Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia’s Hot Mess Is Headed Your Way

      by

      Here’s a head scratcher for you: What happens when the leadership of a political party becomes so extreme, so out of touch with its voters, that it alienates many of its own activists and elected officials? And what happens when some of those officials set up a parallel infrastructure that lets them circumvent the party for campaign essentials such as fund-raising and voter turnout? At what point does this party become mostly a bastion of wingnuts, spiraling into chaos and irrelevance?No need to waste time guessing. Just cast your eyes upon Georgia, one of the nation’s electoral battlegrounds, where the state Republican Party has gone so far down the MAGA rabbit hole that many of its officeholders — including Gov. Brian Kemp, who romped to re-election last year despite being targeted for removal by Donald Trump — are steering clear of it as if it’s their gassy grandpa at Sunday supper.Republicans elsewhere should keep watch. Democrats too. What’s happening in Georgia is a cautionary tale for pluralism, an example of how the soul of a party can become warped and wrecked when its leadership veers toward narrow extremism. And while every state’s political dynamics are unique, a variation of the Peach State drama could be headed your way soon — if it hasn’t begun already.The backstory: Some Republican incumbents took offense last year when the Georgia G.O.P.’s Trump-smitten chairman, David Shafer, backed Trump-preferred challengers in the primaries. (Mr. Trump, you will recall, was desperate to unseat several Republicans after they declined to help him steal the 2020 election.) Those challengers went down hard, and Mr. Kemp in particular emerged as a superhero to non-Trumpist Republicans. Even so, scars remain. “That’s a burn that’s hard to get over,” says Brian Robinson, a Republican strategist who served as an adviser to former Gov. Nathan Deal.The clash also made clear that Republican candidates, or at least popular incumbents, don’t much need the party apparatus anymore. This is part of a broader trend: The clout of parties has long been on the slide because of changes in how campaigns are funded. That got turbocharged in Georgia in 2021, when its legislature, the General Assembly, passed a Kemp-backed bill allowing certain top officials (and their general-election challengers) to form leadership PACs, which can coordinate with candidates’ campaigns and accept megadonations free from pesky dollar limits.The PAC Mr. Kemp set up, the Georgians First Leadership Committee, raked in gobs of cash and built a formidable voter data and turnout machine. The governor plans to use it to aid fellow Republicans, establishing himself as a power center independent of the state party.As big-money conduits, leadership PACs can bring plenty of their own problems. But whatever their larger implications, in the current mess that is Georgia Republican politics, they also mean that elected leaders “don’t have to play nice in the sandbox with a group that is sometimes at odds with them,” says Mr. Robinson.The governor says he will skip the state party’s convention in June, as will the state’s attorney general, its insurance commissioner and its secretary of state. At a February luncheon for his Georgians First PAC, Mr. Kemp basically told big donors not to waste their money on the party, saying that the midterms showed “we can no longer rely on the traditional party infrastructure to win in the future,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.New party leadership is on the way. Mr. Shafer is not seeking another term. (Fun fact: He is under investigation for his role in the pro-Trump fake-elector scheme of 2020.) Party delegates will elect his successor at the upcoming state convention. But the problems run deeper. Republican critics say that the party culture has become steeped in the paranoid politics of MAGA and election denial. And in the current environment, “everyone must pledge their undying loyalty to Donald Trump above all else,” says Jay Morgan, who was an executive director of the state party in the 1980s and now runs a public affairs firm in Atlanta.Mr. Shafer defends his tenure, noting in particular that, since he took over in 2019, the party has gone from being mired in debt to having “over $1 million in the bank.”To be fair, the Georgia G.O.P. has a rich history of rocky relations with its governors. But the Trump era, which brought a wave of new grassroots activists and outsiders into party meetings, put the situation “on steroids,” says Martha Zoller, a Republican consultant and talk radio host.“Right now, it’s largely a place disconnected from reality,” adds Cole Muzio, a Kemp ally and the president of Frontline Policy Action, a conservative advocacy group.That seems unlikely to change any time soon, as some of the party’s more extreme elements gain influence. In recent months, leadership elections at the county and district levels have seen wins by candidates favored by the Georgia Republican Assembly, a coterie of ultraconservatives, plenty of whom are still harboring deep suspicions about the voting system.One of the more colorful winners was Kandiss Taylor, the new chairwoman of the First Congressional District. A keen peddler of conspiracy nuttiness, Ms. Taylor ran for governor last year, proclaiming herself “the ONLY candidate bold enough to stand up to the Luciferian Cabal.” After winning just slightly more than 3 percent of the primary vote, she declared that the election results could not be trusted and refused to concede — an antidemocratic move straight from the Trump playbook. As a chairwoman, she is promising “big things” for her district. So southeast Georgia has that to look forward to.Why should anyone care about the state of the Georgia G.O.P.? Well, what is happening in Georgia is unlikely to stay in Georgia — and has repercussions that go beyond the health and functionality of the Republican Party writ large. After election deniers failed to gain control of statewide offices across the nation in 2022, many of them refocused their efforts farther down the food chain. In February, The Associated Press detailed the push by some of these folks to become state party chairmen, who are typically chosen by die-hard activists. In Michigan, for instance, the state G.O.P. elevated the Trumpist conspiracy lover and failed secretary of state candidate Kristina Karamo to be its chairwoman.MAGA zealots don’t simply present ideological concerns, though their politics do tend toward the fringes. Too many embraced the stop-the-steal fiction that the electoral system has been compromised by nefarious Democrats and must be “saved” by any means necessary. Letting them oversee any aspect of the electoral process seems like a poor idea.If this development persists, Republicans more interested in the party’s future than in relitigating its past might want to look at how Kemp & Company have been trying to address their intraparty problems — and what more could and should be done to insulate not only the party’s less-extreme candidates, but also the democratic system, from these fringe forces. There are risks that come with ticking off election deniers and other Trumpian dead-enders. But the greater risk to the overall party, and the nation, would be declining to do so.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, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      This Is Why Politicians Like to Change the Subject

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. You know I’m no fan of Kevin McCarthy’s. But the House speaker did succeed in getting a bill through Congress with a debt-ceiling increase, and now the Biden administration needs 60 votes in the Senate — meaning 51 Democrats and independents plus 9 Republicans — to get the limit increase to the president’s desk for a signature.So, shouldn’t Joe, you know, negotiate?Gail Collins: Bret, with your strong feelings about fiscal responsibility, you of all people should be offended by McCarthy’s ploy. The debt ceiling needs to be raised in order to avoid an unprecedented, messy, horrible moment when the country’s credit goes bad and economic collapse spreads around the globe.Everybody knows that has to be done. But McCarthy now wants to use it as a hostage — attaching his wish list of spending cuts (weaken the I.R.S.!) and prosecuting the G.O.P. war on environmentalism.Bret: I don’t think anyone wants Uncle Sam to default on his debts — except, well, the nuttier Republicans who hold the balance of power in the House. McCarthy had to pass a bill that could garner their support. That’s just political reality, and we can’t wish it away.Gail: President Biden’s right, though. We have to go ahead and do the thing we have to do. It’s the government equivalent of paying the mortgage. Then we can fight about regular spending, like a family debating whether to get a second car.Bret: Biden’s budget request was the largest in history — $6.8 trillion — which is far more than the $3.7 trillion President Barack Obama asked for just 10 years ago. Is that the right thing to do? We’ve got a federal debt that surpasses $30 trillion. Democrats show little interest in fiscal restraint, but they have maximum appetite for tax increases they know all Republicans will oppose. So of course the G.O.P. is going to play hardball. It’s not much different from the mid-1980s, when Biden, as a senator, linked his own support for an increase in the debt ceiling with a freeze on federal spending.But here’s a question, Gail: Let’s say you got your way and Republicans magically agreed to a “clean” raising of the debt ceiling. What sort of spending cuts would you endorse?Gail: Bret, as you know, my top priority for fixing government finances is to get the rich to pay their fair share of Social Security taxes.Bret: Don’t usually think of a tax increase as a spending cut, but go on.Gail: Right now, the Social Security tax cap is so low that anybody who’s made a million dollars or more this year has already maxed out. You and I are getting taxed right now, but Elon Musk isn’t.Bret: Give the guy a break: He’s been busy blowing up rockets, launchpads, Twitter, the S.E.C., not to mention his reputation ….Gail: On the spending-cut side, while I concede we’ll inevitably spend a ton on defense, there are plenty of obvious saving targets. For instance, military bases that exist only because some powerful House or Senate member is defending them.Bret: If it were up to me, I’d do away with nearly all agriculture subsidies, starting with biofuels, which are environmentally destructive and contribute to global food scarcity by diverting corn and sugar and soybean fields for fuel production. I’d get rid of the Department of Education, which was not Jimmy Carter’s best idea and which has presided over 43 years of persistent and worsening educational failure in this country. I’d eliminate the National Flood Insurance Program; we are encouraging people to build irresponsibly in the face of climate change.Gail: Want to jump in and agree about the flood insurance. But go on …Bret: I’d stop subsidizing rich people who want to buy Teslas. Electric vehicles can compete in the market on their own merits. I’d terminate the Space Force; the Air Force was doing just fine before Donald Trump decided to add another layer of Pentagon bureaucracy. I’d claw back unspent Covid funds. The pandemic is over; we’ve spent enough. I’d … I’m really getting into this, aren’t I?Gail: I’m with you on Covid funds and the Space Force. But we do need to encourage the production and sale of electric vehicles. If we have to spend money to push back on global warming, so be it.Bret: Switching gears, Gail, our colleague Tom Friedman wrote a powerful column last week making the case that Biden needs to think hard about the wisdom of keeping Kamala Harris on the ticket. I gather you think that ship has already sailed?Gail: Tom is a great columnist and great friend — he once took me on a tour of Israel and the West Bank that was one of the most enlightening weeks of my life.Bret: Oy vey!Gail: And a year or two ago, I would definitely have agreed with him about Harris. But I’ve come around to believing that she’s grown in the job despite being saddled with a lousy agenda early on. (Kamala, would you please go solve the Mexican border situation?) Lately she’s been the administration’s fierce advocate for abortion rights.Practical bottom line — you have here a Black woman who’s been, at minimum, a perfectly adequate vice president. I just can’t see any way Biden could toss her off the ticket. Even if there’s a good chance at his age that he’ll die in office. Which is, of course, not a train of thought he wants to take us on.Your opinion?Bret: Remember all those independents who might have voted for John McCain in 2008 save for Sarah Palin? Well, Kamala Harris is gonna be another deal breaker for some of those same independents.Gail: One of the happier factoids of the world today is that a huge proportion of it has forgotten who Sarah Palin even is. What’s worse than being both terrible and forgettable?But go on about Kamala …Bret: Her approval rating is the lowest for any vice president in the last 30 years at this point in the administration — and that includes Mike Pence and Dick Cheney. It’s an open secret in Washington that she runs the most dysfunctional office of any major office holder. Nobody thought she’d “solve” the Mexican border situation, but it would have been nice if she showed a basic command of facts. Because of Biden’s age, the chances of her taking the top job are substantial, and many voters will judge the Biden-Harris ticket on how confident they feel about Harris. How would I feel about President Harris dealing with a nuclear crisis in Korea or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or another global financial crisis? Not good.Democrats need to get over their fear of offending her. There are plenty of qualified replacements.Gail: We used to be in agreement here, but I do think she’s grown in the job. And when it comes to being terrified about somebody dealing with a nuclear crisis — how would you feel about, say, Ron DeSantis? Or of course Donald Trump?Bret: You’re sort of making my point. If you think, as Tom and I do, that she’s a major political liability for Biden, it’s that much more of an incentive to get a stronger running mate. Surely the U.N. secretary general can be cajoled into early retirement so Harris can get an office with a nice view of the East River?Gail: You just brought me back to an old fantasy about finding a job for Biden so great it would tempt him to leave office after one term. Guess secretary general wouldn’t do it. But I do keep wishing he’d announced last week that he wasn’t running again. He has plenty of major accomplishments to point to, and the nation would have a good long time to watch and appraise the many promising Democratic candidates to replace him. Including his vice president.Bret: Frank Bruni was really on the money on this subject: There really is no better job than the presidency. The perks, the pomp and the power are all irresistible, particularly to guys like Biden who have been chasing the office their whole adult lives and now finally have it. We were fools to imagine he might be tempted not to run again — even though he’s tempting fate, and second terms rarely exceed the quality of first terms.Gail: OK, Bret — that’s enough politics for today. Always count on you to finish with something more profound.Bret: One of the delights of our conversation, Gail, is being able to point our readers toward some of the very best work of our colleagues. This week, they really shouldn’t miss Mike Baker’s beautifully written, heartbreaking story about Craig Coyner, a brilliant public defender who served as mayor of Bend, Ore., in the 1980s — only to die there earlier this year as a homeless man, broken by mental illness.We all need stories that uplift us. But we also need those that remind us of the adage that “there but for the grace of God go I.” May Coyner’s memory be for a blessing.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, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      After Trump Pushed Independent Voters to Biden, He Will Need Them Again in ’24

      by

      In Arizona, where independents are a crucial voting bloc, there might not be the same sense of urgency for a Biden-Trump rematch. And some voters might look elsewhere.Although Donald J. Trump has been out of office more than two years, receding as an all-consuming figure to many Americans, to Margot Copeland, a political independent, he looms as overwhelmingly as ever. She would just as urgently oppose Mr. Trump in a 2024 rematch with President Biden as she did the last time.“I’ll get to the polls and get everybody out to the polls too,” said Ms. Copeland, a 67-year-old retiree who said she was aghast at the possible return to office of the 45th president. “It’s very important that Trump does not get back in.”At the same time, Andrew Dickey, also a political independent who supported Mr. Biden in 2020, said he was disappointed with the current president’s record, particularly his failure to wipe out student debt. (The Supreme Court is considering Mr. Biden’s debt forgiveness program, but appeared skeptical during a hearing.) Mr. Dickey, a chef, owes $20,000 for his culinary training.“I think I would possibly vote third party,” Mr. Dickey, 35, said of a Trump-Biden rematch. “There’s been a lot of things said on Biden’s end that haven’t been met. It was the normal smoke screen of the Democrats promising all this stuff, and then nothing.”In Maricopa County in Arizona, the most crucial county in one of the most important states on the 2024 electoral map, voters like Ms. Copeland and Mr. Dickey illustrate the electoral upside — and potential pitfalls — for Mr. Biden as he begins his bid for a second term, which he announced last week.The prospect of a Trump-Biden rematch in 2024 is Democrats’ greatest get-out-the-vote advantage. But the yearning by some past Biden voters for an alternative, including a third-party candidate, poses a threat to the president.Democrats have found electoral success in Arizona in recent years — but the state is still closely divided and will be key to the 2024 race.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesMr. Biden’s extremely narrow win in Arizona in 2020 was driven by independent voters, a bloc he flipped and carried by 11 percentage points, after Mr. Trump won independents in 2016 by three points, according to exit polls.In Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and accounts for 60 percent of Arizona’s votes, independents outnumber registered Democrats and Republicans.In interviews last week with independents who voted for Mr. Biden, most praised his accomplishments and supported his re-election, some enthusiastically.But there was a share of 2020 Biden voters who were disappointed and looking elsewhere.“I think we have bigger problems than just Trump being re-elected,” said Richard Mocny, a retiree who switched his registration from Republican to independent after the rise of Mr. Trump, and who voted in 2020 for Mr. Biden. “Polarization in this country is just fierce,” he said. “I believe in looking at some of the new third parties popping up.”Recently, the group No Labels, which has not disclosed its financial backers, qualified to be on the Arizona ballot, and has raised concerns among some Democrats that it could field a spoiler candidate who would pull votes from Mr. Biden.Arizona’s independent voters, a sampling of whom were interviewed after having participated in an earlier New York Times/Siena College poll, are sure to be just as essential to Mr. Biden next year as they were in 2020. His 10,500-vote margin in Arizona, less than one percentage point, was his narrowest of any state. The Electoral College map of states likely to be the most contested in 2024 has narrowed to a smaller handful than usual: Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.After supporting Mr. Biden in 2020, Richard Mocny is open to a third-party candidate. “Polarization in this country is just fierce,” he said.Cassidy Araiza for The New York TimesIndependent Biden voters in Arizona said that the economy was certainly a concern, including $5 local gasoline prices and in some cases their own stressed finances. But most Biden voters did not blame the president for persistently high inflation, which they said was largely beyond White House control.Many passionately agreed with Mr. Biden, as he said in his kickoff re-election video, that the Republican Party has been taken over by the far-right, or as Mr. Biden labeled them “MAGA extremists.”“The entire Republican Party went so far to the right,” said Sheri Schreckengost, 61, a legal assistant and political middle-of-the-roader, who in the past sometimes voted for Republicans. “Donald Trump changed all that for me,” she said. “The way things are now, there’s no way I’d vote for a Republican.”Mr. Biden’s victory in Arizona was only the second by a Democrat for president since 1948. Maricopa County was the key to his victory. Mr. Biden flipped 60 precincts that had voted for Mr. Trump in 2016. Most of the swing precincts are in suburbs north and southeast of Phoenix, in an arc roughly described by a beltway route known as Loop 101.Former President Trump lost 60 precincts in Maricopa County that he had won in 2016. The county is one of the most important in the country to the 2024 campaign.Sophie Park for The New York TimesMany suburban residents are newcomers to Arizona and they have transformed the former base of Barry Goldwater and John McCain, both Republican presidential nominees, into a purple state. There are the same concerns about Mr. Biden’s age as there are elsewhere in the country.In Mesa, a suburb with several precincts that Mr. Biden flipped, Maren Hunt, 48, an independent voter who works as a librarian, said of the president, as she entered a Trader Joe’s one evening, “I think he’s done a lot of good, but, you know, how much more does he have left in him?”Mr. Biden, the oldest person ever to occupy the Oval Office, would be 82 on Inauguration Day of a second term. Still, if it came down to a contest between Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump, who is just four years younger than the president, Ms. Hunt did not hesitate about how she’d vote. “I’ll make sure to mail in my ballot early, very early,” she said.Similarly, Dlorah Conover, who would prefer a Democratic candidate in the mold of Bernie Sanders — the Vermont progressive, who declined to run again for president in 2024 after two unsuccessful campaigns — said that in a Trump-Biden showdown, it would be no contest.Dlorah Conover said that if the 2024 race came down to Biden-Trump, she would have a clear choice.Cassidy Araiza for The New York Times“This is a despicable human being,” Ms. Conover, 38, who plans to enter community college this month, said of Mr. Trump. “Biden would win hands down with me.”Mr. Trump has plenty of support in Arizona. A poll of registered voters in the state in April by Public Opinion Strategies found Mr. Biden leading Mr. Trump by only 1 point in a hypothetical matchup.Despite the former president’s two impeachments, a civil suit accusing him of rape and defamation, and an indictment related to claims he paid hush money to a porn star, Mr. Trump’s core supporters are dug in.Lately, he has had increased support among Republicans against his chief rival for the nomination, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. In a Trump-Biden rematch, Americans’ entrenched partisanship means that Mr. Trump could gain as much as Mr. Biden from an impulse to rally behind the nominee.Barry Forbes, 75, an independent who leans Republican, would prefer Mr. DeSantis as the nominee, but he said he would back Mr. Trump, in part because of Mr. Biden’s costly aid to Ukraine in its defense against Russian invaders — “a war we had no business getting involved in,” he said outside the Trader Joe’s.Much of Mr. Biden’s 2020 pitch to voters was that he would shrink the deep divisions among Americans, which Mr. Trump had expressly exploited for political gain. Voters seem poised to judge him on the progress he has made.“I think he’s done wonders on bringing our country back together after the number Trump did tearing us apart,” said Jenifer Schuerman, 39, an independent voter and a fifth-generation Arizonan.Jenifer Schuerman pointed to Mr. Biden’s record and his efforts to unify the country.Cassidy Araiza for The New York TimesAnother independent who voted for Mr. Biden, Joel Uliassi, a 22-year-old student at Arizona State University, was less impressed. “Biden ran on the idea he’d heal the divide,” he said. “He was going to bring us back together. From what I’ve seen we’ve gotten more divided and separated.”Mr. Uliassi, a music student who plays the trumpet, said he became discouraged about Mr. Biden during the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, which was when approval ratings of the president first dipped below the share of voters who disapproved, a trend that endures.“I had hoped this election would not be a repeat of the last election, but it looks like it’s ramping up to be that,” Mr. Uliassi said. “If it was another Trump-Biden rematch, I would consider both candidates more this time.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Prosecutors in Jan. 6 Case Step up Inquiry Into Trump Fund-Raising

      by

      The Justice Department has been gathering evidence about whether the former president and his allies solicited donations with claims of election fraud they knew to be false.As they investigate former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, federal prosecutors have also been drilling down on whether Mr. Trump and a range of political aides knew that he had lost the race but still raised money off claims that they were fighting widespread fraud in the vote results, according to three people familiar with the matter.Led by the special counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors are trying to determine whether Mr. Trump and his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes as they raised as much as $250 million through a political action committee by saying they needed the money to fight to reverse election fraud even though they had been told repeatedly that there was no evidence to back up those fraud claims.The prosecutors are looking at the inner workings of the committee, Save America PAC, and at the Trump campaign’s efforts to prove its baseless case that Mr. Trump had been cheated out of victory.In the past several months, prosecutors have issued multiple batches of subpoenas in a wide-ranging effort to understand Save America, which was set up shortly after the election as Mr. Trump’s main fund-raising entity. An initial round of subpoenas, which started going out before Mr. Trump declared his candidacy in the 2024 race and Mr. Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in November, focused on various Republican officials and vendors that had received payments from Save America.But more recently, investigators have homed in on the activities of a joint fund-raising committee made up of staff members from the 2020 Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, among others. Some of the subpoenas have sought documents from around Election Day 2020 up the present.Prosecutors have been heavily focused on details of the campaign’s finances, spending and fund-raising, such as who was approving email solicitations that were blasted out to lists of possible small donors and what they knew about the truth of the fraud claims, according to the people familiar with their work. All three areas overlap, and could inform prosecutors’ thinking about whether to proceed with charges in an investigation in which witnesses are still being interviewed.The possibility that the fund-raising efforts might have been criminally fraudulent was first raised last year by the House select committee investigating Mr. Trump’s efforts to retain power.But the Justice Department, with its ability to bring criminal charges, has been able to prompt more extensive cooperation from a number of witnesses. And prosecutors have developed more information than the House committee did, having targeted communications between Trump campaign aides and other Republican officials to determine if a barrage of fund-raising solicitations sent out after the election were knowingly misleading, according to the three people familiar with the matter.The fund-raising efforts are just one focus of Mr. Smith’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempts to reverse his loss at the polls.Led by the special counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors are trying to determine whether Mr. Trump and his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes.Peter Dejong/Associated PressProsecutors have also been examining the plan to assemble alternate slates of pro-Trump electors from swing states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr., and the broader push by Mr. Trump to block or delay congressional certification of Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory on Jan. 6, 2021, leading to the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.On Thursday, former Vice President Mike Pence, a key witness to Mr. Trump’s efforts, testified for hours to the grand jury gathering evidence in the investigation.Prosecutors have been looking at the nexus between research the Trump campaign commissioned almost immediately after the election to try to prove widespread fraud, public statements that he and his allies made at the time, the fund-raising efforts and the establishment of Save America.The Washington Post reported earlier on the efforts by the campaign to fund research into claims of fraud and the new round of subpoenas.Mr. Trump’s team may argue that the fund-raising represented political speech with solicitations that were generally vague, and that subjecting it to a criminal process could raise First Amendment issues and create a slippery slope for future candidates. Political fund-raising materials often engage in bombast or exaggeration.Republicans may also argue that Democrats have been loose in claims they have used in fund-raising solicitations. And the Trump campaign may argue that it did in fact use the funds to try to investigate fraud.Jason Miller, an adviser to Mr. Trump who worked on the 2020 campaign, said that the “Deep State is ramping up their attacks on President Trump” as his poll numbers have increased. “The ‘political police’ have been pushing their witch hunt since President Trump came down the escalator, and they’ve been proven wrong every single time,” he added.Officials with the Republican National Committee declined to comment.Immediately after the election, an adviser to the Trump campaign reached out to Ken Block, the owner of a Rhode Island-based firm, Simpatico Software Systems, to have him evaluate specific allegations of fraud.Jason Miller, a former top Trump aide, appearing on a screen last year during a hearing of the House committee investigating the Capitol riot. Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Block ended up researching multiple claims of possible fraud that Mr. Trump’s aides brought to him. He never produced a final report. But each time he investigated a claim, he said in an interview, he found there was nothing to it.Mr. Block said he had disproved “everything that came in and found no substantive fraud sufficient to overturn an election result.” He said he was isolated from what was taking place within the campaign, as Mr. Trump railed at aides about staying in office and continued to insist he had won an election that he was repeatedly told he had lost.“I was kept very walled off from all of the insanity,” said Mr. Block, whose firm was paid $735,000, records show. He received a subpoena for documents, but declined in the interview to discuss anything related to the grand jury.Days after starting to work with Mr. Block and Simpatico, the Trump campaign hired a second firm, the Berkeley Research Group. The federal grand jury has received evidence that Berkeley was hired at the suggestion of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, who was overseeing the political operation.The grand jury has been asking questions related to whether Mr. Trump was briefed on findings by Berkeley suggesting there had been no widespread fraud.The company ultimately submitted a report indicating there had been no fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election, and was paid roughly $600,000 for its work. The company was hired through a law firm that has long represented Mr. Trump in his personal capacity, Kasowitz Benson Torres, although lawyers there were not involved in pursuing Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims, according to a person briefed on the matter.A deputy counsel for Berkeley Research Group said the company has a “no comment” policy and declined to discuss the matter further.During the House Jan. 6 committee’s proceedings last year, several people close to Mr. Trump testified that they had informed him that there had been no fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the voting.Within two weeks of the election, the Trump campaign’s own communications staff drafted an internal report debunking many aspects of a conspiracy theory that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems had been hacked and used to flip votes away from Mr. Trump. That report was written before pro-Trump lawyers like Sidney Powell and Rudolph W. Giuliani promoted the false Dominion story at news conferences and on television.As part of its investigation into the Trump campaign’s postelection fund-raising, the Jan. 6 panel subpoenaed records from Salesforce.com, a vendor that helped the campaign and the Republican National Committee send emails to potential donors. The R.N.C. fought back, filing a lawsuit to quash the subpoena, and the House committee ultimately withdrew it.In the latest round of subpoenas, federal prosecutors have sought documents related to Salesforce in addition to other vendors, according to a person briefed on the matter. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Campaign, Interrupted: Pence May Run, but He Can’t Hide From Trump’s Legal Woes

      by

      The former vice president faces many challenges in his potential presidential run, perhaps none bigger than his complicated relationship with his old boss.Former Vice President Mike Pence, seemingly in his element as he addressed a gathering of evangelical Christians in Iowa this month, was speaking of “the greatest honor of my life,” serving in “an administration that turned this country around” by rebuilding the military, securing the southern border, and unleashing “American energy.”“But most importantly, most of all,” he said, building to a crescendo — but at the moment he was about to claim some credit for his administration’s success in overturning the right to an abortion, a booming voice came over the loudspeaker from the sound booth: “Check, check, testing, 1-2-3.”It was a small interruption, but one that exemplified the diversions Mr. Pence continues to face as he considers a run for the Republican presidential nomination against the man who was once his greatest benefactor, but also his cruelest tormentor: Donald J. Trump.On Thursday, however, Mr. Pence faced a much more onerous and grueling intrusion into his potential campaign, and one that he had hoped to avoid, when he was forced to testify for more than five hours before a grand jury in Washington about Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Those efforts put Mr. Pence’s life at risk on Jan. 6, 2021, as a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, chanting “Hang Mike Pence.”Mr. Pence, the would-be candidate with unassailable religious convictions who spent four years a heartbeat away from the presidency, cannot seem to find the space to present those credentials to sympathetic Republican primary voters without interruption — and, in this case, on the biggest stage before a campaign has even begun.After Thursday’s testimony, a highly unusual event involving two of the most prominent U.S. public officials during a nascent presidential campaign in which both are likely to run, he is in the odd and uncomfortable position of being both a potential challenger to his former boss and possibly a key witness for his prosecution.Mr. Pence knows that core voters in the Republican base are in no mood to give such legal proceedings against Mr. Trump, including the current civil suit accusing him of rape and defamation, much credence. Paula Livingston, of Council Bluffs, Iowa, waved off the cases pending against Mr. Trump as “all the same, they’re out to stop him.”Nor is Mr. Trump showing any signs of contrition. On Thursday, while campaigning in New Hampshire, the former president embraced a supporter who had served prison time for her actions during the Capitol attack of Jan. 6, and called her “terrific,” even though she said she wants Mr. Pence executed for treason.But after the former vice president’s efforts to quash the Justice Department’s subpoena for his testimony failed, Mr. Pence had little choice but to lend his voice to the federal prosecution.Former President Donald J. Trump spoke at a campaign event in Manchester, N.H., on April 27. Sophie Park for The New York TimesThe Pence camp is now working to put that testimony within the broader rubric of his potential presidential run: Conservative truth teller. Pence loyalists would like Mr. Pence to be getting more credit for the Trump administration’s successes, especially for helping to choose the nominees that tilted the Supreme Court to the right.But Mr. Pence has to play the hand that he has been dealt, and right now that includes testifying against Mr. Trump.“I don’t know if he has to dislodge” Mr. Trump, Marc Short, a former chief of staff to the vice president, said. “He has to remind voters who he is.”Over his 12 years in Congress, as governor of Indiana and in the Trump White House, Mr. Pence was “the consistent conservative,” Mr. Short said, working for a man who was anything but consistent: “That’s an important contrast for him to draw,” Mr. Short said.A Republican close to the former vice president, who requested anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations, explained on Friday that Mr. Pence has long stuck with conservative constitutional principles, even when that has meant standing up to his party.As a House member, he chastised the administration of President George W. Bush for its failure to adhere to fiscal discipline as federal budget surpluses turned to large deficits. He has embraced changes to Social Security and Medicare that would trim benefits in the name of balancing the budget, changes that Mr. Trump has loudly rejected.He continues to publicly make the case for U.S. military aid to Ukraine, even as some Republican lawmakers and many Republican voters turn against it. He has said Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s fight with the Walt Disney Company over social policy has strayed, and become a violation of the Republican Party’s bedrock belief in free enterprise.And he leaned on constitutional arguments, first to avoid the subpoena of federal prosecutors investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and now to comply with it. Earlier this year Mr. Pence argued that the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, intended to protect the separation of powers between the three branches of government, shielded him from having to speak of Mr. Trump’s campaign to pressure him not to certify the election results in his ceremonial role as vice president.When that failed, he complied with the subpoena rather than search for another rationale for delay, such as the “executive privilege” claims that have been repeatedly rejected.Mr. Pence, in his recent book “So Help Me God,” described in detail Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure him into blocking congressional certification of President Biden’s victory. Mr. Trump became preoccupied with the idea that Mr. Pence could do something, though Mr. Pence’s chief lawyer had concluded that there was no legal authority for him to act on Mr. Trump’s behalf.But people close to Mr. Pence said that just as he argued that he had to fulfill his constitutional duty on Jan. 6, 2021, he invoked that same Constitution the following day to reject overtures from Democratic leaders to use the Constitution’s 25th amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office.Aides to Mr. Pence showed little worry this week as the former vice president continues his deliberations about a run. Mr. Pence’s attitude, they said, is simple: Let the chips fall where they may.“He feels remarkably blessed to have been able to serve the American people in the roles he has had,” Mr. Short said, “and he hopes to continue that service.” More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Florida Lawmakers Clear a Potential Presidential Roadblock for DeSantis

      by

      The Florida Legislature passed an elections bill on Friday clarifying that Gov. Ron DeSantis would not have to resign early if he ran for president.Gov. Ron DeSantis has gotten just about everything he wanted out of Florida’s legislative session, which draws to a close next week.A six-week ban on abortion. The ability for Floridians to carry concealed weapons without a permit or training. An expansion of school vouchers. All laws that Mr. DeSantis could lean on heavily in a potential Republican primary for president.Now the governor’s legislative allies in Tallahassee have delivered another boon, one that is procedural but just as important: an elections bill that eliminates a potential roadblock to Mr. DeSantis declaring his candidacy for president, which he is expected to do next month. The law will ensure that Mr. DeSantis does not have to resign the governorship early if he runs for president.On Friday, the State House of Representatives approved the law with a 76-34 vote along strict party lines, with nine lawmakers abstaining. Having already been approved by the State Senate, it now heads to Mr. DeSantis’s desk.The previous provision in state law, known as the “resign-to-run” statute, could have posed a problem for Mr. DeSantis’s presidential ambitions.Although legal opinions varied, it might have compelled Mr. DeSantis, if he became a presidential candidate, to resign as governor in 2025 with two years still left in his term. The new bill cleared up any ambiguity by stating that the law does not apply to elected officials running specifically for president and vice president, meaning Mr. DeSantis can make a bid for the White House without the prospect of giving up the governor’s office should he lose the 2024 Republican primary or general election.Allies have been urging Mr. DeSantis to formally jump into the 2024 race, seeing it as the only way to deal with former President Donald J. Trump, the Republican front-runner.Sophie Park for The New York Times“I can’t think of a better training ground than the state of Florida for a future potential commander in chief,” State Representative Tyler I. Sirois, a Merritt Island Republican, said on the House floor.Republicans said they wanted to leave no ambiguity in the law and argued that presidential and vice-presidential candidates are different than others seeking elective office because they are chosen by political parties in national conventions — instead of having to simply qualify for the ballot. Democrats countered that Mr. DeSantis was getting special treatment from his legislative buddies.“Why are we signing off on allowing Ron DeSantis the ability to not do his job?” said State Representative Angie Nixon, a Jacksonville Democrat, who argued during the floor debate that Mr. DeSantis was neglecting his duties as governor.In the months before the legislative session kicked off in March, it seemed that the bill’s passage would mark a time for quiet celebration in the DeSantis camp — a tactical milestone for a campaign that seemed to have front-runner status in its grasp. But since then, the governor has frequently seemed to stumble or been stymied at crucial moments, often to the delight of former President Donald J. Trump, a declared candidate who now leads him in the polls.As Mr. DeSantis seeks to recover his footing, he will hope to present the new laws he has steered through Republican-controlled Tallahassee as evidence of what he might accomplish in the White House, while pointing to his landslide re-election last year as proof that his conservative policies have a broad base of support.“In November, December and January, Republicans all around the country were looking to DeSantis as the future of the party,” said Alex Conant, a Republican political strategist who worked as communications director for Senator Marco Rubio of Florida during his 2016 presidential campaign. “He was really hot coming off the midterms. But now it’s not so clear that Republican voters are ready to move beyond Trump.”Those close to Mr. DeSantis say he plans to make his presidential bid official in mid-May or late May, and he has already assembled the makings of a senior campaign staff.Matias J. Ocner/Miami Herald, via Associated PressPart of Mr. DeSantis’s struggle has been the challenge of running for higher office only unofficially. Such a shadow campaign limits how strongly his message can carry beyond Florida and seems to curtail his ability to criticize his presumptive main rival, Mr. Trump. Allies have been urging Mr. DeSantis to formally jump into the race, seeing it as the only way to deal with the former president.“Trump was born without gloves,” Mr. Conant said. “He is always on offense. If you’re going to run against him, expect him to wake up every day punching you.”As the pressure builds, the end of the DeSantis campaign-in-waiting finally seems near. Those close to him say he plans to make his presidential bid official in mid-May or late May. And he has assembled the makings of a senior campaign staff in Tallahassee, including veteran advisers from his time as governor and when he served in Congress. A super PAC backing his candidacy says it has raised $33 million and has hired operatives in key early voting states.The group, Never Back Down, also brought in Adam Laxalt, the former Nevada attorney general, as its chairman. Mr. Laxalt is a Trump ally who amplified the former president’s conspiracy theories about the integrity of the 2020 election. But he has longstanding ties to Mr. DeSantis, too, dating back to their days as roommates during naval officer training.“If Governor DeSantis heeds the growing calls for him to run for president, we can hit the ground running for him to win,” said Erin Perrine, the communications director for Never Back Down.As the political operation backing him grows, Mr. DeSantis has spent more and more time out of state, which has included appearances promoting his new memoir and a foreign trade mission this week. In his absence, cracks have started to appear in his political coalition back home for the first time.On Wednesday, State Senator Joe Gruters, a Republican who is a close ally of Mr. Trump, made an open show of defiance against Mr. DeSantis by voting no on a bill related to Disney. The bill — part of a yearlong feud between the company and Mr. DeSantis that has energized segments of the Republican base while alienating some members of the donor class — would nullify development agreements involving Disney.Crowds gathering to hear Mr. DeSantis during a book-signing event in Garden City, N.Y., in April.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesIn a statement, Mr. Gruters, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, said that the state should “support our job creators” and avoid influencing the behavior of corporations with “the heavy hand of government.”While he was the lone Republican to vote no, and the bill passed easily, the moment came as a sign that tensions between Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Trump are spelling the end of the days when the state party stood unanimously behind the governor.Mr. DeSantis’s attacks on Disney have also recently led some national Republicans to publicly air words of caution. Mr. Rubio said he did not have a problem taking on Disney but expressed concern that businesses might be fearful of coming to Florida if politicians continued to put pressure on companies over politics. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy also weighed in.“I think it would be much better if he sat down and solved the problem,” Mr. McCarthy told CNBC on Thursday.Local leaders have taken shots at Mr. DeSantis, too.Last week, Mayor Francis Suarez of Miami, a Republican who may also run for president, criticized how Mr. DeSantis treats others during an appearance on Fox News. “Well, he seems to struggle with relationships, generally,” said Mr. Suarez, who has occasionally clashed with the governor over the years but had not attacked him so personally. “I mean, I look people in the eye when I shake their hands.”Even Dwyane Wade, the popular former star for the N.B.A.’s Miami Heat, seemed to weigh in, saying in a television interview that he left Florida in part because of the state’s stance on transgender issues. (Mr. Wade’s teenage daughter is transgender.)“My family would not be accepted or feel comfortable there,” he said, without directly referencing the governor.As part of Mr. DeSantis’s agenda, state leaders have pushed laws banning children from drag shows and criminalizing gender-affirming health care for minors, as well as expanding a law that restricts the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identities in public schools.Drag queens and their supporters marched in a protest to the State Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla., on Tuesday.Alicia Devine/Tallahassee Democrat, via Associated PressThe change to the resign-to-run law is not the first time a pliant legislature has helped out a governor. Legislators under former Governors Charlie Crist and Rick Scott adjusted the law when it seemed in their interest. Mr. DeSantis’s office did not respond when asked if he supported the change.Not every new law the governor sought this session is sure to pass.A proposal on immigration looks like it will be somewhat watered down. And the sponsor of a bill that would make it easier to sue the news media has said that the legislation is unlikely to move forward this year.Still, those who have seen Tallahassee in action say it was an unusually productive time.“I think it’s clear the governor has had a remarkable session, one of the best I can remember,” said Brian Ballard, an influential lobbyist who has served as a fund-raiser for both Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis.With Republicans holding supermajorities in both legislative chambers, Florida Democrats could do little but watch.Dan Gelber, the Democratic mayor of Miami Beach and a former state senator, said many of the governor’s priorities were “not important” to most Floridians.“It’s a heaping portion of red meat for his base,” Mr. Gelber said.Maggie Haberman More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Will the Economy Make or Break Biden in 2024?

      by

      Now that President Biden has announced his intention to run for a second term, economists and politicos are assessing whether his candidacy will be helped or hurt by the performance of the economy. If there’s a recession, will it be over and mostly forgotten by Election Day?Oxford Economics did an initial run of its election forecasting model, which takes economic factors into account, and found that Biden is in line to get around 55 percent of the popular vote, without any assumption about his opponent, according to a research briefing on Wednesday. Paul Krugman, my Opinion colleague, wrote Thursday that “the idea that the economy is going to pose a huge problem for Democrats next year isn’t backed by the available data.”The truth is, though, that we really don’t know who will win the 2024 election, or even what role the economy will play in it. As somebody who writes about economics, I’d love to say that the state of the economy leading up to Nov. 5, 2024, will matter a lot. But that does not seem to be the case, according to people I spoke with this week. One possible reason is that voters have become more polarized and set in their preferences, and thus less swayed by the ups and downs of the economy.For example, let’s say former President Donald Trump captures the Republican nomination. Most Biden supporters wouldn’t vote for him no matter how bad the economy got in 2024 — just as most Trump supporters won’t vote for Biden no matter how good the economy gets under the incumbent. James Carville’s admonition in 1992 that it’s “the economy, stupid” doesn’t hold up in this era of hyperpartisanship.In 1978 a pioneering article by the Yale economist Ray Fair, “The Effect of Economic Events on Votes for President,” made the case that “economic events as measured by the change in real economic activity in the year of the election do appear to have an important effect on votes for president.” In January, the model predicted, using his economic projections as inputs, that Biden, if renominated, would get 50.07 percent of the two-party presidential vote next year, with no assumption about the Republican opponent.Fair’s model, which he has tweaked over the years, correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in every election from 1980 through 2008 except for 1992, when it incorrectly predicted Bill Clinton would get only 43 percent of the two-party popular vote against George H.W. Bush. It hasn’t done well lately, though: It predicted the Democrat would get less than half the popular vote in the two-candidate matchup in 2012, when President Barack Obama won a second term; in 2016, when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost to Trump in the Electoral College; and in 2020, when Biden beat Trump.I asked Fair if it was fair to say that polarization of voters has weakened the predictive value of economic indicators. He acknowledged that Trump, an especially polarizing figure, had underperformed in both 2016 and 2020 given economic conditions that the Fair model considered favorable to him. (And he said it could happen again if Trump is the G.O.P. candidate next year.) But he said he’s not convinced that his economic model has lost its predictive power. “Personally, I think there’s still a pretty big middle group” of voters who are influenced by economic factors, he said.A good example of why it’s dangerous to over-rely on economic models is what happened in the spring of 2020, when Covid hit. Based on historical patterns, several of the best-known models (though not Fair’s) put a heavy weight on how the economy performs in the second quarter of an election year, namely April through June. Because of the Covid shutdown, the gross domestic product fell at an annual rate of 29.9 percent in the second quarter of 2020. Going by that one data point, the election should have been a disaster for the incumbent, Trump. But voters understood that Trump couldn’t be blamed for Covid. What’s more, the economy grew at an annual rate of 35.3 percent in the following quarter as it rebounded from the shutdown. In the end, Trump did worse than Fair’s model had predicted, but way better than predicted by models that heavily weighted second-quarter economic growth.Another problem with some economics-based forecasting models such as Fair’s is that they predict the popular vote, rather than the one that really matters, the Electoral College vote, which depends on state-by-state results. Fair is sticking to forecasting the popular vote because he thinks it’s of academic interest. Some other forecasters have switched to predicting the Electoral College result, but it’s much trickier. The outcome of the election comes down to a handful of swing states, and within those few states, to the behavior of a small minority of voters whose minds aren’t made up. “The Electoral College throws a monkey wrench into the business,” Alan Abramowitz, an emeritus professor of political science at Emory University, told me.One thing that puzzles me is why it’s even worthwhile to plug economic factors into an election forecast. If the relevance of the economy is that it affects voters’ feelings about the candidates, why not just cut to the chase and focus on the voters’ feelings? (Nate Cohn, my colleague on the news side, pointed out this week in another subscriber-only newsletter that the polls are showing a tight contest, with Biden slightly ahead of Trump and slightly behind Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida in hypothetical matchups.)I asked Charles Tien, a political science professor at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center and Hunter College, why he and others put economic indicators into their models. “When you add in the economy, it improves the results,” he said. But he acknowledged that it’s not obvious why that’s the case. When I asked Fair the same question by email, he wrote, “My empirical results are quite strong that the economy has mattered over time.” I wonder if it’s because economic indicators signal something about voters’ situations that they don’t fully express in surveys, which in any case have become less reliable as response rates have declined.Peter Enns, a political scientist at Cornell who ran the Cornell-based Roper Center for Public Opinion Research until last year, told me he thinks it’s too soon for predictions about the 2024 race. First, because there are too many unknowns, such as the field of candidates and the business cycle. Second, because at this stage voters should be focusing on who should win, not who will win. OK, that’s fair. No more horse-race prognosticating from me. For now.The Readers WriteWhat your newsletter about innovation misses is the input by experimentation. Our five senses are permanently providing us with personal experience that facilitates new creative thoughts. Only when chatbots are equipped with sensors can they become independent thinkers.Heinrich MullerRancho Palos Verdes, Calif.As for fertility, maybe all you men should think a little. Maybe women do not want to be saddled all through their adult years with raising your kids! Or maybe if men did a little more of the work, women wouldn’t mind so much.Marilynn MillerChicago areaTo test peer effects on fertility, why not hire actors to wheel baby carriages around one area and not around a demographically matched area nearby? Joking, of course.David AuerbachDurham, N.C.With the large run-up in housing prices that you mentioned, selling a home and buying a new one may involve a huge increase in property tax payments. This may be a significant disincentive to selling in addition to higher mortgage rates.Randy K. VogelLaguna Hills, Calif.Quote of the Day“I used to say to our audiences: ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!’”— Upton Sinclair, “I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked” (1935) More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      What Should Kamala Harris’s Role Be Now?

      by

      More from our inbox:Conflict in Montana Over a Transgender LawmakerWomen at Peace TalksMedical Assistance in DyingVice President Kamala Harris with President Biden at the White House in February.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Kamala Harris Really Matters in 2024,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, April 26):Mr. Friedman identifies the heightened peril of this moment and states that President Biden “absolutely has to win.” Having declared his candidacy for a second term, Mr. Biden needs to address age-related questions head on. Consequently, his running mate faces greater scrutiny.Thus far, Vice President Kamala Harris hasn’t forged her own identity. By the very nature of the job, she is confined to a supporting role, but she needs breakout moments of not being a tightly programmed V.P. She must trust her own best instincts. Go off script. (Her handlers will be aghast.) Make mistakes and learn from them.After many years of being the consummate pragmatic politician, Mr. Biden seems to be more fully at ease in his own skin and seems to revel in the daunting challenges his presidency faces — head on with admirable grace and courage. He can free her to dare to do the same.Barbara Allen KenneyPaso Robles, Calif.To the Editor:Thomas L. Friedman is way off base in suggesting that Kamala Harris may be saved by giving her a variety of portfolios. She simply lacks the foreign policy and defense chops to justify putting her a heartbeat away from the presidency, especially when the president, if re-elected, would be well into his 80s as his second term progresses.The challenges posed by Russia, China, North Korea and others are simply too great to put a rookie in charge.Rubin GuttmanClevelandTo the Editor:Thomas L. Friedman’s column about a Biden-Harris ticket as a must win in 2024 is spot on. I disagree, however, with his suggestions for how best to elevate Kamala Harris on a national and international stage. Working on rural U.S. initiatives?! Ensuring our pre-eminence in artificial intelligence?!Come on! She needs to be in charge of those things she does best: passionate defense of social justice issues, including international diplomacy and equity for nations that are struggling with ruthless civil wars.We need Kamala Harris to develop and demonstrate her ability to both challenge autocracies and support struggling democracies à la Madeleine Albright.Judy WagenerMadison, Wis.To the Editor:Here’s an idea for the Democratic Party to consider: Get Kamala Harris back to California by having her take Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat. Ms. Harris was very productive in California as attorney general and later as a senator. Unfortunately the 89-year-old Ms. Feinstein is no longer capable of doing the job.Ms. Harris might relish the opportunity to once again represent the Golden State. Furthermore this would free President Biden to select a running mate without its looking as though he were abandoning his loyal vice president.A relatively progressive running mate such as Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona would likely garner more votes and the electorate wouldn’t have to ponder whether it is Ms. Harris they’d want in the Oval Office should Mr. Biden’s health become an issue.Steven BrozinskyLa Jolla, Calif.To the Editor:While I agree completely with everything that Thomas L. Friedman says in his insightful column, there is one aspect about it that mystifies me. I agree that President Biden’s age is a concern for voters. But why isn’t Donald Trump’s age an even greater concern for voters? He is only four years younger than President Biden, is seriously overweight, and apparently never encountered a hamburger he couldn’t resist.Please stop focusing so obsessively on President Biden’s age without also raising the issue of Mr. Trump’s age and physical condition.Stephen CreagerSan FranciscoConflict in Montana Over a Transgender LawmakerRepresentative Zooey Zephyr, right, with Representative SJ Howell in the hallway outside the main chamber of the Montana House. Ms. Zephyr was monitoring debate on a laptop and casting votes from the hallway.Brittany Peterson/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Montana House Bars Transgender Lawmaker From Chamber Floor” (news article, April 27):Our legislature’s problem is that this is the 21st century. Young people and marginalized communities want to express themselves and to have a voice, but many older Montanans remain set in their ways. From Native American rights to climate change to transgender rights, the old guard appears oblivious.Historically, the state has suffered from a lack of diversity, and the influx of recent transplants in communities such as Bozeman and Missoula exacerbates a reactionary mind-set.The state is struggling to find a new equilibrium. Until it does, unfortunately, we may see more pictures in the news of stodgy old people making fools of themselves at the Montana statehouse.In the meantime, all Montanans and all Americans should stand behind Representative Zooey Zephyr, who was barred from participating in deliberations because of her impassioned comments on transgender issues, and the other courageous young people working to bend the arc of history toward justice.Peter CaposselaWhitefish, Mont.Women at Peace TalksA destroyed military vehicle in Khartoum, Sudan.Marwan Ali/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “The Violence in Sudan Is Partly Our Fault,” by Jacqueline Burns (Opinion guest essay, April 24):The admission that U.S. and international peace negotiators got it wrong by engaging with leaders of Sudanese armed groups must spark a new kind of action to ensure that peace negotiations include women and the concerns that they bring to the table.Women’s exclusion from peace processes is all too common, such as in Syria and Afghanistan, and the consequences are dire. Women must be at the table, not only because that’s what fairness demands.Research has shown that when women are meaningfully included in negotiations, a peace agreement is 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years. That’s because women’s leadership represents the needs of wider communities, resulting in greater legitimacy and democratic participation.We must also ask: Why? Why was it so much easier to patiently engage armed leaders with no demonstrated interest in peace, while women and other civil society leaders were told to wait their turn? If we can name the answer — patriarchal attitudes that permeate policymaking the world over — we will be in a better position to confront them and get peacemaking right.Yifat SusskindNew YorkThe writer is executive director of MADRE, an international women’s human rights organization and feminist fund.Medical Assistance in Dying Kyutae LeeTo the Editor:Re “Medical Assistance in Dying Should Not Exclude Mental Illness,” by Clancy Martin (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, April 21):As a psychiatrist, I have always had concerns about physicians assisting dying in those with terminal medical illnesses. Patients can change their minds about that wish with better pain control. If depression is present, its treatment can help lift spirits and facilitate discovery of reasons for wanting to live longer.Medical assistance in dying (MAID) for mental illness, scheduled to start less than a year from now in Canada, is more problematic, as the wish to die is a symptom of depression. Significant improvement has been made with psychiatric treatments. But the movement for MAID is a clear message that greater progress and access to care are essential.Jeffrey B. FreedmanNew York More