Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Book That Predicted the 2024 Election

      by

      The Book That Predicted the 2024 ElectionThe G.O.P. pollster Patrick Ruffini’s book “Party of the People” outlined the realignments reflected in this year’s election results.This is an edited transcript of an episode of “The Ezra Klein Show.” You can listen to the conversation by following or subscribing on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.You should be skeptical of anyone with a very detailed, confident take on the dynamics of the 2024 election right now. At the very least, you should be if they didn’t tell you before the election.But Patrick Ruffini, a longtime Republican pollster who is a founding partner at Echelon Insights, did tell you before the election. In 2023, he published a book called “Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial Populist Coalition Remaking the GOP.”What he argued in that book is really two things: First, the educational divide reshaping American politics would continue, with non-college voters swinging right and college-educated voters swinging yet further left. But second, he argued that the 2020 election results, weird as they seemed to many, weren’t a fluke.Donald Trump performed a lot better in 2020 than the polls said he would. A major reason he performed so much better is that he did better among Black, Hispanic and Asian voters. That was, to put it very mildly, not what Democrats expected. Trump was the xenophobe in chief. Democrats were appalled by the way he talked about immigrants, about Muslims, about China, about Black communities. The theory was that Trump was using racism and nationalism to drive up his margins among white voters.And then what actually happens after four years of his presidency is that Biden in 2020 does a bit better than Clinton did among white voters. And Trump in 2020 improves quite a bit among nonwhite voters.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Weighs Key Personnel Choices, Schooled by His First-Term Experience

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump is not known for adherence to a disciplined and rigorous personnel selection process, but behind the scenes his advisers and allies have been preparing lists of candidates for the most important jobs in his administration.Three days after he decisively won a second term, Mr. Trump held his first formal transition meetings on Friday to turn his attention to the choices he faces.He is most keenly interested, aides and advisers say, in a handful of roles: attorney general, C.I.A. director, White House counsel and secretaries of Defense, State and Homeland Security. At one point during the 2024 campaign, he demanded the resignation of the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, whom he had appointed in 2017.He has put little focus so far on who will lead other cabinet departments, though he has told aides he wants to let Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “do whatever he wants” with the health agencies, and perhaps be secretary of Health and Human Services if he can be confirmed by the Senate.Mr. Trump is relying in part on the work done by Howard Lutnick, the billionaire chief executive of the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, who has spent months overseeing a team that has drawn up lists and done vetting for any red flags.But Mr. Trump, who is a mix of competing impulses, is also doing what he always does: calling around to friends and associates, asking them who they think he should pick.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      The Long Global Trail of Resentment Behind Trump’s Resurrection

      by

      As the Cold War wound down almost four decades ago, a top adviser to the reformist Soviet leader, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, warned the West that “we are going to do the most terrible thing to you. We are going to deprive you of an enemy.”In the celebrations of the triumph of Western liberal democracy, of free trade and open societies, few considered how disorienting the end of a binary world of good and evil would be.But when the spread of democracy in newly freed societies looked more like the spread of divisive global capitalism, when social fracture grew and shared truth died, when hope collapsed in the communities technology left behind, a yearning for the certainties of the providential authoritarian leader set in.“In the absence of a shared reality, or shared facts, or a shared threat, reason had no weight beside emotion,” said Nicole Bacharan, a French political scientist. “And so a dislocated world of danger has produced a hunger for the strongman.”A different Russia, briefly imagined as a partner of the West, eventually became an enemy once more. But by the time it invaded Ukraine in 2022, disillusionment with Western liberalism had gone so far that President Vladimir V. Putin’s tirades against the supposed decadence of the West enjoyed wide support among far-right nationalist movements across Europe, in the United States and elsewhere. Western allies stood firm in defense of Ukrainian democracy, but even that commitment is wobbling.The curious resurrection and resounding victory of Donald J. Trump amounted to the apotheosis of a long-gathering revolt against the established order. No warning of the fragility of democracy or freedom, no allusion to 20th-century cataclysm or Mr. Trump’s attraction to dictators, could hold back the tide.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Will NYC Revive Congestion Pricing After Trump’s Victory?

      by

      Gov. Kathy Hochul, facing pressure from supporters of the contentious tolling plan, is said to be exploring options for adopting it in some form.Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York is exploring options for reviving a congestion pricing plan for New York City before President-elect Donald J. Trump has a chance to kill it, according to four people familiar with the matter.Ms. Hochul’s move to salvage the contentious plan comes as she faces pressure from various corners, including a group that represents transit riders and is planning to start an advertising blitz on Monday in support of the tolling program.The plan that Ms. Hochul, a Democrat, is now exploring differs slightly from the one she halted in June. She is trying to satisfy opponents who had complained about the $15 congestion-pricing toll that most motorists would have had to pay as well as supporters who want to reduce car traffic and fund mass transit improvements.The governor has talked to federal officials about the possibility of a $9 toll and about whether such a change might require the lengthy, involved process of additional environmental review, according to a Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member familiar with the matter. The discussions were first reported by Politico.Mr. Trump, a Republican, has said he opposes congestion pricing, and his victory on Tuesday has apparently pushed Ms. Hochul to try to find a compromise.“The timing is everything,” said Danny Pearlstein, a spokesman for Riders Alliance, the riders’ group that is planning the ad blitz. If congestion pricing has not started by January, he added “it’s very unlikely it would start.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump’s Win Is Explained by Right and Left Media Outlets

      by

      Media outlets across the political spectrum offered very different explanations about why Donald J. Trump won the presidential election this week.On the right, some media outlets said Mr. Trump had won because of the left’s embrace of what they called extreme political views, while others focused on how Americans were deeply dissatisfied with the economy under President Biden, which Vice President Kamala Harris defended.Outlets on the left were more divided in their explanations. Some said American voters had chosen to “burn it all to the ground” by choosing Mr. Trump. Others blamed the Democratic Party as a whole, arguing that Democrats had failed to connect with voters on key issues, and that Ms. Harris had lost by defending what those commentators saw as a broken system.Here’s how a few outlets have covered the last few days in political news:FROM THE RIGHTBreitbart-Breitbart, a conservative outlet, highlighted that Americans were upset with how Democrats had handled the economy, and argued that Mr. Trump’s victory was a “mandate for Trumponomics.”In one article, the reporter John Carney ticked through what he saw as the reasons behind Mr. Trump’s victory. He pointed to the costs of basic necessities like groceries, housing and health care, all of which had soared over the last four years, as well as fears surrounding high levels of immigration. Americans, in Mr. Carney’s view, wanted “less inflation, more economic nationalism and an economy they could feel great about again.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Trump Assassination Plot Criminal Complaint

      by

      and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States,
      FARHAD SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the
      defendants, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom is expected to be first brought
      to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully did combine,
      conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit murder-for-hire, in
      violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958.
      6. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD SHAKERI,
      CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, and others known and
      unknown, would and did knowingly travel in and cause others to travel in interstate and foreign
      commerce, and would and did use and cause another to use a facility of interstate and foreign
      commerce, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of the State of New
      York or the United States as consideration for the receipt of and as consideration for a promise or
      agreement to pay anything of pecuniary value, to wit, SHAKERI, RIVERA, and LOADHOLT
      participated in an agreement whereby RIVERA and LOADHOLT would kill Victim-1 in exchange
      for payment, and used cellphones and electronic messaging applications to communicate in
      furtherance of the scheme.
      (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1958 and 3238.)
      COUNT FIVE
      (MONEY LAUNDERING CONSPIRACY)
      7. From at least in or about December 2023, up to and including the date of
      this Complaint, in Iran, the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, and in an offense begun
      and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States,
      FARHAD SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the
      defendants, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom is expected to be first brought
      to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully did combine,
      conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit money laundering, in
      violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956.
      8. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD
      SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the defendants,
      and others known and unknown, in an offense involving and affecting interstate and foreign
      commerce, knowing that the property involved in certain financial transactions represented the
      proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, would and did conduct and attempt to conduct such
      financial transactions which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit,
      the proceeds of the murder-for-hire offenses charged in Counts Three and Four of this Complaint,
      knowing that the transactions were designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the
      nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activity,
      in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).
      9. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD
      SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the defendants,
      and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to
      transport, transmit, and transfer, monetary instruments and funds to a place in the United States
      3 More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Cómo el sur hispano de Texas prefirió a Donald Trump

      by

      Las victorias más amplias de Donald Trump se produjeron en la frontera de Texas, un bastión demócrata donde la mayoría de los votantes son hispanos. Ganó 12 de los 14 condados de la región.En ningún lugar de Estados Unidos los condados históricamente demócratas han cambiado tanto y tan rápido en dirección al expresidente Donald Trump como en las comunidades de Texas a lo largo del Río Grande, donde los residentes hispanos constituyen una abrumadora mayoría.En las últimas elecciones, la mezcla de centros urbanos en expansión y ranchos rurales de la región, que habían sido bastiones demócratas fiables durante generaciones, empezaron a volverse republicanos.Entonces, el martes, Trump se llevó el sur de Texas y la región fronteriza firmemente hacia su lado, tomando 12 de los 14 condados a lo largo de la frontera con México, y haciendo incursiones significativas incluso en El Paso, la ciudad más grande de la frontera. En 2016, Trump solo ganó en cinco de esos condados.El apoyo a Trump a lo largo de la frontera de Texas fue el ejemplo más claro de lo que ha sido una amplia aceptación nacional del candidato republicano entre los votantes hispanos y de clase trabajadora. Ese cambio se ha producido tanto en comunidades rurales como en grandes ciudades, como Miami, y en partes de Nueva York y Nueva Jersey.Pero Texas destacó. Ocho de los 10 condados demócratas que más se inclinaron hacia Trump el martes estaban en la frontera de Texas o a poca distancia en coche.Una de las mayores oscilaciones se produjo en el condado de Starr, una zona rural de 65.000 habitantes salpicada de pequeños pueblos dondese han levantado tramos de muro fronterizo, los ingresos son bajos y muchos viajan largas distancias para trabajar en los campos petrolíferos del oeste de Texas. El condado se volvió republicano el martes, apoyando a Trump por unos 16 puntos porcentuales. En 2016, perdió el condado frente a Hillary Clinton por 60 puntos.[El mapa muestra el cambio del voto presidencial en Texas en comparación con 2020].Hispanic counties in Texas shifted right, and some flipped for Trump More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      California Shifts Rightward on Crime in an Election Fueled by Frustration

      by

      Voters in the Democratic-run state overwhelmingly approved a measure to impose harsher sentences for crimes and were on their way to ousting two progressive district attorneys.California has shown no signs of going Republican anytime soon, but in Tuesday’s elections the reliably liberal state lurched to the right in ways that might surprise other Americans.Fed up with open-air drug use, “smash-and-grab” robberies and shampoo locked away in stores, California voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure, Proposition 36, that will impose harsher penalties for shoplifting and drug possession. Voters in Oakland and Los Angeles were on their way to ousting liberal district attorneys who had campaigned on social justice promises to reduce imprisonment and hold the police accountable. And statewide measures to raise the minimum wage, ban the forced labor of inmates and expand rent control, all backed by progressive groups and labor unions, were heading toward defeat.Amid a conservative shift nationally that included Donald J. Trump’s reclamation of the White House, voters in heavily Democratic California displayed a similar frustration, challenging the state’s identity as a reflexively liberal bastion.And Mr. Trump appears to have gained ground in California compared with four years ago, based on initial election returns, despite facing Vice President Kamala Harris in her home state. (She was still ahead by nearly 18 percentage points after a vote count update on Thursday, but Joseph R. Biden Jr. won in 2020 by 29 points.)The mood this year was “very negative about the direction of the country especially, but also the state,” said Mark Baldassare, who is a political scientist and the statewide survey director for the Public Policy Institute of California. “Lots of concerns about the direction of the economy, and worries about the cost of living and public safety.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More