Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Third Republican Debate: Key Takeaways

      by

      Nikki Haley staked out a clear, hawkish vision. Ron DeSantis avoided risks. And the night’s glaring absentee, Donald Trump, again emerged untouched.It was the undercard that underwhelmed.The third straight Republican presidential debate that former President Donald J. Trump has skipped — choosing instead to rally with supporters a few miles away — represented a critical and shrinking chance for his rivals to close his chasm of a polling advantage.And with only five candidates on the stage for the first time — Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy and Tim Scott — they all had far more time to speak.Yet they had precious little to say about Mr. Trump, even when given the chance just over two months before the Iowa caucuses.They sparred in a substantive debate that dissected disagreements over aid to Ukraine, Social Security, confronting China, banning TikTok and how to approach abortion less than 24 hours after Republicans suffered their latest electoral setbacks driven by the fall of Roe v. Wade.But there was something surreal about such detailed discussions unfolding among candidates who seem so far from the Oval Office — even Mr. DeSantis and Ms. Haley, who asserted themselves as the leaders of the non-Trump pack.Here are six takeaways from a debate in Miami that may best be remembered for Ms. Haley snapping at Mr. Ramaswamy, “You’re just scum.”Haley came out swinging.Ms. Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said that there would be no Hamas without Iran.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesNikki Haley emerged as a power center on the debate stage, giving a forceful performance that took advantage of the night’s focus on foreign policy to present a clear and hawkish vision of America’s role in the world.Leaning into her experience as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, she staked out expansive, interventionist positions that cut against Mr. Trump’s “America First” foreign policy vision.She backed Ukraine to the hilt. She said she would support military strikes against Iran. And she said the United States needed to support Israel with “whatever they need and whenever they need it.”Most of the other candidates gave versions of the same responses — but Ms. Haley had the edge of having represented the United States on the world stage.When the candidates were asked what they would urge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to do at this moment, Mr. DeSantis said he “would be telling” him to eliminate Hamas. Ms. Haley said she did, in fact, tell Mr. Netanyahu to “finish them.”As Ms. Haley vies with Mr. DeSantis to establish herself as the field’s Trump alternative, some of the party’s biggest donors were closely watching her performance as they weighed whether to spend millions on her behalf in a desperate final effort to beat Mr. Trump.Ms. Haley’s competitors recognized her rising status by taking aim at her.DeSantis is still playing it safe in a game he’s losing.The Florida governor criticized Donald Trump’s absence from the debate stage.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesIt seemed, for a moment, as if this would be a different kind of debate for Mr. DeSantis. His opening answer affirmatively outlined how he would be better than Mr. Trump.“He should explain why he didn’t have Mexico pay for the border wall,” Mr. DeSantis began. “He should explain why he racked up so much debt. He should explain why he didn’t drain the swamp.” He went on to say that Mr. Trump promised “winning” only to have his party endure years of “losing,” including on Tuesday.“In Florida, I showed how it’s done,” Mr. DeSantis declared, trying to take hometown advantage of a debate held in Miami.But then he mostly left Mr. Trump untouched, satisfied to prosecute his own case and push back on rivals like Ms. Haley. It was the same strategy he used in the first two debates, with little traction gained.Mr. DeSantis is plainly more comfortable than in the first debate. Yet he surprisingly left unsaid a development that his campaign has advertised as a game changer: the endorsement this week of Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa.You can’t debate someone who isn’t there.Chris Christie took the sharpest aim at Mr. Trump, but in his absence the five contenders were left to tear one another down, with varying levels of nastiness.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesThe candidates again did little to aggressively contrast themselves with Mr. Trump, who has made himself unavailable for direct sparring by refusing to stand onstage with his rivals or, for the most part, appear with them at multicandidate gatherings on the campaign trail.Without Mr. Trump present, the five contenders were left to tear one another down, with varying levels of nastiness.The first question to the candidates was the fundamental one most of them have struggled to answer to Republican voters: why they, and not Mr. Trump, should be the nominee.Mr. Christie, as expected, was the sharpest in his attack, arguing that someone who faces Mr. Trump’s criminal charges “cannot lead this party or this country.”But Mr. DeSantis took only a brief swipe. Ms. Haley praised Mr. Trump’s presidency, then criticized him, saying that he had gone “weak in the knees” on Ukraine and that his time had passed. Mr. Ramaswamy defended Mr. Trump in passing. And Mr. Scott talked about himself.Nikki Haley said that she doesn’t believe Trump is the “right president now.”NBC NewsThat was almost the extent of efforts to chip away at the runaway front-runner. Nearby, Mr. Trump held a rally in Hialeah, Fla., remarking at one point that his rivals were “not watchable.”For months, the candidates have struggled to find a way to force him into the ring with them, with Mr. Christie threatening to follow him on the campaign trail and Mr. DeSantis, in recent days, lobbing crass responses to Mr. Trump’s brutal taunts. In the third debate, none of them figured out how to make it work.This debate got personal.Vivek Ramaswamy fought with the NBC moderators and the head of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, whom he urged to resign.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesAfter three debates, this much is clear: Some of the candidates onstage really don’t like one another.The most loathed appears to be Mr. Ramaswamy, who from the start fought not just with the rivals flanking him but also with the NBC moderators and the head of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, whom he urged to resign in his opening statement.At times, Mr. Ramaswamy almost seemed to be doing Mr. Trump’s bidding, attacking NBC’s past coverage of the former president’s scandals.He made acidic attacks on Ms. Haley, mocking her foreign policy and calling her “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels.” He slipped in a crack about Mr. DeSantis’s footwear, suggesting that the Florida governor, too, was wearing lifts. Mr. DeSantis ignored him. Ms. Haley said hers were five inches and “for ammunition.”When Mr. Ramaswamy later invoked her daughter’s use of TikTok, she demanded, “Leave my daughter out of your voice,” and then added in almost disbelief about the exchange, “You’re just scum.”During a confrontation over TikTok, Nikki Haley snapped at Vivek Ramaswamy after he scolded Ms. Haley over her daughter’s use of the app.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesAbortion remains a Republican quagmire.The crowd at Wednesday’s debate.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesAfter Tuesday’s defeats, the Republican candidates knew they would face questions about the way forward on abortion. But they mostly seemed uncertain what to say.“We’re better off when we can promote a culture of life,” said Mr. DeSantis, who signed a six-week ban in his state. He said little at all about what his party should do or what he would do as president. “At the same time, I understand that some of these states are doing it a little bit different.”Ms. Haley described herself as opposed to abortion, but said that passing national restrictions would be virtually impossible, arguing that it’s crucial to be “honest” with the public. At times, Ms. Haley seemed to be trying to appeal to general-election voters. “I don’t judge anyone for being pro-choice,” she said. It was the kind of line that makes Democratic strategists worry about her strength if she were to win the nomination — but also one that the G.O.P. base is unlikely to welcome.It all amounted to a reminder that Republicans, after decades of campaigning against abortion rights, have yet to figure out what to say after finally getting their wish through a Supreme Court that Mr. Trump — who also won’t say where he stands on a national ban — reshaped.Was this Tim Scott’s swan song?Tim Scott said “diplomacy only“ in the Israel-Hamas war was “a weak strategy.“Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesMr. Scott qualified for this debate by the narrowest of margins, with only a single poll — the legitimacy of which some of his rivals have privately disputed — ensuring his spot. But the thresholds will be higher for the next debate in December, and Mr. Scott’s allies acknowledge that he needs to something, anything, just to remain a factor.It’s hard to imagine that he did anything on Wednesday night to change his trajectory. He stuck to the same messages he has been hitting throughout the campaign. He described an America in need of spiritual healing and a return to Judeo-Christian values.He received more attention for what he did after the debate than for anything he said during it. Mr. Scott, 58, has never been married, and entire newspaper stories have been dedicated to a mysterious girlfriend who had never been seen with him in public.Until he brought her onstage.Michael Gold More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Tim Scott Appears With Girlfriend Onstage After Republican Debate

      by

      Senator Tim Scott’s most viral debate moment didn’t actually happen during the debate. It came shortly afterward.Mr. Scott, the affable yet awkward South Carolina lawmaker, has been pressed during his campaign with questions about his unmarried status, as he has focused on his faith and his commitment to conservative family values.He has repeatedly given vague answers about being in a relationship with a woman, but a significant other had not campaigned with him.On Wednesday night when the Republican presidential debate ended — a time when candidates are regularly greeted onstage by spouses and other relatives — Mr. Scott stunned observers when he appeared arm-in-arm with a longhaired blonde woman in a gray pantsuit who smiled widely as they posed for photos.She was later identified by a person close to the campaign as Mindy Noce, Mr. Scott’s girlfriend and a design and renovations manager for a real estate company in the Charleston, S.C., area. In the spin room after the debate, a tight-lipped Mr. Scott confirmed that the mystery woman was his girlfriend and that they had been seeing each other for “about a year or so.”The moment grabbed more attention than anything Mr. Scott said during the debate did, an unfortunate metaphor for his presidential run. Even the pictures taken at his debate lectern with his girlfriend had the feel of being the final souvenirs from a stalled campaign.Mr. Scott entered the race as an underdog, but had proven to be a strong fund-raiser with the party’s base of online, small-dollar donors. His Sunday-school style of conservatism has yet to resonate even with evangelicals in Iowa, home of the party’s first nominating contest. Still, Mr. Scott, who champions himself as a “happy warrior,” remains an optimist. When asked by NBC News if this was his last debate, he referred to the next debate in December in Alabama, saying, “Thirty days from now in Alabama, we’ll be hanging out having a conversation. I’ll be on the stage.”The emergence of Mr. Scott’s companion onstage, like her emergence in the campaign itself, took a while.Immediately after the debate concluded and other candidates were joined by their spouses, Mr. Scott put his arm around his mother, Frances Scott, and posed for a picture behind the lectern he had used during the debate.He walked along the edge of the stage and squatted for selfies with fans in the audience. He chatted with supporters. He stood and stared out into the crowd, seeming to take in the moment.He took more pictures with his nephew, Ben Scott.Finally, after most of his rivals and their families had left the stage, Mr. Scott was joined at his lectern by Ms. Noce.Mr. Scott pointed out a step, taking care that she did not trip. They stood side by side, wrapped their arms around one another’s back and smiled for pictures.Mr. Scott held onto her hand as she turned to walk offstage, as if he did not want to let go.Nicholas Nehamas More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Ramaswamy Seemed to Call Zelensky a Nazi. His Campaign Says That’s Not What He Meant.

      by

      Vivek Ramaswamy drew shock and criticism online on Wednesday when he appeared to accuse the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish, of being a Nazi — but Mr. Ramaswamy’s campaign insisted that wasn’t what he meant.The remark came in response to a question about Mr. Zelensky’s recent plea for more American aid toward Ukraine’s war with Russia, a request several of the Republican presidential candidates have said that they support. Mr. Ramaswamy, however, has opposed giving further assistance to Ukraine. Congress has approved about $113 billion so far.“Ukraine is not a paragon of democracy,” Mr. Ramaswamy said, reeling off a litany of critiques, including: “It has celebrated a Nazi in its ranks. A comedian in cargo pants. The man called Zelensky. That is not democratic.”The statement raised eyebrows both in the room in Miami and on the internet, where hundreds of stunned viewers made posts on social media. One such post, from the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump Republican group, called Mr. Ramaswamy an “unserious candidate.”Mr. Zelensky, who is Jewish, lost family members in the Holocaust.A spokeswoman for Mr. Ramaswamy, Tricia McLaughlin, said that he had not called Mr. Zelensky a Nazi. Instead, Ms. McLaughlin said, he was referring to an event in September in which Mr. Zelensky visited Canada’s Parliament and joined a standing ovation honoring a 98-year-old Ukrainian Canadian war veteran. The problem, it turned out, was that the veteran, Yaroslav Hunka, had served in a division that was under Nazi control during World War II.The ovation was widely condemned by Jewish groups, which called it “beyond outrageous.” Ms. McLaughlin said that Mr. Ramaswamy was referring to Mr. Zelensky’s joining in the applause and waving to Mr. Hunka.But she acknowledged that, without context, the remark could be easily misunderstood. “He was talking quickly and kind of oscillated in his words,” she said. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Ramaswamy Compares Republican Rivals to Dick Cheney ‘in Heels’

      by

      Forget tax-cut pledges and RINO accusations. Heels, of all things, are the new political cudgel in Republican politics.For weeks, the question of whether Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida wears heel lifts in his cowboy boots has been the subject of attacks from former President Donald J. Trump and others.The bizarre meme found its way into the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday, when Vivek Ramaswamy used it to go after both Mr. DeSantis and former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, the only woman on the stage in Miami.Mr. Ramaswamy compared his two Republican rivals to “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels.”The moment came during an exchange over the U.S. role in the war between Israel and Hamas. Mr. Ramaswamy, the youngest of five Republican presidential candidates at the debate, attempted to separate himself from Mr. DeSantis and Ms. Haley, both of whom said they would urge Israel to completely eliminate Hamas.Mr. Ramaswamy said Israel had the right to defend itself, but he wanted to “be careful to avoid making the mistakes from the establishment of the past.”He asked: “Do you want a leader from a different generation who’s going to put this country first, or do you want Dick Cheney in three-inch heels? In which case, we’ve got two of them onstage tonight.”Ms. Haley addressed the barb a few minutes later, saying that Mr. Ramaswamy was wrong about her footwear.“They’re five-inch heels,” she said. “And I don’t wear them unless you can run in them. The second thing I will say is, I wear heels. They’re not for a fashion statement. They’re for ammunition.”The debate was still going, but Mr. DeSantis had so far not discussed the particulars of his boots. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Ending 40-Year Hiatus, GOP Wins a NYC Council Seat in the Bronx

      by

      Although Democrats won contentious races all across New York, losses in the Bronx and throughout Long Island gave Republicans hope.The last time voters in the Bronx were represented by a Republican on the City Council, Mayor Ed Koch was still asking voters “How’m I doin’,” Ronald Reagan was president and hip-hop music was mostly a local phenomenon.The idea that voters in the Bronx, one of the most deeply Democratic counties in the country, might send a Republican representative to the City Council would be nothing less than a “national embarrassment,” Representative Ritchie Torres said at a recent rally for the Democratic incumbent, Marjorie Velázquez.On Wednesday, that political ignominy came to fruition.With less than a thousand votes to spare, Kristy Marmorato, a conservative Republican candidate, was declared the winner by The Associated Press of the tightest City Council contest in the city, roughly 15 hours after the polls had closed.Ms. Marmorato had sparred with Ms. Velázquez about crime and her support of a rezoning that would bring affordable housing to the neighborhood in District 13 in the northeast Bronx. The area had shown signs of tipping to the right: In 2021, the Republican candidate for mayor, Curtis Sliwa, won more votes in the district than the Democrat, Eric Adams.Sensing a rare opportunity to flip a seat, the Bronx Republican Party went all in on the contest. The party sent 20,000 text messages to their base; made 40,000 robocalls in English, Albanian and Arabic; and made 10,000 live calls.“We threw everything and the kitchen sink at her,” said Michael Rendino, the chairman of the Bronx Republican Party who is also Ms. Marmorato’s brother. “It’s a wake up call to the Democratic Party.”Ms. Velázquez’s defeat still sends chills through the city’s Democratic establishment and gives hope to Republicans. Both parties are closely watching a smattering of off-year suburban contests across New York as bellwethers for 2024, when a half dozen key congressional races in the state could tip the balance of power in the House of Representatives.But for the most part, the potential rightward shift driven by changing ethnic demographics did not materialize in New York City, where all 51 City Council seats were up for re-election because of a once-in-a-decade redistricting process.In southern Brooklyn, Justin Brannan, the chairman of the finance committee and one of the most powerful members of the Council, scored a resounding victory against Ari Kagan, a Democrat-turned-Republican who quickly adopted his party’s views on issues like crime and abortion.Councilman Justin Brannan, center right, repelled a challenge from a fellow Council member, Ari Kagan, in a heated contest in southern Brooklyn.Paul Frangipane for The New York TimesIn a neighboring district, Susan Zhuang, a moderate Democrat, defeated Ying Tan, a Republican, in a district created to recognize the growth of the city’s Asian American population.The story was different on Long Island, where Republicans routed Democrats. Their dominance harkened back to the 1970s, when its suburban towns were a Republican stronghold, and suggested that concerns about crime, the cost of living and the state’s unfolding migrant crisis might be doing long-term damage to Democrats’ image in an otherwise hospitable state, where abortion rights are generally seen as safe.After Ed Romaine’s 15-point victory in the race for Suffolk County executive, Republicans have now flipped nearly every major office on Long Island since 2020. They also notched key victories in Long Beach and North Hempstead in Nassau County, traditionally Democratic areas included in the must-win districts of Republican Representatives Anthony D’Esposito and George Santos.The results left Democrats, who have lost three straight election cycles in the area, in a near panic.“The conventional wisdom is that the road to a Democratic majority of the House runs through New York,” said Representative Steve Israel, a former New York congressman who once ran Democrats’ campaign arm. “But there’s nothing but yellow lights blinking for Democrats, especially on Long Island, suggesting they are not getting the traction they need.”He said he had seen a “perception about crime and disorder and lawlessness that is hitting the anxieties of suburban voters,” with little sign of abating.However, the party notched much stronger performances north of New York City, where voters in the suburban towns that hug the Hudson River and in the state’s western reaches behaved much more like their counterparts in Virginia or Ohio.Democrats won key local races in Westchester and Rockland Counties, where Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican, faces one of the toughest re-election fights in the country next year. They appeared to be on track to win a trio of competitive district attorney contests in Ulster, Dutchess and Columbia Counties, a hotly contested territory where Representatives Pat Ryan, a Democrat, and Marc Molinaro, a Republican, will be defending key swing seats next year.And in Erie County, which includes Buffalo and its suburbs, Mark Poloncarz won a record fourth term as county executive. Republicans had pummeled Mr. Poloncarz over his handling of the state’s migrant crisis, but voters paid little mind, handing the Democrat a nearly 20-point victory.Jason Weingartner, the executive director of the state Republican Party, conceded upstate counties had lessons to learn from Long Island, particularly convincing voters to go to the polls early.Ms. Velázquez’s support for more affordable housing in the district displeased some voters.Anna Watts for The New York TimesEven though Ms. Velázquez won the June Democratic primary by almost 50 percentage points, the fault lines in that election showed that she was vulnerable on both crime and her decision to support the rezoning of Bruckner Boulevard to bring affordable housing to the neighborhood, Mr. Rendino said. Ms. Velázquez had opposed the project for months before changing her mind.Ms. Velázquez was elected as a progressive in 2021 but soon joined more than a dozen other Democrats in leaving the Progressive Caucus after they were asked to sign a statement of principles that called for “the size and scope” of the New York Police Department to be reduced. During the Democratic primary, Ms. Velázquez emphasized that she was a moderate.“I’ve heard that you’re socialist because you’re like A.O.C., and it’s like, no, I’m not,” Ms. Velázquez said in June, referring to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist.Ms. Marmorato, an X-ray technician and a married mother of an elementary aged daughter, has said that she was driven to run for office because she opposed plans to build mid-rise housing in an area of mostly single-family homes as part of the Bruckner rezoning and a proposal for supportive housing for people released from prison at a former Jacobi Medical Center building near her home.Speaking on NY1, she said that people wanted change. She called for more police officers.“They feel like there’s no more local control in our community,” she said. “They don’t have a say in what’s going on in their neighborhood and they’re just fed up with it.”Neither Ms. Velázquez nor her campaign responded to multiple requests to comment on Wednesday. Camille Rivera, a Democratic political consultant at New Deal Strategies, said the concerns raised about the Bruckner rezoning relied on “coded language” and racial fear mongering. Joseph Savino Jr. was the last Republican member of the City Council from the Bronx. He served as Councilman at Large from 1977 to 1983 before the position was abolished. In 1985 he was convicted of illegally possessing a machine gun and then pleaded guilty to tax evasion for failing to report $300,000 in income.Jamaal Bailey, a state senator who is the chairman of the Bronx Democratic Party, called Ms. Velázquez’s loss a local issue that would have little bearing on next year.“Taking a stand to make sure that more people have a place to live is a principled stance,” Mr. Bailey said, “and one that I believe that she’s proud of and one that we should be proud of as Democrats, especially in a housing crisis.”On Wednesday morning, Mr. Torres, one of Ms. Velázquez’s closest allies, described his “national embarrassment” remark as hyperbole meant to motivate supporters before an important election.“All politics is local, and nowhere are those words more true than in the East Bronx, where the racial and class politics of a rezoning can be treacherous,” Mr. Torres said. “A perfect storm put the seat in Republican hands.” More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Who Are the Moderators for Wednesday’s Republican Debate?

      by

      Three experienced moderators will lead Wednesday’s meeting in Miami of the remaining Republican presidential candidates, although former President Donald J. Trump will again be absent.Lester Holt and Kristen Welker, two lead anchors at NBC News, which is overseeing the debate’s production and editorial process, will serve alongside Hugh Hewitt, a conservative radio host who works for a co-sponsor of the debate, Salem Media Group.Mr. Holt, the anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” was the sole moderator of Mr. Trump’s first general-election debate with Hillary Clinton, in September 2016. That event was watched by 84 million Americans, a record audience. Mr. Holt took a minimalist approach that evening, sometimes allowing the candidates to argue between themselves, although his lack of interruption granted viewers an unfiltered view of the candidates’ rhetorical styles.Ms. Welker, the host of “Meet the Press,” was the sole moderator of Mr. Trump’s final debate against Joseph R. Biden Jr., in October 2020. She was the first Black woman to moderate a general-election presidential matchup since Carole Simpson in 1992, and won praise for her efforts to retain civility and for urging the candidates to avoid any extended harangues.Mr. Hewitt used to appear frequently on NBC News and MSNBC. He helped moderate three Republican primary debates in the 2016 campaign. Salem Media Group, which distributes Mr. Hewitt’s radio show, works with several Trump loyalists, including Sebastian Gorka and Jenna Ellis, a former Trump lawyer who pleaded guilty last month to a felony related to false claims of election fraud in Georgia. Mr. Hewitt is considered more moderate in his views and writes a column for The Washington Post. More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Love Can Win Trump the Nomination. It Will Take Hate to Win Back the White House.

      by

      A few weeks ago, I was talking to a local pastor here in Tennessee, and he started the conversation by asking a question I hear all the time: “Can anybody beat Trump?” He was desperate for someone else, anyone else, to claim the Republican nomination. He ticked through the names — DeSantis, Haley, Scott, Pence (he was still in the race then) — and they were all better. Why can’t they gain traction? “It’s not a binary choice anymore,” he said. “It’s not Trump or Biden.”“But,” he quickly added, “if it is Trump or Biden, then I’m voting Trump. It’s just who I am.”It’s just who I am. I thought of that conversation when I saw last weekend’s headlines. Donald Trump is now leading President Biden in five swing states, and if the race goes the way the poll suggests, Trump could win the presidency with more than 300 electoral votes. At the same time, we know from previous Times/Siena College polling that the hard-core MAGA base is 37 percent of the Republican Party. Another 37 percent can be persuaded to oppose Trump, while 25 percent are completely opposed to his nomination.How is it possible that a person whose true base is only 37 percent of his party, who faces four separate criminal indictments and who already lost once to Biden might sit in the electoral driver’s seat?I’ve written quite a bit on the enduring bond between Trump and his base. There’s the strange combination of rage and joy that marks the MAGA community. They’re somehow both furious about the direction of the country and having the time of their lives supporting Trump. There’s also the power of prophecy. Millions of Christians are influenced by claims that Trump is divinely ordained to save the United States. But the MAGA millions aren’t enough to put him back in the White House.To understand his general election prospects, we have to go beyond Trump’s MAGA core. He needs millions more votes — including from my pastor friend, a man who’s desperate to see Trump leave American politics.Trump’s viability in the Republican Party depends on the loyalty of his base, but his viability in the general election depends on a dark combination of negative partisanship and civic ignorance. “Negative partisanship” is the term political scientists use to describe partisan loyalty that exists not because a voter loves his party or its ideas but because he loathes the opposing party and the people in it. And why do voters loathe the opposition so darn much? That’s where civic ignorance plays its diabolical role. Partisan Americans are wrong about each other in a particularly dangerous way: Each side thinks the other is more extreme than it really is.This hostility is what permits Trump to convert his primary plurality into a potential electoral majority. This hostility both predated Trump and powered his election. In previous American political generations, nominating a person perceived to be an extremist or a crank was the kiss of electoral death. You wouldn’t merely expect to lose. You would expect to lose in a landslide.When Republicans nominated far-right Barry Goldwater in 1964, for example, he won six states and lost the popular vote by 23 points. Eight years later, when Democrats nominated far-left George McGovern, they won one state and also lost the popular vote by 23 points. There was enough partisan mobility in the electorate to decisively reject two different candidates, from opposing edges of the political spectrum.But now? It is unthinkable for many millions of partisans — or even for those independents who lean right or left and maybe secretly don’t want to admit to themselves that they’re truly partisan — to either vote third party or cross the aisle and vote for a candidate of the opposing party. They simply hate the other side too much. The result is that virtually any Republican or Democratic nominee begins the race with both a high floor and a low ceiling and no one has much margin for error. Every nominee is going to be fragile, and every national presidential race is going to be close. The margin in the last two races has been agonizingly slim. A few thousand votes cast differently in key swing states, and Hillary Clinton wins, or Joe Biden loses.To understand the power of negative partisanship, it’s important to understand the sheer scale of the mutual partisan hatred. Dating back to June 2014 — a full year before Trump came down that escalator — the Pew Research Center reported an extraordinary increase in polarization. Between 1994 and 2014, the percentage of Democrats and Republicans who expressed “very unfavorable” views of their opponents more than doubled, to 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Republicans. Overall, 82 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Democrats had either unfavorable or very unfavorable views of their political opponents.During the Trump era, this mutual contempt and loathing only grew. A June 2019 report by More in Common found that 86 percent of Republicans believed Democrats were brainwashed, 84 percent believed Democrats were hateful and 71 percent believed Democrats were racist. Democrats also expressed withering disgust for Republicans: 88 percent believed Republicans were brainwashed, 87 percent believed Republicans were hateful and 89 percent believed Republicans were racist.There is an interesting additional wrinkle to the More in Common report. Yes, it found that the two sides hated each other, but it also discovered that both sides were wrong about their political opponents. Both Democrats and Republicans believed their opponents were more politically extreme than they really were. The findings are startling: “Overall, Democrats and Republicans imagine almost twice as many of their political opponents … hold views they consider ‘extreme’ ” than is actually the case.The media compounds the problem. More in Common found that consuming news media (with the exception of broadcast news on ABC, NBC and CBS) actually increased the perception gap. As a practical matter, this means that parties are almost always defined by their ideological extremes and each party uses the existence of those extremes to generate fear and increase turnout. Even if a party does try to moderate to appeal to the middle, partisan media still highlights the radicals that remain, and the perception gap persists. The fear persists.We can start to see why Trump is viable beyond his base. When you ask right-leaning voters to abandon Trump, you’re asking them to empower a political party they view as brainwashed, hateful and racist. You’re asking them to empower a political party they view as extreme. That’s the source of Trump’s strength in a general election. He’s surfing on top of a huge wave of fear and animosity, a wave he did not create but one that he’s making bigger through his malignant, destructive influence.That’s not to say that we face a political stalemate. After all, we’ve seen MAGA candidates perform poorly in multiple swing state elections, but many of those elections — even against plainly incompetent or corrupt candidates — have been extraordinarily close. Trump’s loss in 2020 was extraordinarily close. In a narrowly divided country, it becomes difficult for one party to deliver the kind of decisive blows that Republicans suffered in 1964 or Democrats suffered in 1972.When the Trump Republican Party is forced to take three steps back, it often consoles itself with two steps forward. It lost the House in 2018, but it gained seats in the Senate. It lost the presidency and the Senate in 2020, but it gained seats in the House. It lost ground in the Senate in 2022, but it did (barely) win back control of the House. There weren’t many bright spots for Republicans in the 2023 elections, either, but there weren’t many races, and MAGA will still believe that Biden is weak even if other Democrats have proved stronger than expected.Already Trump and his allies are blaming electoral setbacks on the Republican establishment. The radio host Mark Levin claimed that the Republican nominee for governor in Kentucky, Daniel Cameron, lost to the Democrat, Andy Beshear, because Cameron is a “Mitch McConnell protégé.” Trump echoed the same theme, declaring on Truth Social that Cameron “couldn’t alleviate the stench of Mitch McConnell.” MAGA’s solution to electoral setbacks is always the same: more MAGA.There are two potential paths past this Republican dynamic. One is slow, difficult and dangerous. That’s the path of the Democratic Party defeating Trump and other MAGA candidates, race by race, year by year, with the full knowledge that the margin of victory can be razor thin and that there’s always the risk of a close loss that brings catastrophic consequences for our Republic. One negative news cycle — like Anthony Weiner’s laptop surfacing in the closing days of the 2016 election — can be the difference between victory and defeat.The other path — the better path — requires the Republican Party to reform itself, to reject Trump now. A two-party nation needs two healthy parties. Any republic that depends on one party defeating the other to preserve democracy and the rule of law is a republic that teeters on the edge of destruction. A Nikki Haley nomination, for example, might make Biden’s defeat more likely, but farsighted Democrats should welcome a potential return to normalcy in the Republican Party. It would mean that politics will perhaps return to a world of manageable differences, rather than a series of existential threats to democracy itself.As of now, however, internal Republican reform is a pipe dream. Ron DeSantis is falling, and while Haley is rising, she hasn’t even hit 10 percent support in the RealClearPolitics polling average. Trump leads by a staggering spread of 43.7 points. Perhaps a criminal conviction could reverse Trump’s primary momentum, but after watching Trump’s Republican approval rating survive every single scandal of his presidency and political career, the idea that anything will shake his Republican support is far more of a hope than an expectation.Until that unlikely moment, we’re stuck with the current dynamic. Love for Trump fuels his support in the Republican primary contest. Hatred of Democrats makes him viable in the general election. American animosity gave Trump the White House once, and as long as that animosity remains, it threatens to give him the White House once again. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      In School Board Elections, Parental Rights Movement Is Dealt Setbacks

      by

      Culture battles on gender and race did not seem to move many voters.Conservative activists for parental rights in education were dealt several high-profile losses in state and school board elections on Tuesday.The results suggest limits to what Republicans have hoped would be a potent issue for them leading into the 2024 presidential race — how public schools address gender, sexuality and race.The Campaign for Our Shared Future, a progressive group founded in 2021 to push back on conservative education activism, said on Wednesday that 19 of its 23 endorsed school board candidates in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia had won.The American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second-largest educators’ union and a key Democratic power player, said that in 250 races it had tracked — a mix of state, local and school board elections — 80 percent of its preferred candidates won.On the right, Moms for Liberty, the leading parental-rights group, said 44 percent of its candidates were elected.The modest results for conservatives show that after several years in which the right tried to leverage anger over how schools handled the Covid-19 pandemic and issues of race and gender in the curriculum, “parents like being back to some sense of normalcy,” said Jeanne Allen, chief executive of the Center for Education Reform, a right-leaning group in Washington.She suggested Republicans might have performed better if they had talked more about expanding access to school choice, such as vouchers and charter schools, noting that academic achievement remains depressed.In the suburbs of Philadelphia, an important swing region, Democrats won new school board majorities in several closely watched districts.In the Pennridge School District, Democrats swept five school board seats. The previous Republican majority had asked teachers to consult a social studies curriculum created by Hillsdale College, a conservative, Christian institution. The board also restricted access to library books with L.G.B.T.Q. themes and banned transgender students from using bathrooms or playing on sports teams that correspond to their gender identity.Democrats in nearby Bucks Central School District also won all five open seats. That district had been convulsed by debates over Republican policies restricting books and banning pride flags.The region was a hotbed of education activism during the pandemic, when many suburban parents organized to fight school closures, often coming together across partisan divides to resist the influence of teachers’ unions.But that era of education politics is, increasingly, in the rearview mirror.Beyond Pennsylvania, the unions and other progressive groups celebrated school board wins in Iowa, Connecticut and Virginia, as well as the new Democratic control of the Virginia state legislature.That state’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, has been a standard-bearer for parental rights, pushing for open schools during the pandemic and restricting how race is discussed in classrooms.Supporters of school vouchers had hoped that a Republican sweep in the state would allow for progress on that issue.For the parental rights movement, there were some scattered bright spots. Moms for Liberty candidates found success in Colorado, Alaska and several Pennsylvania counties.Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of the group, said she was not deterred by Tuesday’s results. She rejected calls for conservatives to back away from talking about divisive gender and race issues in education.Progressive ideology on those issues, she said, was “destroying the lives of children and families.”Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said culture battles had distracted from post-pandemic recovery efforts on literacy and mental health.Notably, both the A.F.T. and Moms for Liberty have argued for more effective early reading instruction, including a focus on foundational phonics skills.But the conservative push to restrict books and to ideologically shape the history curriculum is a “strategy to create fear and division,” Ms. Weingarten said. The winning message, she added, was one of “freedom of speech and freedom to learn,” as well as returning local schools to their core business of fostering “consistency and stability” for children. More