More stories

  • in

    Nikki Haley’s Moment

    Rob Szypko, Mary Wilson and Marion Lozano, Rowan Niemisto and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicOver the last few months, Nikki Haley has gained enough in the polls to suggest she is on the verge of surpassing Ron DeSantis as the main threat to Donald J. Trump in the race to become the Republican candidate for 2024.Jazmine Ulloa, a national politics reporter for The Times; and Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, discuss her building momentum and examine how far she might go.On today’s episodeJazmine Ulloa, a national politics reporter for The New York Times.Nate Cohn, The New York Times’s chief political analyst.Nikki Haley has gained with educated and relatively moderate Republicans and independents, but that could also be a big liability in today’s G.O.P.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesBackground readingNikki Haley’s path from Trump critic to defender and back.Why is Ms. Haley’s star rising among the rivals to Mr. Trump?Here are five takeaways from the Republican debate last night.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Jazmine Ulloa More

  • in

    G.O.P. Debate Takeaways, and a Tech Start-Up Collapse

    The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.The Headlines brings you the biggest stories of the day from the Times journalists who are covering them, all in about five minutes.In the fourth Republican presidential debate on Wednesday, the narrow policy differences among the candidates were overshadowed by feisty personal clashes and insults.Bob Miller for The New York TimesOn Today’s Episode:Insults Fly and Candidates Clash With Time Running Out Before Iowa, by Jonathan WeismanMcCarthy Says He Will Leave Congress at the End of the Year, by Annie KarniFrom Unicorns to Zombies: Tech Start-Ups Run Out of Time and Money, by Erin GriffithHot Glazed Doughnuts on the Menu, and Parisians Can’t Get Enough, by Liz AldermanJessica Metzger and More

  • in

    McCarthy’s Exit May Create Even More Headaches for the Tiny G.O.P. Majority

    The former speaker’s decision to leave his seat a year early could affect control of the House, the legislative agenda and his party’s efforts to keep its majority in the 2024 election.Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s announcement that he would leave Congress came as little surprise to his closest colleagues, but his decision to do so a year before the end of his term poses challenges for his party. It will shrink Republicans’ already razor-thin majority in the House as they face a number of issues in the coming months that will require near-unanimous party support.The departure of Mr. McCarthy, who was his party’s strongest fund-raiser in the House and spent two election cycles helping to build the Republican majority, also could put a dent in the G.O.P.’s ability to rake in campaign cash, although he has said he wants to continue to play a role in politics.Here’s how Mr. McCarthy’s departure could affect the House and his party.A slim majority will get even slimmer.Republicans started the year acknowledging that one of their biggest challenges would be keeping their party unified as their midterm victories delivered a tiny majority. They had 222 members while Democrats had 213, leaving little room for defectors and making it easier for a small number of disgruntled Republicans to influence policy and vote outcomes.They could afford to lose no more than four votes on any bill if all Democrats showed up and voted against them. Any more than that would doom G.O.P. legislation.With the expulsion last week of former Representative George Santos of New York, Republicans now have only 221 members, meaning their four-vote margin has shrunk to three. Any more defections than that would result in a 217-to-217 tie or give the Democratic side more votes than the Republican one.With Mr. McCarthy gone, Republicans will enter the new year with 220 votes, leaving the same margin since they could still lose three votes and be ahead of Democrats, 217 to 216.A special election for Mr. Santos’s seat is set for Feb. 13, and Democrats hope to recapture the politically competitive district, which President Biden won in 2020. That would further erode the Republicans’ edge.A winter shutdown showdown could become even more unmanageable.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California will have 14 days after Mr. McCarthy’s final day to call a special election, which must take place about four months later. The Bakersfield-anchored district is solidly Republican, meaning that a G.O.P. candidate is likely to win the race to serve out the remainder of his term. But that won’t happen before mid-January, when lawmakers face the first of two deadlines for funding the government.Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, has struggled to push critical legislation through the House, and a slimmer majority would probably empower the rebellious hard-right wing of his party to double down on its policy demands ahead of the deadlines, the second of which is in early February.The smaller majority could also affect the fight over an emergency national security spending bill to fund the war in Ukraine, along with help for Israel in its war against Hamas and border security funding.On Wednesday, Republicans blocked the measure in the Senate. The bill would face an uphill battle in the House, where Republican support for Ukraine’s war effort is dwindling.Republicans will lose their best House fund-raiser.For years, Mr. McCarthy has traveled to hundreds of districts across the country, bringing in millions of dollars in campaign cash for candidates and helping Republicans win control of the House in 2022. He has said he planned to remain engaged in Republican politics.“I will continue to recruit our country’s best and brightest to run for elected office,” Mr. McCarthy said in announcing his plans to leave the House in The Wall Street Journal. “The Republican Party is expanding every day, and I am committed to lending my experience to support the next generation of leaders.”During his time as speaker, Mr. McCarthy brought in $78 million for his colleagues’ re-election efforts, more than 100 times the amount of money Mr. Johnson had collected before becoming speaker.His support of new candidates will be aided by a campaign account with more than $10 million at his disposal. Even after leaving office, Mr. McCarthy can use the campaign funds to establish a political action committee or directly support other campaigns. He has signaled that he would like to play a substantial role, and many lawmakers and aides believe he may intervene in party primaries to target the far-right Republicans who led the push to oust him from the speakership.Republicans are holding their breath for more exits.More than three dozen incumbents from both parties in both chambers have said they will not seek re-election. If even a handful more House Republicans leave in the coming months, it could wipe away their majority before a single vote is cast in the 2024 election. Another Republican, Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio, has announced that he will leave Congress in several months to become the president of Youngstown State University, though he has not said precisely when.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, and one of Mr. McCarthy’s strongest allies, expressed her frustration over the eroding majority in a post on social media, saying, “Hopefully no one dies.” More

  • in

    Your Iowa Caucus Questions, Answered

    The state with the first balloting for 2024 is overflowing with candidates and reporters ahead of the Republican caucuses on Jan. 15. Here’s what to know.It’s the December before a presidential election, which means that Iowa is overflowing with candidates and reporters for its quadrennial caucuses.This year looks different, though — because Democrats have moved their first votes to other states, and because a single candidate so dominates the Republican field.Here’s what to know.What are the Iowa caucuses and how do they work?Though “primaries and caucuses” are often lumped together, they are not the same. Primaries operate the way most elections do: Voters cast ballots privately through early-voting or mail-in options, or at a polling site on Election Day. Caucuses, by contrast, require voters to attend at a specific hour and discuss their preferences publicly.At each local caucus in Iowa — in school gymnasiums, community centers and even churches — Republicans will make speeches in favor of their preferred candidates. Then caucusgoers will take a vote, and candidates’ delegates to the county convention will be nominated based on that vote. No remote participation, such as by mail or phone, will be allowed.You may have heard terms like “viability” and “realignment” in relation to the Iowa caucuses. Those refer to the Democrats’ traditional process, in which caucusgoers sorted themselves physically according to which candidate they supported. Candidates whose support was below a viability threshold were eliminated, and their supporters were able to realign with a viable candidate. Republicans do not have those procedures, and Democrats have dropped them.Caucuses have many critics because they are less accessible than primaries. There is no flexibility — people have to arrive on time and stay until the end — which means those who have to work or are otherwise unavailable at that hour are out of luck. People with disabilities often struggle to participate. So do people who feel unsafe, or simply uncomfortable, disclosing their political preferences.Most states that once held caucuses have switched to primaries, but Iowa is an exception.When are the caucuses?The Republican caucuses will be held on Jan. 15 at 7 p.m. local time.The Democratic caucuses will be held by mail. The first ballots — technically “preference cards” — will be mailed out on Jan. 12, and voters can request one until Feb. 19. Though Iowa Democrats can attend in-person gatherings on Jan. 15 to conduct other party business, they will not choose a presidential candidate then.Why are the Republican and Democratic caucuses different?The Iowa Republican Party and the Iowa Democratic Party control their own caucus procedures, and they have long chosen different ones. But the procedures are especially different this cycle because the Democratic National Committee changed its primary calendar at President Biden’s urging, while the Republican National Committee stuck to its old one.The Democrats’ rationale was to prioritize states more racially diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire, which are overwhelmingly white. Their first two states are now South Carolina, on Feb. 3, and Nevada, on Feb. 6, and Iowa is out of the early lineup. (By the D.N.C.’s schedule, New Hampshire would have voted on the same day as Nevada. But it refused to cede its first-in-the-nation primary status, which is enshrined in state law, and scheduled an unsanctioned primary for Jan. 23.)Why does Iowa go first (for Republicans)?Today, the answer is, “Because it always has.” A common argument is that, since Iowans have spent decades shouldering the responsibility of being first, they are uniquely well informed and engaged. They know how much power they hold to winnow presidential fields, this argument goes, and they take that responsibility more seriously than voters elsewhere would.Initially, though, Iowa got its spot by historical accident.After the chaos of the 1968 Democratic convention, Democrats changed their nominating process to give voters more say than party insiders. Until 1968, the party held popular votes in just a handful of states, while the rest chose a candidate at conventions; after 1968, the balance shifted strongly to popular votes in the form of primaries or caucuses.Iowa Democrats happened to schedule the earliest vote in 1972. Iowa Republicans, realizing the timing could work to the state’s benefit, followed suit in 1976 — and, on the Democratic side, Jimmy Carter took advantage of the Iowa caucuses that year to propel himself from relative obscurity to the front of the presidential pack.The power of going first thus clearly demonstrated, the Iowa Legislature passed a law requiring the state to continue scheduling its caucuses before any others.Jimmy Carter campaigning in Des Moines in 1976, the year Iowa catapulted his candidacy.Associated PressHow do the delegates work?Each precinct will be assigned a number of delegates to elect to a county convention based on the results of the caucus vote in that precinct.Over the ensuing months, the county and state conventions will confirm Iowa’s 40 delegates to the Republican National Convention, where the party’s presidential nominee will be officially chosen based on who wins a majority of the more than 2,000 delegates available nationwide.When do we typically have results?The leaders of each local Republican caucus will report results to the state party, which will tabulate and release the statewide results. This usually happens pretty quickly, within a few hours.Since Democrats are voting by mail this year, and Iowa is no longer first for them, their results won’t come until March 5.Why were there so many delays and problems in 2020?The Iowa Democrats’ reporting process collapsed in 2020, preventing them from releasing any significant results on the night of the caucuses and the full results for days.The caucusing itself went fairly smoothly, but a new app through which precincts were supposed to report their results failed and backup phone lines were jammed, so the state party couldn’t obtain the numbers. When the results were finally tabulated, they were full of errors and inconsistencies — products of manual calculations by precinct officials — and the party conducted a partial recanvass followed by a partial recount.A complicating factor was that the Iowa Democratic Party had promised to release multiple sets of results — not only the number of state-convention delegates each candidate had earned, which would determine the caucuses’ winner, but also how many supporters each candidate had in the first and second rounds of voting.That promise stemmed from 2016, when Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the caucuses by the tiniest of margins, and Mr. Sanders fought for an audit and accused the state party of a lack of transparency because it had not released the first- and second-round totals.Producing multiple tallies provided a more comprehensive picture and allowed for errors to be identified, but it worsened the delays when the systems failed.What is Iowa’s importance to the rest of the race?Iowa is all about momentum — the nebulous idea of who is rising and who is dead in the water, which can affect voters’ choices in other states.In terms of actual numbers, Iowa doesn’t matter much. It accounts for a tiny fraction of the delegates awarded nationwide. But its ability to set perceptions is so strong that candidates often drop out after doing poorly there, unless they have reason to believe they will do significantly better in New Hampshire. More

  • in

    Christie to Ramaswamy at Debate: ‘So Shut Up for a Little While’

    Chris Christie had had enough.After standing mostly silent for the first 25 minutes of the Republican presidential debate, Mr. Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, stepped into the spotlight — and in front of an attack on Nikki Haley by Vivek Ramaswamy — with the blunt force that has become his political trademark.“Let me tell you something,” Mr. Christie barked at Mr. Ramaswamy, waving his hand after Mr. Ramaswamy suggested Ms. Haley was lacking basic knowledge about the war in Ukraine. “This is the fourth debate that you would be voted in the first 20 minutes as the most obnoxious blowhard in America. So shut up for a little while.”Mr. Ramaswamy managed a quick laugh, and quickly tried to interrupt. But Mr. Christie maintained control of the microphone, yelling at his rival across the stage in Alabama that he wasn’t finished speaking. Mr. Ramaswamy, who has been aggressive with his debate disruptions, stood down.But not for long. Mr. Ramaswamy bided his time, and then it got ugly.“Chris, your version of foreign policy experience was closing a bridge from New Jersey to New York,” Mr. Ramaswamy soon shot back, scowling at Mr. Christie across the stage and wagging his right index finger at him.It was a dig at Mr. Christie’s most devastating political moment, when his administration in New Jersey effectively shut down a busy bridge to New York as political retribution against a small-town mayor who hadn’t endorsed his re-election bid. And Mr. Ramaswamy had another sharp dig in store aimed at Mr. Christie’s weight.“So do everybody a favor,” Mr. Ramaswamy told Mr. Christie. “Just walk yourself off that stage, enjoy a nice meal and get the hell out of this race.” More

  • in

    Christie Lashes Out at Trump as a ‘Dictator’ and a ‘Bully’

    For more than 15 minutes, three of the four Republican candidates on the debate stage fended off sharp questions from Megyn Kelly and made a case for their electability. But as they attacked one another’s records, former President Donald J. Trump, the dominant front-runner in the race, was notably absent from the conversation.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mr. Trump’s fiercest critic among his Republican opponents, took notice.“I look at my watch now. We’re 17 minutes into this debate,” Mr. Christie said to Ms. Kelly. “And except for your little speech in the beginning, we’ve had these three acting as if the race is between the four of us.”Mr. Christie, referring to Mr. Trump as “the fifth guy” and “Voldemort, he who shall not be named,” mocked the former president as a coward who “doesn’t have the guts to show up and stand here” — and denounced the other candidates for fighting among themselves while ignoring their strongest opponent, who skipped Wednesday’s debate to attend a private fund-raiser.Referring to Mr. Trump as a “dictator,” a “bully” and an “angry, bitter man,” Mr. Christie criticized his opponents on the debate stage — Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis — as too timid to criticize the former president. Maybe, he suggested, they were unwilling to do so because “they have future aspirations,” an allusion to succeeding Mr. Trump or becoming a member of his administration.“This is the problem with my three colleagues. They’re afraid to offend,” Mr. Christie said. Referring to the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, he added, “And if you’re afraid to offend Donald Trump, then what are you going to do when you sit across from President Xi?”Mr. Christie also pointed to Mr. Trump’s statements about his plans to go after his political enemies if elected to a second term, in an attempt to make the case to Trump supporters that the former president is unfit to return to the White House.“There’s no bigger issue in this race than Donald Trump,” Mr. Christie said, later adding, “This is an angry, bitter man who now wants to be back as president because he wants to exact retribution on anyone who has disagreed with him.”His comments reflected a debate strategy of sharply criticizing Mr. Trump — even if the former president is physically absent, and even if the attacks get Mr. Christie booed by Trump supporters in the audience.Mr. Christie has sought a face-to-face confrontation with Mr. Trump, and he has often expressed his frustration about having to compete against a front-runner who doesn’t want to face his opponents in a debate. More

  • in

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

    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