United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Colorado Supreme Court Takes Up Trump’s Eligibility to Be President

      by

      A district court judge ruled last month that the 14th Amendment barred insurrectionists from every office except the nation’s highest. “How is that not absurd?” one justice asked of that notion.The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the question of whether former President Donald J. Trump is barred from holding office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies people who engaged in insurrection against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it.Several of the seven justices appeared skeptical of arguments made by a lawyer for Mr. Trump, including the core one that a district court judge relied on in a ruling last month ordering Mr. Trump to be included on the Colorado primary ballot: that Section 3 did not apply to the presidency. The Colorado Supreme Court is hearing an appeal of that ruling as part of a lawsuit brought by Republican and independent voters in the state who, in seeking to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot, have contended the opposite.“How is that not absurd?” Justice Richard L. Gabriel asked of the notion that the lawmakers who wrote Section 3 in the wake of the Civil War had intended to disqualify insurrectionists from every office except the nation’s highest.Section 3 lists a number of positions an insurrectionist is disqualified from holding but not explicitly the presidency, so challenges to Mr. Trump’s eligibility rely on the argument that the presidency is included in the phrases “officer of the United States” and “any office, civil or military, under the United States.” It also does not specify who gets to decide whether someone is an insurrectionist: election officials and courts, as the petitioners argue, or Congress itself, as Mr. Trump’s team argues.Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Scott Gessler, suggested on Wednesday that the lawmakers had trusted the Electoral College to prevent an insurrectionist from becoming president, and that they had known the Northern states held enough electoral power after the Civil War to prevent a Confederate leader from winning a national election anyway.Justice Gabriel did not seem satisfied, and neither did colleagues who jumped in with follow-up questions. Justice Monica M. Márquez asked why lawmakers would have chosen the “indirect” route of blocking someone only through the Electoral College. And Justice Melissa Hart asked whether Mr. Gessler’s interpretation of Section 3 would have allowed Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy, to become president.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

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Nevada Charges Republican Party Leaders in 2020 Fake Elector Scheme

      by

      The six Republicans charged on Wednesday included the state party’s chairman and vice chairman as well as the chairman of the Republican Party in Clark County.A Nevada grand jury indicted top leaders of the state’s Republican Party on charges of forging and submitting fraudulent documents in the fake elector scheme to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, the state’s attorney general announced on Wednesday.The six Republicans charged, who claimed to be electors for Donald J. Trump, included the chairman of the state party, Michael J. McDonald. Also included are Jim Hindle, the state party’s vice chairman; Jim DeGraffenreid, a national committeeman; Jesse Law, the chairman of the Republican Party in Clark County, home to Las Vegas; and Shawn Meehan and Eileen Rice, executive board members of the Republican Party in Douglas County.“When the efforts to undermine faith in our democracy began after the 2020 election, I made it clear that I would do everything in my power to defend the institutions of our nation and our state,” Aaron D. Ford, Nevada’s attorney general and a Democrat, said in a statement. “We cannot allow attacks on democracy to go unchallenged. Today’s indictments are the product of a long and thorough investigation, and as we pursue this prosecution, I am confident that our judicial system will see justice done.”The charges are the latest in a nationwide effort by officials to prosecute those who falsely portrayed themselves as state electors in an effort to overturn Mr. Trump’s defeat in 2020. Michigan’s attorney general charged 16 Republicans in July for a similar effort in the state.The plan involved creating false slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump in seven swing states that were won by Mr. Biden in an effort to overturn the election.Kenneth Chesebro, a key player in the fake elector scheme, is listed as a witness in the Nevada indictments. Mr. Chesebro had earlier pleaded guilty in a criminal racketeering indictment in Georgia that accused him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Mr. Chesebro had also agreed to cooperate with state prosecutors in that case.The six Republicans were each charged in similar four-page indictments with one count of forging certificates designating Nevada’s electoral votes for Mr. Trump, even though Mr. Biden won the state in 2020. They were also each charged with one count of knowingly submitting these fake certificates to state and federal officials.If convicted, the false electors face a combined maximum of nine years in prison and $15,000 in fines. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ‘This Is Grim,’ One Democratic Pollster Says

      by

      The predictive power of horse-race polling a year from the presidential election is weak at best. The Biden campaign can take some comfort in that. But what recent surveys do reveal is that the coalition that put Joe Biden in the White House in the first place is nowhere near as strong as it was four years ago.These danger signs include fraying support among core constituencies, including young voters, Black voters and Hispanic voters, and the decline, if not the erasure, of traditional Democratic advantages in representing the interests of the middle class and speaking for the average voter.Any of these on their own might not be cause for alarm, but taken together they present a dangerous situation for Biden.From Nov. 5 through Nov. 11, Democracy Corps, a Democratic advisory group founded by Stan Greenberg and James Carville, surveyed 2,500 voters in presidential and Senate battleground states as well as competitive House districts.In an email, Greenberg summarized the results: “This is grim.” The study, he said, found that collectively, voters in the Democratic base of “Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, LGBTQ+ community, Gen Z, millennials, unmarried and college women give Trump higher approval ratings than Biden.”On 32 subjects ranging from abortion to China, the Democracy Corps survey asked voters to choose which would be better, “Biden and the Democrats” or “Trump and the Republicans.”Biden and the Democrats led on six: women’s rights (ahead by 17 points), climate change (15 points), addressing racial inequality (10 points), health care (3 points), the president will not be an autocrat (plus 2) and protecting Democracy (plus 1). There was a tie on making democracy more secure.Donald Trump and the Republicans held leads on the remaining subjects, including being for working people (a 7-point advantage), standing up to elites (8 points), being able to get things done for the American people (12 points), feeling safe (12 points) and keeping wages and salaries up with the cost of living (17 points).In the case of issues that traditionally favor Republicans, Trump and his allies held commanding leads: patriotism (11 points), crime (17 points), immigration (20 points) and border security (22 points).Particularly worrisome for Democrats, who plan to demonize Trump as a threat to democracy, are the advantages Trump and Republicans have on opposing extremism (3 points), getting beyond the chaos (6 points) and protecting the Constitution (8 points).There is some evidence in both the Democracy Corp survey and in other polls that concerns specific to Biden — including his age and the surge in prices during his presidency — are driving the perception of Democratic weakness rather than discontent with the party itself.The survey found, for example, that Democratic candidates in House battleground districts are running even with their Republican opponents among all voters, and two points ahead among voters who say they are likely to cast ballots on Election Day.Along similar lines, a November 2023 NBC News poll found Trump leading Biden by two points, 46-44, but when voters were asked to choose between Trump and an unnamed Democratic candidate, the generic Democrat won 46-40.In a reflection of both Biden’s and Trump’s high unfavorability ratings, NBC reported that when voters were asked to choose between Biden and an unnamed generic Republican, the “Republican candidate” led Biden 48-37.Other nonpartisan polls describe similar Democratic weaknesses. A September Morning Consult survey found, for example, that “voters are now more likely to see the Republican Party as capable of governing, tackling big issues and keeping the country safe compared with the Democratic Party” and that “by a 9-point margin, voters also see the Democratic Party as more ideologically extreme than the G.O.P.”In the main, according to Morning Consult, these weaknesses result from declining confidence within Democratic ranks in their own party, rather than strong support for Trump and the Republican Party: “The trends against the Democratic Party are largely driven by worsening perceptions among its own voter base, which suggests that the party will have to rely more than ever on negative partisanship to keep control of the White House.”Morning Consult posed the same set of questions to voters about the political parties in 2020 and again this year in order to track shifting voter attitudes.Asked, for example which party is more “capable of governing,” 48 percent of voters in 2020 said the Democrats and 42 percent said the Republicans. This year, 47 percent said the Republicans and 44 percent said the Democrats.Similar shifts occurred on the question of which party will “keep the nation safe” and which party can “tackle the big issues.”In what amounts to a body blow to Biden and his Democratic allies, Republicans are now virtually tied with Democrats on a matter that has been a mainstay of Democratic support since the formation of the New Deal coalition during the Great Depression. A September 2023 NBC News survey “found that 34 percent of voters believe Republicans are better at looking out for the middle class, while 36 percent say the same of Democrats. The 2-point margin in favor of Democrats is the lowest it has been in the history of the poll.”“Democrats have held over 30 years as high as a 29-point advantage as being the party better able to deal with and handle issues of concern to the middle class, ” Bill McInturff, a partner in the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, which joined with the Democratic firm Hart Research to conduct the NBC poll, told me.Neil Newhouse, who is also a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, emailed me to say that the opinion trends among Black and Hispanic voters “are figures G.O.P.’ers could only dream about a few years ago.”Although many of those with whom I discussed the data voiced deep concern over Biden’s prospects, let me cite a couple of experts who are more optimistic.Simon Rosenberg, a veteran Democratic operative and former president of the New Democratic Network, emailed me a series of bullet points:The last four presidential elections have gone 51 percent-46 percent Democratic, best run for Dems since F.D.R.’s elections. Only 1 R — George W. Bush 2004 — has broken 48 percent since the 1992 election, and Dems have won more votes in seven of last eight presidential elections. If there is a party with a coalition problem, it is them, not us.Our performance since Dobbs remains remarkable, and important. In 2022 we gained in AZ, CO, GA, MI, MN, NH, PA over 2020, getting to 59 percent in CO, 57 percent in PA, 55 percent in MI, 54 percent in NH in that “red wave” year. This year we’ve won and outperformed across the country in every kind of election, essentially leaving this a blue wave year.We got to 56 percent in the WI SCOTUS race, 57 percent in Ohio, flipped Colorado Springs and Jacksonville, flipped the VA House, Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear grew his margin, we won mayoralties and school board races across the United States. Elections are about winning and losing, and we keep winning and they keep losing.In a recent post on his Substack, “Why I Am Optimistic About 2024,” Rosenberg elaborated:Opposition and fear of MAGA is the dominant force in U.S. politics today, and that is a big problem for super-MAGA Trump in 2024. Fear and opposition to MAGA has been propelling our electoral wins since 2018, and will almost certainly do so again next year.Alex Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, expressed similar optimism concerning Biden’s chances: “Once Democrats come to terms with the fact that Biden will be the nominee (and, more importantly, that Trump will in all likelihood be the G.O.P. nominee), a lot of the internal malaise expressed in current polls should dissipate.”When Biden begins campaigning in earnest, Theodoridis wrote,He will likely still come across as relatively competent and steady. And, while Trump always looms over G.O.P. politics, we will certainly see more coverage of him as G.O.P. nominee to remind less engaged Democrats and the few true independents that he is a deeply flawed figure who has and would again pose a real threat to our Republic.When voters finally make up their minds, Theodoridis predicted, “The anti-MAGA, pro-democracy, pro-reproductive-rights message that has boosted turnout and served Democratic candidates well the last two Novembers will likely do so again.”Jim Kessler, a senior vice president of Third Way, a Democratic think tank, is nowhere near as confident in Democratic prospects as Rosenberg and Theodoridis are. In an email, Kessler observed that polls at this time need to be taken with a grain of salt — remarking that in 1991, George H.W. Bush appeared to be the prohibitive favorite to win a second term and that in 2011, Mitt Romney was well ahead of President Barack Obama.In addition, Kessler wrote, in the past month,The price of gasoline has fallen 20 cents to a national average of $3.24 a gallon. Headline and core inflation have begun their final descent toward benign, historic levels. Interest rates have fallen about 40 basis points in the past several months. The so-called “misery index” (inflation + unemployment rate) could very well be at a level that is incumbent friendly.That said, Kessler continued, there are clear danger signs:Biden won in 2020 because he was perceived as having a more positive brand than the Democratic Party. That brand advantage over the Democratic Party is now gone. Exhibits A and B are crime and immigration. In 2020, Biden was perceived as tougher on crime and the border than the typical Democrat.In one primary debate, Kessler pointed out,Biden was the only candidate onstage not to raise his hand on a question that essentially could be interpreted as wanting open borders. He also loudly and repeatedly voiced his opposition to “defund the police” and never ran away from the 1994 crime bill that he authored in the Senate.That, in Kessler’s view, “is not the Joe Biden voters are hearing today. Voters actually hear almost nothing from the administration on crime or the border, and this allows the opposition to define them on an issue of great salience.”Biden, Kessler argued, has a credible record on tougher border enforcement and cracking down on crime, but he and other members of the administration don’t promote itbecause these are issues on which our active, progressive base is split. But if you are silent on these issues, it is like an admission of guilt to voters. They believe you do not care or are dismissive of their very real concerns. That means Biden must accept some griping from the left to get this story out to the vast middle.Will Marshall, president and founder of the center-left Public Policy Institute think tank, responded to my query with an emailed question: “Trump is Kryptonite for American democracy, so why isn’t President Biden leading him by 15 points?”Marshall’s answer:Biden’s basic problem is that the Democratic Party keeps shrinking, leaving it with a drastically slender margin of error. It’s losing working class voters — whites — by enormous, 30-point margins — but nonwhites without college degrees are slipping away too.The ascendance of largely white, college-educated liberals within party ranks, in Marshall’s view, haspushed Democrats far to the dogmatic left, even as their base grows smaller. Young progressives have identified the party with stances on immigration, crime, gender, climate change and Palestinian resistance that are so far from mainstream sentiment that they can even eclipse MAGA extremism.“Democrats,” Marshall wrote, in a line of argument similar to Kessler’s,have been aiming at the wrong target and have less than a year to adjust their sights. That means putting high prices and living costs front and center, embracing cultural pragmatism, confronting left-wing radicalism on the border, public safety and Israel and embracing a post-populist economics that speaks to working Americans’ aspirations for growth and upward mobility rather than their presumed sense of economic victimhood.Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, contended that the view of Biden and the Democratic Party as elitist and weak on the very values that were Democratic strengths in the past lacks foundation in practice. Instead, the adverse portrait of the Democrats represents a major success on the part of right-wing media — and a complicit mainstream media — in creating a false picture of the party.In a forthcoming paper, “Bridging the Blue Divide: The Democrats’ New Metro Coalition and the Unexpected Prominence of Redistribution,” Hacker said he and three colleagues found thatDemocrats have not changed their orientation nearly as much as critics of the party argue. In particular, the party has not shifted its emphasis from economic to social/identity issues, nor has it moderated its economic positions overall. Instead, it has placed a high priority on an ambitious economic program that involves a wider range of policy aims and instruments than in the past (including industrial policy and pro-labor initiatives as well as social and health policies and public investments) as well as levels of public spending that dwarf those contemplated by party elites in at least a half century.Why then, Hacker asked, is “the Democratic Party widely perceived to have abandoned pocketbook politics in favor of identity politics?”His answer:Conservative media have relentlessly focused on this critique and there’s strong evidence that media framing shapes how voters view the parties. Indeed, the role of the media in shaping the negative current climate — including more mainstream sources — should not be neglected. The obsessions of right-wing media with the “wokeness” of the Democratic Party seeps into the broader media coverage, and mainstream sources focus on criticisms of the Democrats, in part to uphold their nonpartisan ideal.Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, warned that there are major consequences that could result from the weakness of Biden’s support. In an email, Enos wrote:There is no doubt that Democrats and — given that the likely Republican nominee is a would-be authoritarian — Americans more generally should be alarmed by Biden’s poll numbers. He is saddled with the need to dig economic perceptions out of a deep inflationary hole, an unsteady international world and the view that his party went too far to the left on social issues.If the election were held today, Enos argued, “Biden would likely lose.”During the campaign, “Biden’s numbers will improve,” Enos wrote, but Biden faces a large number of idealistic young voters who maynever come back to him because they believe that he has abandoned the core values that animated their support in the first place. Faced with the reality of surging immigration across the southern border, Biden has largely failed to liberalize his administration’s approach to immigration — in fact, he has left much of the Trump era policies in place. To many young voters, who were first attracted to Biden’s social progressivism, such moves may feel like a betrayal. Additionally, Biden has seemed to greenlight Israel’s campaign of violence against civilians in Gaza. Especially for young voters of color, this seems like a betrayal and could cost Biden crucial states such as Michigan.Jonathan Weiler, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, stands somewhere between Rosenberg and Marshall.“There’s no gainsaying Biden’s poor polling numbers at the present,” Weiler wrote by email:However unhinged Trump appears increasingly to be, for now that’s an abstraction for many voters. In the meantime, what they see in ways that feel up close and personal are signs of an unsettled and unsettling world impinging on their day to day lives, including inflation, higher crime and a big increase in migrants across our southern border and into cities around the United States.On the plus side for Biden, Weiler wrote, “the data show clearly that inflation is trending substantially downward.” In addition,Violent crime has returned to prepandemic levels. Americans always think crime is going up, no matter what the data say. But if the actual drop in crime results in people thinking about it less, that could also lessen people’s sense of a chaotic and unsettled reality.Rogers Smith, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, made the case that Biden’s age and his visible infirmities interfere with his ability to reassure the electorate:The biggest factor that is neglected in many polls is the widespread belief that Biden is simply too old and insufficiently vigorous to remain president for four more years. This belief is reinforced by the reality that Biden does not inspire confidence in his vigor or energy in most of his public presentations. The problem is particularly acute among young voters but goes throughout the electorate, Democrats and Republicans alike. It means that voters don’t give much weight to Biden’s arguments on the issues.Democrats are trapped, Smith maintained:None will challenge Biden; he must choose to step aside. If he did so, he would feel compelled to support Kamala Harris. But most Democrats, and probably Biden himself, rightly believe that she would do even worse than he is doing.The one ace in the hole for Democrats is Donald Trump himself. As the center of attention in the elections of 2018, 2020 and even 2022, Trump was the key to Democratic victory. Trump is doing all he can to become the focus in 2024, but the question remains whether the Democrats, with Biden at the top of the ticket, can successfully demonize him again.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

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Our Columnists Aren’t Moderating Tonight’s Debate. Here’s What They’d Ask if They Were.

      by

      Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate, held in Tuscaloosa, Ala., will feature just four candidates — Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie — sparring over everything from abortion to Israel to former President Donald Trump. When we asked Times Opinion columnists and contributors what they would ask the candidates if they were moderating the debate, they came back to us with questions designed to test them on guns and crime, foreign wars and health care — exposing where the field stands on, say, military aid for Ukraine or a draconian state abortion ban. But above all, what they wanted to see was the moderators needling the candidates into taking a strong stance on the former president. Here were the responses:Maureen DowdGov. Haley, you have your first ad up about “moral clarity” and “chaos.” But you don’t mention Donald Trump. Why not?Should Donald Trump be prohibited from running for president because of Jan. 6 and all these federal charges?Kenny Holston for The New York TimesFrank BruniIf you’re elected president, would you consider pardoning Donald Trump if he’s convicted by a jury of one or more of the 91 felony counts he faces?Jamelle BouieThe Republican Party has lost the majority of the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections. Despite this, it has held the presidency for a total of 12 years because of the Electoral College. If you are the nominee in 2024 and you win the majority of the popular vote but lose the Electoral College, would you concede to Joe Biden?Ross DouthatGov. Haley, please name one United States military intervention in the last 30 years that you believe was a mistake, and explain why.Gov. DeSantis, while running for president in 2016, Donald Trump promised to replace Obamacare with some form of universal health care. Do you support repealing Obamacare with a measure that guarantees health insurance to all Americans? If not, why? If so, what would that measure be?Gov. Haley and Gov. DeSantis, if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, is there anything he could do between now and November 2024 that would make you refuse to support him against Joe Biden? If so, please specify.For all the candidates: The Western world is aging rapidly. The Republican Party currently stands for serious restrictions on immigration. Is there any public policy that your hypothetical administration would pursue that would encourage Americans to have more kids?Erin Schaff/The New York TimesNicholas KristofGuns are the leading cause of death for children in America today. And the states with the highest firearms mortality rates are mostly Republican states. Why is that, and what specific steps can we take to reduce gun deaths in America?President Reagan was known for standing up relentlessly to Moscow. Yet if Republicans continue to block President Biden’s requests for aid to Ukraine, isn’t Russia the big winner? Has the G.O.P. come full circle from confronting Russian aggression to becoming its best hope?Michelle CottleGov. Haley, immigration policy continues to be sacrificed on the altar of political gamesmanship. Border security is important, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. As president, how would you jump-start a push for bipartisan, comprehensive reform?Mr. Ramaswamy, what would it take for you to drop out of this race and spare Americans your troll-y nonsense? A column in The Daily Caller? Your own Fox News show? The promise of a midlevel cabinet post?Gov. DeSantis, why has your candidacy been sagging? What do you plan to do to turn it around?Gov. Christie, the base seems to hate you. How do you respond to people who worry that you staying in the race any longer is helping Donald Trump by preventing non-Trump voters from consolidating behind a challenger whose campaign is getting more traction?Oleg Petrasyuk/EPA, via ShutterstockPamela PaulA question for all: Confidence in the military, while still relatively high compared with confidence in other institutions, is the lowest it’s been in over 25 years, at the same time that the military is struggling to bring in recruits. What would you do to restore trust in the military and recruit more people to volunteer for the armed services?Thomas FriedmanGov. DeSantis, if you were in Congress today, would you vote with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to continue military and economic aid for Ukraine and sustain Kyiv in its war with Russia for the next year, or with the House isolationists against any further aid? If it is the latter, how would you react if Vladimir Putin publicly thanked you?Gov. Haley, the late Henry Kissinger became famous for his diplomacy, with President Nixon, for peeling China away from the Soviet Union back in the 1970s. If you were president today, would you consider attempting such a move with Xi Jinping’s China, or do you think we should confront Russia and China at the same time? How would that make America more secure?Gov. Haley, as possibly America’s first Indian American president, do you think we should get tougher with President Narendra Modi to limit his curtailments of Indian democracy, or are you OK with what he’s doing?Jose Luis Gonzalez/ReutersEzra KleinGov. DeSantis and Gov. Haley, in 2021, your states — Florida and South Carolina — had higher homicide rates per capita than New York and California. That was also true in 2020, and 2019, and 2018, and 2017, and 2016 and 2015. Why is that?Michelle GoldbergTwenty women are suing Texas after being denied abortions, including in cases of severely dangerous or nonviable pregnancies. Should Texas amend its abortion ban to create a health exemption?Mikala Compton/Austin American-Statesman, via Associated PressCharles BlowGov. DeSantis, you made your crusade against what you called “wokeness” a centerpiece of your governorship and a springboard for your presidential bid. You even wrote a book in which anti-wokeness was a central theme. But over the summer, polling showed that Republican voters were unlikely to be swayed by a narrow focus on rooting out left-wing ideology in schools, media, culture and business — and you didn’t mention the word “woke” in any of the first three debates. Did you overestimate the currency anti-wokeness would have with the Republican primary electorate, and do you regret such a laserlike focus on a single cultural topic?Tressie McMillan CottomOur constitutional right of “free speech” has become a partisan issue. This is having a chilling effect on research, education and public workers. How do you define “free speech”? What role should the president and Congress play in shaping the way that free speech intersects with public institutions?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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Bowman Is Latest House Democrat to Face a Primary Over Israel Stance

      by

      George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, told The New York Times he would run against Mr. Bowman, a rising star of the Democratic left, next year.After months of public deliberation and prodding from donors aligned with Israel, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, said on Wednesday that he would mount a Democratic primary challenge against Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York.The decision set the stage for a potentially explosive contest next year that promises to test not only the growing Democratic divide over the war in the Middle East but the durability of the party’s progressive wing.In an interview, Mr. Latimer drew sharp contrasts between himself and Mr. Bowman, one of left’s most vocal critics of Israel. He dismissed the incumbent’s calls for a cease-fire as premature and called a recent protest outside the White House, where the congressman accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, a political stunt.“It’s about results, not rhetoric,” said Mr. Latimer, who has deep ties to the Democratic establishment. “So much of politics has turned into that sort of showmanship — how you look in front of the cameras.”He was expected to officially begin his campaign with a video announcement later on Wednesday, just days after returning from a wartime visit to the region.The nascent contest echoes primary fights breaking out from Pittsburgh to Detroit since Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 attack, as pro-Israel Democrats try to oust members of the House “Squad” pushing for a cease-fire. Like the other challengers, Mr. Latimer is expected to benefit from millions of dollars in outside spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and other special interest groups.The race in the New York City suburbs, though, may be uniquely complex. It pits a charismatic Black progressive with a growing national profile against an old-school white liberal with deep local support. And it will play out in a district that is both home to one of the country’s most influential Jewish communities and also nearly half Black or Latino.Mr. Latimer said he shared many of Mr. Bowman’s progressive priorities but would avoid the incumbent’s “showmanship.”Gregg Vigliotti for The New York TimesMr. Latimer tread carefully around many of those fault lines as he outlined his candidacy this week, insisting that he was preparing for a campaign that would go well beyond the issue of Israel.Mr. Latimer, in his second term as county executive, urged voters not to judge him on his age, 70, or the color of his skin. Citing his four decades in elected office, he said would continue many of the progressive priorities on housing, climate change and transportation that Mr. Bowman has championed. And he avoided outright attacks on the incumbent beyond charging that Mr. Bowman was more interested in making his name than tending to his district.“If you ignore that turf because you’re a national figure and more interested in being on the national stage, then you are neglecting the needs of that community,” Mr. Latimer said.The challenge comes at a moment of profound political vulnerability for Mr. Bowman, 47, and not just because of his stance on the war. The congressman is still dealing with the repercussions of pleading guilty in October to pulling a false fire alarm in a House office building. And he has just $185,000 in his campaign account, according to recent filings.AIPAC, which privately offered Mr. Latimer its support months ago, could easily swamp that amount on its own. Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for the group, declined to discuss the group’s spending plans this week but denounced Mr. Bowman as a representative of “the anti-Israel extremist fringe.”Mr. Bowman’s advisers and allies say defeating him may be far more difficult than his foes anticipate. Some of the left’s most influential figures were already lining up to fight back, determined to show the staying power of their movement three years after they first helped Mr. Bowman, a former middle school principal, topple a powerful three-decade incumbent, Eliot L. Engel.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Mr. Bowman’s best-known ally, circulated a fund-raising appeal on his behalf. Left-leaning groups, including New York’s Working Families Party and Justice Democrats, have pledged resources. For now, each appear to see value in framing the primary as a conflict as one with pro-Israel special interests, not the county executive.“It’s not a surprise that a super PAC that routinely targets Black members of Congress with primary challenges and is funded by the same Republican megadonors who give millions to election-denying Republicans including Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Ted Cruz have recruited a candidate for this race,” said Emma Simon, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bowman’s campaign.The primary battle is one Democrats had wished to avoid. The party already hopes to flip six Republican-held swing seats in New York next year, which is key to taking back the House majority. Some Democrats have expressed concern that a pro-Israel advertising blitz against Mr. Bowman would inadvertently tarnish the party’s candidates in competitive races in neighboring districts to the north and west.Now that the matchup is underway, though, it poses a quandary for Democratic leaders, particularly Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York.Mr. Jeffries, the top House Democrat, has said he would continue the party’s longstanding policy of supporting incumbents like Mr. Bowman, even if his own views on Israel are more conservative. But Mr. Latimer said he had not received a call from Mr. Jeffries asking him not to run, and the House leader may soon have to decide how hard to fight to protect Mr. Bowman.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.His allies argue that there is good reason to believe many voters agree with his views, but that for many, Israel will not be a decisive issue when they cast their primary ballots next June.About half of voters in the district, which stretches from the north Bronx through many of Westchester’s liberal suburbs, are Black and Latino, according to census data. The figure is even higher among Democratic primary voters. By comparison, about 10 percent of all voters and about 20 to 25 percent of Democratic primary voters are Jewish.Mr. Bowman has repeatedly said he is standing by his position on Israel for a simpler reason: He believes in it.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesHe summarized his views outside the White House last week, where he joined protesters calling on President Biden to support a bilateral cease-fire. He used terms that most Democrats have objected to, including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” in describing Israel’s deadly bombardment of Gaza, which has killed some 15,000 people, according to the local health authorities. He accused the United States of “being complicit” in those deaths. But he also condemned those targeting Israelis or Jews and repeated his earlier denunciations of Hamas.“Calling for cease-fire does not mean we support Hamas, does not mean we support the killing of Israelis or Jews, does not mean we support antisemitism,” he said. “We are calling for cease-fire because we don’t want anyone else to die.”In the interview, Mr. Latimer said he, too, was eager to see the bloodshed in Gaza end, but only after Hamas returned the remaining Israeli hostages it abducted on Oct. 7 and agreed “to step aside from violence.” Anything short of that would amount to unilateral disarmament by Israel, he argued.Mr. Latimer said he did not “know enough” to judge whether Israel’s counteroffensive had violated international law. “I’m not a secretary of state,” he said.He also rejected Mr. Bowman’s proposal for the United States to place conditions on the billions of military aid it provides to Israel. “That is a matter that I think is best left to the presidential administration,” Mr. Latimer said.He was more pointed about attempts by Mr. Bowman and his allies to build public pressure on Mr. Biden through protests and media appearances. Mr. Latimer called Mr. Bowman’s appearance outside the White House “the classic response of somebody who has been in government a couple of years.”“If you want to influence the policy of the president, you begin with the dialogue you have with your other members of Democratic Caucus,” he said. “When you have a consensus movement, that becomes more impressive to an executive.” More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Big Donors Rally Around Nikki Haley

      by

      The former governor of South Carolina is winning support from some Democrats and business-minded conservatives as the G.O.P. candidate who can beat Donald Trump.Nikki Haley is beginning to gain in the polls and has won financial backing from donors such as Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic donor, and the Koch brothers.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesA bipartisan boost for HaleyAs the four remaining prominent Republican presidential contenders not named Donald Trump assemble for the latest G.O.P. primary debate tonight, just one will arrive with any sort of positive momentum.Nikki Haley is gaining traction as the leading anti-Trump Republican, particularly among Democrats and business-minded conservatives alike. But growing support from elites may not be enough to help her catch the former president.Reid Hoffman recently donated $250,000 to a super PAC supporting Haley. The LinkedIn co-founder and a major Democratic donor has funded an array of anti-Trump initiatives. His donation, first reported by The Times, is the latest sign that some Democrats see bolstering Haley as the best way to beat Trump.News of Hoffman’s contribution came after Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s C.E.O., urged liberals to back Haley. “Get a choice on the Republican side that might be better than Trump,” he said at the DealBook Summit last week. That’s on top of growing support from business-minded Republicans. The political network founded by Charles and David Koch recently endorsed Haley, and deep-pocketed donors including Stanley Druckenmiller and Andy Sabin have attended fund-raising events for her.A reality check: Despite skipping all of the Republican primary debates and facing a staggering array of criminal and civil trials, Trump still leads Haley and the rest of the G.O.P. field in polls.And support from Democrats and corporate moguls may not endear Haley to the Republican base that will start voting on the G.O.P. candidate next month: A recent fund-raising email from Trump argued that “globalist special interest donors from both parties” are forging “an unholy alliance to beat us.”Other Republican contenders are faring even worse. The campaign of Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, is in turmoil. Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, barely qualified for the debate and faces calls to drop out to avoid fracturing the anti-Trump opposition. And Vivek Ramaswamy, the outspoken “anti-woke” entrepreneur, is fading in the polls.Some donors are just throwing up their hands. Marc Rowan, the C.E.O. of Apollo Global Management, said that the 2024 race would come down to President Biden and Trump. “Personally, I’m disappointed,” he told Bloomberg on Tuesday.In other 2024 news: Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming representative who vehemently opposes Trump, is weighing a third-party presidential run. And Biden said “I’m not sure I’d be running” for re-election were Trump not in the race for the White House.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING The Supreme Court appears wary of broadly disrupting the U.S. tax code. In oral arguments for Moore v. United States, a majority of justices seemed to favor narrowly upholding a Trump-era one-time tax on foreign income. Legal experts warned that a broad ruling could lead to a redefinition of income, potentially requiring major portions of American tax law to be rewritten.CVS will change how its pharmacies are paid for drugs. The nation’s biggest pharmacy chain said it would move to a system based on how much it pays for medicines, rather than the current model that involves complex formulas. CVS said the new arrangement would give more insight into drug pricing, but skeptics argued that it may not lead to lower costs for consumers.The N.C.A.A.’s president proposes uncapped compensation for college athletes. Charlie Baker suggested that top schools set aside educational trust funds of a minimum of $30,000 annually for at least half of their athletes, and raise compensation for women. The plan — which would take a long time to put in effect — is aimed at helping protect the N.C.A.A. from antitrust inquiries.Patrick McHenry, the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, will retire. The North Carolina Republican, the first interim speaker and a champion of the crypto industry, said he wouldn’t seek re-election. Because of term limits, he wouldn’t be able to hold onto his chairmanship anyway, though his district will most likely remain in Republican hands.Bank bosses head to the Hill The heads of America’s biggest banks, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, are expected to go on the offensive on Wednesday at a Senate Banking Committee hearing, arguing that new regulation would help create further instability in the sector and harm borrowers.Capital rules will be in focus. Industry lobbying groups have pushed back in recent months against the so-called Basel III Endgame that would require banks to keep billions on their books as a backstop for potential losses. (Basel refers to the international banking standards committee.) The Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are among the regulators seeking higher capital requirements after the regional banking crisis set off by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.The hearing may be the bankers’ last best chance to push their case that the Basel proposal should be watered down or scrapped. In prepared remarks, Dimon said the proposal “would unjustifiably and unnecessarily increase capital requirements by 20-25 percent for the largest banks.” That would force lenders to pull back, creating “a harmful ripple effect on the economy, markets, businesses of all sizes and American households,” he said.The proposal would have an inflationary side effect, driving up the cost of credit for its clients, Solomon warned in his prepared remarks, which in turn “will likely get passed on to consumers.”The pushback comes as America’s lenders contend with a slew of challenges. High interest rates and a slowing economy have put the crimp on their core lending business. Banking watchdogs, meanwhile, remain concerned about lenders’ exposure to the pandemic-hit commercial real estate sector.Don’t expect progressive senators to be swayed. In a statement, the committee wrote that “while Wall Street banks argue that stronger rules to protect the public will be too expensive, they are actually making trillions of dollars in profits every year and paying C.E.O.s several hundred times more than their median workers.”Europe races to regulate A.I. The first big regulatory regime for artificial intelligence could be signed as early as Wednesday, with European Union lawmakers in the final stages of debating the A.I. Act. The rules wouldn’t take effect for 18 months, but they represent an effort by governments to catch up with the development of a transformative technology that has exploded into the public consciousness since the introduction of ChatGPT a year ago.Europe has long been one of the most aggressive tech regulators. From data privacy to tech sector M&A, the E.U. has often been ahead of others. But the fast pace of A.I. development is testing regulators’ ability to keep up. The A.I. Act was introduced in 2021, but the tech has advanced significantly during that time. Other governments are deliberating their own rules. President Biden issued an executive order in October focused on A.I. and national security; Japan is drafting nonbinding guidelines for the technology and China has imposed restrictions on certain types of A.I. Last month, Britain hosted an A.I. safety summit for tech leaders and policymakers that included the U.S. and China.E.U. lawmakers are trying to impose guardrails without killing innovation. Some say the rules need to address the underlying technology, and are pushing to stop the use of A.I. in biometric surveillance.But some member states want opt-out options. Last month, France, Germany and Italy came out against strict regulation of general-purpose A.I. models for fear of hurting domestic start-ups. Some member states also want exceptions for national security, defense and military purposes.The latest draft of the A.I. Act focuses on “high risk” uses, including law enforcement, school admissions and hiring. Some applications, like chatbots and software that creates manipulated images, will have to make clear to people that they are A.I.-generated. Congress takes on campus battles The presidents of Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania faced a congressional grilling on Tuesday over a growing wave of hate speech and antisemitism on their campuses that has angered some business leaders and prominent donors since the war in Gaza began in October.College leaders admitted to difficulties in confronting hate and preserving free speech. “I know that I have not always gotten it right,” Claudine Gay, Harvard’s president, told the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. She has come under intense pressure from influential professors, graduates and donors, including the former Treasury secretary Larry Summers and Pershing Square Capital Management’s Bill Ackman, to do more to protect students.After the hearing, Ackman called on all three to “resign in disgrace.” Summers said that Gay’s ideals were “just the right ones,” but that “there’s a lot of work to do.”Preserving students’ safety and civil rights has become a national focus. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights recently opened an investigation into complaints of antisemitism at Harvard. That came after a series of federal civil rights investigations into complaints of discrimination against students at some of America’s most prestigious universities, including Harvard, Penn and Columbia. Some schools have formed new task forces to address the growing concerns.The financial stakes are high. Schools that run afoul of civil rights laws could risk losing federal funding. Meanwhile, major university donors are using their clout to call attention to the rise of antisemitism on campus, pushing schools to do more to address the matter. These wealthy alumni are urging others to fight back, too.“We have our own war here in the U.S.,” Marc Rowan, the C.E.O. of Apollo Global Management, said at a recent fund-raiser. Rowan, who has criticized his alma mater, Penn, for its handling of antisemitism, renewed his call to hold the institutions accountable, “financially or otherwise.”THE SPEED READ DealsShares in British American Tobacco tumbled after the company announced a $31.5 billion write-down of its U.S. cigarette brands, six years after buying Reynolds American for $49 billion. (NYT)Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence start-up, xAI, filed to raise up to $1 billion in new capital. (The Verge)How Jeff Ubben’s second act, as an environmentally minded activist investor, fell apart. (FT)PolicyChina’s leader, Xi Jinping, is conducting a purge of the top ranks of the country’s political system, a move that could have implications for the global economy and regional stability. (Politico)A group of nuns that owns a stake in Smith & Wesson sued the gun maker, arguing that its sales and marketing strategy for the AR-15 rifle is putting shareholders’ investments at risk. (WSJ)Best of the restHollywood actors ratified their union’s labor deal with movie and television studios, but some had reservations about its guardrails on the use of artificial intelligence. (NYT)Israeli securities regulators said they found no trading abnormalities ahead of the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks, after researchers said they had found a spike in short-selling. (Bloomberg)Is it time to give up vinyl records in the name of climate change? (Guardian)We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com. More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Haley and DeSantis Face Off: What to Watch for in the GOP Debate

      by

      Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie will also be onstage, but much of the attention will be on the two Republicans best positioned to become the top challenger to Donald Trump.The debate stage in Tuscaloosa, Ala., will be down to four Republican presidential hopefuls on Wednesday — with the front-runner, Donald J. Trump, still absent — as the imperative to break from the dwindling pack grows more intense less than six weeks before the Iowa caucuses.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, are in a slugfest to claim the mantle of Mr. Trump’s main alternative, and all that would come with that: campaign donations, late endorsements and the possible votes of independents and even Democrats alarmed by Mr. Trump’s authoritarian language and plans to enact a more radical agenda.But the two other candidates onstage, the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, will do all they can to grab the spotlight in the hope of revitalizing their flagging campaigns.Here’s what to watch:Who will stand out on a less crowded stage?After the withdrawal from the presidential race of Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, there will be only four candidates on the debate stage on Wednesday night. Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesThe “will he or won’t he” speculation about whether Mr. Trump would participate in the previous debates in Wisconsin, California and Florida is gone ahead of the gathering in Alabama. The former president’s decision to sit out the events has not hurt his standing in the polls, and the question for many now is whether he would show up to a debate in the general election next fall.But as the field narrows by attrition, the final four will have more time to make an impression on Republican primary voters who have yet to decide.Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota on Monday became the latest candidate to drop from the race, although he had failed to make the stage for the last debate. The withdrawal of Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina will be felt more acutely, since he probably would have qualified for Wednesday’s event. His debate performances were largely unremarkable but he made a small splash in Miami last month when he showed up with his girlfriend.The most memorable lines of the last two debates involved Ms. Haley skewering Mr. Ramaswamy. In September, she told her younger rival, “Every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber,” and last month she called him “just scum.”Those lines raise an important question for Mr. DeSantis as he tries to fend off Ms. Haley’s rise in the polls: Can he take her on more directly and win?Mr. Ramaswamy appears likely to continue his strategy of denigrating and baiting all of his opponents except for Mr. Trump, though the efficacy of his insult-driven blitzkrieg seems to have diminished since he shocked the field in Milwaukee in August. In Iowa City on Saturday, he said he had been “brutally frank in the last debate,” adding, “I don’t intend to stop doing that now.”Mr. Christie faces a loftier question: Is his stated goal of thwarting another Trump presidency better served by dropping out and letting a rival consolidate the anti-Trump vote?Can Haley keep her winning streak alive?The former South Carolina governor has parlayed her debate performances into a real sense of momentum. Yes, she remains far behind Mr. Trump, the man who made her his first United Nations ambassador, in national polling, but her trajectory is on a slow, steady climb, unlike those of her onstage rivals.Wednesday’s debate is the first since the political network founded by the billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch endorsed Ms. Haley, promising to mobilize an army of grass-roots door knockers behind her. It is also the first since Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, began encouraging other major donors and Democrats to back her as the last hope of thwarting Mr. Trump’s nomination.She needs to reassure those new backers that they made a solid bet. To do that, she will have to find the zingers she used to dismantle Mr. Ramaswamy, and turn them on the candidate now in her sights, Mr. DeSantis.She still needs to figure out, however, whether she is the candidate for those inside her party and out who fear and loathe Mr. Trump, or whether she wants to appeal to Trump supporters as a fresh face to pick up his mantle. If she is the former, she may only get so far in a G.O.P. that still broadly approves of the former president. Appealing to Trump likers and loathers has been the trick that no Republican has solved.Can DeSantis wrest the mic from Ramaswamy?Mr. DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, though well-funded, have slipped in the polls.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesAfter taking glancing shots at Mr. Trump for months, Mr. DeSantis laid into him at length on Tuesday.He castigated Mr. Trump for bragging about the endorsement of a Black Lives Matter activist, for criticizing Mr. DeSantis’s strongly anti-abortion record, and for somehow blaming the Florida governor for the College Football Playoff selection committee’s snub of Florida State University, which was not selected to vie for the championship despite an undefeated season. (The University of Alabama, in Tuscaloosa, was the beneficiary of that snub, so watch for college football talk on Wednesday night.)But Mr. DeSantis’s main criticism was of Mr. Trump’s refusal to debate: “I don’t think he can stand there for two hours against me and come out on top,” he said. “I think they know that, and I think that’s why they’re not doing it.”Clashing with Mr. Trump is vital; after all, you can’t win the nomination without beating the front-runner. But Mr. DeSantis has to blunt Ms. Haley’s rise as well.In Tuscaloosa, Mr. DeSantis needs to take the microphone away from Mr. Ramaswamy, who has faded to fourth place in national polling averages. Ms. Haley, by contrast, is now solidly in second place in New Hampshire, neck and neck with Mr. DeSantis in Iowa and threatening him nationally.Mr. DeSantis’s pressing task is to reassert his status as the Trump alternative, and for him to do that, the debate cannot devolve again into a cage match between Ms. Haley and Mr. Ramaswamy.What is Chris Christie’s endgame?Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, barely qualified for Wednesday’s debate.John Tully for The New York TimesFor reasons of ego, unrelenting self-confidence or designs on his future, Mr. Ramaswamy, a political neophyte with nary an elected office to his name, is probably not leaving the primary race anytime soon. The money he is spending from his own bank accounts — $17 million as of Sept. 30 — can keep his campaign afloat as long as he wishes.Mr. Christie is, in many respects, Mr. Ramaswamy’s opposite, a career public servant without a vast fortune to tap, whose campaign’s raison d’être is to diminish Mr. Trump’s stature, not to lionize him as the 21st century’s greatest president. But the former New Jersey governor finds himself at a crossroads in Tuscaloosa.He barely made the debate stage, just qualifying under the Republican National Committee’s tightening requirements — polling at 6 percent or higher in national or early-state polling, and garnering 80,000 unique donors.And his third-place status in New Hampshire, with around 12 percent of the vote, could be seen either as a strength or as a spoiler for the aspirations of the candidate in second place, Ms. Haley, who needs a strong showing in the Granite State to slingshot her into the primary contest in her home state, South Carolina.Mr. Christie continues to denounce Mr. Trump’s fitness for office in ways his Republican rivals won’t, challenging the former president as a would-be dictator threatening to end democracy as we know it. But that line of attack has proved ineffective among Republican primary voters.Megyn Kelly is back. How will she handle the absent Trump?Megyn Kelly, right, preparing for a Republican presidential debate in Detroit during the 2016 campaign. Donald J. Trump attacked her during that cycle’s debates. Richard Perry/The New York TimesThe 2016 presidential campaign might seem like ancient history, but for many Americans, Mr. Trump’s treatment of Megyn Kelly, then a Fox News anchor, during the debates secured his reputation as a misogynist.After Ms. Kelly questioned him forcefully in one debate, he came back with, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” Ms. Kelly was defiant in the face of angry Trump supporters, declaring that she would “not apologize for doing good journalism.”Wednesday’s debate, which will be carried by a cable news newcomer, NewsNation, will have a considerably smaller audience than those Fox showdowns in 2015 and no Mr. Trump — but Ms. Kelly, who now hosts “The Megyn Kelly Show” on Sirius XM, will be back.No doubt, she will be tough on the four participants. The question is, how hard will she press them to take on Mr. Trump?Ms. Kelly will be sharing the moderators’ desk with Elizabeth Vargas of NewsNation and Eliana Johnson of the Washington Free Beacon, an all-female panel tilted to the right. The debate will be televised on the CW starting at 8 p.m. Eastern time, and streamed on the NewsNation website and the conservative social media site Rumble.Anjali Huynh More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Deflects Questions on Retribution and Law-Breaking at Town Hall

      by

      Pressed by Sean Hannity to promise not to abuse power, Donald Trump agreed he wouldn’t, “other than Day 1,” adding: “We’re closing the border. And we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.”Twice during a town hall on “Fox News” on Tuesday night, Sean Hannity asked former President Donald J. Trump to say categorically that he would not abuse presidential power and retaliate against his political opponents if elected next year.Both times, Mr. Trump declined to give an outright denial.First, Mr. Hannity, the moderator, asked Mr. Trump to respond to concerns raised by recent reporting that has detailed his violent rhetoric on the campaign trail and his vow to use the Justice Department against his political foes.“Do you in any way have any plans whatsoever, if re-elected president, to abuse power?” Mr. Hannity asked. “To break the law? To use the government to go after people?”Mr. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, deflected. “You mean like they’re using right now?” he responded, an allusion to his claims that President Biden has weaponized the Justice Department against him. He then turned to his frequent campaign-trail lament that he has been indicted more times than the gangster Al Capone.But Mr. Hannity, a longtime Trump ally, was apparently unsatisfied, and five minutes later, he brought up the issue again. “You are promising America tonight, you would never abuse this power as retribution against anybody?” he said.“Except for Day 1,” Mr. Trump said breezily. There was the smallest silence. “Except for—” Mr. Hannity responded, sounding a bit flustered.“Look,” Mr. Trump joked to the crowd watching him in Davenport, Iowa. “He’s going crazy.”And even as Mr. Hannity tried to clarify that Mr. Trump had no intention of abusing his office, Mr. Trump did not state a clear aversion to the idea of authoritarian power.“This guy, he says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’” Mr. Trump said, referring to Mr. Hannity. “I said, ‘No, no, no — other than Day 1.’ We’re closing the border. And we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.”Both exchanges underscored a growing challenge for some on the Trump team who are privately aware that his comments are of growing concern to voters ahead of next year’s general election.The Biden campaign has sought to seize on recent reporting about plans being made by Mr. Trump and his allies that would reshape the American presidency, vastly expanding presidential power and upending central elements of American government and the rule of law.Mr. Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chávez Rodríguez, said in a statement that Mr. Trump “has been telling us exactly what he will do if he’s re-elected, and tonight he said he will be a dictator on Day 1. Americans should believe him.”Mr. Trump’s comments were a stark break from an interview in which he was largely on friendly territory. He and Mr. Hannity have a long relationship, and both of them warmly recalled past conversations they had had over Mr. Trump’s political career.Mr. Hannity also did not ask Mr. Trump about his rivals in the Republican primary, who will face off in a debate on Wednesday that Mr. Trump is skipping to attend a fund-raiser in Florida.Still, Mr. Trump made brief mention of Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, criticizing her for taking donations from Democrats, and criticized Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida for votes in Congress he took that appeared to support changing Social Security benefits.Jonathan Swan More