expected to support.In Williamson County, where having a D next to one’s name is a scarlet letter of sorts, most of the primary action has been on the Republican side. In multiple districts, more conventional conservatives are facing off against contenders from the party’s Trumpier wing. Outside groups have lined up behind their champions, providing financial and other support. The most prominent of these is Williamson Families, a political action committee dedicated to protecting the county’s “conservative roots” and “Judeo-Christian values.” The PAC is led by Robin Steenman, who also heads the local branch of Moms for Liberty, a nonprofit based in Florida that champions parental rights and “liberty-minded” leaders nationwide. Williamson Families has endorsed a slate of superconservatives — after weeding out the RINOs, of course.Multiple parents and teachers in Williamson complain that, as predicted, some of the campaigns and contenders seem focused less on concrete education issues than on culture-war talking points. One middle-school teacher vents to me that some candidates are bragging about their love of Donald Trump and decrying the decline of traditional families and the godlessness of today’s youth.Meagan Gillis, whose two young daughters attend county schools, says the whole situation has turned to “chaos.” She points to a social media post by a conservative candidate promoting the child furries myth: the wacky online claim that teachers are being forced to cater to students who identify as cats, to the point of putting litter boxes in classrooms and meowing at the children. “I’m like, are you kidding me?” Ms. Gillis marvels. Things are getting so absurd, she says, that her family is seriously considering moving out of the area.Similar concerns and complaints can be heard from other corners of the state. Virginia Babb has loved her time on the Knox County school board and was planning to run for re-election — until the shift to partisan races. Now she will step down at the end of her term rather than get sucked into the slime. She initially ran for the board as “a very involved parent” without strong partisan leanings, she tells me, noting: “I don’t like either party. They are too much controlled by their extremes.”So down the partisan rabbit hole Tennessee school boards are being nudged — with other states possibly to follow. Missouri, Arizona, Florida and South Carolina are among the states where lawmakers toyed less successfully with similar legislation this year. Some bills made it farther than others, and the idea is likely to keep popping up. The conservative American Enterprise Institute favors listing school board candidates’ party affiliations on ballots. A collection of conservative leaders has been exploring other ways to bring school board races more into line with other types of elections, according to Politico.All of which would indeed most likely earn school board campaigns more attention and resources and make candidates easier to ideologically sort. But at what cost to America’s children?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

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Marjorie Taylor Greene Denies ‘Insurrectionist’ Charge in Court

      by

      In an extraordinary administrative law hearing, the Georgia representative was forced to defend her actions surrounding the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.WASHINGTON — Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, on Friday repeated false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election as she defended her actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, in an extraordinary hearing that asked whether she should be labeled an “insurrectionist” and barred from office under the Constitution.While under oath at an administrative law hearing in Atlanta, Ms. Greene insisted that “a tremendous amount of fraudulent activity” had robbed former President Donald J. Trump of his re-election, an assertion that has been soundly refuted by multiple courts, Republican-led recounts and Mr. Trump’s own attorney general, William P. Barr.But despite her exhortations on social media to “#FightForTrump,” she said she had possessed no knowledge that protesters intended to invade the Capitol on Jan. 6, or disrupt the congressional joint session called to count the electoral votes and confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. She said she did not recall meeting with any of the instigators.And Ms. Greene said neither she nor members of her staff had offered anyone tours of the Capitol complex before Jan. 6, 2021, nor had they provided anyone with a map of the complex, refuting tales of a conspiracy promoted by some Democrats that she had helped the rioters plan their attack.“I was asking people to come for a peaceful march, which is what everyone is entitled to do under their First Amendment,” Ms. Greene testified. “I was not asking them to actively engage in violence.”The contentious hearing unfolded after a group of constituents from her Northwest Georgia district, supported by liberal lawyers, filed suit to block Ms. Greene, a vigorously right-wing lawmaker, from appearing on the ballot for re-election. They charged that she had exhorted rioters to take up arms to block the certification of Mr. Biden’s election, and helped organize the assembly behind the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, that turned into a violent mob.The legal case appeared to be on shaky ground as the administrative law judge, Charles R. Beaudrot, repeatedly sided with Ms. Greene’s lawyer, the prominent conservative election attorney James Bopp Jr., who maintained that much of the questioning violated his client’s right of free speech. Judge Beaudrot will make a recommendation on whether to bar Ms. Greene from the ballot, but the final decision will fall to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger — the same official who resisted pressure from Mr. Trump to change the presidential election results in the state, and who faces a Trump-backed challenger, Representative Jody Hice, in the coming Republican primary.But the proceeding afforded lawyers pressing the case against Ms. Greene to maintain their pressure and keep attention on her role on Jan. 6, and compel her to answer for it. The proceedings were broadcast on C-SPAN, live-streamed on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook and revealed a House Republican that was often peevish and sometimes on the defensive.“This is a solemn occasion,” Ron Fein, the lead lawyer bringing the case against Ms. Greene with the group Free Speech for People, told Judge Beaudrot. “This is not politics. This is not theater. This is a serious case that the voters who we represent have brought in order to offer proof that their United States representative seeking re-election, Marjorie Taylor Greene, having taken the oath to support the Constitution, then broke that oath and engaged in insurrection.”Mr. Bopp dismissed the case as precisely the opposite, asserting that the law was on the side of his client, who, far from engaging in insurrection, had been a victim during the riot — scared, confused, and fearing for her life as Mr. Trump’s supporters swarmed through the Capitol, where she was present just to do her job.He maintained that the entire Free Speech for People effort was designed to deny Georgia voters their rights, because the plaintiffs could not defeat Ms. Greene at the ballot box.“This is not a candidate debate. This is not a place for political hyperbole. This is not a place for political smear. It’s a court of law,” Mr. Bopp said.At the heart of the case against Ms. Greene is the plaintiffs’ claim that the congresswoman is disqualified from seeking re-election because her support of the rioters who attacked the Capitol made her an “insurrectionist” under the Constitution, and therefore barred her under the little-known third section of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted during the Reconstruction years to punish members of the Confederacy.That section declares that “no person shall” hold “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath” to “support the Constitution,” had then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”Similar cases have suffered setbacks in North Carolina, where a federal judge blocked a challenge against Representative Madison Cawthorn, another far-right Republican, and in Arizona, where the Superior Court in Maricopa County ruled on Thursday that it did not have the authority to block the re-elections of two other conservative Republicans, Representatives Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, and the candidacy for secretary of state of a state representative, Mark Finchem.A separate effort is pending against Republicans, including Senator Ron Johnson, in Wisconsin.But so far, only the case against Ms. Greene has been allowed to proceed. And on Friday, she was forced to answer questions under oath.Ms. Greene denied calling Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “traitor to her country,” though the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Andrew Celli, produced a quotation from her saying just that. She also said she never advocated violence against her political opponents, though her personal Twitter account “liked” a post that advocated “a bullet to the head of Nancy Pelosi.” She said she did “not recall” advocating that Mr. Trump impose martial law.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 5Signs of progress. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      N.Y. House Districts Illegally Favor Democrats, Appeals Court Rules

      by

      A divided five-judge panel found that Democrats engaged in gerrymandering in creating new district maps. The case is expected to head to New York’s highest court.A New York appeals court ruled on Thursday that new congressional districts drawn by Democrats violated the state’s ban on partisan gerrymandering, partially upholding a lower-court ruling that would block the state from using the lines in this year’s critical midterm elections.A divided five-judge panel in Rochester said Democratic legislative leaders had drawn the new House map “to discourage competition and favor Democrats,” knowingly ignoring the will of voters who recently approved a constitutional amendment outlawing the practice.“We are satisfied that petitioners established beyond a reasonable doubt that the Legislature acted with partisan intent,” a three-judge majority wrote in its opinion. Two judges dissented.Gov. Kathy Hochul and top legislative leaders are expected to immediately appeal the decision to the state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. The judges there, all of whom were appointed by Democratic governors, have indicated they could render a final verdict as soon as next week.The outcome in New York will have significant implications in the broader fight for control of the House of Representatives. National Democratic leaders are counting on the maps their party drew in New York to help offset gains by Republicans.Without them, Democrats are at risk of emerging from this year’s redistricting cycle having been bested by Republicans for the second consecutive decade. Republican gains were on track to grow further after Florida lawmakers this week approved a map drawn by Gov. Ron DeSantis that would create four new Republican-friendly seats.The ruling was the second consecutive setback for New York’s Democratic mapmakers, and this time it came in an appellate court that was viewed as generally friendly to the party.What to Know About RedistrictingRedistricting, Explained: Here are some answers to your most pressing questions about the process that is reshaping American politics.Understand Gerrymandering: Can you gerrymander your party to power? Try to draw your own districts in this imaginary state.Analysis: For years, the congressional map favored Republicans over Democrats. But in 2022, the map is poised to be surprisingly fair.Killing Competition: The number of competitive districts is dropping, as both parties use redistricting to draw themselves into safe seats.“Like other state courts around the country, New York courts aren’t finding the question of whether a map is a partisan gerrymander a particularly hard one to decide,” said Michael Li, senior counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “It’s very hard to defend a map like New York’s, and ultimately if it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.”Still, Mr. Li added, Thursday’s decision was only the second of three acts in New York’s redistricting legal drama.On Thursday, the judges from the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court ordered the Democrat-led Legislature to promptly redraft the map by April 30 or leave the task to a court-appointed neutral expert. The judges were largely silent on another key question at stake: whether some of the primaries scheduled for June should be postponed until August to accommodate new districts.The congressional lines in question, adopted by Democratic supermajorities in the Legislature in February, would give Democrats a clear advantage in 22 of the state’s 26 congressional districts by shifting voters favorable to their party into redrawn seats on Long Island and Staten Island and in Central New York, and packing Republicans in a smaller number of districts. Republicans currently hold eight districts on a map that was drawn by a court-appointed special master in 2012.State leaders did emerge with some good news from the latest ruling. The panel rejected more sweeping parts of the decision by the lower-court judge, Patrick F. McAllister of Steuben County, that held that lawmakers lacked the authority to draw any maps at all after New York’s newly created redistricting commission failed to agree on a plan for the state.As a result, the appeals court ruling reinstated State Senate and Assembly maps that Justice McAllister had thrown out.Mike Murphy, a spokesman for Senate Democrats, said they were “pleased” that the appeals court had validated the Legislature’s right to draw the maps this year, and predicted the higher court would reinstate the congressional maps as well.“We always knew this case would end at the Court of Appeals and look forward to being heard on our appeal to uphold the congressional map as well,” he said.John Faso, a spokesman for the Republican-backed voters challenging the maps, said that they would file their own appeal to try to strike the state legislative maps. But he called Thursday’s decision a “great victory.”The broader legal dispute turns on two interlocking questions: whether the mapmaking process properly adhered to procedures laid out in a 2014 amendment to the State Constitution, and whether the maps themselves violated an accompanying ban on drawing districts for partisan gain.The procedural changes made in 2014 were designed to remove the line-drawing process from the hands of politicians by creating an outside commission to solicit public input and forge a bipartisan proposal for House, State Senate and Assembly districts. If the commission had reached agreement, the Legislature’s role would have been to ratify the maps.How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Fear for Democracy. Why Aren’t They Running on It in 2022?

      by

      Republicans are far more energized about the issues of elections and voting, powered by a former president and many base voters who believe the 2020 contest was illegitimate.One party is running on democracy and elections in 2022, and it’s not the Democrats.Despite a broad consensus on the left that the country’s most revered institutions are in trouble, with President Biden and other leaders warning gravely that protecting voting rights and fair elections is of paramount importance, the vast majority of Democratic candidates are veering away from those issues on the campaign trail.Instead, they are focusing on bread-and-butter economic topics like inflation and gas prices. Continuing to win elections must come first, the thinking goes — and polls and focus groups show that the issue of voting rights is far down the list of voters’ most urgent concerns.“You cannot buy a lot of groceries with voting rights,” said Trey Martinez Fischer, a Texas state representative who organized Democrats’ flight from the state in July in a failed effort to block a Republican election bill. “Last summer there was nothing more important than voting rights, but the universe has shifted, and it’s become a conversation about our economy and inflation and the cost of goods.”But as that conversation has shifted, Democrats have largely ceded the political turf on the structure of American democracy to Republicans. Riding a lasting wave of anger over the 2020 election, many G.O.P. candidates have put what they call “election integrity” front and center, even as they attack Mr. Biden and Democrats over the rising cost of living.Many Republican candidates have falsely argued in debates, social media posts and TV ads that the 2020 race was stolen from former President Donald J. Trump, views that are shared by large numbers of the party’s voters. Mr. Trump’s allies have continued to try to decertify the 2020 results, and he has made questioning the last election a litmus test for winning his endorsement, which is coveted in Republican primaries.“It’s critical that we keep the heat on in terms of exposing what was a stolen election,” Peter Navarro, a former top White House adviser to Mr. Trump, said on Steve Bannon’s podcast last month.There is no evidence of meaningful fraud in the 2020 election, a finding consistent from the initial days after the vote through an array of reviews in the nearly 18 months since. Republicans ranging from William P. Barr, Mr. Trump’s attorney general, to state officials from Wisconsin to Wyoming have acknowledged that Mr. Biden was the rightful winner.The parties’ wide gap in energy on elections and voting — which comes during a midterm year when Republicans are ascendant — worries some Democrats, especially Black Democrats who have been dismayed by the party’s inability to pass federal voting protections while in power.“If people don’t see that Democrats are defending our right to vote, then people may not be enthused about coming out to vote,” said Angela Lang, the executive director of Black Leaders Organizing for Communities in Milwaukee.Partly in response to their base and to Mr. Trump, Republican state lawmakers have pressed vigorously to remake the country’s election systems, passing 34 laws restricting voting access in 19 states last year.Republican candidates are promising more: Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama, who is up for re-election, is running an ad saying the election was stolen and highlighting voting restrictions she signed into law. Her leading challenger, Lindy Blanchard, has attacked Ms. Ivey for at one point saying Mr. Biden won fairly.“The Republican base and all Republicans care about not just voter integrity but voter security,” said Corry Bliss, an adviser to several Republican candidates. “If you need identification to buy NyQuil, you should need identification to vote in our elections.”“You cannot buy a lot of groceries with voting rights,” said Trey Martinez Fischer, a Texas state representative who organized Democrats’ flight from the state in July in a failed effort to block a Republican election bill.Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York TimesOn the Democratic side, a small handful of candidates running for office at any level of government have run television ads pledging to work to expand voting rights, according to AdImpact, a media tracking firm.In both parties, candidates are following their voters.Democrats have told pollsters, focus groups and organizers knocking on their doors that they are most worried about inflation. Despite macroeconomic data that Democrats paint as rosy, Americans broadly do not feel good about the economy. That includes Republicans, but they are also impassioned about electoral issues: Polls show that nearly three-quarters believe Mr. Biden’s victory was illegitimate.Incumbent Democrats and the White House are trying to make a case that Mr. Biden is overseeing a drop in the unemployment rate accompanied by an increase in wages, a difficult strategy since inflation overshadows both of those trends and Democrats are the party in charge. An NBC poll last month found that voters were far more likely to blame Mr. Biden for inflation than for the pandemic or corporate price increases.Representative Pete Aguilar of California, who serves both on the Jan. 6 Committee and in the House Democratic leadership, said that while “we hope that everybody starts with the base level of, ‘protect democracy, support a peaceful transfer of power,’” he and other party leaders wanted candidates “talking about issues that matter, and that is economic.”Some Democrats have tried to make voting rights a leading issue in the United States. When the Texas legislators fled Austin for Washington last summer, they tried shaming Senate Democrats into passing a sweeping federal expansion of voting rights. In January, as Mr. Biden pushed for the same goal, he gave a soaring speech in Atlanta comparing today’s Republicans to George Wallace and Bull Connor, villains of the civil rights era.Neither effort worked.Now voting rights has virtually disappeared as a top issue for both voters and candidates. In an AARP poll of likely voters aged 50 and older that was released this month, voting rights was ninth on a list of the most important issues facing the country, just behind immigration and ahead of racism. Katie Hobbs, who as Arizona’s secretary of state defended President Biden’s 2020 victory in her state, said voters and fellow Democrats were tired of talking about voting rights.Cassidy Araiza for The New York TimesThe party’s highest-profile defenders of voting rights are also training their attention elsewhere. Stacey Abrams, the leading Democratic candidate for governor of Georgia, is focusing far less on voting rights than she once did in her speeches, eschewing her flagship issue to spend more time addressing topics like Medicaid expansion and aid to small businesses. And in Arizona, Katie Hobbs, the secretary of state who defended Mr. Biden’s 2020 victory there, said voters and fellow Democrats would rather talk about anything else.“The Democratic lawmakers I talk to are tired of this fight,” Ms. Hobbs said. “They’re focused on addressing real issues that affect people’s daily lives rather than relitigating the 2020 election.”Democratic strategists are also advising their clients to move on from talking about expanding voting rights.“Democrats have to choose between a legislative agenda that advances voting rights with the need to educate communities of color about the new laws in their states,” said Dan Sena, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee who represents a host of clients running for House seats.Few Democrats have aired television ads pledging to expand voting access since the Senate effort faltered in January. Two Democratic congresswomen in Georgia who are facing off in a primary, Representatives Lucy McBath and Carolyn Bourdeaux, are both on the air highlighting their support for the failed federal voting legislation.The candidate making the most concrete promises of expanding voting access is Neville Blakemore, who is running to be the clerk of Jefferson County, Ky., which includes Louisville.Understand the Battle Over U.S. Voting RightsCard 1 of 6Why are voting rights an issue now? More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      McConnell and McCarthy’s Jan. 6 Fury at Trump Faded by February

      by

      In the days after the attack, Representative Kevin McCarthy planned to tell Mr. Trump to resign. Senator Mitch McConnell told allies impeachment was warranted. But their fury faded fast.In the days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building, the two top Republicans in Congress, Representative Kevin McCarthy and Senator Mitch McConnell, told associates they believed President Trump was responsible for inciting the deadly riot and vowed to drive him from politics. Mr. McCarthy went so far as to say he would push Mr. Trump to resign immediately: “I’ve had it with this guy,” he told a group of Republican leaders.But within weeks both men backed off an all-out fight with Mr. Trump because they feared retribution from him and his political movement. Their drive to act faded fast as it became clear it would mean difficult votes that would put them at odds with most of their colleagues.“I didn’t get to be leader by voting with five people in the conference,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, told a friend.The confidential expressions of outrage from Mr. McCarthy and Mr. McConnell, which have not been previously reported, illustrate the immense gulf between what Republican leaders say privately about Mr. Trump and their public deference to a man whose hold on the party has gone virtually unchallenged for half a decade.The leaders’ swift retreat in January 2021 represented a capitulation at a moment of extraordinary political weakness for Mr. Trump — perhaps the last and best chance for mainstream Republicans to reclaim control of their party from a leader who had stoked an insurrection against American democracy itself.This account of the private discussions among Republican leaders in the days after the Jan. 6 attack is adapted from a new book, “This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden and the Battle for America’s Future,” which draws on hundreds of interviews with lawmakers and officials, and contemporaneous records of pivotal moments in the 2020 presidential campaign.Mr. McConnell’s office declined to comment. Mark Bednar, a spokesman for Mr. McCarthy, denied that the Republican leader told colleagues he would push Mr. Trump to leave office. “McCarthy never said he’d call Trump to say he should resign,” Mr. Bednar said.Representative Kevin McCarthy in the Capitol two weeks after the riot.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesNo one embodies the stark accommodation to Mr. Trump more than Mr. McCarthy, a 57-year-old Californian who has long had his sights set on becoming speaker of the House. In public after Jan. 6, Mr. McCarthy issued a careful rebuke of Mr. Trump, saying that he “bears responsibility” for the mob that tried to stop Congress from officially certifying the president’s loss. But he declined to condemn him in sterner language.In private, Mr. McCarthy went much further.On a phone call with several other top House Republicans on Jan. 8, Mr. McCarthy said Mr. Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 had been “atrocious and totally wrong.” He faulted the president for “inciting people” to attack the Capitol, saying that Mr. Trump’s remarks at a rally on the National Mall that day were “not right by any shape or any form.”During that conversation, Mr. McCarthy inquired about the mechanism for invoking the 25th Amendment — the process whereby the vice president and members of the cabinet can remove a president from office — before concluding that was not a viable option. Mr. McCarthy, who was among those who objected to the election results, was uncertain and indecisive, fretting that the Democratic drive to impeach Mr. Trump would “put more fuel on the fire” of the country’s divisions.But Mr. McCarthy’s resolve seemed to harden as the gravity of the attack — and the potential political fallout for his party — sank in. Two members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet had quit their posts after the attack and several moderate Republican governors had called for the president’s resignation. Video clips of the riot kept surfacing online, making the raw brutality of the attack ever more vivid in the public mind.The mob breaking into the Capitol.Win McNamee/Getty ImagesOn Jan. 10, Mr. McCarthy spoke again with the leadership team and this time he had a plan in mind.The Democrats were driving hard at an impeachment resolution, Mr. McCarthy said, and they would have the votes to pass it. Now he planned to call Mr. Trump and tell him it was time for him to go.“What he did is unacceptable. Nobody can defend that and nobody should defend it,” he told the group.Mr. McCarthy said he would tell Mr. Trump of the impeachment resolution: “I think this will pass, and it would be my recommendation you should resign.”He acknowledged it was unlikely Mr. Trump would follow that suggestion.Mr. McCarthy spent the four years of Mr. Trump’s presidency as one of the White House’s most obedient supporters in Congress. Since Mr. Trump’s defeat, Mr. McCarthy has appeased far-right members of the House, some of whom are close to the former president. Mr. McCarthy may need their support to become speaker, a vote that could come as soon as next year if the G.O.P. claims the House in November.Representative Kevin McCarthy with Mr. Trump in Bakersfield, Calif., in 2020.Doug Mills/The New York TimesBut in a brief window after the storming of the Capitol, Mr. McCarthy contemplated a total break with Mr. Trump and his most extreme supporters.During the same Jan. 10 conversation when he said he would call on Mr. Trump to resign, Mr. McCarthy told other G.O.P. leaders he wished the big tech companies would strip some Republican lawmakers of their social media accounts, as Twitter and Facebook had done with Mr. Trump. Members such as Lauren Boebert of Colorado had done so much to stoke paranoia about the 2020 election and made offensive comments online about the Capitol attack.“We can’t put up with that,” Mr. McCarthy said, adding, “Can’t they take their Twitter accounts away, too?”Mr. McCarthy “never said that particular members should be removed from Twitter,” Mr. Bednar said.Other Republican leaders in the House agreed with Mr. McCarthy that the president’s behavior deserved swift punishment. Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the second-ranking House Republican, said on one call that it was time for the G.O.P. to contemplate a “post-Trump Republican House,” while Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the head of the party’s House campaign committee, suggested censuring Mr. Trump.Yet none of the men followed through on their tough talk in those private conversations.In the following days, Mr. McCarthy heard from some Republican lawmakers who advised against confronting Mr. Trump. In one group conversation, Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio cautioned that conservative voters back home “go ballistic” in response to criticism of Mr. Trump, demanding that Republicans instead train their denunciations on Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden.“I’m just telling you that that’s the kind of thing that we’re dealing with, with our base,” Mr. Johnson said.When only 10 House Republicans joined with Democrats to support impeaching Mr. Trump on Jan. 13, the message to Mr. McCarthy was clear.By the end of the month, he was pursuing a rapprochement with Mr. Trump, visiting him at Mar-a-Lago and posing for a photograph. (“I didn’t know they were going to take a picture,” Mr. McCarthy said, somewhat apologetically, to one frustrated lawmaker.)Mr. McCarthy has never repeated his denunciations of Mr. Trump, instead offering a tortured claim that the real responsibility for Jan. 6 lies with security officials and Democratic legislative leaders for inadequately defending the Capitol complex.Senator Mitch McConnell, left, with Senator Patrick Leahy after it was announced that Mr. Leahy would preside over Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesIn the Senate, Mr. McConnell’s reversal was no less revealing. Late on the night of Jan. 6, Mr. McConnell predicted to associates that his party would soon break sharply with Mr. Trump and his acolytes; the Republican leader even asked a reporter in the Capitol for information about whether the cabinet might really pursue the 25th Amendment.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 5Signs of progress. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Florida Senate Passes Congressional Map Giving G.O.P. a Big Edge

      by

      The map, proposed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, would most likely add four Republican districts while eliminating three held by Democrats.Florida Republicans are poised to adopt one of the nation’s most aggressive congressional maps, pressing forward with a proposal from Gov. Ron DeSantis that would most likely add four congressional districts for the party while eliminating three held by Democrats.The map, which the Florida Senate approved by a party-line vote of 24 to 15 on Wednesday during a special session of the Legislature, was put forward by Mr. DeSantis after he vetoed a version approved in March by state legislators that would have added two Republican seats and subtracted one from the Democrats.The new proposal would create 20 seats that favor Republicans and just eight that tilt toward Democrats, meaning that the G.O.P. would be likely to hold 71 percent of the seats. Former President Donald J. Trump carried Florida in 2020 with 51.2 percent of the vote.The Florida map would erase some of the gains Democrats have made in this year’s national redistricting process. The 2022 map had been poised to be balanced between the two major parties for the first time in generations, with a nearly equal number of House districts that are expected to lean Democratic and Republican for the first time in more than 50 years.The map would also serve as a high-profile, if possibly temporary, victory for Mr. DeSantis, who has emerged as one of the Republican Party’s leading figures and has not ruled out challenging Mr. Trump for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination. The Florida House is expected to pass the map on Thursday, and Mr. DeSantis is certain to sign it.“I think they are good maps that will be able to be upheld,” said Joe Gruters, a Florida state senator who is the chairman of the state Republican Party.If it is adopted into law, the Florida map would face legal challenges from Democrats, who clashed with Republicans on Tuesday over whether the proposal violated the state’s Constitution and the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on racial gerrymandering.What to Know About RedistrictingRedistricting, Explained: Here are some answers to your most pressing questions about the process that is reshaping American politics.Understand Gerrymandering: Can you gerrymander your party to power? Try to draw your own districts in this imaginary state.Analysis: For years, the congressional map favored Republicans over Democrats. But in 2022, the map is poised to be surprisingly fair.Killing Competition: The number of competitive districts is dropping, as both parties use redistricting to draw themselves into safe seats.“It does appear to be politically motivated, and it does not take seriously the hard-working Black people in the state,” said Rosalind Osgood, a state senator from Broward County in South Florida.Adam Kincaid, the executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, the party’s main mapmaking organization, said that the proposed map complied with the state Constitution “while remaining faithful to the U.S. Constitution and the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.”Some Democrats predicted that the DeSantis map would ultimately not pass legal muster — though any successful challenge would probably not arrive in time for the November elections. In addition to the Florida dispute, Democrats are locked in a court battle over a political gerrymander of their own in New York, where a judge last month invalidated Democratic-drawn maps.The Florida map would end the congressional career of Representative Al Lawson, a Black Democrat from Jacksonville, by carving up a district that stretches across North Florida to combine Black neighborhoods in Jacksonville and Tallahassee.It would also eliminate an Orlando district held by Representative Val Demings, a Democrat, and pack Black voters from two districts in Tampa and St. Petersburg into one, creating a second district certain to be won by a Republican. Ms. Demings is vacating her seat to challenge Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican.If the new map becomes law, Representative Val Demings’s congressional district in Orlando would be eliminated. Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesMr. Lawson’s district has been held by a Black Democrat since 1993, when former Representative Corrine Brown first took office.Mr. DeSantis’s map-drawer, Alex Kelly, said at a Florida Senate committee hearing on Tuesday that he could not draw a compact majority-Black district based in Jacksonville.“I determined that was not possible to check all those boxes,” he said.But Democrats argued that the map represented an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.“Governor DeSantis is bullying the Legislature into drawing Republicans an illegitimate and illegal partisan advantage in the congressional map, and he’s doing it at the expense of Black voters in Florida,” Kelly Burton, the president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in an interview. “This blatant gerrymander will not go unchallenged.”Democrats’ objections to the DeSantis map focused in part on a state constitutional amendment enacted by Florida voters in 2010 that set new standards for the redistricting process by requiring compact districts that did not favor one political party. A state court ordered Florida’s entire congressional map to be redrawn before the 2016 elections.How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      With or Without Trump, the MAGA Movement Is the Future of the Republican Party

      by

      The fissures in the Democratic Party are on display for all to see, since it is the party in power, but the divisions in the Republican Party and the conservative movement are deeper, wider and far more threatening.Matthew Continetti, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, describes the developments that have brought the conservative movement to a boil in his new book, “The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism.”In Continetti’s telling, there was deepening frustration and anger on the right after Republicans took control of the House in 2011 but still could not block the seemingly inexorable move to the left. In 2011, the Department of Education declared that Title IX required universities to investigate charges of sexual harassment with few due-process protections for the accused — to the dismay of many conservatives (and plenty of liberals). In 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services mandated that Obamacare cover the costs of contraception and abortifacients. In 2016, the Department of Education advised schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice.“These administration dictates made many conservatives question the efficacy of controlling Congress,” Continetti writes. “The legislative body seemed unable to prevent the Obama agenda in any fashion.”Conservatives have controlled the Supreme Court since 2006, when Justice Samuel Alito replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, but in 2015 the court established the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. “Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the deciding vote in Obergefell v. Hodges,” Continetti reports, noting that Kennedy’s “decision nullified bans on gay marriage in 31 states. Social conservatives were apoplectic.”As the same time, white working-class culture was unraveling, as Charles Murray observed in his 2012 book, “Coming Apart.”“At the top of society,” Continetti writes, “a self-perpetuating elite lived inside a bubble of affluent neighborhoods and postal codes Murray called ‘Super-Zips,’ while mass suffering played out below. Most Americans, Murray pointed out, did not enjoy the benefits of intact families, vibrant communities and church membership.” Addiction levels, Continetti continued, were staggering. “Opioid and heroin abuse caused a spike in deaths, in some years killing as many Americans as died in Vietnam.”Most important, from a political perspective: “All this happened under the noses of most conservative and Republican elites. They lived in the wealthy Virginia and Maryland suburbs surrounding Washington, D.C. They enjoyed life in the Super-Zips,” Continetti writes. The elite of the right “were separated from growing numbers of their own party by background, education, income and lifestyle.”The stage was set for a political explosion and it came in the form of Donald Trump. The conservative elite in Washington sneered: “‘It is simply childish to trust this contemptible parody of a father figure,’ wrote Michael Gerson in The Washington Post. George Will said that he deserved to lose 50 states. Charles Krauthammer called him a ‘rodeo clown.’”None of that mattered.“Anti-establishment conservatives found him refreshing,” Continetti adds. “Not one iota of Trump was politically correct. He played by no rules of civility. He genuflected to no one. He despised the media with the same intensity as the conservative grass roots.”Millions of voters may have found Trump “refreshing,” but there continue to be dissenters on the right who see the consequences as disastrous.David French, a senior editor at The Dispatch, warned in an interview with Sean Illing of Vox:Here’s what’s the terrifying thing on the right that can be a career- and reputation-ending allegation: “You’re weak. You’re a coward.” So the transformation, this flipping upside down of morality, turning bullying into strength, turning restraint into vice, all of that, what has then happened is it enables the Trumpists and the Trumpist world. They’re wielding this sword that is very sharp culturally in red spaces, this accusation of weakness and cowardice, as a weapon to keep people in line, because they’ve defined support for this movement as evidence of your strength.Yuval Levin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (and a contributing Opinion writer for The Times), described a transformation on the right that began before Trump but has accelerated under his direction. Speaking at a March 2021 Harvard Kennedy School forum, Levin said: “I think conservatives are naturally defenders of a society’s institutions — not blindly, they’re also reformers — but they believe in the purposes of those institutions.”The Republican Party, he continued,has gradually become hostile to Americans’ institutions. It sees them as possessed by the other party. It sees them as corrupt. It looks at them through a populist lens as the source of the problem, rather than the source of solutions.In the fall of 2016, with Trump as the Republican presidential nominee, Levin wrote in Politico magazine:This election cycle has revealed serious fault lines and weaknesses on the right, and the Republican Party will be working to make sense of it all for years. But for conservatives — I mean those who champion some version of the difficult balance of traditionalism in the moral arena, market mechanisms for addressing our economic challenges, and American strength in a dangerous world — all bound by a limited-government constitutionalism — this sorry year’s lessons have one overarching implication: We can no longer treat the G.O.P. simply as our own.Levin faults the conservative movement for clinging to “an agenda almost frozen in amber, locking in place a 1980s-style policy program even as the nation changed around us.”“Trump blew it all up,” Levin wrote. “It’s not that he had a rival policy prescription; his campaign largely amounts to a frantic venting of frustrations punctuated by demagogic chest-thumping. But his approach clearly appealed to a significant portion of Republican voters.”In fact, Trump did have one crystal-clear policy objective: to drastically reduce immigration, legal and illegal. The Washington Post editorial board wrote in September 2020:Without the assent of Congress, President Trump has remade almost every major facet of America’s immigration system over the past three-plus years, slashing levels of legal and illegal arrivals; refugees and asylum seekers; Muslim and Christian migrants. He has sought to strip citizenship from naturalized Americans and subject “dreamers” raised in this country to deportation. He tried to deter illegal border crossings by sundering families, thereby traumatizing migrant teens, tweens and toddlers.While many on the left deeply opposed these policies, Trump’s base was overwhelmingly behind him. As The Post pointed out:Mr. Trump has largely succeeded in delivering on the anti-immigration message that drove his 2016 victory and continues to animate much of his base. Only a small fraction of his border wall has been built, and Mexico has paid for none of it, but the thrust of his nativist vision has taken root in hundreds of rule changes and policy shifts that have slammed shut America’s doors.Placing Trump in a line of conservative demagogues who proved ultimately transient, Continetti writes:Every so often the right has embraced a demagogic leader who pulls it toward the political fringe. From Tom Watson to Henry Ford, Father Coughlin to Charles Lindbergh, Joseph McCarthy to George Wallace, Ross Perot to Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul to Donald Trump, these tribunes of discontent have succumbed to conspiracy theories, racism and anti-Semitism. They have flirted with violence. They have played footsie with autocracy.One aspect of the rise of Trump that has not received adequate attention is the substantial intellectual infrastructure that has buoyed the Trumpist right, its willingness to rupture moral codes and to discard traditional norms — an infrastructure that includes the Claremont Institute, Hillsdale College, First Things magazine and the American Mind website.Take the analysis of John Marini, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, in his 2016 essay “Donald Trump and the American Crisis”:Social institutions dependent upon the old morality have become intellectually indefensible. In terms of contemporary social and political thought, it is the good understood as the old that is no longer defensible, and its political defense has therefore become untenable. This alone makes the defense of reasonable conservatism — and constitutionalism itself — something akin to the defense of a dream that masquerades itself as reality in the minds of its votaries.Or take the view of Sohrab Ahmari, a columnist for First Things, that courtesy and common decency serve to protect a dysfunctional established order:Progressives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy.In other words, Ahmari writes, “To recognize that enmity is real is its own kind of moral duty.”Or take the view of Glenn Ellmers, a visiting research scholar at Hillsdale College, in his 2021 essay “‘Conservatism’ Is No Longer Enough”:Our norms are now hopelessly corrupt and need to be destroyed. It has been like this for a while — and the MAGA voters knew it, while most of the policy wonks and magazine scribblers did not … and still don’t. In almost every case, the political practices, institutions, and even rhetoric governing the United States have become hostile to both liberty and virtue.I asked a number of center-right conservative thinkers the following questions: To what degree was the Trump takeover of the Republican Party a legitimate democratic insurgency by a white working/middle-class electorate that had been providing crucial margins of victory to the Republican Party, but whose opposition to liberal immigration and trade policies (and whose support for universal benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare) had been rejected by the Republican establishment? And will the tension between an increasingly “woke” corporate America and a Republican Party taking “anti-woke” stands become a significant conflict?Most of those I contacted voiced considerable optimism that everyone on the first tier of prospective Republican candidates to replace Trump as the 2024 nominee, should such a development come to pass, could restore the Republican Party’s viability in presidential elections, especially in the suburbs.“For me,” wrote Rich Lowry, editor in chief of National Review, “the obvious path ahead is national candidates — say, a Ron DeSantis, Tom Cotton or Glenn Youngkin — who learn the positive lessons from Trump, reject the negative, and, free of all his baggage, forge a new political and substantive synthesis that is appealing to the Trump base and the suburbs.”In his email, Lowry acknowledged that in Trump’s wake, the balance of power within the Republican Party and the conservative movement has shifted:The current tensions and arguments on the right aren’t anything new — there’s been a multi-front struggle within conservatism as long as modern conservatism has existed. What’s new is that the populist tendency has usually been subordinate to the classic liberal element, and now, with the advent of Trump, populism has the upper hand.Conservatives across the board, Lowry continued, arestill robustly pro-life and pro-gun, and support the police and oppose softheaded progressive approaches to public order. Conservatives have long supported cultural coherence, and opposed political correctness and its associated ideologies in academic and K-12 education.That said, however,the right has rejected the lazy business-oriented consensus on immigration and China that held sway for too long. We won’t see a so-called comprehensive immigration reform again for a long time — and good riddance.In addition, Lowry noted, “any impetus to pursue entitlement reform has completely disappeared.”One striking theme in other conservative responses to my inquiry was the unanimous belief in the effectiveness and political gain to be made by the current Republican assault on “woke” corporations supporting transgender rights and on corporations requiring employees to undergo diversity training using principles of “critical race theory” — an assault led by Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida.John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, emailed in reply to my inquiry: “Nothing could be better for the G.O.P. than for its politicians to engage in battles with mega-corporations and for Republican officials to lose their reputations for being the handmaidens of big business.”Bradford Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, wrote by email:The Democratic Party, the universities, and much of corporate America have moved so far left on key cultural issues — from gender to race — that they’ve unintentionally made the “culture war the new big tent” for Republicans like Gov. Ron DeSantis. By opposing far-left positions championed by Democrats and C-suite executives that are unpopular not only with conservatives but also moderates, DeSantis and other Republicans are turning the cultural issues of the day to their political advantage. What’s more: Corporate America’s leftward turn on cultural issues only reinforces the anti-elitist tenor and trajectory of today’s Republican Party, as exemplified by what we’re seeing in Florida.Continetti also replied by email:Donald Trump won the 2016 Republican primary thanks to a committed base of supporters and a multicandidate field that split the opposition vote. Yet Trump earned neither a majority of votes overall nor majorities in the key primary states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. He benefited from divisions and flaws among his many rivals as well as his canny political instincts that allowed him to seize on the issue of immigration and connect it to worries over international terrorism.Even Trump’s Electoral College victory, Continetti continued,masked the fragility of his general-election coalition. He lost the popular vote. Republican Senate candidates in swing states ran ahead of him. Trump became president because he had the good fortune of running against the second-most-unpopular general election candidate in the history of the Gallup poll (Trump is number one).While Trump’s policy agenda includesopposition to illegal immigration, resistance to international trade, a general dislike of permanent alliances and overseas intervention, he also combined these modifications with the Reaganite agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, increased defense spending, conservative judicial appointments and support for Israel.Noting that Trump has “a contempt for the ‘niceties of liberal democracy’ and an admiration for nationalist strongmen who use state power to diminish the cultural power of the progressive left,” Continetti added that “Trump’s inability to accept defeat was behind his ‘Stop the Steal’ movement that, in a horrific illustration of what happens when one abandons the ‘niceties of liberal democracy,’ culminated in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.”I asked John Yoo, a law professor at Berkeley and author of the notorious 2003 “torture memos” while he was a deputy assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, whether the Republican Party had become the party of Patrick J. Buchanan, the fire-breathing populist conservative who ran unsuccessfully for president in 1992.“I sure hope not,” Yoo replied. “If it indeed became anti-immigrant, anti-trade and America First in foreign policy, it would indeed mirror Pat Buchanan’s insurgency. But I think the party is still fighting over these policies. The response of party leaders to Ukraine shows that the older Republican internationalist wing of the party is still alive and strong.”A number of the conservatives I contacted were reluctant to go on the record for fear of retribution within a severely conflicted and possibly retaliatory conservative movement.As one put it, “I apologize for the background request, but Trump has absolutely ruined the discourse among conservative intellectuals, elites, think tankers, pundits, etc. We were all basically on the same side, then Trump won the nomination, and it seemed like everybody turned on everybody, depending on the shades or nuances of your views.”Which, in turn, raises a question: Would a Youngkin or DeSantis or Cotton presidency in 2025 or 2029 be a conservative corrective to Trump, or would any of these three possibilities simply give a patina of legitimacy to Trump’s flagrantly aberrant moral compass?David French summarizes the Republican dynamic in a recent Atlantic essay, “Free Speech for Me but Not for Thee”:As the Republican Party evolves from a party focused on individual liberty and limits on government power to a party that more fully embraces government control of the economy and morality, it is reversing many of its previous stances on free speech in public universities, in public education, and in private corporations. Driven by a combination of partisan animosity and public fear, it is embracing the tactics that it once opposed.The primal forces unleased by Trump have not lost momentum. Whoever ends up as the Republican Party nominee in 2024 — whether it is Trump himself or one of the other contenders — will be under pressure to continue the abandonment of principle. Among the others, there might be less lying and less overt narcissism, but any one of them could yet govern in the mold of Trump. Whether Trumpism is more powerful with Trump or without him is still an open question, but the MAGA movement shows no real sign of abating.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

      ‘Lo necesitamos’: la enorme influencia de Trump en el Partido Republicano

      by

      Mientras acumula fondos, reparte favores y trata de aplastar a sus rivales, el expresidente domina a su partido y se prepara para otra campaña respaldando a quienes lo ayudan a expulsar a los funcionarios que frustraron su intento de subversión de las elecciones de 2020.PALM BEACH, Florida — Una noche cualquiera, Donald Trump se pasea por el patio de Mar-a-Lago y pronuncia unas palabras desde un atril para darle la bienvenida al candidato que le paga por el privilegio de recaudar fondos allí.“Este es un lugar especial”, dijo Trump en una de esas noches de febrero en su club privado. “Solía decir que era la ‘zona cero’, pero después del World Trade Center ya no usamos ese término. Este es el lugar donde todo el mundo quiere estar”.Durante 15 meses, un desfile de aspirantes (senadores, gobernadores, líderes del Congreso y contendientes republicanos de todas las tendencias) ha hecho el recorrido para jurarle lealtad y presentar su candidatura. Algunos han contratado a los asesores de Trump con la esperanza de obtener una ventaja al buscar su respaldo. Otros compran anuncios en Fox News que solo se transmiten en el sur de Florida. Y están los que le llevan regalos; y los que sacan los trapos sucios. Casi todos repiten la mentira de que las elecciones de 2020 fueron robadas.Mientras trabaja desde un gran escritorio de madera que recuerda al que usó en la Oficina Oval, Trump ha transformado la antigua suite nupcial de Mar-a-Lago en una sede informal del Partido Republicano y ha amasado más de 120 millones de dólares, una suma que duplica la del Comité Nacional Republicano. Los registros federales muestran que su iniciativa recaudó más fondos en línea que el partido, casi todos los días durante los últimos seis meses de 2021. La excepción fueron dos jornadas, una de las cuales fue la víspera de Navidad.Y mientras otros expresidentes han cedido el escenario político, Trump ha hecho lo contrario, ya que trata de emprender una agresiva campaña de venganza contra los republicanos que lo han perjudicado, con su respaldo a más de 140 candidatos en todo el país y con la transformación de las primarias de 2022 en una prueba de su persistente influencia.Al inspirar miedo, acaparar dinero, repartir favores y tratar de aplastar a sus rivales, Trump no solo se está comportando como un poderoso actor, sino como algo más cercano al jefe de una maquinaria política del siglo XIX.“Los líderes de los partidos nunca han desempeñado el papel que Trump está desempeñando”, dijo Roger Stone, un asesor intermitente de Trump desde la década de 1980 a quien se ha visto en fechas recientes en Mar-a-Lago. “Porque él puede, y no se rige por las reglas convencionales de la política”, explicó.Esta imagen de Trump como un jefe de partido moderno se ha extraído de más de 50 entrevistas con asesores en activo y retirados de Trump, rivales políticos, republicanos que han buscado su apoyo y funcionarios y estrategas del Partido Republicano que están lidiando con su influencia.Es evidente que Trump disfruta del poder. Pero mientras insinúa una y otra vez la posibilidad de aspirar a la Casa Blanca por tercera vez, la pregunta que se plantea es si puede seguir siendo el rey de la nación si no aspira a la corona.Por ahora, se ha adentrado en las minucias de limpiar al Partido Republicano de sus críticos, incluso si, de manera típica, la planificación y ejecución pueden ser desordenadas. Ha centrado sus esfuerzos casi obsesivamente en instalar personajes leales en puestos estatales clave en el campo de batalla (gobernadores, senadores, miembros de la Cámara, secretarios de Estado y fiscales generales de los estados) a menudo en vez de los mismos funcionarios que frustraron sus intentos de subvertir los resultados de 2020.Ha presionado a los candidatos para que cambien las contiendas en las que participan, aconsejó a los republicanos sobre a quién contratar, se involucró en las reglas de registro del partido en Wyoming y en la contienda por el presidente de la cámara estatal en Michigan. También condicionó su respaldo al gobernador Mike Dunleavy de Alaska a que no apoyara a la senadora titular del estado, Lisa Murkowski; Dunleavy accedió rápidamente. La semana pasada, mostró su desacuerdo al instar a los residentes de Pensilvania a no votar por Bill McSwain en las primarias para gobernador, con el argumento de que el político no había aceptado por completo sus acusaciones de fraude electoral de 2020.Trump no quiso ser entrevistado para este artículo.Las personas cercanas a Trump dicen que se siente complacido por el ejercicio crudo de su poder. Escucha a los cabilderos de los republicanos de alto rango, como el representante Kevin McCarthy, líder del partido en la Cámara de Representantes, y luego los ataca sin previo aviso. Un día después de que McCarthy regañó al representante republicano de Carolina del Norte, Madison Cawthorn, por decir que sus colegas en Washington habían celebrado orgías y consumido cocaína, Trump le concedió a Cawthorn un codiciado espacio para hablar en su próximo mitin.Durante 15 meses, un desfile de aspirantes (senadores, gobernadores, líderes del Congreso y contendientes republicanos de todas las tendencias) ha hecho el recorrido hasta Mar-a-LagoSaul Martinez para The New York Times‘Clientelismo político en desarrollo’Ahora, toda una economía política gira en torno a Trump, en la cual sus propiedades están haciéndose de enormes sumas: tan solo los candidatos federales y las comisiones han pagado casi 1,3 millones de dólares por la celebración de eventos en Mar-a-Lago, según muestran los registros. Ha surgido una falange de aduladores de Trump, a los que los candidatos pagan con la esperanza de conseguir reuniones, aunque los antiguos seguidores de Trump advierten que, en el juego de la influencia, el comprador siempre debe tener cuidado.“Si alguien anda por ahí vendiendo su capacidad para conseguir respaldos, está vendiendo algo que no es suyo”, dijo Michael Caputo, un exasesor que todavía habla con Trump. “Lo que parece ser clientelismo político en desarrollo, en realidad, es la confluencia de muchos asesores que fingen saber cómo conseguir el respaldo de Trump. Pero, en realidad, nadie sabe el camino a seguir”.Sin embargo, aunque el clientelismo político en Nueva York no es nuevo, como lo demuestra Tammany Hall, una máquina política que perduró durante casi dos siglos y cuya longevidad se debe a la difusión del patrocinio, Trump puede ser muy tacaño. Aunque celebra mítines para algunos candidatos, en muchos casos, su apoyo no va más allá de un correo electrónico y un cheque de 5000 dólares. Trump casi nunca ha desplegado su enorme lista de seguidores para ayudar a otros políticos con el fin de que recauden dinero (la representante Elise Stefanik de Nueva York fue una rara excepción, a principios de este año). Frente a la posibilidad de las derrotas de alto perfil, el equipo del exmandatario planea gastar directamente para ayudar a algunos candidatos vulnerables que han recibido su respaldo; una transferencia de efectivo a un súper PAC de Georgia fue solo el primer paso.Taylor Budowich, uno de sus voceros, señaló que centrarse solo en el gasto directo no toma en cuenta el valor que tiene el aval de Trump para los votantes y la “cobertura mediática gratuita” que genera. “Alguna vez se llegó a decir que un respaldo ni siquiera vale el papel en el que está impreso, pero ahora hay una excepción: el respaldo de Trump”, dijo Budowich.A diferencia de los jefes políticos del pasado, Trump ha hecho mucho énfasis en los mecanismos electorales, además de sembrar en todo momento la desconfianza en el sistema mediante afirmaciones falsas de manipulación de votos.Como decía el corrupto “Boss” Tweed, de Tammany, mientras se apoyaba en una urna en una famosa caricatura de la década de 1870: “Mientras yo cuente los votos, ¿qué vas a hacer al respecto?”.O como le dijo Trump a Breitbart News este mes: “Hay una expresión de que los contadores de votos son más importantes que el candidato, y podrías usar esa expresión en este momento”.Ejercer el poder sobre el partido y vender la ficción de unas elecciones robadas también son estrategias para desviar la atención de la desafortunada salida de Trump de la Casa Blanca como perdedor.Michael D’Antonio, biógrafo de Trump, trazó un paralelismo entre este periodo y una crisis anterior en la carrera de Trump: su bancarrota a principios de 1990. “Para cualquier otra persona estos habrían sido acontecimientos demoledores”, dijo. “Pero para Trump solo marcaron un cambio en su método y en su búsqueda del poder. Y nunca aceptó que fueran derrotas de verdad”.Los demócratas se están preparando para las derrotas en 2022. Pero los estrategas de ambos partidos dicen que el gran perfil público de Trump representa un riesgo para los republicanos, porque las encuestas privadas y los grupos de discusión muestran que sigue siendo un poderoso factor de rechazo para los votantes indecisos.Pero las primarias republicanas son otra historia, donde pocos candidatos serios se han separado de Trump. “La toma del control del Partido Republicano por parte del presidente Trump ha sido tan completa”, dijo Boris Epshteyn, otro exasesor de Trump que a veces visita Mar-a-Lago, “que incluso los republicanos más moderados están intentando hablar de MAGA”.El representante Madison Cawthorn de Carolina del Norte fue reprendido por decir que sus colegas en Washington habían organizado orgías y consumido cocaína, sin embargo, Trump le otorgó un codiciado espacio para hablar en su próximo mitin.Veasey Conway para The New York Times“Necesito ver las encuestas, necesito ver la financiación, necesito ver que te estás haciendo un nombre”, le dijo Trump a Joe Kent, quien ganó su respaldo para intentar vencer a Jaime Herrera Beutler, la representante por el estado de Washington.Nathan Howard/Associated Press‘Como cangrejos en una cubeta’No hay mejor ejemplo del dominio de Trump sobre el partido que las genuflexiones y maniobras de quienes buscan su visto bueno en la política.Algunos candidatos pagan para asistir a las recaudaciones de fondos en Mar-a-Lago de otros aspirantes, y esperan lograr captar la atención de Trump, o mejor aún, una foto. “Momento épico”, fue el término que usó una candidata a la Cámara de Representantes para describir los pocos segundos que estuvo con Trump y que subió en un video a su cuenta de Instagram.Cuando Trump invitó a los candidatos de Michigan para que lo acompañaran en un evento, resonó la voz de un hombre: “Yo también me postulo para gobernador, ¿puedo ir?”. Era Ryan Kelley. “¿Te postulas para gobernador de qué?”, le preguntó Trump, un poco confundido. “¡Michigan!”, le respondió Kelley y se acercó, estrechando la mano de Perry Johnson, uno de sus oponentes.Johnson, por su parte, ha frecuentado Mar-a-Lago y publicó con orgullo un video pixelado de Trump alabando sus “buenos números en las encuestas” en otra recaudación de fondos. Incluso pagó un anuncio de televisión dándole la bienvenida a Trump a Michigan, antes de un mitin celebrado el 2 de abril.Sin embargo, Trump lo desairó en el mitin y, en cambio, elogió a una candidata rival, Tudor Dixon, que había realizado su propia recaudación de fondos en Mar-a-Lago en febrero.En muchos sentidos, la búsqueda de su respaldo es una réplica en la vida real del antiguo papel de Trump en la telerrealidad.“¿Qué era El aprendiz sino un lamentable tumulto de personas que se comportaban como cangrejos en una cubeta y que pedían que él los sacara de ahí?”, recordó D’Antonio, su biógrafo. “Estas personas no son otra cosa que concursantes que compiten por su aprobación”.En una de las escenas más recordadas, el año pasado, Trump llevó a varios candidatos al Senado de Ohio a una sala de Mar-a-Lago, donde empezaron a atacarse unos a otros con discursos mientras él los observaba. “Las cosas se salieron de control”, dijo un candidato, Bernie Moreno, quien no culpó a Trump por el caos, sino a sus rivales. Desde entonces, Moreno se retiró porque no quiere dividir el voto a favor de Trump.Casi todos los contendientes de Ohio han publicado anuncios que resaltan sus vínculos con Trump y buscan su respaldo de manera personal. Jane Timken se define como “la verdadera conservadora de Trump”. Josh Mandel se presenta como “pro-Dios, pro-armas, pro-Trump”. Mike Gibbons dice que él y Trump son dos “hombres de negocios con los mismos principios”.Trump no respaldó a ninguno de ellos; en cambio, apoyó al escritor J. D. Vance. En un debate previo al respaldo, Matt Dolan, el único aspirante republicano que no compite por el apoyo de Trump, sugirió que sus rivales estaban poniendo a los electores de Ohio en segundo lugar. “Hay gente en este escenario que, literalmente, está luchando por obtener un voto”, afirmó, “y la persona que les dará ese voto no está en Ohio”.Dolan es una excepción. En general, una audiencia con Trump puede llevar al éxito o al fracaso de una candidatura. Por eso, los candidatos planean mucho sus estrategias.A Trump le gusta la adulación y le gusta recompensar a los aduladores. Pero los expertos dicen que llevar material visual convincente también es importante. El uso de letras de gran tamaño es fundamental, con fotos y gráficos en color.“No es un tipo muy digitalizado, así que llevamos todo impreso”, dijo Joe Kent, quien logró ganarse el respaldo de Trump en su esfuerzo por desbancar a la representante republicana de Washington, Jaime Herrera Beutler, una de las diez representantes republicanas que votaron a favor del juicio político en contra de Trump.“Necesito ver las encuestas, necesito ver la financiación, necesito ver que te estás haciendo un nombre”, le indicó Trump, como recordó Kent.Cuando le gusta lo que ve, Trump envía unas palabras de aliento, garabateadas con un marcador en las impresiones de las noticias. “¡Lo estás haciendo genial!”, le escribió en enero a Kent. “¡Lo estás haciendo genial!”, también le escribió en octubre pasado a Harriet Hageman, quien está desafiando a Liz Cheney, la representante por Wyoming.Cuando el representante Billy Long, candidato al Senado en Missouri, se reunió por primera vez con Trump el año pasado, le llevó una copia impresa de una encuesta favorable. Pero sintió que lo habían derrotado cuando Trump “estiró el brazo y recogió otra encuesta” que Long supuso que provenía de un rival, aunque podría haber formado parte del paquete que su equipo le prepara para las reuniones con los candidatos.“Donald Trump hará lo que quiera hacer cuando quiera hacerlo”, dijo Long. “Eso no es ningún secreto”.En marzo, un grupo que instó a Trump para que cesara su respaldo a Matthew DePerno, candidato a fiscal general de Michigan, compró un anuncio que se publicó en West Palm Beach.Nic Antaya para The New York TimesTrump ha expresado su deseo de tomar el control de los puestos de conteo de votos en Michigan, con el fin de reunir apoyos para Kristina Karamo, su candidata para ser secretaria de Estado.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesTelevisión de precisiónLa televisión es una vía popular para llegar a Trump y algunos candidatos tratan de hacerlo mediante la transmisión de anuncios lejos de su electorado. Durante el verano, Trump estuvo en su club de golf de Bedminster, Nueva Jersey, y Jim Lamon, un candidato al Senado de Arizona, pagó por un anuncio en Fox News de Nueva Jersey.Michele Fiore, concejala de la ciudad de Las Vegas, anunció su candidatura a gobernadora de Nevada con un comercial pro-Trump que se transmitió en West Palm Beach. Luego desistió y decidió postularse al cargo de tesorera estatal y dijo en otro comercial que el equipo de Trump le aconsejó que optara por ese cargo.Y en marzo, un grupo que instó a Trump a rescindir su respaldo a Matthew DePerno, un republicano que se postulaba para fiscal general en Michigan, lanzó un comercial que atacaba a DePerno y que se transmitió en West Palm Beach.Otros han utilizado los medios audiovisuales con una precisión aún mayor.En noviembre, Blake Masters, candidato al Senado en Arizona, publicó un video que decía: “Creo que Trump ganó en 2020”, el día antes de volar a Florida para una recaudación de fondos en Mar-a-Lago. Según los registros de su campaña, el comercial costó 29.798,70 dólares.Algunos atraen la atención de Trump en televisión, entre comerciales.La vicegobernadora de Idaho, Janice McGeachin, apareció en el programa de Fox News de Tucker Carlson en junio y se deshizo en elogios hacia Trump. Al día siguiente, él la llamó.“Fue lo mejor”, afirmó la vicegobernadora, quien agregó que “le hizo saber” al exmandatario que planeaba desafiar al gobernador Brad Little, el republicano en funciones y le pidió su apoyo. Poco después, estaba en un avión rumbo a Nueva York para una reunión en la Torre Trump. “Lo que quería era darle un gran abrazo y decirle cuánto lo amamos”, dijo. “Y eso fue lo primero que hice”.McGeachin le dijo a Trump que Little no había luchado lo suficiente para anular las elecciones de 2020. En el otoño presentó su propuesta en Mar-a-Lago, y se marchó con una gorra roja firmada por el expresidente que suele usar en sus eventos. Pronto, Trump la apoyó de manera formal, aunque no dejó de elogiar a Little, que apenas unos días antes asistió a una recaudación de fondos en Mar-a-Lago para una organización no lucrativa afín a Trump.McGeachin, quien causó revuelo recientemente al grabar un discurso para una reunión de nacionalistas blancos, es vista como una candidata con pocas posibilidades en las primarias de mayo.El episodio encapsula las peculiaridades del estilo de Trump como jefe del partido: la receptividad al cortejo intensivo, la toma de decisiones aleatoria, la posibilidad de excederse y la exigencia de que se amplifiquen sus falsas afirmaciones de fraude electoral.“Creo que es el respaldo más codiciado en la historia política”, dijo McGeachin.Las encuestas han mostrado que David Perdue está detrás del gobernador de Georgia, Brian Kemp, en la contienda del 24 de mayo, lo que se considera como una muestra de la influencia de Trump.Audra Melton para The New York TimesTed Budd, representante por Carolina del Norte, es el candidato de Trump para el Senado y desafiará en las primarias de mayo al representante Mark Walker, un antiguo aliado del expresidente Trump.Veasey Conway para The New York TimesMano duraCon la vista puesta en su historial de victorias y derrotas en materia de respaldos, Trump está tratando cada vez más a los candidatos republicanos como piezas de ajedrez que se pueden mover, intercambiar o abandonar. Pero, hasta ahora, los resultados han sido dispares.En Georgia, reclutó al exsenador David Perdue para enfrentar al gobernador Brian Kemp, un republicano que desafió a Trump al certificar las elecciones de 2020 y respaldar el resultado. Trump presionó al otro candidato en la campaña, Vernon Jones, un exdemócrata, para que se postulara a la Cámara de Representantes, con su respaldo.Esa maniobra funcionó, pero las encuestas han mostrado que Perdue está detrás de Kemp de cara a la contienda del 24 de mayo, lo que es visto como una primera muestra de la influencia de Trump.En Carolina del Norte, Trump trató de conseguir que un aliado, el diputado Mark Walker, abandonara su campaña al Senado y dejara la vía libre para el candidato que él respaldaba, el diputado Ted Budd, para que se enfrentara al exgobernador Pat McCrory en las primarias de mayo. Pero después de que los tribunales alteraron los mapas políticos del estado, Walker se negó y amenazó con dividir el voto pro-Trump, aunque las encuestas muestran que Budd lidera de todos modos.Trump ya retiró uno de sus respaldos. Fue el caso de Mo Brooks, representante por Alabama que quería postularse al Senado de ese estado, y Trump cesó su apoyo después de que Brooks cayó en las encuestas y se cree que podría hacer lo mismo con otros aspirantes que no lideran las encuestas. Por ejemplo, ha hablado en privado de moderar su postura a favor de McGeachin.Trump ha sido especialmente efectivo en el reclutamiento de rivales para sus críticos republicanos más importantes, como Cheney.El año pasado, entrevistó a varios contrincantes potenciales, con la esperanza de establecer un enfrentamiento de dos personas. Entre ellos se encontraba Darin Smith, un abogado de Cheyenne, que voló a Bedminster y luego dijo que lamentaba no haber contado antes con la asesoría de los miembros del equipo de Trump. Finalmente, el expresidente respaldó a Harriet Hageman, exfuncionaria del partido, cuyos asesores incluyen a los estrategas actuales y anteriores de Trump como Justin Clark, Nick Trainer, Bill Stepien y Tim Murtaugh.“Ya sea que ames el pantano o lo odies, es una realidad”, dijo Smith, quien desde entonces ha respaldado a Hageman. “Hay órbitas alrededor de Trump”.Es posible que en ningún otro lugar Trump haya profundizado más en la política local que en Michigan, guiado en parte por la copresidenta del partido, Meshawn Maddock, una aliada cercana que organizó autobuses para llevar a los manifestantes a Washington el 6 de enero de 2021. En noviembre de 2020, después de que Trump convocó a los legisladores de Michigan a la Casa Blanca para una reunión extraordinaria mientras buscaba anular las elecciones, los dos líderes legislativos del Partido Republicano del estado lo rechazaron. Ahora, Trump ha dado su respaldo a más de media decena de candidatos a la legislatura de Michigan para encumbrar al marido de Maddock, el diputado estatal Matt Maddock, como próximo presidente de la Cámara de Representantes del estado.Trump no ha ocultado su deseo de tomar el control de los puestos de conteo de votos del estado mientras reúne apoyos para DePerno y Kristina Karamo, sus candidatos a los cargos de fiscal general del estado y la Secretaría de Estado.“Recuerden que no solo se trata de 2022, se trata de asegurarnos de que Michigan no sea manipulado y robado nuevamente en 2024”, dijo Trump en las afueras de Detroit el 2 de abril. Y agregó: “No hago esto a menudo con la gente de los estados. Pero esto es muy importante”.Mitch McConnell, líder de la minoría del Senado; Kevin McCarthy, el líder de la minoría de la Cámara de Representantes; y el exvicepresidente Mike Pence en la Oficina Oval con Trump, en marzo de 2020Erin Schaff/The New York TimesAfirmando el dominioEs cierto que la estrategia de guerra de Trump proyecta poder, pero lo que más asusta a otros líderes republicanos es su perdurable popularidad entre la base del partido.El flujo interminable de mensajes de recaudación de fondos republicanos que usan el nombre de Trump, y que a veces dan la idea de que el dinero es para él, es evidencia de su influencia con los pequeños donantes. Las encuestas también muestran que la mayoría de los votantes republicanos valoran su respaldo. “Su dominio del partido a nivel de votantes de base no tiene precedentes”, dijo Stone, quien ha sido asesor de Trump desde hace mucho tiempo.Plenamente consciente de esto, Trump también ha afirmado su dominio sobre los líderes republicanos del Congreso.En la Cámara de Representantes, McCarthy, que espera convertirse en el presidente de ese órgano legislativo después de las elecciones intermedias, ha tratado de mantener a Trump al margen en algunas primarias, ejerciendo presión, por ejemplo, para que deje de respaldar a Mary Miller, la representante por Illinois, quien fue elegida en el mismo distrito que el representante Rodney Davis. Pero Trump la respaldó de todos modos.“El temor legítimo de McCarthy es que se gane la mayoría, pero que 10 miembros de la Cámara se unan y digan: ‘No vamos a votar por usted ni por nada que desee’”, dijo Stone. Y agregó que, en ese caso, Trump tendría influencia en esos votos.En el Senado, Mitch McConnell de Kentucky, el líder de la minoría, no ha hablado con Trump desde que dejó la Casa Blanca, pero accedió a que el exmandatario respaldara a Herschel Walker para el Senado en Georgia, a pesar de las dudas iniciales de su equipo.Quienes están descontentos con el reinado de Trump como jefe del partido están buscando señales de que su control se está perdiendo, y varios rivales potenciales para 2024 (Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, Tom Cotton) parecen menos temerosos últimamente de estar en desacuerdo públicamente con Trump.Las contiendas en las que Trump ha respaldado a un candidato serán objeto de estudio para ver si disminuyen su poder. Pero el hecho es que muchos de los candidatos a los que se opone en las primarias siguen diciendo que son republicanos que apoyan a Trump. Pocos ven una fecha de caducidad en su dominio hasta, y a menos, que decline postularse de nuevo en 2024 o sea derrotado.Una reciente aparición en el pódcast del Comité Nacional Republicano captó tanto las ventajas como los inconvenientes del inquebrantable apego del partido hacia Trump. Por mucho, se trató del episodio del pódcast más visto en YouTube, hasta que el sitio lo retiró por difundir información errónea.“No se puede subestimar el poder de su apoyo”, le había dicho Ronna McDaniel, la presidenta del partido, a Trump. Y luego agregó: “Lo necesitamos”.Shane Goldmacher es reportero político nacional y antes fue el corresponsal político en jefe de la sección Metro. Antes de unirse al Times, trabajó en Politico, donde cubrió la política del Partido Republicano a nivel nacional y la campaña presidencial de 2016. @ShaneGoldmacher More