More stories

  • in

    Nikki Haley’s Bold Strategy to Beat Trump: Play It Safe

    Ms. Haley still trails far behind the former president in polls. Yet she is not deviating from the cautious approach that has led her this far.At a packed community center in southwestern Iowa, Nikki Haley broke from her usual remarks this month to offer a warning to her top Republican presidential rivals, Donald J. Trump and Ron DeSantis, deploying a favorite line: “If they punch me, I punch back — and I punch back harder.”But in that Dec. 18 appearance and over the next few days, Ms. Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, did not exactly pummel her opponents as promised. Her jabs were instead surgical, dry and policy-driven.“He went into D.C. saying that he was going to stop the spending and instead, he voted to raise the debt limit,” Ms. Haley said of Mr. DeSantis, a former congressman, in Treynor, near the Nebraska border. At that same stop, she also defended herself against his attack ads and criticized Mr. DeSantis, the Florida governor, over offshore drilling and fracking, and questioned his choice of a political surrogate in Iowa.She was even more careful about going after Mr. Trump, continuing to draw only indirect contrasts and noting pointedly that his allied super PAC had begun running anti-Haley ads.“He said two days ago I wasn’t surging,” she said, but now had “attack ads going up against me.”With under three weeks left until the Iowa caucuses, Ms. Haley is treading cautiously as she enters the crucial final stretch of her campaign to shake the Republican Party loose from the clutches of Mr. Trump. Even as the former president maintains a vast lead in polls, Ms. Haley has insistently played it safe, betting that an approach that has left her as the only non-Trump candidate with any sort of momentum can eventually prevail as primary season unfolds.On the trail, she rarely takes questions from reporters. She hardly deviates from her stump speech or generates headlines. And she keeps walking a fine line on her greatest obstacle to the Republican nomination — Mr. Trump.“Anti-Trumpers don’t think I hate him enough,” she told reporters this month in New Hampshire, where she picked up the endorsement of Chris Sununu, the state’s popular Republican governor. “Pro-Trumpers don’t think I love him enough.”Ms. Haley’s consistent strategy has enabled her team to build a reputation as lean and stable where other campaigns have faltered: As Mr. DeSantis’s support has dipped and turmoil has overtaken his allied super PAC, even some of his advisers are privately signaling they believe hope is lost.“I keep coming back to the word ‘disciplined,’” said Jim Merrill, a Republican strategist in New Hampshire who served on Senator Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign and Mitt Romney’s 2008 and 2012 bids. “She has run an extraordinarily disciplined campaign.”This month, Ms. Haley secured the endorsement of Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, right. Sophie Park/Getty ImagesYet Mr. Trump remains the heavy favorite for the nomination despite facing dozens of criminal charges, as well as legal challenges that aim to kick him off the ballot in several states.Ms. Haley’s apparent reluctance to attack her rival even in the face of what would seem to be political setbacks for him has raised questions from voters and other Republican competitors — most notably, former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey — about whether she can win while passing up crucial opportunities to derail her most significant opponent.“A lot of the people in this field are running against Trump without doing very much to take him on,” said Adolphus Belk, a political analyst and professor of political science at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, S.C., Ms. Haley’s home state. “If you are running to be president of the United States, it seems like it would be an imperative to take on the person who has the biggest lead.”A recent poll from The New York Times and Siena College found Mr. Trump leading his Republican rivals by more than 50 percentage points nationally, a staggering margin.The poll offered a sliver of hope for Ms. Haley: Nearly a quarter of Mr. Trump’s supporters said he should not be the Republican nominee if he were found guilty of a crime. But 62 percent of Republicans said that if the former president won the primary, he should remain the nominee — even if subsequently convicted.The challenge for Ms. Haley is peeling away more of his support from the Republican Party’s white, working-class base. The Times/Siena poll found that she garnered 28 percent support from white voters with a bachelor’s degree or higher, but just 3 percent from those without a degree.As she barnstorms through Iowa and New Hampshire, Ms. Haley has remained committed to a calibrated approach that aims to speak to all factions of the Republican Party.Her stump speech highlights her background as the daughter of immigrants and her upbringing in a small and rural South Carolina town, but in generic terms. She nods to her status as the only woman in the Republican primary field and the potentially historic nature of her bid, but only in subtle ways.Even as she has risen in the polls and consolidated significant anti-Trump support among donors and prominent Republicans, she has continued to cast herself as an underestimated underdog, with a message tightly focused on debt and spending, national security and the crisis at the border.And she has not strayed from her broad calls for a “consensus” on abortion, even though some conservatives say she is not going far enough in backing new restrictions. At the same time, Democrats are looking to hit her from the other direction: The Democratic National Committee last week put up billboards in Davenport, Iowa, where she was campaigning, accusing her of wanting “extreme abortion bans.”Still, Ms. Haley has evolved on some fronts. In recent weeks, she has more aggressively made the case that she is the most electable Republican candidate — an argument that polls show has some merit — and ramped up her critiques of what she describes as a dysfunctional Washington.This month, after Republicans blocked an emergency spending bill to fund support for Ukraine, demanding strict new border restrictions in return, she accused both President Biden and some Republicans of creating a false choice among those priorities, as well as aid to Israel, which the legislation also included.“And now what are you hearing coming out of D.C. — do we support Ukraine or do we support Israel?” she said at an event in Burlington, Iowa. “Do we support Israel or do we secure the border? Don’t let them lie to you like that.”Ms. Haley has kept her message tightly focused on debt and spending, national security and the crisis at the border.Scott Olson/Getty ImagesShe has ramped up her criticism of Mr. Trump on his tone, leadership style and what she describes as his lack of follow-through on policy, hitting him for increasing the national debt, proposing to raise the federal gasoline tax and “praising dictators.”But when confronted with tougher questions from voters over Mr. Trump’s potential danger to the nation’s democracy or why she indicated at the first debate that she would support him as the nominee even if he were convicted of criminal charges, she tends to fall back on a familiar response. She says she thinks that “he was the right president for the right time” but that “rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him.”“The thing is, normal people aren’t obsessed with Trump like you guys are,” she told Jonathan Karl of ABC News this month, taking a swipe at the news media when asked for her thoughts on how Mr. Trump is campaigning on the idea of “retribution” against his political enemies.Such attempts to avoid alienating Trump supporters have helped generate interest, if not always commitment.Before her event in Treynor, Iowa, Keith Denton, 77, a retired farmer and longtime Republican, said he stood with Mr. Trump “100 percent,” and had come to watch Ms. Haley only because his wife was debating whether to support her. But after Ms. Haley wrapped up, he tracked down a reporter to acknowledge that he was now seriously considering her.“I have to eat my words,” he said, adding that Ms. Haley had said “some things that changed my mind.” For one, he said, “I thought she was more of a warmonger, but now I can see she is against war.”But at an Osceola distilling company the next day, Jim Kimball, 84, a retired doctor, veteran and anti-Trump Republican, elicited nervous laughter from the audience when he asked Ms. Haley a couple of bold questions regarding the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021: “Did Mr. Trump trample or defend the Constitution? And is he running for president or emperor?”As usual, Ms. Haley weighed her words. She said that the courts would “decide whether President Trump did something wrong” and that he had a right to defend himself against the legal charges he faces, but she expressed disappointment that when he had the chance to stop the Capitol attack, he did not.“My goal is not to worry about him being president forever — that is why I’m going to win,” she finished to loud applause.But afterward, Mr. Kimball said that he wished she would have said that Mr. Trump is unfit to be president and that he was still deliberating whether to caucus for her or for Mr. Christie.“I wish she had the courage of Liz Cheney,” he said, referring to the congresswoman pushed out of Republican leadership in Congress and then her Wyoming seat by pro-Trump forces in the party. “But she doesn’t want to end up like Liz Cheney, so you get the answer you get.”Ruth Igielnik More

  • in

    TikTok’s Influence on Young Voters Is No Simple Matter

    We’re in a season of hand-wringing and scapegoating over social media, especially TikTok, with many Americans and politicians missing that two things can be true at once: Social media can have an outsized and sometimes pernicious influence on society, and lawmakers can unfairly use it as an excuse to deflect legitimate criticisms.Young people are overwhelmingly unhappy about U.S. policy on the war in Gaza? Must be because they get their “perspective on the world on TikTok” — at least according to Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat who holds a strong pro-Israel stance. This attitude is shared across the aisle. “It would not be surprising that the Chinese-owned TikTok is pushing pro-Hamas content,” Senator Marsha Blackburn said. Another Republican senator, Josh Hawley, called TikTok a “purveyor of virulent antisemitic lies.”Consumers are unhappy with the economy? Surely, that’s TikTok again, with some experts arguing that dismal consumer sentiment is a mere “vibecession” — feelings fueled by negativity on social media rather than by the actual effects of inflation, housing costs and more. Some blame online phenomena such as the viral TikTok “Silent Depression” videos that compare the economy today to that of the 1930s — falsely asserting things were easier then.It’s no secret that social media can spread misleading and even harmful content, given that its business model depends on increasing engagement, thus often amplifying inflammatory content (which is highly engaging!) with little to no guardrails for veracity. And, yes, TikTok, whose parent company is headquartered in Beijing and which is increasingly dominating global information flows, should generate additional concern. As far back as 2012, research published in Nature by Facebook scientists showed how companies can easily and stealthily alter real-life behavior, such as election turnout.But that doesn’t make social media automatically and solely culpable for whenever people hold opinions inconvenient to those in power. While comparisons with the horrors of the Great Depression can fall far off the mark, young people do face huge economic challenges now, and that’s their truth even if their grasp of what happened a century ago is off. Housing prices and mortgage rates are high and rents less affordable, resurgent inflation has outpaced wages until recently, groceries have become much more expensive and career paths are much less certain.Similarly, given credible estimates of heavy casualties inflicted among Gazans — about 40 percent of whom are children — by Israel’s monthslong bombing campaign, maybe a more engaged younger population is justifiably critical of President Biden’s support of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government? Even the Israeli military’s own estimates say thousands civilians have been killed, and there is a lot of harrowing video out of Gaza showing entire families wiped out. At the same time, the Committee to Protect Journalists reports that at least 69 journalists and media workers have been among those killed in the war; Israel blocks access to foreign journalists outside of a few embedded ones under its control. (Egypt does as well.) In such moments, social media can act as a bypass around censorship and silence.There’s no question that there’s antisemitic content and lies on TikTok, and on other platforms. I’ve seen many outrageous clips about Hamas’s actions on Oct. 7 that falsely and callously deny the horrific murders and atrocities. And I do wish we knew more about exactly what people were seeing on TikTok: Without meaningful transparency, it’s hard to know the scale and scope of such content on the platform.But I’m quite skeptical that young people would be more upbeat about the economy and the war in Gaza if not for viral videos.Why don’t we know more about TikTok’s true influence, or that of YouTube or Facebook? Because that requires the kind of independent research that’s both expensive and possible only with the cooperation of the platforms themselves, which hold so much key data we don’t see about the spread and impact of such content. It’s as if tobacco companies privately compiled the nation’s lung cancer rates or car companies hoarded the air quality statistics.For example, there is a strong case that social media has been harmful to the well-being of teenagers, especially girls. The percentage of 12- to 17-year-old girls who had a major depressive episode had been flat until about 2011, when smartphones and social media became more common, and then more than doubled in the next decade. Pediatric mental health hospitalizations among girls are also sharply up since 2009. Global reading, math and science test scores, too, took a nosedive right around then.The multiplicity of such findings is strongly suggestive. But is it a historic shift that would happen anyway even without smartphones and social media? Or is social media the key cause? Despite some valiant researchers trying to untangle this, the claim remains contested partly because we lack enough of the right kind of research with access to data.And lack of more precise knowledge certainly impedes action. As things stand, big tech companies can object to calls for regulation by saying we don’t really know if social media is truly harmful in the ways claimed — a convenient shrug, since they helped ensure this outcome.Meanwhile, politicians alternate between using the tools to their benefit or rushing to blame them, but without passing meaningful legislation.Back in 2008 and 2012, Facebook and big data were credited with helping Barack Obama win his presidential races. After his 2012 re-election, I wrote an article calling for regulations requiring transparency and understanding and worried whether “these new methods are more effective in manipulating people.” I concluded with “you should be worried even if your candidate is — for the moment — better at these methods.” The Democrats, though, weren’t having any of that, then. The data director of Obama for America responded that concerns such as mine were “a bunch of malarkey.” No substantive regulations were passed.The attitude changed after 2016, when it felt as if many people wanted to talk only about social media. But social media has never been some magic wand that operates in a vacuum; its power is amplified when it strikes a chord with people’s own experiences and existing ideologies. Donald Trump’s narrow victory may have been surprising, but it wasn’t solely because of social media hoodwinking people.There were many existing political dynamics that social media played on and sometimes manipulated and exacerbated, including about race and immigration (which were openly talked about) and some others that had generated much grass-roots discontent but were long met with bipartisan incuriosity from the establishment, such as the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis, America’s role in the world (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and how international trade had reshaped the economy.As we head into the 2024 elections, in some ways, little seems to have changed since Obama’s victory in 2008 — the first election dubbed the “Facebook Election.” We’re still discussing viral misinformation, fake news, election meddling, but there’s still no meaningful legislation that responds to the challenges brought about by the internet and social media and that seeks to bring transparency, oversight or accountability. Just add realistic A.I.-generated content, a new development, and the rise of TikTok, we’re good to go for 2024 — if Trump wins the Republican nomination as seems likely, only one candidate’s name needs updating from 2016.Do we need proper oversight and regulation of social media? You bet. Do we need to find more effective ways of countering harmful lies and hate speech? Of course. But I can only conclude that despite the heated bipartisan rhetoric of blame, scapegoating social media is more convenient to politicians than turning their shared anger into sensible legislation.Worrying about the influence of social media isn’t a mere moral panic or “kids these days” tsk-tsking. But until politicians and institutions dig into the influence of social media and try to figure out ways to regulate it, and also try addressing broader sources of discontent, blaming TikTok amounts to just noise.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

  • in

    Michigan Republican Regrets Participation as Fake Trump Elector

    The Trump supporter is the only one of the 16 fake Michigan electors who has agreed to cooperate with the authorities and had charges against him dropped.One of the Republicans in Michigan who acted as a fake elector for Donald J. Trump expressed deep regret about his participation, according to a recording of his interview with the state attorney general’s office that was obtained by The New York Times.The elector, James Renner, is thus far the only Trump elector who has reached an agreement with the office of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, which brought criminal charges in July against all 16 of the state’s fake Trump electors. In October, Ms. Nessel’s office dropped all charges against Mr. Renner after he agreed to cooperate.Mr. Renner, 77, was a late substitution to the roster of electors in December 2020 after two others dropped out. He told the attorney general’s office that he later realized, after reviewing testimony from the House investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, that he and other electors had acted improperly.“I can’t overemphasize how once I read the information in the J6 transcripts how upset I was that the legitimate process had not been followed,” he said in the interview. “I felt that I had been walked into a situation that I shouldn’t have ever been involved in.”Mr. Renner’s lawyer, Matthew G. Borgula, had no comment.Charges have now been brought against fake electors in three states — Georgia, Michigan and Nevada — and investigations are underway in other states, including Arizona and New Mexico. In Georgia, prosecutors in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, have looked far beyond the electors themselves and charged Mr. Trump, the former president, and many of his key allies over their efforts to keep him in power despite his loss in 2020. Mr. Trump also faces charges over election interference from Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.In Michigan, Ms. Nessel, a Democrat, has only charged the electors, but has said her investigation is still open. During their interview of Mr. Renner, her investigators asked about a number of other people involved, including Shawn Flynn, a lawyer who worked with the Trump campaign on the ground in Michigan, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer. (Mr. Giuliani is among those charged in Georgia; both he and Mr. Trump have pleaded not guilty.)It is not clear if they, or Mr. Trump himself, have legal exposure in Michigan. The Detroit News recently reported that Mr. Trump was taped in December 2020 pressuring two members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to certify the election results, providing direct evidence of his role in trying to overturn the Michigan vote.Mr. Renner is a former state trooper and a retired businessman who volunteered as a local party activist in Clinton County, which is near Lansing, the state capital. He had never served as an elector before and typically supported Republican campaigns by passing out signs and distributing fliers. He said he was contacted by the head of the county Republican Party a day or so before the electors had planned to meet on Dec. 14, 2020, was asked to fill in for someone who was dropping out and agreed to do so.Attorney General Dana Nessel of Michigan brought criminal charges against all 16 of the state’s fake Trump electors in July.Nick Hagen for The New York TimesSince Michigan had already been certified for Joseph R. Biden, Jr., who won the state by more than 150,000 votes, the Trump electors were barred from convening in the Capitol building, which was largely closed at the time because of the pandemic. They ended up meeting in the basement of the state Republican headquarters.During a pretrial hearing earlier this month for several of the electors, Laura Cox, the former chairwoman of the state Republican Party, testified that she and other local party officials had drafted language for the electors to sign that made clear they were only acting on a contingency basis, in the event that the Trump campaign’s election litigation succeeded. But Ms. Cox was sidelined by Covid on the day of the meeting, and she said the Trump campaign went against her instructions by not including such language.At the same pretrial hearing, Terri Lynn Land, a former Michigan secretary of state who was originally designated as a 2020 Republican elector, said she declined to meet on Dec. 14, 2020, because Mr. Trump had not been certified by state officials. Tony Zammit, a former spokesman for the state party who attended part of the meeting, testified that in his view, the “vast majority” of the electors were not culpable but “going along with what the lawyers were telling them.”Mr. Renner said in his interview with investigators that when he showed up, “I knew nothing about the electoral process.” Three of the electors took the lead at the signing session, he said: Meshawn Maddock, a former co-chair of the state Republican Party; Kathleen Berden, a Republican national committeewoman; and Marya Rodriguez, the only lawyer among the electors. (They have all pleaded not guilty.)In the interview, Mr. Renner said that “I was accepting the individuals that were in authority” knew “what they were talking about.”But he said that he later began studying the House transcripts and official procedure for the electors after he and the other fake Trump electors were sued in civil court this January. And he was alarmed by what he found, he said.“It was only then that I realized that, hold it, there is an official state authorized process for this,” he said. Before that, he said, “I had never been an elector, I had never discussed it with anybody. I was used to a much more informal process at the county level. And so that’s when I became suspicious of what had gone on.”He said he later realized that “what happened was not legitimate.”In Georgia, more than half of the fake Trump electors agreed to cooperate with prosecutors before charges were brought in the case there. In Michigan, all eight charges against Mr. Renner, including forgery and conspiracy counts, were dropped as part of his agreement with Ms. Nessel’s office.Her ongoing investigation means that the legal aftermath of the last presidential election in Michigan will not be over before voting begins in the next one. Pretrial hearings in the electors case are scheduled to last into February; the state’s presidential primary takes place on Feb. 27.“I am very upset, I don’t show it, but I am,” Mr. Renner told investigators, adding that to say he felt “betrayed is an understatement. That’s all I can say.” More

  • in

    How Trump Is Running Differently This Time

    A wrecking ball. A bull in a China shop. A “chaos candidate.” During Donald Trump’s whirlwind rise to the presidency, his opponents and critics frequently noted his penchant for havoc. Surely, they believed, voters would not want to steer the country toward disorder and mayhem.The problem? In 2016, being a chaos candidate turned out to be a feature, not a bug, of American politics: Enough voters were tired of bland, establishment candidates and a system that didn’t improve their lives, and they put Mr. Trump over the top. The Trump team was so confident that these voters and the president were in sync that by the summer of 2020, one of his re-election campaign’s most oft-aired ads used those exact “bull in a china shop” words again.But if Mr. Trump ran before as the disrupter, don’t count on him doing so a third time in 2024. Voters don’t want chaos anymore. In my assessment of the dynamics of this election, what I see and hear is an electorate that seems to be craving stability in the economy, in their finances, at the border, in their schools and in the world. They want order, and they are open to people on the left and the right who are more likely to provide that, as we saw with the rejection of several chaos candidates in 2022, even as steady-as-she-goes incumbents sailed to re-election.And though Mr. Trump may seem a poor fit for such a moment, with his endless drama and ugly rhetoric, much of his candidacy and message so far is aimed at arguing that he can restore a prepandemic order and a sense of security in an unstable world. And unlike 2020, there’s no guarantee most voters will see President Biden as the safer bet between the two men to bring order back to America — in no small part because Mr. Biden was elected to do so and hasn’t delivered.By 2020, some of those voters who originally took a chance on President Chaos turned to what they viewed as the safer choice in Mr. Biden. Following a first Trump term marked by tweets that threatened to set off geopolitical firestorms, the global upheaval of the Covid-19 pandemic and rising domestic unrest around race, voters instead opted to send Mr. Biden to the White House with the ostensible mandate to unify the country and make politics boring again.To be fair, Mr. Trump at times seemed to see where things were headed, and tried to paint Mr. Biden as the more chaotic of the two for a brief spell in that 2020 campaign. Back then, clearly, it didn’t work — the argument that “Sleepy Joe” was secretly going to usher in more mayhem fell flat. Even Mr. Trump’s advantage over Mr. Biden among voters in exit polls on the issue of the economy was not enough to secure victory. And on potential factors like Mr. Biden’s own health, a theme Mr. Trump relished, voters in 2020 decided that Mr. Biden was healthy enough to handle the presidency by a slim 53-47 margin. Fine, they said, give us the sleepy guy who spent the campaign in his basement — he’s better than the alternative.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?  More

  • in

    A Trump Conviction Could Cost Him Enough Voters to Tip the Election

    Recent general-election polling has generally shown Donald Trump maintaining a slight lead over President Biden. Yet many of those polls also reveal an Achilles’ heel for Mr. Trump that has the potential to change the shape of the race.It relates to Mr. Trump’s legal troubles: If he is criminally convicted by a jury of his peers, voters say they are likely to punish him for it.A trial on criminal charges is not guaranteed, and if there is a trial, neither is a conviction. But if Mr. Trump is tried and convicted, a mountain of public opinion data suggests voters would turn away from the former president.Still likely to be completed before Election Day remains Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal prosecution of Mr. Trump for his alleged scheme to overturn the 2020 election, which had been set for trial on March 4, 2024. That date has been put on hold pending appellate review of the trial court’s rejection of Mr. Trump‘s presidential immunity. On Friday, the Supreme Court declined Mr. Smith’s request for immediate review of the question, but the appeal is still headed to the high court on a rocket docket. That is because the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument on Jan. 9 and likely issue a decision within days of that, setting up a prompt return to the Supreme Court. Moreover, with three other criminal cases also set for trial in 2024, it is entirely possible that Mr. Trump will have at least one criminal conviction before November 2024.The negative impact of conviction has emerged in polling as a consistent through line over the past six months nationally and in key states. We are not aware of a poll that offers evidence to the contrary. The swing in this data away from Mr. Trump varies — but in a close election, as 2024 promises to be, any movement can be decisive.To be clear, we should always be cautious of polls this early in the race posing hypothetical questions, about conviction or anything else. Voters can know only what they think they will think about something that has yet to happen.Yet we have seen the effect in several national surveys, like a recent Wall Street Journal poll. In a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, Mr. Trump leads by four percentage points. But if Mr. Trump is convicted, there is a five-point swing, putting Mr. Biden ahead, 47 percent to 46 percent.In another new poll by Yahoo News-YouGov, the swing is seven points. In a December New York Times-Siena College poll, almost a third of Republican primary voters believe that Mr. Trump shouldn’t be the party’s nominee if he is convicted even after winning the primary.The damage to Mr. Trump is even more pronounced when we look at an important subgroup: swing-state voters. In recent CNN polls from Michigan and Georgia, Mr. Trump holds solid leads. The polls don’t report head-to-head numbers if Mr. Trump is convicted, but if he is, 46 percent of voters in Michigan and 47 percent in Georgia agree that he should be disqualified from the presidency.It makes sense that the effect is likely greater in swing states: Those are often places where a greater number of conflicted — and therefore persuadable — voters reside. An October Times/Siena poll shows that voters in the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania favored Mr. Trump, with President Biden narrowly winning Wisconsin. But if Mr. Trump is convicted and sentenced, Mr. Biden would win each of these states, according to the poll. In fact, the poll found the race in these six states would seismically shift in the aggregate: a 14-point swing, with Mr. Biden winning by 10 rather than losing by four percentage points.The same poll also provides insights into the effect a Trump conviction would have on independent and young voters, which are both pivotal demographics. Independents now go for Mr. Trump, 45 percent to 44 percent. However, if he is convicted, 53 percent of them choose Mr. Biden, and only 32 percent Mr. Trump.The movement for voters aged 18 to 29 was even greater. Mr. Biden holds a slight edge, 47 percent to 46 percent, in the poll. But after a potential conviction, Mr. Biden holds a commanding lead, 63 percent to 31 percent.Other swing-state polls have matched these findings. In a recent survey in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, for example, 64 percent said that they would not vote for a candidate whom a jury has convicted of a felony.National polls also offer accounts of potential unease. In a Yahoo News poll from July, 62 percent of respondents say that if Mr. Trump is convicted, he should not serve as president again. A December Reuters-Ipsos national poll produced similar results, with 59 percent of voters overall and 31 percent of Republicans saying that they would not vote for him if he were convicted.New data from our work with the Research Collaborative confirm the repercussions of a possible conviction on voters. These questions did not ask directly how a conviction would affect people’s votes, but they still support movement in the same direction. This survey, conducted in August and repeated in September (and then repeated a second time in September by different pollsters), asked how voters felt about prison time in the event that Mr. Trump is convicted. At least two-thirds (including half of Republicans) favored significant prison time for Mr. Trump.Why do the polls register a sharp decline for Mr. Trump if he is convicted? Our analysis — including focus groups we have conducted and viewed — shows that Americans care about our freedoms, especially the freedom to cast our votes, have them counted and ensure that the will of the voters prevails. They are leery of entrusting the Oval Office to someone who abused his power by engaging in a criminal conspiracy to deny or take away those freedoms.We first saw this connection emerge in our testing about the Jan. 6 hearings; criminality moves voters significantly against Mr. Trump and MAGA Republicans.But voters also understand that crime must be proven. They recognize that in our legal system there is a difference between allegations and proof and between an individual who is merely accused and one who is found guilty by a jury of his peers. Because so many Americans are familiar with and have served in the jury system, it still holds sway as a system with integrity.Moreover, recent electoral history suggests that merely having Mr. Trump on trial will alter how voters see the importance of voting in the first place. In the wake of the Jan. 6 committee hearings, the 2022 midterms saw turnout at record levels in states where at least one high-profile MAGA Republican was running.The criminal cases are also unfolding within a wider context of other legal challenges against Mr. Trump, and they may amplify the effect. That includes several state cases that seek to disqualify him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Colorado’s top court has already ruled that he is disqualified, though the case is now likely being appealed to the Supreme Court. This constellation of developments — also encompassing the New York civil fraud trial — offer a negative lens through which Americans may view Mr. Trump.Again, this is all hypothetical, but the polls give us sufficient data to conclude that felony criminal convictions, especially for attacking democracy, will foreground the threat that Mr. Trump poses to our nation and influence voters in an election-defining way.Norman Eisen was special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for the first impeachment and trial of Donald Trump. Celinda Lake is a Democratic Party strategist and was a lead pollster for Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign. Anat Shenker-Osorio is a political researcher, campaign adviser and host of the “Words to Win By” podcast.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

  • in

    Trump’s 2025 Trade Agenda: A New Tax on Imports and a Split from China

    Former President Donald J. Trump is planning an aggressive expansion of his first-term efforts to upend America’s trade policies if he returns to power in 2025 — including imposing a new tax on “most imported goods” that would risk alienating allies and igniting a global trade war.While the Biden administration has kept tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed on China, Mr. Trump would go far beyond that and try to wrench apart the world’s two largest economies, which exchanged some $758 billion in goods and services last year. Mr. Trump has said he would “enact aggressive new restrictions on Chinese ownership” of a broad range of assets in the United States, bar Americans from investing in China and phase in a complete ban on imports of key categories of Chinese-made goods like electronics, steel and pharmaceuticals.“We will impose stiff penalties on China and all other nations as they abuse us,” Mr. Trump declared at a recent rally in Durham, N.H.In an interview, Robert Lighthizer, who was the Trump administration’s top trade negotiator and would most likely play a key role in a second term, gave the most expansive and detailed explanation yet of Mr. Trump’s trade agenda. Mr. Trump’s campaign referred questions for this article to Mr. Lighthizer, and campaign officials were on the phone for the discussion.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?  More

  • in

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

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

  • in

    What Went Wrong for Ron DeSantis

    Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida woke up in Iowa with a familiar political headache.The man he is chasing in the polls, Donald J. Trump, had just been disqualified from the ballot in Colorado in yet another legal assault that Mr. Trump leveraged to cast himself as a victim. And so Mr. DeSantis trod carefully the next morning outside Des Moines when he called Mr. Trump a “high-risk” choice, alluding to “all the other issues” — 91 felony counts, four indictments, the Colorado ruling — facing the former president.“I don’t think it’s fair,” Mr. DeSantis said. “But it’s reality.”He was talking about Mr. Trump’s predicament. But he could just as easily have been talking about his own.Boxed in by a base enamored with Mr. Trump that has instinctively rallied to the former president’s defense, Mr. DeSantis has struggled for months to match the hype that followed his landslide 2022 re-election. Now, with the first votes in the Iowa caucuses only weeks away on Jan. 15, Mr. DeSantis has slipped in some polls into third place, behind Nikki Haley, and has had to downsize his once-grand national ambitions to the simple hopes that a strong showing in a single state — Iowa — could vault him back into contention.For a candidate who talks at length about his own disinterest in “managing America’s decline,” people around Mr. DeSantis are increasingly talking about managing his.Ryan Tyson, Mr. DeSantis’s longtime pollster and one of his closest advisers, has privately said to multiple people that they are now at the point in the campaign where they need to “make the patient comfortable,” a phrase evoking hospice care. Others have spoken of a coming period of reputation management, both for the governor and themselves, after a slow-motion implosion of the relationship between the campaign and an allied super PAC left even his most ardent supporters drained and demoralized.The same December evening Mr. DeSantis held a triumphant rally in celebration of visiting the last of Iowa’s 99 counties — the symbolic culmination of his effort to out-hustle Mr. Trump there — his super PAC, Never Back Down, fired three of its top officials, prompting headlines that undercut the achievement.An event in Newton, Iowa, this month celebrating Mr. DeSantis having visited each of the state’s 99 counties. That same day, an allied super PAC fired three top officials.Vincent Alban/ReutersThe turmoil at the super PAC — which followed a summer of turbulence inside the campaign — has been almost too frequent to be believed. The super PAC’s chief executive quit, the board chairman resigned, the three top officials were fired and then the chief strategist stepped down — all in less than a month, enveloping Mr. DeSantis’s candidacy in exactly the kind of chaos for which he once cast himself as the antidote.The New York Times interviewed for this article more than a dozen current and past advisers to Mr. DeSantis and his allied groups, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a candidate they still support and a campaign that is still soldiering on. Those advisers paint a portrait of a disillusioned presidential candidacy, marked by finger-pointing, fatalism and grand plans designed in a Tallahassee hotel in early spring gone awry by winter.Cash is scarce as the caucuses near. Never Back Down, which spent heavily to knock on doors in far-flung states like North Carolina and California last summer, canceled its remaining television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire on Friday, though new pro-DeSantis super PACs are picking up the slack.Federal records show that, by the time of the Iowa caucuses, the DeSantis campaign is on pace to spend significantly more on private jets — the governor’s preferred mode of travel — than on airing television ads.Andrew Romeo, Mr. DeSantis’s communication director, denied the governor’s candidacy was in disarray. In addition, the campaign provided a statement from Mr. Tyson denying his remarks about making the patient comfortable.“Different day, same media hit job based on unnamed sources with agendas,” Mr. Romeo said. “While the media tried to proclaim this campaign dead back in August, Ron DeSantis fought back and enters the home stretch in Iowa as the hardest working candidate with the most robust ground game. DeSantis has been underestimated in every race he’s ever run and always proved the doubters wrong — we are confident he will defy the odds once again on Jan. 15.”Mr. DeSantis, in other words, is still hoping for a turnaround in 2024. This is the story of how he lost 2023.Miscalculations, mistakes and missing the momentThe governor started the year as the undisputed Trump alternative in a Republican Party still stinging from its unexpected 2022 midterm losses.But behind the scenes, the DeSantis candidacy has been hobbled for months by an unusual and unwieldy structure — one top official lamented that it was a “Frankenstein” creation — that pushed the legal bounds of the law that limits strategic coordination and yet was still beset by miscommunications. Those structural problems compounded a series of strategic miscalculations and audacious if not arrogant assumptions that led to early campaign layoffs. Profligate spending and overly bullish fund-raising projections put the campaign on the financial brink after only two months.The candidate himself, prone to mistrusting his own advisers, did not have a wide enough inner circle to fill both a campaign and super PAC with close allies, leaving the super PAC in the hands of newcomers who clashed with the campaign almost from the start.Mr. DeSantis’s decision to delay his entry into the race until after Florida’s legislative session concluded meant he was on the sidelines during Mr. Trump’s most vulnerable period last winter. Then, once Mr. DeSantis did hit the trail, he struggled to connect, appearing far more comfortable with policy than people as awkward encounters went viral.“You’re running against a former president — you’re going to have to be perfect and to get lucky,” said a person working at high levels to elect Mr. DeSantis and who was not authorized to speak publicly. “We’ve been unlucky and been far from perfect.”In Mr. Trump, the governor has also found himself running against a rival who filled the upper ranks of his operation with veteran consultants that Mr. DeSantis had discarded. The Trump team used its insider knowledge of his idiosyncrasies and insecurities to mercilessly undermine him, from his footwear to his facial expressions, starting months before he entered the race.While Mr. DeSantis has struggled to connect with voters, appearing far more comfortable with policy than people, former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign has relentlessly criticized his footwear and facial expressions. Joe Buglewicz for The New York TimesMr. DeSantis tacked to the right to win over Trump voters, undercutting his own electability case with hard-line stances, including on abortion. For many Republicans, President Biden’s weak standing tempered any urgency to pick a so-called electable choice. And when the debates began, Mr. DeSantis underperformed initially in the bright glare of the national spotlight.Remarkably, in a race Mr. Trump has dominated for eight months, it is Mr. DeSantis who has sustained the most negative advertising — nearly $35 million in super PAC attacks as of Saturday, more than Mr. Trump and every other G.O.P. contender combined.Among other early errors: The DeSantis team had penciled in that Ken Griffin, the billionaire investor, would give his super PAC at least $25 million and likely $50 million, according to three people familiar with the matter. Mr. Griffin neither gave nor endorsed, and by the fall, the super PAC’s chief strategist, Jeff Roe, had recommended searching for more than $20 million in spending cutbacks — a remarkable budget shortfall for a group seeded with $100 million only months earlier.Never Back Down bragged about knocking on two million doors by September — but more than 700,000 were households outside the key early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.Mr. DeSantis’s popularity rose during the coronavirus pandemic because he made enemies of the right people — in the media, at Martha’s Vineyard, at the White House — clashes that were invariably amplified by conservative news media. Suddenly, he found himself in the cross hairs of the country’s most popular Republican.“I used to think in Republican primaries you kind of could just do Fox News and talk radio and all that,” Mr. DeSantis told the Iowa conservative news host Steve Deace in October. “And, one, I don’t think that’s enough but, two, there’s just the fact that our conservative media sphere, you know, it’s not necessarily promoting conservatism. They’ve got agendas, too.”Running against a former president would require an insurgent campaign. But Mr. DeSantis had grown accustomed to the creature comforts of the Tallahassee governor’s mansion, where a donor had installed a golf simulator for him, and even his rebranded “leaner-meaner” campaign that slashed one-third of his staff wouldn’t give up private jets.Some allies still hope Never Back Down’s door-knocking will carry the day in Iowa, reinvigorating his run by defying ever-diminished expectations. Of late, Mr. DeSantis has resorted to parochial pandering, promising to relocate parts of the Department of Agriculture to the state.“He’s come into his own now — it took a while,” said Mr. Deace, who supports Mr. DeSantis and campaigned with him in recent days. “The question is now: Is there enough runway to manifest that on caucus night?”From the start, the DeSantis theory had been that undecided Trump supporters would have one other ideological home, with a governor running as an unabashed Trump-style Republican. Once Mr. DeSantis was the only Trump alternative, the thinking went, the smaller anti-Trump faction would come along to forge a new majority.But after the first indictment, soft Trump supporters returned en masse to the former president. And Mr. DeSantis soon lost ground to Ms. Haley in courting the moderate anti-Trump wing.His standing in national polling averages has steadily declined, from above 30 percent in January 2023 to close to 12 percent today.Supporters of Mr. Trump outside the Fulton County Jail in Atlanta in August. “If I could have one thing change, I wish Trump hadn’t been indicted on any of this stuff,” Mr. DeSantis said last week. “It’s sucked out a lot of oxygen.”Kenny Holston/The New York TimesMr. DeSantis himself has begun to look back at what might have been. “If I could have one thing change, I wish Trump hadn’t been indicted on any of this stuff,” Mr. DeSantis recently told the Christian Broadcasting Network. “It’s sucked out a lot of oxygen.”Some questioned the wisdom of running even before the campaign began. Shortly after Mr. Trump was indicted in late March, as Republicans rallied around the former president, one adviser called Mr. DeSantis’s soon-to-be campaign manager, Generra Peck, to suggest that maybe this cycle was not his time.The concern was quickly dismissed.A closed-door strategy sessionThe DeSantis team had banked more than $80 million by the spring of 2023 — left over from his re-election effort — and needed to figure out how to use it.Federal law did not allow a direct transfer to a campaign account. So they decided to fund an allied super PAC that would be led by Mr. Roe, a polarizing operative who had managed the presidential campaign of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas in 2016, and served as a top strategist for Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia. Ms. Peck told people at the time that recruiting Mr. Roe would help keep those rivals, especially Mr. Youngkin, on the sidelines. It didn’t hurt either that Mr. Roe had led Mr. Cruz to win the Iowa caucuses.The first week of April — days after the first Trump indictment — all the top strategists involved in Mr. DeSantis’s soon-to-be presidential campaign gathered inside a conference room at the AC Marriott in Tallahassee. On one side of the table was the team that would eventually run his campaign, led by Ms. Peck. On the other were the operatives running his allied super PAC, led by Mr. Roe and the super PAC’s chief executive, Chris Jankowski. One person, David Polyansky, attended the meeting as a super PAC official but later became the deputy campaign manager.Then there were the lawyers, patched in by phone to make sure the conversation did not veer into illegality. Federal law prohibits campaigns and super PACs from privately coordinating strategy but technically, at that moment, there was no formal Ron DeSantis presidential campaign. A goal of the April 6 gathering, which has not previously been reported, was to establish what the DeSantis team called “commander’s intent” — a broad vision of responsibilities in the battle to come.The close ties between Mr. DeSantis’s campaign and an allied super PAC, Never Back Down, have prompted a watchdog group to file a complaint claiming the relationship has violated campaign finance laws.Taylor Glascock for The New York TimesThe two sides even exchanged printed memos about hypothetical divisions of labor in a would-be 2024 primary. The upshot: The campaign would focus on events in the early states, and the super PAC would organize March contests, and invest in an unprecedented $100 million ground operation across the map. The super PAC was also expected by the DeSantis team to raise huge sums from small donations online, and direct them to the campaign. That program would go on to raise less than $1 million.The close ties between Mr. DeSantis’s campaign and Never Back Down have already prompted a formal complaint from a watchdog group that accuses the relationship of being a “textbook example” of coordination that is illegal under campaign finance laws.In late May, Mr. DeSantis formally entered the race in a glitch-plagued Twitter announcement that came to symbolize his struggles. Relations with the super PAC were soon just as troubled.In Tallahassee, the campaign team could not understand why the super PAC was positioning itself so prominently in news stories. When Mr. Roe said in late June that “New Hampshire is where campaigns go to die,” it left the campaign leadership aghast.How could the super PAC publicly write off a state they had planned to compete in?In early July, the campaign pushed back, writing donors a memo that essentially demanded an advertising blitz in New Hampshire. “We will not dedicate resources to Super Tuesday that slow our momentum in New Hampshire,” the memo read.Now it was the super PAC side that was confused. Weren’t they supposed to focus on Super Tuesday? In the encrypted chat that top Never Back Down officials used to communicate, Mr. Roe tapped out a pointed question: Are we going to do what they say, or do what’s right?Mr. Roe was the super PAC’s chief strategist. But he did not have unfettered control.In an unusual arrangement, the super PAC’s operations were closely overseen by a five-person board populated by DeSantis loyalists with limited presidential experience, including Mr. DeSantis’s university classmate (Scott Wagner), his former chief of staff (Adrian Lukis) and his old U.S. Navy roommate (Adam Laxalt).Over the objections of some super PAC strategists who warned it was a waste of cash, Never Back Down went back on the airwaves in New Hampshire, just as the campaign had demanded.Mr. DeSantis in Londonderry, N.H., in August. Earlier in the summer, the campaign leadership was dismayed when the chief strategist of Never Back Down said, “New Hampshire is where campaigns go to die.”Joe Buglewicz for The New York TimesIt was one example of the influence that Never Back Down’s board exerted over an array of issues, according to people with direct knowledge of the dynamics, including when television ads should run, where the ads should run, how much should be spent and what the ads should say. But the board also oversaw seemingly picayune decisions, such as directing the super PAC to procure not one but two branded buses for Mr. DeSantis to use on campaign trips.Never Back Down officials did not necessarily know or understand the origin of such specific demands. The directives were often relayed by Mr. Wagner, a Yale classmate who is close to Mr. DeSantis, with assurances that the moves he recommended would be well received by the governor, according to a person with knowledge of the comments.Mr. Wagner declined to answer specific questions, saying in a statement, “Never Back Down has built a massive ground game with a robust infrastructure that allows us to deliver the governor’s record and his vision to voters around the country.”Why certain companies were used was a source of confusion for some in Mr. DeSantis’s world.In May, super PAC officials were directed to use Accelevents Inc. for online event ticketing. Never Back Down paid Accelevents $200,000 on May 2, federal records show; one week later, the DeSantis campaign paid Accelevents $200,000. No other federal committees have paid the firm since 2018.Among the murkiest aspects of the expanded DeSantis world has been two nonprofit entities, Building America’s Future and Faithful and Strong. The former has been led previously by Ms. Peck, while the latter gives spending authority to Mr. Wagner, according to people familiar with both. Money was sent from the Faithful and Strong group to Building America’s Future; that group worked with a digital firm called IMGE, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. That firm, in turn, has connections to Phil Cox, a top 2022 DeSantis official, and Ethan Eilon, a 2024 deputy campaign manager for Mr. DeSantis, and is a vendor for the campaign. The Washington Post reported earlier on those connections. Both groups became potential places to park some laid off staffers over the summer, according to the person with knowledge of the matter.Mr. Wagner clashed in particular with Mr. Roe. In one episode over the summer, during a discussion about television ad-buying, Mr. Wagner asked what “a point” was when it came to television buying, a common industry measurement about how many viewers see an ad.A person close to the board said allies of Mr. Roe were engaged in “revisionist history” to protect their own reputations. The person said Mr. Wagner had been objecting to the lack of volume of ads being aired — the same frustration brewing inside the campaign. When Mr. DeSantis gathered some of his top donors for a mountainside retreat in Park City, Utah, in late July, two months after his campaign had kicked off, the campaign itself was in dire financial straits. He had just endured two rounds of layoffs, and a number of DeSantis donors and supporters there thought that Ms. Peck — who oversaw the overzealous campaign expansion and who closely held the direness of the situation — should be forced out.Ms. Peck and her allies suspected that the super PAC, which had sent its own contingent to the resort, including Mr. Polyansky, the pollster Chris Wilson and Mr. Jankowski, was behind the push to replace her.By the end of the weekend, Ms. Peck appeared to believe she was safe in her position when two super PAC board members, Mr. Wagner and Mr. Lukis, walked Mr. Jankowski through the lodge to a room where she was waiting to meet with him.Ms. Peck was removed as campaign manager just days later, though she stayed on as chief strategist. Her replacement, James Uthmeier, had served as Mr. DeSantis’s chief of staff in the governor’s office but had never worked on a campaign. The choice underscored how Mr. DeSantis valued loyalty over experience.Frayed nerves, tensions and a boiling pointBeating Mr. Trump was always going to require a candidate with extraordinary talents. But Mr. DeSantis has hardly generated his own momentum on the campaign trail.In speaking with voters, the governor reverts to a word-salad of acronyms — D.E.I., COLA, C.R.T. — and rushes through the moments when crowds burst into applause. He delivers a stump speech filled with conservative red meat but has not shown the empathic instinct to make deeper connections. Over the summer, when a 15-year-old Iowa girl who has depression asked Mr. DeSantis if her mental health issues would prevent her from serving in the military, he interrupted her question to make a joke about her age.Mr. DeSantis at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines in August. While his stump speech is filled with conservative red meat, he has not shown an empathic instinct with voters.Jon Cherry for The New York TimesAnd at a town hall in New Hampshire this month, a DeSantis supporter named Stephen Scaer, 66, asked about protecting the First Amendment rights of those opposed to transgender rights. A four-minute response never got to the heart of the matter, so Mr. Scaer had to follow up, pointedly informing the governor that he hadn’t answered.“He lacks charisma,” Mr. Scaer said in an interview later. “He just doesn’t have that.”If the great promise of the DeSantis candidacy was Trump without the baggage, Stuart Stevens, a top strategist on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, said that what Republicans got instead was “Ted Cruz without the personality.”“There was a superficial impression that DeSantis was in the mode of big-state governors who had won Republican nominations and been successful — Reagan, Bush, Romney — but DeSantis is a very different sort of creature,” Mr. Stevens said. “These were positive, expansive, optimistic figures. DeSantis is not.”Meanwhile, the DeSantis campaign and super PAC have been at loggerheads over advertising strategy for months.Campaign officials were frustrated this fall that the super PAC was spending at levels they believed would be insufficient to sway voters, and then grew especially frustrated when Never Back Down slowed its attacks on Ms. Haley over China. AdImpact records show Never Back Down’s biggest week of spending to date in Iowa came last June — nowhere near the election.But by early fall, the super PAC that had been given $82.5 million from Mr. DeSantis’s old state account and a $20 million check in March from top DeSantis donors was nonetheless facing a cash shortfall. Whether because of donors drying up, picking up more costs from campaign events, the door-knocking push or summer advertising that proved ill-advised, Mr. Roe told officials, including those on the board, in early October that they could need as much as much as $20 million in cutbacks. The board members, leery of another slew of bad headlines, initially deferred.Some of the money was saved by not running digital ads. Never Back Down has paid for only a single Facebook ad, in South Carolina, since late September and nothing on Google or YouTube since the end of October, maddening the campaign team.Outside an appearance by Mr. DeSantis in Harlan, Iowa, in August. By early fall, Never Back Down faced a cash shortfall, and drastically limited its digital advertising.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesBy November, it came to a breaking point. A new super PAC, Fight Right, with a board of three other DeSantis insiders in Florida, was formed. Never Back Down’s board seeded it with an initial $1 million — an unusual decision that helped spur the recent upheaval.Mr. Jankowksi resigned. Another board member objected. Mr. Laxalt departed. A new chief executive was promoted — then fired. Mr. Wagner publicly attacked the three fired officials, all Roe deputies, for misconduct, and then revised his statement after being contacted by a lawyer for the fired employees, according to The Washington Post. Then Mr. Roe resigned.Now, Mr. Cox, a top strategist for Mr. DeSantis’s 2022 re-election campaign, has returned as a senior adviser at Never Back Down. At the start of the year, Mr. Cox had advised the DeSantis team against bringing in Mr. Roe, but briefly joined the super PAC anyway only to exit in the spring.One of Mr. Cox’s early acts, according to a person familiar with the matter, has been to audit the super PAC’s finances and operations. More