Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Vivek Ramaswamy Stops TV Ad Spending

      by

      The campaign’s abrupt shift, focusing on other voter outreach efforts, reflects a significant change in strategy less than three weeks before the Iowa caucuses.Vivek Ramaswamy, the wealthy entrepreneur seeking the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, has stopped spending money on cable television ads, a campaign representative said on Tuesday.With just weeks to go until the Iowa caucuses kick off the voting for the nomination, Mr. Ramaswamy’s campaign is maintaining its total advertising outlays, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the campaign, said. However, it is shifting away from traditional television toward other methods of voter outreach for a “higher return on investment,” she added. NBC News first reported the campaign’s halt in TV ad spending.“We’re just following the data,” Ms. McLaughlin said in a statement, adding that “we are focused on bringing out the voters we’ve identified — best way to reach them is using addressable advertising, mail, text, live calls and doors to communicate with our voters.”She pointed out the huge sums that have already been sunk into the presidential campaign, saying that “$190 million in traditional advertising has been spent in this race nationally. Polls have barely changed.”It is nevertheless an abrupt shift in strategy for Mr. Ramaswamy’s campaign, which has spent millions on advertising. The Ramaswamy campaign reserved about $1 million in television ads in Iowa last month — nearly double what his campaign and an allied super PAC spent in the prior month.But Mr. Ramaswamy has struggled to make headway in Iowa, despite the intense spending and a packed schedule of campaign appearances. He estimated to reporters last month that he had spent around $20 million on his run to that point.He maintains a distant fourth place in state polls, with less than 10 percent support. His approval ratings among Republicans nationally have also steadily declined since September, and his disapproval ratings among all Americans hit a new peak in national polls.He has recently pushed right-wing conspiracy theories in campaign appearances. He has called the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol an “inside job,” claimed that the 2020 election was stolen by “big tech” and suggested that the “great replacement theory” was Democratic policy.Ms. McLaughlin noted that the Ramaswamy campaign would continue to field some ads through digital television providers — for example, YouTube TV. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Haley quiere que la respalden por su experiencia, no por su género

      by

      La aspirante a la nominación republicana sería la primera mujer en llegar a la Casa Blanca. Hasta ahora ha evitado presentarse de una forma que espante a algunos votantes.Dentro de la bodega de una lujosa cadena de tiendas departamentales al este de Iowa, Michele Barton, vestida con una camiseta blanca engalanada con el rótulo de “Mujeres por Nikki” en letras de color rosa brillante, reflexionaba emocionada sobre la posibilidad de llevar a la primera mujer a la Casa Blanca.Sin embargo, Barton, de 52 años, una madre de cuatro hijos y republicana de toda la vida, se apresuró a insistir en que no apoyaba a Nikki Haley por ser mujer.“Creo que es la candidata correcta”, opinó el miércoles mientras esperaba que Haley apareciera en un evento del ayuntamiento en Davenport. “Solo resulta que es mujer”.Es un estribillo familiar que repiten algunas de las simpatizantes más entusiastas de Haley, quienes, como la candidata misma, le restan importancia a su género en la contienda presidencial de 2024, aunque celebran el carácter potencialmente histórico de su candidatura.Haley está haciendo este acto de equilibrismo en un momento notable de la política estadounidense. Su ascenso en las encuestas y las complicaciones del gobernador de Florida, Ron DeSantis, implican que el candidato republicano con más esperanzas de impulsar al partido más allá del expresidente Donald Trump —quien tiene un largo historial de comentarios misóginos y acusaciones de conducta sexual inadecuada— bien podría ser una mujer.A lo largo de su campaña, Haley ha procurado ser muy cautelosa al hablar de su género. Enfatiza elementos originales de su vida y carrera que la hacen destacar en un terreno que por lo demás está dominado por candidatos masculinos, pero evita tocar políticas de identidad que puedan disgustar a la base de votantes conservadores que necesita para ganar la nominación, los cuales en su mayoría son blancos y canosos.“No quiero ser solo una mujer”, le comentó a Charlamagne Tha God en “The Daily Show” el mes pasado. “No quiero ser solo india. No quiero ser solo madre. No quiero ser solo republicana. No quiero ser solo todas esas cosas. Soy más que eso. Y creo que todas las personas son más que eso”.Su discurso político incluye referencias a sus experiencias como esposa de un militar y como madre. Sus réplicas concisas a los rivales invocan sus tacones de 10 centímetros. Su lista de canciones para cerrar los actos municipales incluye “Woman in the White House”, de Sheryl Crow.Un acto de campaña de Haley en Iowa el mes pasado. Cuando Haley menciona que fue la primera mujer y la primera persona de color en ocupar el cargo de gobernadora de Carolina del Sur, lo hace en gran parte para argumentar que Estados Unidos no está “podrido” ni es “racista”.Jordan Gale para The New York TimesNo obstante, Haley, hija de inmigrantes indios, casi nunca, o nunca, menciona de manera directa que aspira a romper el techo de cristal más alto en la política estadounidense. (En el video de su anuncio de campaña, señaló que no creía en esos límites).En la campaña electoral en los estados de Iowa y Nuevo Hampshire, donde se vota primero, casi no menciona su género, lo cual para sus aliados podría ser una ventaja potente para ganarse a los votantes con estudios universitarios y a las mujeres de los suburbios en unas elecciones generales, si venciera a Trump en las primarias.Chris Cournoyer, senadora por Iowa y presidenta de la campaña de Haley en ese estado, declaró que estos sectores demográficos también podrían ayudarla a ser más competitiva en el estado, donde ha quedado detrás de Trump en las encuestas por un amplio margen y, hasta hace poco, también iba a la zaga de DeSantis.“He oído decir a muchas mujeres independientes, a muchas mujeres demócratas, que van a cambiar de partido para votar por ella el 15 de enero”, comentó Cournoyer.Aunque suele mencionar su victoria histórica, pues se convirtió en la primera mujer y la primera persona de color en ocupar el cargo de gobernadora de Carolina del Sur, Haley lo hace sobre todo para argumentar que Estados Unidos no está “podrido” ni es “racista”.Su evento del miércoles en la bodega de Von Maur en Davenport se pudo haber promocionado como uno de Mujeres por Nikki, pero, aparte de tres camisetas de la coalición expuestas cerca de la entrada, en el lugar había pocas señales de los grupos de base conformados solo por mujeres que han ayudado a difundir su mensaje.Los estrategas republicanos y los especialistas en estudios de género afirman por igual que el enfoque relativamente moderado de Haley en materia de género tiene sentido: el camino de las mujeres hacia los altos cargos suele estar lleno de dobles raseros y prejuicios de género, independientemente del partido o la ideología del candidato. Pero puede ser especialmente difícil para las mujeres republicanas. Los votantes conservadores tienden a albergar opiniones tradicionales sobre la feminidad al tiempo que esperan que las candidatas parezcan “duras”.Un informe reciente del Centro de Mujeres Estadounidenses y Política de la Universidad de Rutgers reveló que los republicanos eran menos propensos que los demócratas a ver obstáculos claros a la representación política de las mujeres, a apoyar esfuerzos particulares para aumentar la diversidad en la política y a presionar a los líderes de los partidos para que adopten estrategias que amplíen la cantidad de mujeres en el poder.Kelly Dittmar, quien, como directora del centro trabajó en el informe y ha analizado las propuestas políticas de Haley, dijo que le parecía que había paralelos entre las campañas de Haley a la gobernación y a la presidencia. En ambas, los anuncios de Haley dicen que es “nueva” y “distinta”, lo que ofrece a los votantes pistas sobre su raza y su género pero, dijo Dittmar, les permite interpretar estas palabras a su antojo.“Es al mismo tiempo estratégico y coherente con la identidad conservadora de ella”, dijo Dittmar, y añadió que como candidata a la gobernación Haley rechazó los pedidos de sus votantes que querían que se comprometiera a nombrar el mismo número de hombres y mujeres en su gestión.Ninguna mujer ha conseguido la nominación presidencial del Partido Republicano a la presidencia, y ni siquiera a una primaria presidencial estatal del partido y Haley solo es la quinta republicana destacada en buscar la nominación de su partido. Carly Fiorina, la ex directora ejecutiva de Hewlett-Packard, fue la última que lo intentó, en 2016, y en su campaña el asunto del género era clave.Con su enfoque mesurado, Haley ha intentado apoyarse en su experiencia de política exterior y ejecutiva, desafiar las ideas erróneas sobre las mujeres y la posibilidad de ser elegidas, y posicionarse como una de las mensajeras más eficaces de su partido en materia de aborto, a pesar de haber aprobado algunas de las restricciones antiabortistas más duras del país como gobernadora de Carolina del Sur. Hace poco declaró que, como gobernadora, habría autorizado una prohibición del aborto a las seis semanas.El camino de las mujeres a los altos cargos públicos a menudo está lleno de dobles raseros y sesgos de género, sin importar el partido o la ideología. En especial, los votantes conservadores tienden a tener opiniones tradicionales sobre la feminidad. Sophie Park/Getty ImagesEse enfoque le ha granjeado el apoyo de algunas de sus seguidoras más leales que, a menudo, también hacen trabajo voluntario no remunerado: son mujeres dispuestas a conducir durante horas para ir a instalar sillas, recabar información de contacto de los asistentes y animar su esfuerzo. Los líderes de campaña dicen que ya hay capítulos de Mujeres por Nikki en los 50 estados del país. En eventos recientes en Iowa, al menos dos mujeres le pidieron que reafirmara su postura sobre el aborto, a pesar de que ya la habían escuchado, con el fin de que otras de las asistentes también la escucharan.“No creo que los muchachos sepan hablar de esto de forma adecuada”, dijo en ambas ocasiones.Y, a pesar de todo, el tema del género ha sido ineludible. En el cuarto debate presidencial republicano, el emprendedor Vivek Ramaswamy lanzó ataques de género, en los que la acusó de beneficiarse de la “política de la identidad”, mientras el exgobernador de Nueva Jersey Chris Christie fue en la otra dirección para defenderla, una maniobra que para algunos de los partidarios de Haley fue tan solo una actuación para quedar como su salvador. Y, luego está Trump, quien la llama “cerebro de pájaro” y sigue siendo popular entre las mujeres republicanas.Una encuesta de The New York Times y la universidad Siena College publicada este mes reveló que el 63 por ciento de las votantes en las primarias republicanas apoyaba a Trump. Haley obtuvo un 12 por ciento de apoyo de ese grupo. Otras encuestas la muestran con un mayor apoyo entre los hombres que entre las mujeres. Sin embargo, en enfrentamientos hipotéticos, Haley ha vencido al presidente Joe Biden por el margen más amplio de todos los aspirantes republicanos, pues casi dividió los votos de las mujeres con él.“Nikki tiene una elegibilidad poderosa contra Biden, pero necesita encontrar una elegibilidad poderosa contra Trump”, opinó Sarah Longwell, una estratega republicana que ha trabajado para derrotar a Trump. “En este momento, los votantes simplemente no creen que ella pueda hacerlo, así que debe cambiar esa percepción”.En un evento reciente celebrado en Agency, Iowa, tal vez Haley reflejó mejor su propuesta al responder a una pregunta de una posible votante. Tras escuchar a Haley en la bodega de una empresa de semillas de maíz, Sarah Keith, una ingeniera química de 28 años, quiso saber qué haría la candidata para atraer a más mujeres al partido, en particular quienes están descontentas con la agenda liberal.“Hablan de los problemas de las mujeres”, respondió Haley, para referirse a los demócratas y definiendo esas inquietudes como las mismas que le preocupan a la mayoría de los votantes, incluidas la economía y la seguridad nacional. “Creo que las mujeres están hartas. Creo que todo el mundo está harto del ruido y quiere ver resultados”.Jazmine Ulloa es reportera de política nacional para el Times y cubre la campaña presidencial de 2024. Reside en Washington. Más de Jazmine Ulloa More

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      With an Influx of Cash, Haley Looks to Challenge DeSantis in Iowa

      by

      A super PAC backing the former governor of South Carolina plans to knock on 100,000 doors in Iowa before the caucuses, but it’s running out of time to spread her message.Tyler Raygor rapped on the door of a gray, one-story house in a neighborhood in northern Ames, Iowa, and waited until a man in a hoodie and jeans appeared before launching into his pitch.The man, Mike Morton, said he was leaning toward voting for Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida or former President Donald J. Trump in next month’s caucuses. But had Mr. Morton considered Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina? No, Mr. Morton admitted, he hadn’t given her much thought.Mr. Raygor, the state director for Americans for Prosperity Action, a super PAC supporting Ms. Haley, pointed to a recent poll showing Ms. Haley with a large lead over President Biden in a general election matchup, and highlighted her time serving as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He then handed Mr. Morton a Haley campaign flier. The pitch had an effect: Mr. Morton, 54, said he “definitely will look closer at Haley.”“If you didn’t come to my house,” he added, “I probably would overlook her a little bit more.”With just under a month to go before January’s caucuses, Ms. Haley’s campaign — along with Americans for Prosperity Action — aims to capitalize on the momentum that her presidential bid has gained in recent months by reaching persuadable voters and firmly establishing her as the chief alternative to Mr. Trump for the Republican nomination.And while her campaign’s efforts have yielded better polling results in other early voting states, including New Hampshire and South Carolina, she now sees a chance to secure a better-than-expected finish in Iowa.“It’s ground game,” she told The Des Moines Register last week. “We’re making sure that every area is covered.”Ms. Haley received an 11th-hour boost last month with the endorsement of Americans for Prosperity Action, a deep-pocketed organization founded by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch. That backing unlocked access to donors and infused her bare-bones campaign with funds for television spots and mail advertisements. (Under federal law, Ms. Haley’s campaign and the organization cannot coordinate, but the super PAC can support her with advertising, messaging and voter engagement.)In Iowa, where Ms. Haley had ceded ground to her better-funded rivals for most of the race, the A.F.P. Action apparatus has whirred to life, deploying its network of volunteers and staff members like Mr. Raygor across the state to knock on doors and change minds.The super PAC has enlisted about 150 volunteer and part-time staff members to canvass the state, and it aims to knock on 100,000 doors before the caucuses, said Drew Klein, a senior adviser with A.F.P. Action. It has spent more than $5.7 million on pro-Haley advertisements and canvassing efforts nationwide since endorsing her, and it had more than $74 million on hand as of July, according to the most recent financial filings with the Federal Election Commission.Nikki Haley in Agency, Iowa, last week. One Republican strategist said the support of A.F.P. Action could be the “missing link” for Ms. Haley. Christian Monterrosa/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesBoth Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis are fighting for a pool of undecided voters that could be dwindling as Mr. Trump maintains his dominant lead. A Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom poll this month found that Mr. Trump was the top choice for 51 percent of Republicans likely to caucus, up from 43 percent in October. Mr. DeSantis’s support in the state increased slightly, to 19 percent, while Ms. Haley’s did not change, remaining at 16 percent. Another Emerson College poll in the state last week found Mr. Trump had support from half of Republican caucus voters, while Ms. Haley had 17 percent and Mr. DeSantis had 15 percent. But the reinforcements may be too late to overtake Mr. DeSantis in the state, where he and the groups supporting him have spent considerably more time and money.The Florida governor has visited all Iowa’s 99 counties, and his well-funded ground operation, run almost entirely by Never Back Down, an affiliated super PAC, has been active in the state for months. It says it has already knocked on more than 801,000 doors.Despite recent turmoil at that group — including the departure of its top strategist, Jeff Roe, just over a week ago — Never Back Down has established a foothold in Iowa, with a new emphasis on its turnout operation. Mr. DeSantis also has been endorsed by key figures there, including Kim Reynolds, the popular Republican governor, and Bob Vander Plaats, the influential evangelical leader.“Nikki Haley’s 11th-hour rent-a-campaign gambit won’t work,” Andrew Romeo, a spokesman for Mr. DeSantis, said in a statement. “Only the Washington establishment,” he added, “would try to pitch that grass-roots success can be bought.”Jimmy Centers, a Republican strategist in Iowa who is unaligned in the race, said A.F.P. Action’s endorsement, and its boots-on-the-ground operation, could be the “missing link” for Ms. Haley. But he added that the group was up against a ticking clock.“The open question here in Iowa is: Did Ambassador Haley peak about 30 days too soon, where she is already taking arrows and A.F.P. doesn’t have time to catch up?” Mr. Centers said.The super PAC argues its push is arriving at the right time because many people are just beginning to pay attention to the race for the Republican nomination. Mr. Raygor recalled criticism from the Trump campaign that wondered if A.F.P. Action would knock on doors on Christmas, given its late start.“Maybe not on Christmas, but we’ll be knocking on the 23rd. We’ll be knocking on the 26th,” Mr. Raygor said. “My team’s knocked in negative-30-degree wind chills before. Winter does not scare us.”But his recent swing through Ames illustrated the difficulty of a last-minute push. Of the six Republican voters who spoke with Mr. Raygor, one was already a Haley supporter and two said they were persuadable. The other three were firmly caucusing for either Mr. Trump or Vivek Ramaswamy and could not be swayed.“You’re not going to get me off of Trump, ever,” said Barbara Novak, dismissing Mr. Raygor’s best efforts as her bulldog barked at him from the window. “He did everything he said he was going to.”The reaction from Wanda Bauer, 72, suggested that the attacks lobbed at Ms. Haley by her rivals had shaped perceptions among at least some voters. Ms. Bauer said Ms. Haley was “big government” and “pro-giving money to Ukraine.”“Just read the things she supports,” she said, “and you won’t be walking around passing out her brochures afterward, I guarantee you.”A recent trek through a neighborhood in Cedar Rapids was even less fruitful. Cheryl Jontz, 60, and Kyla Higgins, 18, two part-time A.F.P. Action staff members, split up to proselytize Ms. Haley. But few people seemed interested in answering their doors in the freezing morning temperatures, and those who did mostly said they would be backing Mr. Trump.Cheryl Jontz, left, and Kyla Higgins were among the pro-Haley door-knockers in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last week. “If Trump is in an orange jumpsuit, you have to make a different decision,” one resident told Ms. Higgins.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesMs. Higgins did reach one somewhat open-minded voter: Lisa Andersen, 52, who said that she was leaning toward Mr. DeSantis or Mr. Trump, but that she would be willing to consider Ms. Haley if the former president’s legal troubles caught up to him.“If Trump is in an orange jumpsuit, you have to make a different decision,” Ms. Andersen said.A Haley campaign spokeswoman said that the support of A.F.P. Action had not changed the campaign’s calculus for strategy and a ground game in Iowa, where her team has been trying to reach all corners of the state.In recent days, the campaign has been gearing up for its final push before the caucuses. Ms. Haley finished a five-day swing through the state last week and is bringing on more staff members, including Pat Garrett, a former adviser to the Iowa governor who will lead her Iowa press team.David Oman, a Republican strategist and Haley supporter, said Ms. Haley was spending time where it most mattered: the six to eight metro areas where a majority of Iowa’s voters live.“They are running a nimble campaign,” Mr. Oman said, pointing to a small group of core staff members and an assembly of volunteers working long hours. “They are making a fight out of it — that’s for sure.” More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Supreme Court’s Big Trump Test Is Here

      by

      A generation after the Supreme Court stepped into a disputed presidential election, America is experiencing a creeping sense of déjà vu. Twenty-three years ago, a bare majority of the justices halted a recount in Florida, effectively handing the presidency to George W. Bush.The specter of Bush v. Gore, the case that stands as a marker of how not to resolve searing political disputes, looms large as the Supreme Court is being called upon to address controversies with profound implications for the fortunes of the Republican front-runner in 2024.The justices are feeling the heat nearly a year in advance of an election rather than in the fraught weeks following the vote. The questions today are more complex — there are at least three separate matters, not one — and all revolve around the Capitol insurrection that transpired across the street from the Supreme Court Building in 2021.On Friday, the court turned down Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for fast-track review of Donald Trump’s claim that former presidents have “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for their conduct while in office. But that critical question will almost certainly return to the Supreme Court soon: The D.C. federal appeals court is hearing the case on Jan. 9 and will probably rule shortly thereafter.The court has agreed to hear a case asking whether Jan. 6 rioters can be charged with obstructing an official proceeding, another key part of Mr. Smith’s Jan. 6 case against Mr. Trump. And most dramatically, the former president will surely ask the justices to reverse a ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court that, if affirmed, could pave the way for an untold number of states to erase his name from the ballot.For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it.Extraordinary times call for a court that embraces the art of judicial statecraft.The trap the court finds itself in is largely a function of its own behavior, both on and off the bench. The 6-to-3 conservative supermajority has radically expanded gun rights, circumscribed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect the environment, all but eviscerated race-based affirmative action, punched holes through the wall separating church from state and — most notoriously — eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. The past year has also seen increasing public scrutiny of the justices’ apparent ethical lapses, sunlight that pushed the justices to adopt their first code of ethics.A universe in which the court somehow splits the difference — for example, keeping Mr. Trump on the ballot while refusing to endorse (if not affirmatively repudiating) his conduct and spurning his kinglike claim to total immunity — could go a long way toward reducing the temperature of the coming election cycle. Such an outcome could also help restore at least some of the court’s credibility.We understand that trying too hard to project an image of nonpartisanship carries risks. Recent reporting on the twists and turns of how the conservative majority engineered the end of Roe v. Wade shows how curating rulings can make justices look too clever by half — if not outright deceptive. Delaying the grant of review in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, in which some of the conservative justices apparently knew they had the votes to overrule Roe, created a false impression that the court was struggling over the matter — when the reality was anything but. Indeed, the Dobbs experience and its aftermath might have led some justices to sour on the idea of judicial statecraft — especially if their internal deliberations end up getting leaked to the press. No jurist wants to be seen as a cunning manipulator of public opinion.And yet, some of the court’s most important rulings across its history have represented just the kind of high constitutional politics that we believe are called for now. The court’s recognition of its power to strike down acts of Congress in Marbury v. Madison came in a context in which the direct effect of the ruling was to restrain the court while slapping the Jefferson administration on the wrist.Its concerted effort to produce unanimous opinions in some of the landmark civil rights cases of the 1950s and 1960s reflected a view that speaking in one voice was more important than the legal nuances of what was said. (This, perhaps, is why no justice publicly dissented from Friday’s decision not to fast-track the immunity question.)The court’s landmark rejection of President Richard Nixon’s executive privilege claim in the Watergate tapes case, which helped to directly precipitate Nixon’s resignation, came in a unanimous opinion written by Nixon’s handpicked chief justice.This is also the best way to understand Chief Justice John Roberts’s much-maligned 2012 vote in the first serious challenge to the Affordable Care Act — upholding the individual mandate as a tax while rejecting it as a valid regulation of interstate commerce.What those (and other) rulings have in common was the sense, across the Supreme Court, that the country would be better off with a court that took appropriate measure of how its rulings would be received beyond the details of the legal analysis the justices provided.The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.Steven V. Mazie (@stevenmazie) is the author of “American Justice 2015: The Dramatic Tenth Term of the Roberts Court” and is the Supreme Court correspondent for The Economist. Stephen I. Vladeck (@steve_vladeck), a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, writes the One First weekly Supreme Court newsletter and is the author of “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Pushes Forward in 2024 Run Amid Indictments and Colorado Ruling

      by

      This week’s debate over his very eligibility for office served as a stark reminder that anyone else facing such a wide array of legal problems would have left the political stage long ago.In another era, a politician would have walked away.For decades, American elected officials facing criminal charges or grave violations of the public trust would yield their positions of power, if only reluctantly, citing a duty to save the country from embarrassment and ease the strain on its institutions.Then came Donald J. Trump. The former president isn’t just forging ahead despite four indictments and 91 felony charges, but actively orchestrating a head-on collision between the nation’s political and legal systems.The ramifications continued to accrue this week, when the fundamental question of the former president’s eligibility for office was all but forced upon a Supreme Court already mired in unprecedented questions surrounding Mr. Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election.But the heated legal debate over whether Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection obscured the extraordinary reality that he is running for president at all — returning with fresh vengeance and a familiar playbook built around the notions that he can never lose, will never be convicted and will never really go away.That blueprint remains intact largely because his approach continues to yield political returns.Far from agonizing over the collateral damage from his never-surrender ethos, Mr. Trump seems incentivized by strife, tightly braiding his legal defense with his presidential campaign. He has tried to run out the clock on his criminal trials, a strategy that earned a new victory on Friday when the Supreme Court declined to decide a key point of contention in his federal 2020 election case immediately.While this year began with most Republicans telling pollsters that they preferred a different presidential nominee, the calendar will flip to 2024 with roughly two-thirds of the party aligned behind Mr. Trump. His legal problems, which in decades past would have bolstered rivals for a major party’s presidential nomination, have only caused Republican voters to unify around him more.“This has been the mystery of the Trump era — every time we think this is the final straw, it turns into a steel beam that merely solidifies his political infrastructure,” said Eliot Spitzer, a former Democratic governor of New York. Mr. Spitzer resigned as governor in 2008 amid a prostitution scandal, saying at the time that he owed as much to his family and the public.Lately, Mr. Trump has faced increased criticism that he is adopting fascist language and authoritarian tactics. Defending himself, he insisted repeatedly this week that he had never read “Mein Kampf,” Adolf Hitler’s Nazi manifesto.Of course, if there were a guidebook on how to run traditional American political campaigns, he would not have read that, either.At the start of his 2016 bid, he disparaged decorated military veterans, and voters looked past it. When a hot-mic recording surfaced of Mr. Trump casually claiming that celebrity status made it easier to sexually assault women, he resisted calls from fellow Republicans to step aside, dismissed the remarks as “locker room talk” and, 32 days later, won the presidency.The cycle repeated itself for years, leading to a kind of truism inside Trump world that the swirl of chaos and coup de théâtre surrounding the former president was almost always surprising, but hardly ever shocking.The absurdity of it all, in other words, always seemed to make perfect sense.Mr. Trump and his allies have sought to turn his impeachments into a political strength. Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesEven the riot by Mr. Trump’s supporters at the Capitol nearly three years ago adhered to that adage. Whether the attack was the ultimate coda to his presidency or the beginning of a darker phase in U.S. politics, the violence, in hindsight, was as horrifying as it was foreseeable.Mr. Trump, after all, had spent four years wielding the powerful White House bully pulpit to insist that any critical news coverage was a lie, that no elected official he opposed should be believed and that the courts could not be trusted.The story in Washington again unfolded in ways that were surprising — but hardly shocking. Days after Mr. Trump left office, polls showed that he maintained high levels of support inside his party. House Republicans who had voted to impeach him found themselves the targets of censure and primary challenges. Republican leaders visited him at Mar-a-Lago — a steady stream of supplicants bowing before their exiled king.It soon became clear that the Republican Party’s best opportunity to cast Mr. Trump aside had passed when 43 of its senators voted to acquit him in his impeachment trial after the Capitol riot.In an interview last month, Mr. Trump all but bragged about continuing his latest presidential campaign despite his criminal charges.“Other people, if they ever got indicted, they’re out of politics,” he told Univision. “They go to the microphone. They say, ‘I’m going to spend the rest of my life, you know, clearing my name. I’m going to spend the rest of my life with my family.’”“I’ve seen it hundreds of times,” Mr. Trump said, concluding that such decisions were always mistakes. “I can tell, you know, it’s backfired on them.”Mr. Trump’s legal problems, which in decades past would have bolstered rivals for a major party’s presidential nomination, have only caused Republican voters to unify around him more.Max Whittaker for The New York TimesMr. Trump’s commitment to the fight is rooted in a “preoccupation with not being seen as a loser,” said Mark Sanford, the former Republican governor of South Carolina, who considered stepping down as governor in 2009 when an extramarital affair erupted in scandalous national headlines.He ultimately remained in office, recalling in an interview this week that he had wanted to take responsibility for his actions and had hoped his regret and humility would serve as an example to his four sons and lead to a reconciliation with his constituents.Mr. Sanford said he doubted Mr. Trump had ever considered not running again.“For him to think about what’s best for the republic would mean having a frontal lobotomy,” Mr. Sanford said. “From the number of people he’s sued over the years to the number of subcontractors he’s ripped off to all of his bankruptcies, he has just bullied his way through life. He plays to an audience of one, and it’s not God — it’s Donald Trump.”Former Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, said he would advise Mr. Trump to end his presidential campaign if one of the former president’s federal cases resulted in a felony conviction.Mr. Lott, a former Senate majority leader, was forced out of his leadership position in 2002 after praising Strom Thurmond, a longtime senator and ardent segregationist who died the next year.“At some point, someone has to say to him that he has to do what’s in the best interest of the country and shut down his campaign,” Mr. Lott said of Mr. Trump. “But I don’t see any indication so far that he plans on going anywhere but back to the White House.” More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      New DeSantis Super PAC Revives Old Casey DeSantis Ad

      by

      The group emerged as Mr. DeSantis’s original super PAC began canceling its planned TV advertisements in Iowa and New Hampshire.A new super PAC that popped up in support of Gov. Ron DeSantis this week is preparing to air an ad that features Casey DeSantis, his wife, talking about her experience with cancer. The ad is nearly identical to one that was broadcast during his re-election campaign for governor last year, a video of the new spot shows. The group, Good Fight, was formed on Wednesday and soon began shipping copies of the ad to television stations. The Times obtained the ad from a person who received a copy of it, but who requested anonymity in order to share it. The narration of the ad is virtually the same as in the 2022 ad, but the new version features some new images and clips — of his children playing at the Field of Dreams in Iowa, for example — briefly spliced into the middle.Such a move could be considered “republication” of an ad, which the Federal Election Commission has regulations against. For instance, the super PAC supporting the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, later paid a fine related to republishing an ad from Mr. Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign. It is unclear whether those regulations would apply here, since the original spot is from a state campaign and not a federal one. The DeSantis ad features Ms. DeSantis trying to humanize her husband — who is often described as stiff on the campaign trail — as a father and a supportive husband when she faced breast cancer. The version that aired in 2022 had a logo that read “Ron DeSantis Florida Governor” in the upper-right corner; that logo is blurred out in the new spot sent to stations, which ends with a disclaimer that it was paid for by Good Fight.Craig Mareno, an accountant with Crosby Ottenhoff, a firm based in Birmingham, Ala., is listed on documents creating the group that were filed with the F.E.C. Reached by phone, Mr. Mareno declined to answer questions about the group or the ad, and asked for an email that he could forward to another official he said could answer questions. The DeSantis campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Adav Noti of Campaign Legal Center said it was unclear how the F.E.C. would view the use of the old DeSantis ad, since Mr. DeSantis was not a federal candidate at the time. “The entire DeSantis operation, including the campaign and all of the super PACs, have been pushing the legal envelope since the beginning, and this use of prior campaign material to put out presidential campaign ads is another example,” said Mr. Noti, whose group has already filed an F.E.C. complaint accusing Mr. DeSantis’s presidential campaign of coordinating illegally with the original DeSantis super PAC, Never Back Down.Good Fight emerged as Never Back Down, a deep-pocketed but embattled organization, began canceling $2.5 million in planned television advertisements in the early nominating states of Iowa and New Hampshire, according to AdImpact, a media tracking company.Campaigns are not allowed to coordinate directly with super PACs, but the move appears to align with the strategy suggested by the DeSantis campaign in a memo in late November.James Uthmeier, Mr. DeSantis’s campaign manager, wrote in the memo that a new super PAC formed to aid the governor, Fight Right, would air television ads, and Never Back Down would focus on its “field operation and ground game.”Never Back Down has poured millions into an ambitious door-knocking operation in early states, especially in Iowa. But that ground game has sputtered, with Mr. DeSantis’s poll numbers stagnating as former President Donald J. Trump remains far ahead both in Iowa and nationally. And the super PAC itself has been embroiled in turmoil, with a series of top executives and strategists departing over the past month.Fight Right, formed by people with ties to Mr. DeSantis, originated amid internal disagreements over strategy at Never Back Down, which struggled to meld veteran political strategists from a consulting firm with DeSantis loyalists. Mr. DeSantis had also been troubled by the group’s advertising strategy, as The Times previously reported. Fight Right began airing ads in late November attacking former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina.In a statement, Scott Wagner, the chairman of Never Back Down, said the group was “laser focused on its core mission — running the most advanced grass-roots and political caucus operation in this race and helping deliver the G.O.P. nomination for Governor DeSantis.”“We are thrilled to have Fight Right and others covering the air for Governor DeSantis while we work the ground game in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and beyond,” Mr. Wagner added.Taryn Fenske, a spokeswoman for Fight Right, said the group was placing an advertising buy of more than $2.5 million starting Sunday, with $1.3 million behind an anti-Haley ad that is slated to start running in Iowa that day.Never Back Down previously transferred $1 million to Fight Right, which helped precipitate a major leadership shake-up at the original super PAC, where some officials questioned the move. Officials with Never Back Down and Fight Right would not directly answer questions about whether the canceled $2.5 million was being used to fund the new Fight Right ads. Both Fight Right and Good Fight are using the same firm, Digital Media Placement Services, to purchase airtime, according to AdImpact’s records. More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Israel’s Destructive Bombs, and DeSantis’s Costly Ground Game

      by

      The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.The Headlines brings you the biggest stories of the day from the Times journalists who are covering them, all in about five minutes.A Times visual investigation reveals that one of Israel’s largest bombs was regularly used in areas designated safe for civilians.The New York Times, Source: Planet LabsOn Today’s Episode:A Times Investigation Tracked Israel’s Use of One of Its Most Destructive Bombs in South Gaza, by Robin Stein, Haley Willis, Ishaan Jhaveri, Danielle Miller, Aaron Byrd and Natalie ReneauAt Least 15 Dead in Czech Republic After Shooting at Prague University, by Andrew Higgins, Jenny Gross and Aric TolerHow DeSantis’s Ambitious, Costly Ground Game Has Sputtered, by Rebecca Davis O’Brien, Nicholas Nehamas and Kellen BrowningCan Ozempic and Weight-Loss Drugs Treat Other Diseases?, by Dani BlumMiniature Livestock Are a Hot-Ticket Item This Holiday Season, by Madison Malone KircherJessica Metzger and More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      How DeSantis’s Ambitious, Costly Ground Game Has Sputtered

      by

      The Florida governor’s field operation, one of the most expensive in modern political history, has met challenges from the outset, interviews with a range of voters and political officials revealed.Ron DeSantis’s battle plan against Donald J. Trump was always ambitious.This spring, the main super PAC backing Mr. DeSantis laid out a costly organizing operation, including an enormous voter-outreach push with an army of trained, paid door-knockers, that would try to reach every potential DeSantis voter multiple times in early-nominating states.Seven months later, after tens of millions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousands of doors knocked, one of the most expensive ground games in modern political history shows little sign of creating the momentum it had hoped to achieve.Mr. DeSantis’s poll numbers have barely budged. His super PAC, Never Back Down, is unraveling. And Mr. Trump’s hold on Republican primary voters seems as unshakable as ever. With time running out before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 15, Mr. DeSantis, the governor of Florida, appears in danger of losing the extraordinary bet he made in outsourcing his field operation to a super PAC — a gamble that is testing both the limits of campaign finance law and the power of money to move voter sentiment.Never Back Down has spent at least $30 million on its push to reach voters in person through door-knocking and canvassing in early-primary states, according to a person with knowledge of its efforts — a figure that does not include additional tens of millions in television advertising. The organization has more than 100 full-time, paid canvassers in Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire, along with 37,000 volunteers.That ground game has increasingly centered on a do-or-die push in Iowa, where a long-shot victory could redeem the effort. Never Back Down has knocked on doors more than 801,000 times — including repeated visits — in Iowa, according to another person familiar with its work, a staggering number in a state of just 3.2 million people. The group has knocked on the doors of some potential DeSantis voters four times, with a fifth attempt planned before the caucuses, the person said.“I know they are doing the right things,” said Will Rogers, a Republican political organizer in Iowa who said Never Back Down had been to his door several times. But, he added, “it just doesn’t seem to be moving the needle at all.”Interviews with more than three dozen voters, local officials and political strategists across Iowa and beyond revealed that — even setting aside the internal disruptions at Never Back Down — the immense, coordinated effort to identify and mobilize voters for Mr. DeSantis has struggled from the outset.Mr. DeSantis’s decision to outsource his field operation to a super PAC was unusual, and tested the limits of campaign finance law.Christopher Smith for The New York TimesSome voters have been swayed by contact from the super PAC, but many remain unconvinced. Some said the door knockers were indifferent or rude, while others said the full-court press from Never Back Down felt inauthentic. And, in a particularly brutal twist, some of the door knockers openly told Iowans that they themselves were in fact Trump supporters.“From my point of view, it hasn’t been working,” said Cris Christenson, a businessman who lives in Johnston, a Des Moines suburb. Never Back Down has been all over his neighborhood, he said, and has knocked on his door three times.Mr. Christenson said he was “not anti-DeSantis,” describing him as “very bright.” But he is a firm supporter of Mr. Trump.“It really comes down to this — Trump is so wildly popular in the state that DeSantis doesn’t stand a chance,” he said.Spreading the wordJess Szymanski, a spokeswoman for Never Back Down, said the group had built “the largest, most advanced grass-roots and political operation in the history of presidential politics.”“With every voter we interact with on the ground, we constantly find strong support and new voters committing to caucus for Governor DeSantis,” she added. Door knocking is considered a particularly useful way not just to persuade and identify supporters, but above all to mobilize them to get to the caucuses or polls.The field operation is highly organized: Never Back Down has trained hundreds of people at an in-house boot camp in Des Moines that operatives call “Fort Benning.” There, recruits learn about the biography of Mr. DeSantis and his family, study his policies and record as Florida governor, and practice door-knocking techniques.Then, in groups — toting iPads with special software that contains details about likely voters — they spread out across Iowa and other early-nominating states.In Iowa, these paid door knockers have been joined by volunteer “precinct captains” — Never Back Down aims to have at least one captain in each of Iowa’s more than 1,600 caucus precincts by Jan. 15.Attendees at an Iowa Republican Party event in May were given information on Mr. DeSantis.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesNever Back Down is trying to reach Republicans in rural, heavily conservative areas like northwest Iowa, hoping that evangelical voters will embrace an alternative to the profane Mr. Trump.Quality control problemsSome of the challenges on the ground appear to stem from the operation’s size. The fact that it has been run by a super PAC rather than a campaign, and has relied largely on hired hands rather than volunteers, can make the outreach feel inauthentic, interviews with some caucusgoers showed.They described being put off or bemused by DeSantis campaigners who hailed from as far away as California. Douglas Jensen, a 38-year-old potential caucusgoer in rural northwestern Iowa who hasn’t decided which candidate to support, recalled being surprised to have a “very enthusiastic” man from Georgia pitch him on Mr. DeSantis at his house.Loren and Tina DeVries said they’d had door knockers from different campaigns stop by their house in Bettendorf. Some were locals — Ms. DeVries, 54, even knew the young woman who came to her door to stump for Vivek Ramaswamy personally.But the couple didn’t recognize the DeSantis door knockers, and recalled that they had been less than enthusiastic in their pitch.“The people that have come, I’m not sure if they’re there just to check a box or actually have a persuasive conversation,” Mr. DeVries, 53, said. “They’re not really doing a sell.”He still liked Mr. DeSantis, but Ms. DeVries remained undecided.Never Back Down, the super PAC supporting Mr. DeSantis, put out sign-up sheets to endorse him at an Iowa Republican Party event in Cedar Rapids.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesDeSantis campaign materials at a restaurant in Tipton, Iowa.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesNumerous other voters have also reported lackadaisical efforts, fruitless repeat knocking and bad attitudes from door knockers. Over the summer, a paid Never Back Down canvasser in South Carolina was dismissed after he was caught making lewd remarks about a homeowner, The Washington Post reported.The super PAC has dismissed employees and volunteers who failed to meet targets for door knocking and other measures of engagement, according to people who worked with the group.Fierce competition, and a looming favoriteOther campaigns are trying to capitalize. The political network founded by the Koch brothers, Americans for Prosperity Action, which endorsed Nikki Haley last month, is aiming to knock on 100,000 doors in Iowa before the caucuses. The group is hoping that a more finely honed message, spread by the small group of well-trained volunteers and paid staff, will be enough to overcome the flood of outreach from Never Back Down.Tyler Raygor, A.F.P.’s state director, said the fact that Mr. DeSantis had been stagnant in state polls despite the huge canvassing effort cast doubt on how effective his messengers were.“It just begs the question of: ‘Who are you having out on the doors? How well are you training them?’” Mr. Raygor said.The Trump campaign has also put down roots in Iowa, though its efforts have focused more on training its 1,800 caucus captains and pushing them to persuade their friends and neighbors to caucus for Mr. Trump. Still, the campaign has reached several hundred thousand voters in Iowa through mail advertisements and door knocking, according to a person familiar with the efforts.Indeed, it seems possible that no amount of door knocking could surmount Mr. DeSantis’s biggest challenge: He is not Donald Trump.Former President Donald J. Trump still leads in polls of Iowa caucusgoers by double digits. Jordan Gale for The New York TimesJeanette Hudson, 82, of Pella, Iowa, said she and her husband, both loyal Trump supporters, had been visited at home by a “pleasant young woman” who asked if they were going to caucus for Mr. DeSantis. Ms. Hudson said they were not.The woman smiled, thanked them and left.Persuading the unconvincedDavid Polyansky, the DeSantis deputy campaign manager, said door knocking was meant to drive turnout on caucus night, not to juice poll numbers.“It gives you the chance to not only identify who might be a DeSantis supporter, but also to bring them into the fold and make sure they are going to turn out on the 15th,” he said, arguing that it was too soon to judge the effectiveness of Never Back Down’s door-knocking operation.Mr. DeSantis’s allies say that many Iowans remain undecided, and that a major part of the ground game, in the weeks ahead, is to tip them to their side.Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesIn New Hampshire, the way that Mr. DeSantis won the support of Hilary Kilcullen, 76, a physician assistant in Concord, is a model that Never Back Down hopes to emulate.Ms. Kilcullen, a Republican, said a young man had knocked on her door to tell her about Mr. DeSantis. The canvasser, who had flown up from Miami, told Ms. Kilcullen that she could rely on Mr. DeSantis in the event of a terrorist attack or other disaster.The conversation didn’t flip Ms. Kilcullen, who had grown tired of Mr. Trump, into a DeSantis supporter. But she valued the personal touch.“In this day and age, when everything has gone digital and virtual, I was impressed,” Ms. Kilcullen said. “If DeSantis could capture this passionate, young person’s attention, that means something.”Then, after hearing Mr. DeSantis speak in person this month at a town-hall event — and being impressed by his command of policy — she decided he had earned her vote.But others have yet to be convinced.One undecided caucusgoer in Iowa, Edith Hull, a 73-year-old retired farmer from Ottumwa, said she had a positive experience with a DeSantis door knocker recently.“He was a real nice young man,” she said. “And he didn’t pressure me or anything.” When he left, he gave her a large placard to hang on her doorknob, and reminded her to caucus.Asked if she felt any differently about Mr. DeSantis afterward, she said, “About the same.”Reporting was contributed by More