United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Ramaswamy Compares Republican Rivals to Dick Cheney ‘in Heels’

      by

      Forget tax-cut pledges and RINO accusations. Heels, of all things, are the new political cudgel in Republican politics.For weeks, the question of whether Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida wears heel lifts in his cowboy boots has been the subject of attacks from former President Donald J. Trump and others.The bizarre meme found its way into the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday, when Vivek Ramaswamy used it to go after both Mr. DeSantis and former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, the only woman on the stage in Miami.Mr. Ramaswamy compared his two Republican rivals to “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels.”The moment came during an exchange over the U.S. role in the war between Israel and Hamas. Mr. Ramaswamy, the youngest of five Republican presidential candidates at the debate, attempted to separate himself from Mr. DeSantis and Ms. Haley, both of whom said they would urge Israel to completely eliminate Hamas.Mr. Ramaswamy said Israel had the right to defend itself, but he wanted to “be careful to avoid making the mistakes from the establishment of the past.”He asked: “Do you want a leader from a different generation who’s going to put this country first, or do you want Dick Cheney in three-inch heels? In which case, we’ve got two of them onstage tonight.”Ms. Haley addressed the barb a few minutes later, saying that Mr. Ramaswamy was wrong about her footwear.“They’re five-inch heels,” she said. “And I don’t wear them unless you can run in them. The second thing I will say is, I wear heels. They’re not for a fashion statement. They’re for ammunition.”The debate was still going, but Mr. DeSantis had so far not discussed the particulars of his boots. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Elizabeth Moynihan, Engine of the Senator’s Success, Dies at 94

      by

      She not only had an outsize role in New York and Washington politics as the wife of Daniel Patrick Moynihan; she also made a significant archaeological discovery in India.Elizabeth Moynihan, who was a vital political partner to her husband, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, during his four terms as a U.S. Senator from New York; played a consequential role in Washington herself; and, as an architectural historian, made a signal discovery in India, died on Tuesday at her home in Manhattan. She was 94.Her death was confirmed by her daughter, Maura Moynihan. Reticent in public but spirited, irreverent and combustible in private, Mrs. Moynihan was a formidable political strategist. “I don’t choose to be a public person,” she told The New York Times in 1976. “You know, the more public Pat has become, the more adamantly private I have felt.”But she was Senator Moynihan’s full partner on the legislation and policy they debated with his staff members and other advisers at the couple’s kitchen table in Washington, and she was his surrogate in overseeing his Senate staff and maintaining its loyalty.Mrs. Moynihan managed all four of her husband’s successful, no-frills campaigns, beginning in 1976, when she was photographed here.Chester Higgins, Jr./The New York TimesWhile her role was never publicly acknowledged, Mrs. Moynihan deserved credit for helping to enact what in 1993 was considered the most important legislative issue of Bill Clinton’s presidency: the budget and tax increases that undergirded the White House’s five-year economic program.It was her browbeating of Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, that provided what turned out to be the one-vote margin needed to pass the legislation, after her husband and the president, fellow Democrats, had failed to convince him. The bill was viewed at the White House as essential to Mr. Clinton’s ultimate success as president.On the morning of Aug. 6, Senator Kerrey met for an hour with Mr. Clinton but was apparently unpersuaded until Mrs. Moynihan telephoned hours later, around 6 p.m.As Mr. Moynihan later recalled the conversation in a memo, his wife emphatically told Mr. Kerrey, “I want to live to see you president,” but by voting against the bill, she said, “your future as a national Democrat is at risk.” To be sure, it was a bad bill, she said, agreeing with the senator, but her husband “feels we cannot have another president fail.”At 8:30 p.m., Mr. Kerrey, the last to announce which way he would vote, declared on the Senate floor that he would support Mr. Clinton. Vice President Al Gore went on to cast the tiebreaking vote.“She turned him around from a hard no to yes,” Tony Bullock, Mr. Moynihan’s last chief of staff, said of Senator Kerrey.Mr. Kerrey said in an email on Tuesday that while he did not remember the specific conversation, “I know for certain that she would have been disappointed with a ‘no’ vote, and I know for certain it would have been easier to disappoint the president than to disappoint Liz.”Mrs. Moynihan, here with Senator Moynihan, persuaded Senator Bob Kerrey to vote yes on a bill central to President Bill Clinton’s economic agenda. “She turned him around from a hard no to yes,” a former Moynihan aide said.Barry Thumma/Associated PressMrs. Moynihan managed all four of her husband’s successful, no-frills Senate campaigns, beginning in 1976. She called them “mom-and-pop” operations, but they were thoroughly professional.She also bolstered his commitment to improving the architecture of proposed federal public works, the rehabilitation of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington and historic preservation in New York and elsewhere.“Every night over dinner the Senator told her everything — and I mean everything — that took place in the office that day,” said Richard Eaton, a former chief of staff to the senator. “Many mornings Liz would call me and tell me something that could have been handled better, or about some personnel concern that I was not aware of so that it could be fixed.”Mrs. Moynihan was especially effective in dissuading potential Democratic challengers to her husband’s re-election (like H. Carl McCall, the New York State comptroller) and those from the Republican Party (including Rudolph W. Giuliani, when he was a U.S. attorney), in part by supporting a TV advertising blitz lauding Mr. Moynihan early in the campaign.In the late 1970s, when her husband was the ambassador to India, Mrs. Moynihan developed an interest in Babur, the emperor who founded the Mughal dynasty almost 500 years ago.Analyzing a 1921 translation of Babur’s journal, she became convinced that the elegant pleasure garden he built 150 miles south of New Delhi still existed, even though most scholars believed it had probably vanished. She unearthed the garden in 1978 in what The Times called “an important archaeological discovery.”Babur’s garden became an integral part of her book, “Paradise as a Garden: In Persia and Mughal India” (1979). She also edited the volume “The Moonlight Garden: New Discoveries at the Taj Mahal” (2000), which documented a study of the Mehtab Bagh, a forgotten garden near the Taj Mahal. She led an American team that collaborated with Indian scholars on the project, work that spurred the garden’s restoration and that provided a new and spectacular view of the Taj Mahal.Mrs. Moynihan continued to support the preservation of ancient sites as a founding trustee of the Leon Levy Foundation in New York.Elizabeth Therese Brennan was born on Sept. 19, 1929, in Norfolk County, Mass., on the outskirts of Boston. Her mother, Therese (Russell) Brennan, edited a local newspaper. Her father, Francis Brennan, was a chemical factory foreman who left the family during the Depression, when Liz was 5, a growing pain she shared with her future husband, whose father deserted his wife and children in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan when Pat Moynihan was 9.She attended Boston College but never finished because she ran out of money. After volunteering in the first Senate campaign of John F. Kennedy in 1952 and in Adlai Stevenson’s presidential race that year, she moved to New York, where she worked for Gov. W. Averell Harriman’s 1954 campaign and met Mr. Moynihan, who was writing speeches for the governor. They married in 1955.Elizabeth Brennan met Mr. Moynihan while they were both working on Gov. W. Averell Harriman’s 1954 campaign. They married in 1955.via Moynihan familyMr. Moynihan died in 2003. Their son Tim died in 2015, and another son, John, died in 2004. In addition to their daughter, Maura, Mrs. Moynihan is survived by two grandchildren.The family moved more than 16 times during Mr. Moynihan’s career, as he went from Harvard professor to presidential adviser to ambassador to India and the United Nations before reaching the Senate. But they found sanctuary in a 500-acre dairy farm near Oneonta, N.Y., which they bought in 1964. (It was the setting for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s announcement in 1999 that she would run for the Senate from New York.)If Mr. Moynihan played a singular role in public life, retiring from the Senate in 2001, Mrs. Moynihan’s province was also exceptional, in particular among Senate wives, for her hands-on involvement in politics. In “Irish Americans: The History and Culture of a People” (2015), Eugene J. Halus Jr. wrote that Mr. Moynihan was successful in government “in part because of his personality and efforts, but also because of his lifelong partner in politics.”Of his 1998 re-election victory, Mr. Moynihan wrote to a friend: “It is simply that when things got tough we were ready. Liz was ready.”Michael Geissinger, via Library of CongressPeter Galbraith, a former ambassador to Croatia and Senate staff member under Mr. Moynihan, described Mrs. Moynihan as “the architect” of the senator’s 1988 landslide re-election victory, in which he won by a record-breaking plurality of 2.2 million votes.Savoring his victory, Mr. Moynihan wrote to a friend: “It is simply that when things got tough we were ready. Liz was ready.”But he might never have joined the political fray in the first place had it not been for the encouragement and political instincts of Mrs. Moynihan, said Lawrence O’Donnell, another former Moynihan legislative aide and now an MSNBC host.“I don’t think Professor Moynihan could have become Senator Moynihan without Liz,” he said in an interview. “So Pat’s legacy is Liz’s legacy.” More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Joe Biden Re-election Dilemma

      by

      Joe Biden should be far and away the favorite to win re-election in 2024.The American economy continues to gather strength. He has a solid string of policy victories. And his main Republican opponent, Donald Trump, is lost in a jungle of legal troubles.The Democratic Party continues to score electoral victories as voters coalesce on the issue of abortion rights, as we saw in Ohio, Virginia and Kentucky on Tuesday night. But it is not clear at this point whether Biden’s fate is linked to down-ballot candidates or issues.In Ohio, where abortion access and marijuana legalization won, and in Pennsylvania, where a Democratic State Supreme Court justice won, Trump appears to hold an edge in several polls. Biden is polling ahead in Virginia, where Democrats flipped control of the House of Delegates and maintained control of the Senate, but it’s also a state where Democrats have won the last several presidential elections.And while abortion has been a winning issue for Democrats, it’s not clear yet if it will be on the ballot next November in any swing states — Arizona is one where it might be — or if Biden will effectively capitalize on the issue.Taken together, this is why Biden’s continued struggles in the polls are so worrisome. A New York Times/Siena College poll released Sunday found Biden trailing Trump in five of six swing states. We’re a year out from Election Day, but Biden’s relative weakness compared to Trump’s position is still shocking.The poll would be easier to dismiss if it were the only one showing Biden’s weakness against Trump, but it’s not. Recent polls from CBS News and ABC News/Ipsos also reveal troubling signs for Biden.David Axelrod, who was a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, posted on social media on Sunday that if Biden continues to run, he will surely be the Democratic nominee in 2024. But, Axelrod said: “What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it’s in HIS best interest or the country’s?” because “the stakes of miscalculation here are too dramatic to ignore.”Some understandably thought that Axelrod was suggesting that Biden drop out of the race, but Axelrod himself insisted that was not what he was saying.I don’t view Axelrod’s comments as controversial. They’re not a dig at Biden for his performance. It is ridiculous to ask people to ignore the erosion of Biden’s support among demographic groups that he must secure to win re-election.The risk of a Biden loss is real, and no amount of political ego or posturing can disguise that.According to the Times/Siena poll, Biden is losing ground among younger, nonwhite and less engaged voters.At The Times’s Nate Cohn put it, “Long-festering vulnerabilities on his age, economic stewardship, and appeal to young, Black and Hispanic voters have grown severe enough to imperil his re-election chances.”The economic piece is a conundrum. The economy is improving, but many people don’t see it or feel it, and they blame Biden. There is a clear disconnect in the data. And it is possible that people are also injecting a more general dissatisfaction with the direction of the country into their feelings about the economy. Either way, this may be fixable.The age issue, which I view as largely a manufactured one, is one that has calcified. Unlike feelings about the economy, which change as conditions shift, Biden is only getting older.What is his campaign going to do? Put him in more jeans and rolled-up dress shirts? Have him jog up to the mic at rallies? Make sure that he appears tanned and rested? Every scenario designed to signal youth and virility has the downside potential of looking ridiculous.I still remember the cringe-worthy moment in 2019 when an Iowa voter raised questions about Biden’s age, and Biden responded by challenging the man to a push-up contest. No more of that, I beg you.Biden is an elderly man, yes. And he will look and behave in ways that demonstrate that. But he seems to me to be handling his job well now and capable of continuing. The irony is that Trump is also elderly, but the immaturity in his defiance, anger and petulance can read as young.Lastly, the minority outreach question is also more complicated than it might appear. I sense a growing dissatisfaction with Biden, particularly among young minorities, and the war in Gaza is only making it worse. The passions are so high now that I think this tension will remain even after the war ends.Also, both parties and all demographics have segments that are less engaged and informed, but those groups are also open to drift, even if in the end they would be voting against their own interests.Recently, the rising rapper Sexyy Red said in an interview that “the hood” started to love Trump once he started “getting Black people out of jail and giving people that free money” in the form of stimulus checks.Never mind that Trump and Republicans opposed those stimulus checks and Democrats pushed them — that “free money” is still associated in the minds of many with Trump.This just underscores how Biden has trouble on both ends of the engagement spectrum among some young voters: Some of the highly engaged ones criticize him for the U.S.’s actions in the war in Gaza, and some of those less engaged mythologize his predecessor.It is possible that more and better outreach and engagement could change some of these realities, but make no mistake: We are in a very risky situation where the one person likely standing between Trump — and Trump’s destructive impulses — and the White House is a president who is limping into a re-election bid.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 and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Minnesota Justices Rebuff Attempt to Bar Trump From Ballot Under 14th Amendment

      by

      In rejecting a petition arguing that former President Donald J. Trump was ineligible, the Minnesota Supreme Court did not rule on the merits and said the claims could be filed again later.The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking to disqualify former President Donald J. Trump from holding office again under the 14th Amendment.Election officials and the courts did not have the authority to stop the Republican Party from offering Mr. Trump as a primary candidate, the justices found. They did not rule on the merits of the petitioners’ constitutional argument: that Mr. Trump’s actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol amounted to “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it.Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government, says anyone who has done that is ineligible to hold office.Minnesota’s presidential primary, scheduled for March, is “an internal party election to serve internal party purposes, and winning the presidential nomination primary does not place the person on the general election ballot as a candidate for president of the United States,” the court wrote in an order signed by Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson, with no noted dissents.There is no law in Minnesota prohibiting a political party from putting a constitutionally ineligible candidate’s name on the ballot, it continued, and so “there is no error to correct here as to the presidential nomination primary.”The court emphasized that the petitioners were free to file the same claims again later, challenging Mr. Trump’s inclusion on the general-election ballot if he wins the Republican nomination. For now, it did not address the constitutional questions surrounding whether the 14th Amendment applies to Mr. Trump.Though the ruling was procedural, Mr. Trump’s campaign promoted it as a substantive victory. Steven Cheung, a campaign spokesman, called it “further validation of the Trump campaign’s consistent argument that the 14th Amendment ballot challenges are nothing more than strategic, unconstitutional attempts to interfere with the election by desperate Democrats who see the writing on the wall.”Ron Fein, the legal director at Free Speech for People, the left-leaning group that filed the case on behalf of a group of Minnesota voters and is also suing in other states, said: “We are disappointed by the court’s decision. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the question of Donald Trump’s disqualification for engaging in insurrection against the U.S. Constitution may be resolved at a later stage.”The Minnesota petition is the second case challenging Mr. Trump’s eligibility that has been dismissed on procedural grounds, after one in New Hampshire. No court has yet ruled on the merits of the 14th Amendment argument.A state district court judge in Colorado is expected to rule in a similar case in the coming weeks after a recent five-day hearing. More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Love Can Win Trump the Nomination. It Will Take Hate to Win Back the White House.

      by

      A few weeks ago, I was talking to a local pastor here in Tennessee, and he started the conversation by asking a question I hear all the time: “Can anybody beat Trump?” He was desperate for someone else, anyone else, to claim the Republican nomination. He ticked through the names — DeSantis, Haley, Scott, Pence (he was still in the race then) — and they were all better. Why can’t they gain traction? “It’s not a binary choice anymore,” he said. “It’s not Trump or Biden.”“But,” he quickly added, “if it is Trump or Biden, then I’m voting Trump. It’s just who I am.”It’s just who I am. I thought of that conversation when I saw last weekend’s headlines. Donald Trump is now leading President Biden in five swing states, and if the race goes the way the poll suggests, Trump could win the presidency with more than 300 electoral votes. At the same time, we know from previous Times/Siena College polling that the hard-core MAGA base is 37 percent of the Republican Party. Another 37 percent can be persuaded to oppose Trump, while 25 percent are completely opposed to his nomination.How is it possible that a person whose true base is only 37 percent of his party, who faces four separate criminal indictments and who already lost once to Biden might sit in the electoral driver’s seat?I’ve written quite a bit on the enduring bond between Trump and his base. There’s the strange combination of rage and joy that marks the MAGA community. They’re somehow both furious about the direction of the country and having the time of their lives supporting Trump. There’s also the power of prophecy. Millions of Christians are influenced by claims that Trump is divinely ordained to save the United States. But the MAGA millions aren’t enough to put him back in the White House.To understand his general election prospects, we have to go beyond Trump’s MAGA core. He needs millions more votes — including from my pastor friend, a man who’s desperate to see Trump leave American politics.Trump’s viability in the Republican Party depends on the loyalty of his base, but his viability in the general election depends on a dark combination of negative partisanship and civic ignorance. “Negative partisanship” is the term political scientists use to describe partisan loyalty that exists not because a voter loves his party or its ideas but because he loathes the opposing party and the people in it. And why do voters loathe the opposition so darn much? That’s where civic ignorance plays its diabolical role. Partisan Americans are wrong about each other in a particularly dangerous way: Each side thinks the other is more extreme than it really is.This hostility is what permits Trump to convert his primary plurality into a potential electoral majority. This hostility both predated Trump and powered his election. In previous American political generations, nominating a person perceived to be an extremist or a crank was the kiss of electoral death. You wouldn’t merely expect to lose. You would expect to lose in a landslide.When Republicans nominated far-right Barry Goldwater in 1964, for example, he won six states and lost the popular vote by 23 points. Eight years later, when Democrats nominated far-left George McGovern, they won one state and also lost the popular vote by 23 points. There was enough partisan mobility in the electorate to decisively reject two different candidates, from opposing edges of the political spectrum.But now? It is unthinkable for many millions of partisans — or even for those independents who lean right or left and maybe secretly don’t want to admit to themselves that they’re truly partisan — to either vote third party or cross the aisle and vote for a candidate of the opposing party. They simply hate the other side too much. The result is that virtually any Republican or Democratic nominee begins the race with both a high floor and a low ceiling and no one has much margin for error. Every nominee is going to be fragile, and every national presidential race is going to be close. The margin in the last two races has been agonizingly slim. A few thousand votes cast differently in key swing states, and Hillary Clinton wins, or Joe Biden loses.To understand the power of negative partisanship, it’s important to understand the sheer scale of the mutual partisan hatred. Dating back to June 2014 — a full year before Trump came down that escalator — the Pew Research Center reported an extraordinary increase in polarization. Between 1994 and 2014, the percentage of Democrats and Republicans who expressed “very unfavorable” views of their opponents more than doubled, to 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Republicans. Overall, 82 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Democrats had either unfavorable or very unfavorable views of their political opponents.During the Trump era, this mutual contempt and loathing only grew. A June 2019 report by More in Common found that 86 percent of Republicans believed Democrats were brainwashed, 84 percent believed Democrats were hateful and 71 percent believed Democrats were racist. Democrats also expressed withering disgust for Republicans: 88 percent believed Republicans were brainwashed, 87 percent believed Republicans were hateful and 89 percent believed Republicans were racist.There is an interesting additional wrinkle to the More in Common report. Yes, it found that the two sides hated each other, but it also discovered that both sides were wrong about their political opponents. Both Democrats and Republicans believed their opponents were more politically extreme than they really were. The findings are startling: “Overall, Democrats and Republicans imagine almost twice as many of their political opponents … hold views they consider ‘extreme’ ” than is actually the case.The media compounds the problem. More in Common found that consuming news media (with the exception of broadcast news on ABC, NBC and CBS) actually increased the perception gap. As a practical matter, this means that parties are almost always defined by their ideological extremes and each party uses the existence of those extremes to generate fear and increase turnout. Even if a party does try to moderate to appeal to the middle, partisan media still highlights the radicals that remain, and the perception gap persists. The fear persists.We can start to see why Trump is viable beyond his base. When you ask right-leaning voters to abandon Trump, you’re asking them to empower a political party they view as brainwashed, hateful and racist. You’re asking them to empower a political party they view as extreme. That’s the source of Trump’s strength in a general election. He’s surfing on top of a huge wave of fear and animosity, a wave he did not create but one that he’s making bigger through his malignant, destructive influence.That’s not to say that we face a political stalemate. After all, we’ve seen MAGA candidates perform poorly in multiple swing state elections, but many of those elections — even against plainly incompetent or corrupt candidates — have been extraordinarily close. Trump’s loss in 2020 was extraordinarily close. In a narrowly divided country, it becomes difficult for one party to deliver the kind of decisive blows that Republicans suffered in 1964 or Democrats suffered in 1972.When the Trump Republican Party is forced to take three steps back, it often consoles itself with two steps forward. It lost the House in 2018, but it gained seats in the Senate. It lost the presidency and the Senate in 2020, but it gained seats in the House. It lost ground in the Senate in 2022, but it did (barely) win back control of the House. There weren’t many bright spots for Republicans in the 2023 elections, either, but there weren’t many races, and MAGA will still believe that Biden is weak even if other Democrats have proved stronger than expected.Already Trump and his allies are blaming electoral setbacks on the Republican establishment. The radio host Mark Levin claimed that the Republican nominee for governor in Kentucky, Daniel Cameron, lost to the Democrat, Andy Beshear, because Cameron is a “Mitch McConnell protégé.” Trump echoed the same theme, declaring on Truth Social that Cameron “couldn’t alleviate the stench of Mitch McConnell.” MAGA’s solution to electoral setbacks is always the same: more MAGA.There are two potential paths past this Republican dynamic. One is slow, difficult and dangerous. That’s the path of the Democratic Party defeating Trump and other MAGA candidates, race by race, year by year, with the full knowledge that the margin of victory can be razor thin and that there’s always the risk of a close loss that brings catastrophic consequences for our Republic. One negative news cycle — like Anthony Weiner’s laptop surfacing in the closing days of the 2016 election — can be the difference between victory and defeat.The other path — the better path — requires the Republican Party to reform itself, to reject Trump now. A two-party nation needs two healthy parties. Any republic that depends on one party defeating the other to preserve democracy and the rule of law is a republic that teeters on the edge of destruction. A Nikki Haley nomination, for example, might make Biden’s defeat more likely, but farsighted Democrats should welcome a potential return to normalcy in the Republican Party. It would mean that politics will perhaps return to a world of manageable differences, rather than a series of existential threats to democracy itself.As of now, however, internal Republican reform is a pipe dream. Ron DeSantis is falling, and while Haley is rising, she hasn’t even hit 10 percent support in the RealClearPolitics polling average. Trump leads by a staggering spread of 43.7 points. Perhaps a criminal conviction could reverse Trump’s primary momentum, but after watching Trump’s Republican approval rating survive every single scandal of his presidency and political career, the idea that anything will shake his Republican support is far more of a hope than an expectation.Until that unlikely moment, we’re stuck with the current dynamic. Love for Trump fuels his support in the Republican primary contest. Hatred of Democrats makes him viable in the general election. American animosity gave Trump the White House once, and as long as that animosity remains, it threatens to give him the White House once again. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Election 2023: How Abortion Lifted Democrats, and More Key Takeaways

      by

      The political potency of abortion rights proved more powerful than the drag of President Biden’s approval ratings in Tuesday’s off-year elections, as Ohioans enshrined a right to abortion in their state’s constitution, and Democrats took control of both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly while holding on to Kentucky’s governorship.The night’s results showed the durability of Democrats’ political momentum since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022. It may also, at least temporarily, stem the latest round of Democratic fretting from a series of polls demonstrating Mr. Biden’s political weakness.After a strong midterm showing last year, a blowout victory in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April and a series of special election wins, Democrats head into Mr. Biden’s re-election contest with the wind at their backs. The question for the party is how they can translate that momentum to Mr. Biden, who remains unpopular while others running on his agenda have prevailed.Here are key takeaways from Tuesday:There’s nothing like abortion to aid Democrats.Democratic officials have been saying for months that the fight for abortion rights has become the issue that best motivates Democrats to vote, and is also the issue that persuades the most Republicans to vote for Democrats.On Tuesday, they found new evidence to bolster their case in victories by Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, who criticized his opponent’s defense of the state’s near-total ban; legislative candidates in Virginia who opposed the 15-week abortion ban proposed by the Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin; and, above all, the Ohio referendum establishing a right to abortion access. A Pennsylvania Supreme Court candidate who ran on abortion rights, Daniel McCaffery, also won, giving Democrats a 5-2 majority.Where Trump Counties in Ohio Voted to Support Abortion RightsOhio’s referendum drew support from both liberal and conservative areas of the state, and polled well ahead of President Biden’s results three years ago.Abortion is now so powerful as a Democratic issue that Everytown, the gun control organization founded and funded by Michael Bloomberg, used its TV ads in Virginia to promote abortion rights before it discussed gun violence.The anti-abortion Democrat who ran for governor of Mississippi, Brandon Presley, underperformed expectations.It’s a sign that no matter how weak Mr. Biden’s standing is, the political environment and the issues terrain are still strong for Democrats running on abortion access and against Republicans who defend bans.The last six Kentucky governor’s elections have been won by the same party that won the presidential election the following year. The president may not be able to do what Mr. Beshear managed — talking up Biden policies without ever mentioning the president’s name — but he now has examples of what a winning road map could look like for 2024.In Virginia, a Republican rising star faces an eclipse.Governor Youngkin had hoped a strong night for his party would greatly raise his stature as the Republican who turned an increasingly blue state back to red. That would at the very least include him in the conversation for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028, if not 2024.Democratic victories in the Virginia legislature undercut Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s agenda, which was focused on abortion.Carlos Bernate for The New York TimesBut Mr. Youngkin’s pledge to enact what he called a moderate abortion law — a ban on abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of an endangered mother — gave Democrats an effective counter as he sought full control of state government.The Democratic argument won the day, at least in part. The party seized the majority in the House of Delegates, kept control of the State Senate and definitely spoiled Mr. Youngkin’s night. The results offered nervous national Democrats still more evidence of abortion’s power as a motivator for their voters while upending the term-limited Mr. Youngkin’s plans for his final two years in office, and possibly beyond.A Democrat can win in deep-red Kentucky, if his name is Andy Beshear.Being the most popular governor in the country turns out to be a good thing if you want to get re-elected.Mr. Beshear spent his first term and his re-election campaign hyperfocused on local issues like teacher salaries, new road projects, guiding the state through the pandemic and natural disasters and, since last summer’s Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, opposing his state’s total ban on abortion.Gov. Andy Beshear focused on local issues in Kentucky, and avoided mentioning President Biden by name.Jon Cherry for The New York TimesThat made him politically bulletproof when his Republican challenger, Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who was endorsed by former President Donald J. Trump, sought to nationalize the campaign and juice G.O.P. turnout by tying Mr. Beshear to Mr. Biden and attacking him on crime and L.G.B.T.Q. issues. (Mr. Beshear vetoed new restrictions aimed at transgender young people, though G.O.P. lawmakers voted to override him.)It’s not as if Republican voters stayed home; all the other Republicans running for statewide office won with at least 57 percent of the vote. Mr. Beshear just got enough of them to back him for governor. A Democrat who can win Republican voters without making compromises on issues important to liberal voters is someone the rest of the party will want to emulate in red states and districts across the country.Attacks on transgender rights didn’t work.As abortion access has become the top issue motivating Democrats, and with same-sex marriage broadly accepted in America, Republicans casting about for an issue to motivate social conservatives landed on restricting rights for transgender people. On Tuesday, that didn’t work.In Kentucky, Mr. Cameron and his Republican allies spent more than $5 million on television ads attacking L.G.B.T.Q. rights and Mr. Beshear for his defense of them, according to AdImpact, a firm that tracks political advertising. Gov. Tate Reeves in Mississippi spent $1.2 million on anti-L.G.B.T.Q. ads, while Republicans running for legislative seats in Virginia spent $527,000 worth of TV time on the issue.Daniel Cameron and his Republican allies spent more than $5 million on television ads attacking L.G.B.T.Q. rights — a strategy that did not pay off in Tuesday’s election.Michael Swensen/Getty ImagesIndeed, in Virginia, Danica Roem, a member of the House of Delegates, will become the South’s first transgender state senator after defeating a former Fairfax County police detective who supported barring transgender athletes from competing in high school sports.In Ohio, voters back both abortion and weed.Ohioans once again showed the popularity of abortion rights, even in reliably Republican states, when they easily approved a constitutional amendment establishing the right to an abortion.The vote in Ohio could be a harbinger for the coming presidential election season, when proponents and opponents of abortion rights are trying to put the issue before voters in the critical battleground states of Florida, Nevada, Arizona and Pennsylvania.Abortion rights groups entered Tuesday on a winning streak with such ballot measures since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. And ultimately, Ohio voters did as voters before them had done — electing to preserve the right to an abortion in their state.Voters at a high school in Columbus, Ohio. Ohioans legalized recreational marijuana.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesAnd with a margin that was almost identical to the abortion vote, Ohioans also legalized recreational marijuana use. That will make Ohio the 24th state to do so.Where abortion wasn’t an issue, a Republican won easily.Mississippi’s governor’s race was the exception to this off-year election’s rule on abortion: The incumbent governor, Mr. Reeves, and his Democratic challenger, Mr. Presley, ran as staunch opponents of abortion rights.And in that race, the Democrat lost.Mr. Presley hoped to make the Mississippi race close by tying the incumbent to a public corruption scandal that saw the misspending of $94 million in federal funds intended for Mississippi’s poor on projects like a college volleyball facility pushed by the retired superstar quarterback Brett Favre. He also pressed for the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to save Mississippi’s collapsing rural hospitals.Gov. Tate Reeves won his re-election campaign easily Tuesday night in Mississippi.Emily Kask for The New York TimesBut in Mississippi, Mr. Reeves had three advantages that proved impenetrable: incumbency, the “R” next to his name on the ballot, and the endorsement of Mr. Trump, who won the state in 2020 by nearly 17 percentage points.In Kentucky races beneath the marquee governor’s contest, Democrats also did not run on abortion, and they, like Mr. Presley, lost.Rhode Island sends a Biden aide to the House.Rhode Island is hardly a swing state, but still, the heavily Democratic enclave’s election of Gabe Amo to one of its two House seats most likely brought a smile to Mr. Biden’s face. Mr. Amo was a deputy director of the White House office of intergovernmental affairs and as such, becomes the first Biden White House aide to rise to Congress.The son of African immigrants, Mr. Amo will also be the first Black representative from the Ocean State.Gabe Amo became the first Black person to represent Rhode Island in the U.S. Congress, according to The Associated Press.Kris Craig/Providence Journal, via Associated PressWhite House officials said the president congratulated his former aide on his victory. The special election fills the seat vacated by David Cicilline, a Democrat who left the seat to run a nonprofit. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The War Between Israel and Hamas Is Splintering the Democratic Coalition

      by

      The Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel’s retaliatory strikes on Gaza are creating a fissure between Democratic constituencies crucial to President Biden’s campaign for a second term in the White House.The Nov. 2 Quinnipiac University Poll found that half of all voters approved of the way Israel is responding to the Oct. 7 attacks, while 35 percent disapproved. Among all voters, however, one key subgroup dissented — 18-to-34-years-olds — a constituency that provided Biden with enough votes in 2020 to put him over the top. These young voters faulted Israel’s response to the attacks, 52-32 percent.Exit poll data from 2020 shows that Donald Trump beat Biden by small margins among the 60 percent of the electorate that was 45 or older, that Biden won 52-46 among the 23 percent of voters aged 30 to 44 and that the one bloc decisively in favor of Biden was voters aged 18 to 29, who made up 17 percent of the electorate and backed the Democratic nominee 60-36.Perhaps equally significant, in March 2023, more than six months before Hamas’s attack on Israel, Gallup found that “sympathy toward the Palestinians among U.S. adults is at a new high of 31 percent, while the proportion not favoring either side is at a new low of 15 percent. The 54 percent of Americans sympathizing more with the Israelis is similar to last year’s 55 percent, but it is the lowest since 2005.”This shift in American public opinion toward Palestinians provides crucial insight into what my Times colleagues Jennifer Medina and Lisa Lerer wrote on Oct. 20:Progressive Jews who have spent years supporting racial equity, gay and transgender rights, abortion rights and other causes on the American left — including opposing Israeli policies in Gaza and the West Bank — are suddenly feeling abandoned by those who they long thought of as allies. This wartime shift represents a fundamental break within a liberal coalition that has long powered the Democratic Party.There is, Medina and Lerer add:a politically engaged swath of American Jewry who are reaching a breaking point. They have long sought an end to the Israeli government’s occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza, supported a two-state solution and protested the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu.But in the Hamas attacks, many saw an existential threat, evoking memories of the Holocaust and generations of antisemitism, and provoking anxiety about whether they could face attacks in the United States. And they were taken aback to discover that many of their ideological allies not only failed to perceive the same threats but also saw them as oppressors deserving of blame.Bruce Cain, a political scientist at Stanford, replied by email to my question on the domestic political consequences of the violence in the Middle East:For Democrats, the Gaza war exacerbates pre-existing coalitional tensions along age, racial, religious, and ideological lines. The pro-Hamas faction is younger, nonwhite, Muslim and secular, and more progressive. The pro-Israel faction is older, whiter, Jewish and Christian, and more centrist.Biden cannot afford to lose even thin slices of the Democratic electorate, Cain argued: “As the Siena/NYT poll indicates, small swings in turnout of the Democratic base can doom Biden. This is what happened to Hillary behind the blue curtain in 2016.”“The longer and bloodier the war,” Cain added, “the harder it will be for the Democratic coalition.”I asked Norman Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “Do you see the conflict hurting Biden’s prospects or helping them?” He replied by email: “Right now, there is no question it is dividing the Democratic base and hurting Biden’s approval.” But, Ornstein quickly added, “the election is a year away, and, more important, all will be shaped by the outcome of the conflict.”Biden’s support of Israel has produced exceptional, if not unprecedented, dissent among party loyalists and government employees.On Nov. 3, Liz Skalka, Daniel Marans and Akbar Shahid Ahmed reported on the HuffPost website that more than 50 staff members of the Democratic National Committee had signed a letter calling for a cease-fire in Gaza.“As strategic partners to the administration … we feel it is the D.N.C.’s moral obligation to urge President Biden to publicly call for a cease-fire,” they wrote. “With the number of civilian deaths growing rapidly each day, we must be clear: the Israeli government’s unrelenting military bombardment and blockading of vital supplies entering Gaza must end.”Along similar lines, a Nov. 1 Foreign Policy article by Robbie Gramer disclosed that there was a “storm of dissent brewing in the State Department.”A group of State Department employees opposed to administration policies is gathering signatures for a “dissent cable,” Gramer wrote, a formal procedure created by the State Department “to allow its users the opportunity to bring dissenting or alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues.”Gramer reported that “many U.S. diplomats were privately angered, shocked and despondent by what they perceived as a de facto blank check from Washington for Israel to launch a massive military operation in Gaza at an immense humanitarian cost for the besieged Palestinian civilians in Gaza.”In a separate Nov. 3 Foreign Policy article, “More U.S. Officials Are Anonymously Calling for a Gaza Cease-Fire,” Amy Mackinnon and Gramer wrote:Hundreds of USAID (United States Agency for International Development) officials have reportedly signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to push for “an immediate cease-fire and cessation of hostilities” in the Israel-Hamas war, according to a copy of the petition obtained by Foreign Policy.On Nov. 3, 56 Democratic members of the House and two senators wrote to Antony Blinken, the secretary of state, demanding that the administration “make clear that Israel must conduct military operations within the scope of international law and minimize civilian harm.”“We must continue to hold ourselves and our closest allies to the highest standards of conduct,” the authors of the letter went on to say,even at times of great tragedy and violence. While we firmly believe in Israel’s right to defend itself, we are gravely concerned by Israel’s military operation and conduct that fails to limit harm to noncombatants and vulnerable populations. Nearly 9,000 Palestinians have been killed, including over 3,600 children. Abiding by international law is not only morally imperative, but also legally required per international humanitarian law, and strategically important to prevent regional escalation and to preserve global support for Israel’s response to Hamas’s attack.One underlying reason the Israel versus Hamas conflict — including both the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel and the subsequent Israeli counterattack on Gaza — is particularly problematic for Democrats is that psychological research shows that liberals are more inclined to feel empathy than conservatives.In a May 2018 paper, “Are Liberals and Conservatives Equally Motivated to Feel Empathy Toward Others?” Yossi Hasson, Maya Tamir, Kea S. Brahms, J. Christopher Cohrs and Eran Halperin reported that “on average and across samples, liberals wanted to feel more empathy and experienced more empathy than conservatives did.”Their conclusion found support in a paper that was published in May, “Ideological Values Are Parametrically Associated With Empathy Neural Response to Vicarious Suffering,” by Niloufar Zebarjadi, Eliyahu Adler, Annika Kluge, Mikko Sams and Jonathan Levy of Aalto University in Finland. The five authors used neuroimaging “to reveal an asymmetry in the neural empathy response as a function of political ideology.”The research by Zebarjadi and her four colleagues “revealed a typical rhythmic alpha-band ‘empathy response’ in the temporal-parietal junction. This neural empathy response was significantly stronger in the leftist than in the rightist group” of those studied.Jeremy Konyndyk, who served as the director of USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance from 2013-17, gave voice to this empathy in an interview with Politico about the Israel/Hamas conflict:What the rest of the world sees is that when civilian apartment buildings are bombed by Russia in Ukraine, the U.S. government forcefully condemns this as illegitimate. And when they see similar tactics being used by the I.D.F. in Gaza, they see lock-step support from the U.S. government. This dramatically undermines the credibility of international humanitarian law.The fundamental foundation of international law is that certain things are wrong full stop because it happens to humans. That’s why it makes the attacks by Hamas wrong — deeply horrific and a grave violation of international humanitarian law. And that’s why it makes war crimes in response wrong.One of the striking findings in polling conducted in the aftermath of Oct. 7 is how much more supportive young voters are of Hamas and how much less supportive they are of Israel.The Oct. 19 Harvard-Harris poll asked 2,116 registered voters: “In general in this conflict do you side more with Israel or Hamas?”By 84 to 16 percent, voters chose Israel, with everyone 25 or older backing the Jewish state by three to one or better. The one exception was voters 18 to 25, with 52 percent saying they sided with Israel and 48 percent with Hamas.Asked “Do you think the Hamas killing of 1,200 Israeli civilians in Israel can be justified by the grievances of Palestinians or is it not justified?” an overwhelming majority of registered voters surveyed, 76 percent, said it could not be justified; 24 percent said it could be.Among the youngest voters, however, 51 percent of those 18 to 24 said the killing “can be justified by the grievance of Palestinians” and 49 percent said it cannot be. Voters 25 to 34 were split, 48 percent saying the killing of Israelis can be justified, 52 saying it cannot.In researching their March 2022 article, “The Young American Left and Attitudes About Israel,” Laura Royden and Eitan Hersh, political scientists at Harvard and Tufts, “surveyed 3,500 U.S. adults, including oversampling of 2,500 adults aged 18-30” to explore why “young people and the ideological far left have developed distinctly negative views toward Israel.”“In June 2021,” they write, “immediately following armed conflict in Israel and Palestine, liberal Democrats were three times more likely than conservative Republicans to say that the U.S.A. was too supportive of Israel. Three in five Republicans, but only one in five Democrats, agreed in May 2021 that it was very important for the U.S.A. to help protect Israel.”Among Democrats aged 18-35, however, they found that “respondents were three times more likely to say the U.S.A. should lean more toward Palestinians than Israel.”Digging deeper, Royden and Hersh found a clear ideological and age pattern:On both ideological extremes, more young adults than older adults hold an unfavorable view of Israel. Moderate young adult favorable attitudes toward Israel (58 percent) is indistinguishable from moderate older adults (at 62 percent). The difference is largest on the far left, where Israel favorability is 27 percentage points less among younger very liberal adults (at 33 percent) for young adults compared with older adults (at 60 percent). Young very conservative adults are supportive of Israel (66 percent), but substantially less so than older very conservative adults (82 percent). Clearly, the most left-leaning young adults have the lowest rating of Israel.If many young people are disaffected with the Biden administration’s handling of the conflict between Hamas and Israel, their discontent pales in comparison with that of Muslim and Arab Americans.The Arab American Institute commissioned John Zogby Strategies to conduct a survey of 500 Arab Americans between Oct. 23 and Oct. 27. For Biden, the results were striking: “Support for President Biden in the upcoming election has plummeted among Arab Americans voters, dropping from 59 percent in 2020 to 17 percent, a 42-point decrease.”Two-thirds of Arab Americans “have a negative view of President Biden’s response to the current violence in Palestine and Israel,” according to the poll. “A strong majority of Arab Americans believe the U.S. should call for a cease-fire on the current violence.”In terms of partisan identification, Zogby wrote in his summary, the surveymarks the first time in our 26 years of polling Arab American voters in which a majority did not claim to prefer the Democratic Party. In 2008 and 2016, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by two to one. In this poll, 32 percent of Arab Americans identified as Republican as opposed to just 23 percent who identified as Democrats.In 2020, Biden carried Michigan by 154,181 votes. Arab Americans played a significant role in his victory there.Farah Pandith, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, pointed out in an email that until recently, Muslim Americans had become a core Biden constituency:In 2020, American Muslims were involved in fund-raising and volunteering in the Biden campaign. They were mobilizing themselves to get Muslims out to vote, to educate and to — importantly — be publicly seen doing so. With so much hardship in the years post 9/11 and accusations that American Muslims could not be loyal Americans and practicing Muslims, this dedicated effort is compelling. These generations not only wanted to debunk that false narrative, but they wanted to see their candidate win — believing that Biden would understand their lived experience in America in a post 9/11 world and govern accordingly.Now, Pandith wrote, “it is clear that the hard-won trust and warm relationship Biden enjoyed with the vast number of American Muslims has been diminished. For many, their confidence in and loyalty to Biden has seemed to evaporate.”I asked a political operative closely tied to the Biden campaign — who insisted on anonymity in order to speak forthrightly — about the ramifications of the struggle between Israel and Hamas:There are open wounds and we are far from the war’s end. And there are hostages still out there. And Americans both tire and get bored with foreign conflicts after the messy part is done. But I do know one thing: Trump was the president of the Muslim ban and he called for a Muslim ban 2.0, so I don’t think a lot of Arab Americans are going his way. I think there is time for Biden to get them back. Not all of them.Julie Wronski, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi, argued by email that concern over Biden’s problems in dealing with the Mideast conflict may be overblown:Americans traditionally do not hold consistent or well-informed opinions on foreign policy. The further a foreign conflict or global issue is removed from people’s day to day lives, the less they are going to hold any meaningful opinion about it or use it to guide their political preferences.In addition, Wronski continued, “the role of negative partisanship may outweigh Muslim Americans’ criticisms of Biden’s foreign policy.” Some voters may defect to a third-party candidate or abstain from voting, but “a potential second Trump term can be more threatening to Muslim Americans domestically, given Trump’s record and rhetoric toward minority and marginalized groups, than Biden’s foreign policy agenda.”I asked Stephen Ansolabehere, a professor of government at Harvard, for his perspective. He replied to my query by email:My sense right now from our data is that Biden is in a very complicated political situation. Jewish voters, while only 2 percent of the electorate, provided key support (and voted about 70 percent for Biden) in pivotal states, where every group counts. Biden did even better among Muslim voters, winning 90 percent of the vote. Muslims are only about one-half of one percent of the electorate. Both groups are small shares of the overall vote, but they both vote Democratic. Biden risks alienating one Democratic group or the other if this is not handled right.Above all though, the situation in the Middle East is terrible. It is a human tragedy. Every president in modern history has tried to find a resolution to the Israel-Palestine question. Biden now faces the task of containing this conflict so that it does not escalate into a broader Middle East war. There’s not much upside here, politically or morally, just avoiding potentially terrible outcomes.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

    • 63 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley Wears the Skirts

      by

      Whether on the debate stage or “The Daily Show,” the Republican presidential candidate is strategic about standing out — in every way.In a crowded field of Republican presidential candidates, Nikki R. Haley is starting to stand out. Such, anyway, seems to be the conclusion of pollsters, voters and donors alike, who have helped bolster her numbers since she first took to the debate stage back in August. She’s on enough of an upswing that “Saturday Night Live” has started to prep a Haley character in anticipation.But as the third debate — and, perhaps, Ms. Haley’s debut as an “S.N.L.” character — looms, it’s worth considering just how tactically she has used the fact that she unmistakably stands out, even before she has opened her mouth to show off her foreign policy experience, or scold a competitor, to her advantage.Yes, I am talking about gender. Being a woman has always been seen as an issue to manage in a presidential race. Ms. Haley is using it as an asset. She announced, in the first debate, as her opponents were sniping at each other, “This is exactly why Margaret Thatcher said, ‘If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.’”And where is that woman? Just open your eyes and look.Mr. Ramaswamy, left, in the typical Republican uniform, next to Ms. Haley, in a uniform of her own choosing, at the debate in August. Morry Gash/Associated PressIn that initial debate, surrounded by seven men in the exact same outfits — dark blue suits, white shirts, red ties, tiny flag pins, otherwise known as the political uniform of the non-debating Donald J. Trump — Ms. Haley was a beacon in a light blue bouclé skirt suit and high heels.In the second debate, with the men in pretty much the same outfits (Tim Scott did wear a red and navy striped tie that time), there she was, in gleaming crimson silk shantung and pumps. And chances are, as the field shrinks in the third debate, such distinctions will become even more apparent.“Political campaigns are about differentiation,” said Cheri Bustos, a former congresswoman from Illinois, who said she also wore skirts and heels during her first primary campaign, when she was the only woman in a field of six. “The best candidates look for every opportunity. Nikki Haley has taken advantage of the situation.”Ms. Haley in crimson at the second Republican presidential debate in September. Robyn Beck/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAnd she has done so while repudiating conventional wisdom when it comes to women seeking the highest office. You know, the truism that trouser suits should be the uniform of choice for women as well as men, the better to fit in with the group and downplay the whole gender issue.Hillary Clinton was, of course, the ultimate pantsuit champion, though she swapped her signature rainbow of trouser suits for basic black when she was on the debate stage in 2016, segueing to symbolic suffragist white only after she had won the nomination and setting a tone that has defined the American female political wardrobe ever since.Indeed, in the 2020 election cycle Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson stuck almost entirely to the clothing script, Ms. Harris in dark suits and Ms. Gabbard and Ms. Williamson in white. Since Ms. Harris became vice president, she has worn dark pantsuits almost entirely.But Ms. Haley wears the skirts. And not just any old skirts: knee-length skirts. The kind of skirts often referred to as “demure,” that suggest legs crossed at the ankle, and traditional gender roles. The irony is, in adopting this more classically female garment in this context, she looks both acceptably conservative and radical at the same time.Ms. Haley at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Annual Leadership summit in Las Vegas in October, in her trademark skirt and high heels.Ethan Miller/Getty ImagesAfter all, you’re not exactly fooling anyone in a pantsuit. So why not upend the status quo and wear something your rivals cannot?Besides, the pantsuit is in part a Democratic convention. Republican women have hewed more to the sheath dress-skirt suit tradition in presidential politics. When Sarah Palin was John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate in 2008, she wore skirts and skirt suits for most of her major public appearances, including her debate with Joe Biden. Ditto Elizabeth Dole in 2000 for her presidential run.Many Republican candidates seem to buy into the idea, expressed by Mr. Trump during his term in office, that the women who worked for him should “dress like women,” in the most clichéd sense. Though Ms. Haley’s interpretation of that idea is less Fox News presenter and more Thatcherite. (Ms. Haley did title her 2022 book on female leadership “If You Want Something Done.”)Still, clichés, generally shared, are also a subtle way for Ms. Haley to plant a seed in viewers’ minds without anyone necessarily being conscious of what is going on. “Her presentation adds to her credibility,” said Frank Luntz, a political communications strategist. “Her verbal strategy and her visual strategy are in sync.”Ms. Haley may have flip-flopped in her positions on Mr. Trump and his transgressions, especially the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, but she has always stuck to certain core principles, at least when it comes to her image: color, heels, skirt or dress (when not at the Iowa State Fair, where she we wore jeans). She grew up working in her mother’s clothing store in Bamberg, S.C. Her husband is a commissioned officer in the South Carolina Army National Guard, currently serving in Africa. She understands the impact of uniform.Ms. Haley at the Moms for Liberty summit in Philadelphia in June.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesOne of her favorite lines, first trotted out in 2012 when she was the governor of South Carolina, is about her shoe preference. “I wear high heels, and it’s not a fashion statement — it’s for ammunition,” she said back then, adding: “I’ve got a completely male Senate. Do I want to use these for kicking? Sometimes, I do.’’She recycled the line, with a few edits, when addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2017: “I wear heels. It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because if I see something wrong, we’re going to kick them every single time.”Then she made it the capstone of her February announcement video: “You should know this about me: I don’t put up with bullies, and when you kick back, it hurts them more if you’re wearing heels.” And just last week, she discussed it on “The Daily Show” in reference to resurfaced rumors that Ron DeSantis wore lifts in his cowboy boots to make himself taller — an allegation the DeSantis campaign has denied but which his opponents, especially Mr. Trump, have somewhat gleefully embraced.When Charlamagne Tha God, a host of the show, asked if Ms. Haley would be wearing higher heels than Mr. DeSantis so she could be taller, Ms. Haley replied: “I’ve always said, ‘Don’t wear ’em if you can’t run in ’em,’ so we’ll see if he can run in ’em.”It’s probably not a coincidence that Tom Broecker, the costume designer for “House of Cards” (and “S.N. L.”) said he always dressed Robin Wright Penn’s character in pointed high heels when she was president.“She felt in control when she had them on,” Mr. Broecker said. “High heels make you walk, and stand, a certain way, as if you can go toe to toe with a person.”Given the cloud of suspicion hanging over Mr. DeSantis’s shoes, and what they may reveal about his insecurities, it’s not a bad time to have a facility with strategically wielded footwear. Like Hillary Clinton, who after years of pushing back against discussion around her clothes, finally started joking about it and thus neutralized it as an issue to be used again her, Ms. Haley has pre-emptively weaponized her wardrobe for herself. She owns the heels in this race, just as she owns the skirt.It may seem like a minor detail, but it is starting to become a telling one. More