Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Read Trump’s Appeal to the Supreme Court Over Colorado’s Ballot Ruling

      by

      21

      ator John McCain, and Senator Ted Cruz held that the issue was for Congress and not the federal courts.

      32

      It would be beyond absurd-particularly in light of the Fourteenth Amendment’s enlargement of federal authority that this issue would be nonjusticiable by

      32. See, e.g., Castro v. N.H. Sec’y of State, Case No. 23-cv-416-JL, 2023 WL 7110390, at *9 (D.N.H. Oct. 27, 2023) (footnote omitted) aff’d on other grounds – F.4th —-, 2023 WL 8078010 (1st Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (“[T]he vast weight of authority has held that the Constitution commits to Congress and the electors the responsibility of determining matters of presidential candidates’ qualifications.”); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates.”); Grinols v. Electoral College, No. 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD, 2013 WL 2294885, at *5-7 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2013) (“[T]he Constitution assigns to Congress, and not to federal courts, the responsibility of determining whether a person is qualified to serve as President of the United States.”); Grinols v. Electoral Coll., No. 12-CV-02997-MCE-DAD, 2013 WL 211135, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2013) (“These various articles and amendments of the Constitution make it clear that the Constitution assigns to Congress, and not the Courts, the responsibility of determining whether a person is qualified to serve as President.”); Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi, No. 3:12-CV-280-HTW-LRA, 2015 WL 11017373, at *12–16 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2015) (“[T]hese matters are entrusted to the care of the United States Congress, not this court.”); Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477, 483 n.5 (D.N.J. 2009) (“The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3,” and “[n]one of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.”). More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Asks Supreme Court to Keep Him on Colorado Ballot

      by

      The petition came in response to a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that the former president had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment.Former President Donald J. Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to keep him on the primary ballot in Colorado, appealing an explosive ruling from the state Supreme Court declaring him ineligible based on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.That ruling, Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote, marked “the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate.”Mr. Trump’s appeal adds to the growing pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to act, given the number of challenges to Mr. Trump’s eligibility and the need for a nationwide resolution of the question as the primaries approach.Read Trump’s Appeal to the Supreme Court Over Colorado’s Ballot RulingLawyers for former President Donald J. Trump said rulings in Colorado and Maine deeming him ineligible for the ballot required the U.S. Supreme Court to act.Read Document“The issues presented in this petition are of exceptional importance and urgently require this court’s prompt resolution,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote.Mr. Trump’s petition followed a similar one last week from the Colorado Republican Party. The six voters who had prevailed in the Colorado Supreme Court filed a motion urging the justices to put the case on an exceptionally fast track.The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on requests to expedite its consideration of the case. It is likely to act on them in the coming days.The Colorado case is one of several involving or affecting Mr. Trump on the Supreme Court’s docket or on the horizon. After an appeals court rules on whether he has absolute immunity from prosecution, the justices may consider that question. And they will rule on the scope of a central charge in the federal election-interference case in a decision expected by June.In a ruling last week, an election official in Maine agreed with the Colorado court that Mr. Trump was ineligible for another term. Mr. Trump appealed the decision from Maine to a state court there on Tuesday. Both rulings are on hold while appeals move forward, giving the U.S. Supreme Court some breathing room.Mr. Trump’s lawyers said the two rulings so far required the U.S. Supreme Court to act.“The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide,” they wrote. “Indeed, the Maine secretary of state, in an administrative proceeding, has already used the Colorado proceedings as justification for unlawfully striking President Trump from that state’s ballot.”Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the petition was “a strong legal document” that “raises some serious, difficult questions.”He added: “This is not to say that Trump has presented slam-dunk arguments that he should win; rather, these are arguments that merit consideration by the Supreme Court.”The case turns on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War, it bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”Congress can remove the prohibition, the provision says, but only by a two-thirds vote in each chamber.By a 4-to-3 vote, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that the provision applied to Mr. Trump, making him ineligible for another term.“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority wrote. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”Mr. Trump’s petition attacked the ruling on many grounds. It said the events culminating in the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6 were not an insurrection.“‘Insurrection’ as understood at the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment meant the taking up of arms and waging war upon the United States,” the petition said, noting that the amendment had been adopted after “the United States had undergone a horrific civil war in which over 600,000 combatants died, and the very survival of the nation was in doubt.”“By contrast,” it added, “the United States has a long history of political protests that have turned violent.”Even if the events culminating in the Capitol riot could be called an insurrection, the petition said, Mr. Trump himself had not “engaged in insurrection.”The petition also said Section 3 did not apply to him because he had not taken the relevant kind of oath. And it said that the presidency was not one of the offices from which oath-breaking officials were barred.Mr. Trump’s lawyers said that Section 3 disqualified people subject to it from holding office — not from seeking it. If the candidate were elected, the petition said, Congress could remove that disqualification before the candidate’s term began.The petition also argued that judges may not act unless Congress does. “Congress — not a state court — is the proper body to resolve questions concerning a presidential candidate’s eligibility,” it said.More broadly, Mr. Trump’s petition said voters rather than judges should assess whether his conduct disqualified him from a second term.The provision has never been used to disqualify a presidential candidate, but it has been the subject of cases involving other elected officials after the Jan. 6 attacks.A state judge in New Mexico ordered Couy Griffin, a county commissioner in Otero County, removed from office under the clause. Mr. Griffin had been convicted of trespassing for entering a restricted area of the Capitol grounds during the attack.Another state judge, in Georgia, assuming that the Jan. 6 attacks were an insurrection and that participating in them barred candidates from office, ruled that the actions of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, did not meet the standard for removal from the ballot. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s January: Court Dates and Election Nights

      by

      In the political world, Donald J. Trump is on the cusp of something that eluded him in 2016: a clear victory in the Iowa caucuses this month. His advisers hope it will be the first in a series of early state victories that propel him to collect enough delegates to be the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by late March.In the legal world, however, the former president is at the same time facing two trials this month that hit on a deeply personal level. One is the wrap-up of the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case against him and his company and an expected decision from the judge on the penalties he must pay. The other is the damages trial for defaming E. Jean Carroll, a New York writer who said he raped her in a New York department store in the 1990s. A jury last year said he had sexually abused her.It is a juxtaposition that Mr. Trump has so far managed to his advantage on the campaign trail, casting himself as the victim of political and legal persecution by a Democratic establishment out to silence him and his supporters. In both trials, he could face substantial financial penalties and a significant change in how — or if, in a worst-case scenario for him — he continues to control his business.If Mr. Trump has helped himself in court with his methods, it has been hard to discern so far, given how the judges have engaged with him and his arguments. Yet, in the face of this political-legal collision, he considers himself his own best defender and communicator, and in 2024, what the court of Republican public opinion will tolerate is different from what a court of law will allow.Mr. Trump is among the most disciplined undisciplined political figures in modern U.S. history: For all his self-inflicted wounds in his public comments and erratic social media posts, he is fairly rigid in delivering a repetitive message of grievance and victimization to his followers. He is aiming to turn undesirable circumstances that he’s furious about into a kind of high-stakes drama that he can direct as he and his campaign navigate a thicket of legal proceedings in the coming months.Mr. Trump, who attended much of the civil fraud trial, said on Tuesday that he planned to attend that trial’s final stage as well as the Carroll trial.That will have him flying back and forth from New York to Iowa and New Hampshire to juggle days of planned campaign events. He is also making plans to attend next week’s federal appeals court arguments in Washington on his claims that he should have presidential immunity in his federal election fraud trial, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.It’s a court appearance that promises to be a unique media spectacle in the nation’s capital, and will fall just days after the anniversary of Jan. 6, when a pro-Trump mob swarmed the Capitol building during certification of his 2020 election loss.While Mr. Trump is facing 91 criminal charges in four different jurisdictions, the case in which he and his company have been found to have committed decades-long fraud is taking place more immediately, and cuts to the heart of his business brand. That case, overseen by Justice Arthur Engoron, and the one brought by Ms. Carroll have enraged him for months, according to people who have spoken with him.Mr. Trump entering a courtroom after a break in his civil fraud trial at the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan last December.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesMr. Trump, who contacted The New York Times after learning an article was being written about the legal actions unfolding in January alongside the first rounds of voting, described the cases in a phone interview as “unfair.”He criticized the judges in both trials, describing Judge Lewis Kaplan, the federal judge who is overseeing the Carroll case, as “more radical” than Justice Engoron, who issued a partial summary judgment against Mr. Trump before the trial began, leaving just a half-dozen claims left to be ruled on, along with penalties. Mr. Trump again highlighted comments the attorney general made targeting him during her 2018 campaign for her post.He also said there was a case scheduled just before “every election.” The federal trial he faces on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States is set to start on March 4, the day before Super Tuesday, although it is widely expected to be delayed.The former president said he planned to attend the remaining day of closing arguments in the case before Justice Engoron, and said he wanted to testify in the Carroll case — something he didn’t do during the first trial, and which he made clear in the brief interview that he regretted. He said he had been talked out of it last time.“I’m going to testify,” Mr. Trump said, something that his advisers are not uniformly behind.The Iowa caucuses are on Jan. 15. His team is set to leave straight for New Hampshire from Iowa on Jan. 16, the same day the Carroll case begins, and it remains to be seen if that changes.Last year, a jury in a civil trial in a separate case brought by Ms. Carroll found that he had sexually abused her and defamed her in a Truth Social post in late 2022. Mr. Trump continues to rail against the case, which a federal appeals court declined to delay in a decision last week. He has insisted that Justice Engoron has been biased, and has attacked him and his law clerk.The Trump team sees the civil and criminal cases against him as part of a vast conspiracy led by President Biden to thwart his camp, without offering evidence for their claims. They are suspicious of the timing of the Carroll trial, falling the day after the Iowa caucuses in a Manhattan federal courthouse and seven days before the New Hampshire primary. They repeatedly note that Ms. Carroll’s earlier suit was helped financially by the Democratic donor Reid Hoffman.“This is unequivocally a concerted effort to attack President Trump during the height of his political campaign,” said Alina Habba, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers in both cases.A spokeswoman for Ms. Carroll said that “regardless of whether Donald Trump shows up at the trial in two weeks, E. Jean Carroll looks forward to presenting her case to a jury whose only job will be to determine how much in additional damages she will be entitled to receive.”David Kochel, a Republican strategist who has been opposed to Mr. Trump, said that mixing his court appearances with his campaign has been, in the Republican primary, successful for him so far, and it’s not surprising he would seek to make the most politically of a problematic month.“It keeps him in the center of the spotlight,” Mr. Kochel said. “It builds into his argument that he is a victim, that he’s constantly being targeted, that this is election interference and all that, so it makes sense to me to be going back and forth because the legal stuff is part of his campaign strategy now, and fund-raising. It’s worked for him throughout this entire process.”It will also keep him in the news — and potentially deprive his Republican primary rivals of oxygen — at a time when the voting is beginning, Mr. Kochel said, adding, “He’s the executive producer of all of this.”But the short-term victories around the civil trials do not necessarily add up to longer-term gains in a general election, said Dan Pfeiffer, a Democratic strategist and former top adviser to former President Barack Obama.“Trump is always a ‘deal with the challenges right in front of him right now and then deal with the consequences later’” person, Mr. Pfeiffer said. “This has a cost to him, because — and all the polling shows this — most Americans have paid almost no attention to all of Trump’s cases and they will start to pay more attention.”He added, “Shining a spotlight on his greatest general election vulnerabilities just as the general election electorate wakes up is a high-risk strategy.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Keeps Getting Asked: Why Won’t He Directly Criticize Trump?

      by

      Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida takes questions from voters at every campaign stop, so he often faces variations of the same question — sometimes several times in a single day at different events scattered hundreds of miles apart.And he seems to be growing tired of one frequently asked question in particular: Why doesn’t he more directly attack former President Donald J. Trump?It came up again Wednesday at a community center in Waukee, Iowa, where Christopher Garcia, a 75-year-old retired gas serviceman, pressed Mr. DeSantis in a lengthy back-and-forth.Mr. DeSantis responded that, well, he does criticize Mr. Trump, who is leading the Republican presidential field by a wide margin.“I’ve articulated all the differences time and time again on the campaign trail,” the Florida governor said. He accused the news media of wanting the Republican candidates to “smear” each other with personal attacks. “That’s just not how I roll,” he added.It is true that Mr. DeSantis often enumerates what he says are Mr. Trump’s failures to keep the promises he made as a candidate in 2016 once he got into office. But Mr. Garcia was asking Mr. DeSantis something deeper and more personal: Did he think Mr. Trump’s often vulgar language and crass insults — such as mocking Carly Fiorina’s physical appearance and belittling John McCain’s military service — made him unfit for the White House?“The guy has no class,” argued Mr. Garcia, who said he had nonetheless voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 and 2020.Mr. DeSantis declined to offer his own opinion on Mr. Trump’s conduct. But if Mr. Trump were to win the Republican nomination, Mr. DeSantis said, “the whole election will be a referendum on his behavior.” He then returned to listing Mr. Trump’s unfulfilled campaign pledges.Christopher Garcia, of Woodward, Iowa, listens to Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, one of the Republican presidential candidates, on Wednesday.Charlie Neibergall/Associated PressMr. Garcia, sitting in a plastic chair with his walker leaning against his knees, raised his hand again, hoping to continue the conversation. But Mr. DeSantis did not return to him.How, and even whether, to attack Mr. Trump is a challenge that all of the former president’s rivals have struggled to surmount. As of yet, no approach seems to be working that well.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey is attacking Mr. Trump most aggressively, in terms both political and personal. But Republican voters have shown little appetite for his message.Nikki Haley, the former United Nations Ambassador now widely seen as Mr. Trump’s nearest challenger, takes only carefully calibrated shots at the former president. But her recent rise in the polls may have as much to do with her crossover appeal to Democrats and independents as with her cautious approach to Mr. Trump. And Vivek Ramaswamy, the entrepreneur who is quick to attack the rest of the field, has lavished praise on the former president, leading some voters to question why he is running at all.So far, Mr. DeSantis and Ms. Haley, and their allied outside groups, have spent far more money attacking each other than Mr. Trump.After the DeSantis event wrapped up, reporters swarmed Mr. Garcia for interviews, reflecting both the heightened attention on the Iowa caucuses, which take place on Jan. 15, and what seems to be one of the core issues confronting Mr. DeSantis’s campaign.Mr. Garcia, who lives outside Des Moines, said he planned to caucus for Mr. DeSantis, although he would vote for Mr. Trump in a general election. He was not impressed with the governor’s critiques of Mr. Trump on Wednesday, calling them “vague.”“Are these people afraid to take Trump head on?” Mr. Garcia said of Mr. DeSantis and the other candidates. “I mean, is that the problem?” More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      It’s 2024, and the Candidates Are Campaigning at a Furious Pace

      by

      Twelve days. Not that we’re counting.That’s how much time remains until Caucus Day in Iowa, where the first voting will usher in the 2024 presidential race when Republicans gather on Jan. 15 in school gyms, community centers and churches across the state.The Republican hopefuls seeking to topple former President Donald J. Trump for the party’s nomination have already spent tens of millions of dollars and months campaigning across Iowa. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has at least four events planned on Wednesday, and Vivek Ramaswamy, the wealthy entrepreneur running for office, is keeping up a breakneck pace while his poll numbers barely budge. Mr. Trump, with polling leads that seem insurmountable, has faced considerably less pressure to crisscross the state. But even Mr. Trump is headed to Iowa for campaign events this week.Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, has barnstormed Iowa and is battling Mr. DeSantis for second place. But she’ll be campaigning on Wednesday in New Hampshire, the next state to vote in the G.O.P. nominating contest and one where she is pinning her hopes.But they are all staring straight up at Mr. Trump, who has maintained daunting double-digit leads in polls in Iowa, despite the 91 felony charges against him and after two states have barred him from their primary ballots after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.His campaign is seeking an overwhelming victory in Iowa to shut out his rivals before most Republicans get a chance to vote in the primaries. Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis, who remain far behind Mr. Trump in Iowa polls, look to be fiercely battling for second place.Mr. Ramaswamy, who has brashly promised a surprise showing in the caucuses, is polling a distant fourth in Iowa, with less than 10 percent support. Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, the race’s staunchest Trump critic, has not campaigned in Iowa, and is polling in fifth place behind Mr. Ramaswamy, the race’s foremost Trump proponent. Mr. Christie has instead staked his candidacy on the New Hampshire primary.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida at the Iowa State Fair last year, when he was viewed as the clear No. 2 to Donald J. Trump.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesIowa is not a particularly valuable state to win in the presidential nomination process. The state awards very few delegates, and the victor there is not assured the party’s nomination. The last non-incumbent Republican presidential nominee to win the Iowa caucuses was George W. Bush in 2000.Still, the state holds symbolic importance as the first votes cast in the nation. The results can point to signs of momentum, of which candidates are rising or falling as the contest moves to larger states.But despite months of intense campaigning and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, the race in Iowa has changed little from the summer, when the hopefuls were roaming the Iowa State Fair: Mr. Trump is still far and away the favorite.One exception has been the rise of Ms. Haley, and the decline of Mr. DeSantis. (On Thursday, they will participate in dueling CNN town halls.) While Mr. DeSantis had been widely viewed as the clear No. 2 when he entered the race, Ms. Haley has caught up to him in the jockeying for second place.That position is still far behind Mr. Trump, but observers are watching closely: A strong performance from either candidate could put pressure on the other to drop out and allow a stronger anti-Trump coalition to emerge. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump, Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis Battle for Iowa

      by

      Patrick Healy: Katherine, the Iowa caucuses are 12 days away — the first chance some Americans will have to vote again for Donald Trump or decide if they want to go in a different direction. Trump has a lead of roughly 30 percentage points in several Iowa polls over Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. What do you see driving the race in Iowa right now? Can anything stop Trump?Katherine Miller: This is the part of an election cycle where the stakes and ideas really get tangled up with who voters think has the best shot of winning, polls, money and so forth. If a candidate runs out of money, for instance, it’s hard to campaign for president. If you zoom out and look at polling and the apparatus of support surrounding Donald Trump, it’s really much more likely than not he will be the Republican nominee. He’s polling extremely strongly nationally, but also in Iowa, where his campaign has built what looks like a real operation to make sure he wins.Patrick: He looks like an incumbent president running for re-election, driving the conversation in the party about immigration, security, Biden’s flaws — and treating rivals like protest candidates he wouldn’t deign to debate.Katherine: A lot of Republican voters also just support Trump and what he’s promised: The Des Moines Register published polling before Christmas showing that, on the subject of his grim commentary about immigration or when he compares people to “vermin,” many likely caucusgoers either said that those remarks made them more likely to vote for Trump or that they did not matter.Patrick: A lot of Republicans really like Trump as he is — they already know he will do and say Trumpy things and don’t punish him for it.Katherine: Still: There really is still time for another candidate to seriously challenge Trump. It’s not inevitable. In January of presidential election years, each week starts to feel a lot longer and the result of each caucus or primary can really shape the ones that follow. If you look at national polling, he’s dominating the Republican field. But if you look at New Hampshire’s polling, it’s a much tighter race, and if an “inevitable” front-runner loses one of the first two contests, that can change how voters elsewhere view a race and the choices in front of them.Patrick: It definitely did for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and Howard Dean in 2004.Katherine: There are some people who feel Haley and DeSantis can lose Iowa and the Jan. 23 New Hampshire primary and still win the nomination — I am not one of them. The argument I’ve heard around this relates to the possibility that Trump will be convicted in the federal Jan. 6 trial, or that those trials would depress enthusiasm for him as the trials went on. I am a little skeptical that the party would actually switch gears over the summer even if both those things happened. What happened in 2020 with Joe Biden, where he lost the first two contests, was pretty unusual. Nikki Haley, for instance, really needs to prove quickly this is real and she can actually beat Trump.Patrick: The political question I heard most over the holidays was, “can she do it?” — can Haley beat expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire and have a shot to beat Trump for the G.O.P. nomination? But then came her answer about the cause of the Civil War, where she didn’t mention slavery. You’ve been watching her — before we discuss the Civil War, I’m curious how you see Haley’s chances?Katherine: I’ve been wildly wrong before, but I do think Haley needs to win New Hampshire and then somehow hang on in South Carolina. If both of those things happened, that’s a very different race.Patrick: That reminds me of John Kerry in 2004. The Massachusetts senator needed a big combo victory too — more than just winning the next-door New Hampshire primary. Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire, and it gave him momentum he needed to triumph over Dean.Katherine: Right. So with this in mind, I think Haley needs to come in second in Iowa, presumably behind Trump, and she would need that second-place result to be “better than expected.” What does “better than expected” mean? That’s kind of nebulous. She can’t just narrowly beat Ron DeSantis by a point or something, though; she’d want something where she’d be able to get on TV that night and frame the New Hampshire primary to voters and the media as a “Trump vs. Haley” one-on-one race, with an actual choice in vision and approach that she’s offering.Haley has tried to imply contrasts — that she is more temperate, that she is more “electable” against Biden — and some of it is about policy. Her viewpoint involves a much more expansive American foreign policy than Trump wants, and a return to the fiscal austerity of the 2010s, in addition to a more kitchen-table approach. That austerity ended up being pretty unpopular during the 2012 election, and populism on the right and a return to more assertive liberalism about the value of government has really changed that conversation — but perhaps inflation has changed how voters view fiscal matters. She has not been especially critical of Trump beyond a generational or electability critique, versus, for instance, his trying to overturn the 2020 election. How do you see the expectations for her in Iowa?Patrick: I’m a little torn, and this is why: Second place for Haley in Iowa would give her momentum and knock against the image that she has only narrow appeal with moderates and independents. But if DeSantis comes in a humiliating third place in Iowa, I could see him dropping out a day or two later — and a lot of his support in New Hampshire could move to Trump, who is already ahead in the New Hampshire polls. In the final analysis, though, a second-place surprise upset is better for Haley. Can she pull that off, though?Katherine: Her campaign and the affiliated groups have spent a lot of money the last few weeks on TV ads in Iowa and in New Hampshire, and are reserving more; she’s also campaigning a lot.Patrick: Iowa is famous for late surges — Kerry 2004, Obama ’08 and Mike Huckabee ’08, Rick Santorum ’12, Cruz ’16.Katherine: Only two of those people won the nomination, though. But go on…Patrick: True. And right now, the odds are long that Haley will win the nomination. I am curious to see if Republican voters will be affected by Haley’s comments about the Civil War. I doubt that any large numbers of voters will move away from her simply because she didn’t say right away that the cause of the war was slavery — most Republicans aren’t making up their minds on Haley based on one gaffe in an otherwise pretty gaffe-free campaign. Her answer did remind me of the university presidents who couldn’t say that genocide against Jews was bad, unacceptable, wouldn’t be tolerated. What I do know is she has disrupted a good moment for herself with a bad moment. You?Katherine: I don’t know, it was just a depressing, bad answer. The cleanup also had some confusing parts about freedom in it, as well; she should have just stopped at, “By the grace of God, we did the right thing and slavery is no more.” Maybe it’s partly a reflexive impulse from the days when she was running for governor and people believed she had to say she wouldn’t take the Confederate flag down at the state capitol in order to win, but that’s also depressing in and of itself.Patrick: Then there’s Ron DeSantis, who has really thrown himself into Iowa, visiting all 99 counties. Last spring, he started off in the Iowa polling at around 28 percent, according to the Real Clear Polling average; today, he’s around 19 percent. He seems like the example of, “The more you get to know him, the less you like him.” You’ve been on the trail with him a few times this year — why didn’t he catch fire? Why didn’t he “wear well” with more voters, as they say?Katherine: I think it’s still a little unclear what exactly the problem is. On a pure affect level, he’s definitely intense in person, he speaks at a pretty relentless pace, and he’s not a politician with a natural affinity for mixing it up with voters.Our colleagues in the newsroom mentioned in a story last month how, in Iowa over the summer, he interrupted a 15-year-old who was asking about mental health and the military by making a joke about her age. I was actually there for that exchange. The voter had self-deprecatingly mentioned that maybe her question didn’t matter because she was too young to vote, then he cut in to make a joke that this didn’t stop the Democrats from trying to let her vote, just as she was saying she has depression and anxiety, and started asking a thoughtful question about mental health and military recruitment. Mental health for young people and military recruitment are huge problems! But he started talking about how the military has requirements for a reason, before finally saying that in his experience people were still able to serve well and he’d take a look at the issue. In my notes, I just wrote “BAD ANSWER.”Patrick: All caps. I know you — you’ve seen a lot over the years — that’s bad.Katherine: So I think the persona is probably part of it. But I also really wonder about the policy platform itself. The idea is supposed to be “getting all the meat off the bone,” as DeSantis puts it, and turning all the stuff Trump talks about into a reality. I think there’s a theory of the case that people just don’t like the idea of stuff being banned by the government, whether that’s about abortion or books or choices for their kids — even if a voter, for instance, might disapprove of abortion as a practice. If DeSantis were in this chat, I’m sure he’d dispute the idea that there’s book banning in Florida, but that’s its own kind of issue in campaigns — if you’re explaining and defending in lawyerly ways, that’s not always what a voter wants to hear.Or maybe it’s that people who love Trump love Trump and don’t need an alternative. What do you think?Patrick: DeSantis has a high opinion of himself and started off the race amid great expectations for his candidacy, and I think he’s sort of the classic candidate who doesn’t live up to the billing. He won a big re-election victory in 2022 against a very weak Democratic opponent, and looked like a guy who relished picking fights and winning ruthlessly (Disney, educators, pro-choice people, gay and trans kids). Then he got in the race and quickly showed himself to be stiff and awkward and, perhaps worst of all for his brand, a wimp in the face of Trump’s attacks. He got trolled by that plane at the Iowa State Fair; he would say benign things about Trump while Trump would basically label him as a pedophile in high heels. He kept up that weird grin and little feints as Trump executed brass-knuckles, full-Jeb takedowns.In our most recent Times Opinion focus group, two voters said they were interested in DeSantis early on but found him too conservative and too stilted in the end. Now maybe Iowa Republican caucusgoers will surprise us, but DeSantis came in wanting to beat Trump and now is trying to hang on against Haley.Katherine: With DeSantis, the perception that he’s too conservative, when in many ways he’s promising almost exactly what Trump promises is this weird feature of politics right now — there’s very little daylight between them, for instance, in their actual approaches on foreign policy, or the idea of an administrative/deep state, or immigration, or trans rights. Abortion policy is an exception, and that can’t be discounted as a perception of “conservatism,” but in a lot of ways, DeSantis is offering similar policy to Trump. Maybe it’s purely about those voters just liking Trump.The thing is, there clearly was some space for a challenger to make a run at Trump. Who knows: Maybe we’re about to witness a stunning last-minute surge by DeSantis. The hard part was and is, candidates needed to be critical of Trump in a way that meant something to voters, that also created a choice for them vs. Trump, and for that criticism of Trump to not become their entire political identity. DeSantis clearly wanted to evade Trump’s attacks, but that didn’t really work, and his main criticism of Trump is that he did not live up to his word as president. It’s just not clear that people really feel that Trump didn’t live up to his word, or that if they do think that, they really care.Patrick: See you next week in Iowa, Katherine!Patrick Healy is the deputy Opinion editor. Katherine Miller is a staff writer and editor in Opinion.Source photograph by Anna Moneymaker, via Getty Images.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

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Top Hamas Official Is Killed, and Harvard President Resigns

      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.Damage after an explosion in southern Beirut, Lebanon, on Tuesday. The blast killed Saleh al-Arouri, a senior Hamas leader. Lebanese and U.S. officials ascribed the attack to Israel.Bilal Hussein/Associated PressOn Today’s Episode:Top Hamas Official Is Killed in Lebanon as Fears Grow of a Wider War, by Ben Hubbard, Ronen Bergman, Aaron Boxerman, Euan Ward and Eric SchmittHow a Proxy Fight Over Campus Politics Brought Down Harvard’s President, by Nicholas ConfessoreMenendez Faces a New Accusation: Aiding the Qatari Government, by Tracey Tully, Benjamin Weiser and Nicholas FandosTrump Appeals Decision Barring Him From Maine Primary Ballot, by Jenna RussellThe Wildly Popular Police Scanner Goes Silent for Many, with Ernesto LondoñoIan Stewart and Jessica Metzger and More

    • 38 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s 2024 Playbook

      by

      Mary Wilson and Rachel Quester and Marion Lozano, Dan Powell, Rowan Niemisto, Diane Wong and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicYesterday, we went inside Donald Trump’s campaign for president, to understand how he’s trying to turn a mountain of legal trouble into a political advantage. Today, we turn to the re-election campaign of President Biden.Reid Epstein, who covers politics for The Times, explains why what looks on paper like a record of accomplishment is proving to be difficult to campaign on.On today’s episodeReid J. Epstein, a politics correspondent for The New York Times.The president and his team have waved away Democrats’ worries about his bid for another term.Kent Nishimura for The New York TimesBackground readingIn South Carolina, Democrats see a test of Biden’s appeal to Black voters.Political Memo: Should Biden really run again? He prolongs an awkward conversation.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Reid J. Epstein More