United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Express Deep Anxiety as Polls Show Biden Trailing Trump

      by

      President Biden’s team emphasized that polls have failed to predict the results of elections when taken a year ahead of time.White House officials on Sunday shrugged off weekend polling that showed President Biden trailing former President Donald J. Trump, even as Democrats said they were increasingly worried about Mr. Biden’s chances in 2024.The new polling from The New York Times and Siena College found Mr. Biden losing in one-on-one matchups with former President Donald J. Trump in five critical swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Mr. Biden is ahead by two percentage points in Wisconsin.Although the polling is worrisome for the president, Mr. Biden still has a year to campaign, which his team emphasized on Sunday. They noted that polls have historically failed to predict the results of elections when taken a year ahead of time.“Gallup predicted an eight-point loss for President Obama only for him to win handily a year later,” said Kevin Munoz, a spokesman for Mr. Biden’s campaign. “We’ll win in 2024 by putting our heads down and doing the work, not by fretting about a poll.”Still, the results of the poll, and other recent surveys showing similar results, are prompting public declarations of doubts by Democrats.David Axelrod, a Democratic strategist who has expressed concerns about Mr. Biden before, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the new polling “will send tremors of doubt” through the party.“Only @JoeBiden can make this decision,” Axelrod wrote, referring to whether the president would drop out of the race. “If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it’s in HIS best interest or the country’s?”In a follow-up interview, Mr. Axelrod said he believed Mr. Biden, 80, had achieved a lot during the past three years but was rapidly losing support largely because of concern about how his age affects his performance.“Give me his record and chop 10 to 15 years off, I’d be really confident,” Mr. Axelrod said. “People judge him on his public performance. That’s what people see. That’s where the erosion has been. It lends itself to Republican messaging.”Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program on Sunday that he was concerned “before these polls.”“And I’m concerned now,” he said.“These presidential races over the last couple of terms have been very tight,” he said. “No one is going to have a runaway election here. It’s going to take a lot of hard work, concentration, resources.”Donna Brazile, a former chair of the Democratic National Committee and a supporter of Mr. Biden, said, “don’t count out Joe Biden” on ABC’s “This Week” program. But she added that Democrats should be mindful of the polling from The Times.“I would say a wake-up call once again for Democrats to be reminded that they have to go back out there, pull the coalition that allowed Joe Biden to break new ground in 2020, especially in Arizona and Georgia, but more importantly to bring back that coalition,” she said. “Without that coalition, it’s going to be a very, very difficult race.”Mr. Munoz declined to comment on the specifics of the Times/Siena poll.Julie Chávez Rodríguez, Mr. Biden’s campaign manager, said in a memo released on Friday — before the Times poll was public — that it would be “crucial” for Mr. Biden to show strength among key parts of his coalition in order to win.The weekend poll results, including a 10-point deficit behind Mr. Trump in Nevada, strike at the heart of the argument the president’s campaign advisers have been making for a year: that voters will back Mr. Biden once they are presented with a clear choice between him and his predecessor.In her memo, Ms. Rodríguez said “voters will choose between the extremism, divisiveness and incompetence that extreme MAGA Republicans are demonstrating — and President Biden’s historic record of accomplishment.“The American people are on our side when it comes to that choice,” she wrote.Julie Chávez Rodríguez, Mr. Biden’s campaign manager, left, said in a memo released on Friday that it would be “crucial” for Mr. Biden to show strength among key parts of his coalition in order to win.Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times, via Getty ImagesThe Times polls presented voters with that choice, and many of them, including Democrats, said they would pick Mr. Trump if the election were held today.Already, there were signs that the campaign is scrambling to address the vulnerabilities on display in the poll among young, Black and Hispanic voters.Last month, the campaign quietly started two pilot programs aimed at bolstering support among Democrats in two key states, Arizona and Wisconsin. In each state, the campaign has hired 12 full-time staff members to test their assumptions about how Mr. Biden is viewed by particular groups and what he needs to do to earn their votes.In Arizona, the new staff members in two offices in Maricopa County will focus on Latino and female voters in that state. In Wisconsin, staff members will work out of an office in Milwaukee to evaluate the president’s message for Black and young voters in the state.Campaign officials say the idea is to use the next several months to test new ways of communicating to those voters. Those include the use of “microinfluencers” who are popular on social media platforms, and “relational” campaigning, in which the campaign reaches out to voters through their network of friends rather than impersonal ads.One of the central arguments of the Biden campaign is a belief that polls taken now, by definition, do not take into account the robust campaign that will unfold during the course of the next year.Mr. Biden has already generated a significant campaign war chest. The president and Vice President Kamala Harris have $91 million in cash on hand and are expected to raise hundreds of millions more for use during the general election campaign that will begin in earnest next summer.The president’s campaign aides say they are confident the polls will shift in Mr. Biden’s direction once that money is put to use attacking Mr. Trump (or another Republican, if Mr. Trump loses the nomination) and reaching out to voters.That is similar to the argument that Mr. Axelrod made in September 2011, when Mr. Obama was trailing badly in the polls.“The president remains ahead or in a dead heat with the Republican candidates in the battleground states that will decide the election in 2012,” Mr. Axelrod said at the time. “And ultimately it is in those battleground states where voters will choose, 14 months from now, between two candidates, their records, and their visions for the country.”But Mr. Axelrod said he believed Mr. Biden is further behind now than his candidate was in 2011.He said he believed Mr. Biden would continue to run for re-election, and would likely end up facing Mr. Trump again next year. He urged Mr. Biden and those around him to begin attacking Mr. Trump politically to make it clearer what a Trump victory in 2024 would mean for the country.That kind of “competitive frame” is more important now, Mr. Axelrod said, than trying to tell people about the accomplishments that Mr. Biden has made.“I think he’ll run,” Mr. Axelrod said. “I think he will be the nominee. If so, they need to throw the entire campaign into a very, very tough competitive frame very quickly.” More

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Student and Teacher, Moving Up Together

      by

      More from our inbox:Trump LackeysDon’t Call Them ‘Conservative’Precious Views: Saving the Skyline of New York Katy FreemanTo the Editor:Re “Kids Benefit From Having One Teacher Twice,” by Adam Grant (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 24):Dr. Grant is right on target on the value of “looping” for kids and teachers who stay with them for a grade or more. In my dissertation research on middle-school teacher teams, I found that the most effective team was one that followed the same group of students for three years.As the teachers explained, when they had students for just one year, they could blame the shortcomings of students on their previous teachers. After three years, they knew they should be able to show significant results for all their kids.One other advantage of looping was creating a more cohesive professional community; after a couple of years away from a particular grade’s curriculum, teachers reached out to colleagues to learn from their more recent experience with that grade.A win-win for everyone, and especially the students whom teachers never gave up on and built strong relations with over these years.Rick GordonJackson, Wyo.The writer was the founding director of the Compass School in Vermont.To the Editor:Adam Grant’s advocacy for “looping” in education is a compelling invitation to deepen teacher-student relationships and nurture personalized learning. But as a high school junior, I find myself grappling with this idea.Although looping’s promise is enticing, I’m concerned that it might inadvertently constrain students’ ability to adapt, leaving us ill prepared for our future.High school has been an essential stage of transformation for me, marked by an ever-shifting landscape of diverse experiences, teaching styles and perspectives. I’m concerned that looping, which emphasizes a personalized relationship with a single teacher, may curtail the range of experiences essential for nurturing adaptability.This quality, vital for future success in both college and the work force, is arguably honed through adapting to various teaching styles and methods that diverse teachers bring. In an era that demands versatile skills, we should recognize the value of a variety of experiences in education.Taiki YamauchiAlexandria, Va.To the Editor:As an elementary-school teacher who did “loop” a kindergarten to first-grade class, I agree with Adam Grant in his praise for the practice. Knowing where your students left off and where you could begin was a big improvement over the mystery that would commonly occur with a new class.In addition to the benefit to academics, there were the friendships that could continue in the classroom as well as the improved insights between teacher and student.Another benefit was the communication between the parents and me. Having their child for two years enabled us to immediately pursue common goals and solve problems much more easily than starting fresh.Parents can be asked for their preference concerning looping, so if there’s not a good fit for the child, the parent can opt out. I remember that out of 20 students, 19 remained in my next class. The parent who opted out came to me at the end of the year to tell me she’d made a mistake!Some children would be OK with another teacher. But for others, looping meant a great deal and perhaps enabled them to succeed more than they might have without the teacher’s extra knowledge of the students.Daina SchumanStamford, Conn.Trump LackeysTop Trump allies, including Russell Vought, seated in the middle, have come to view the Republican Party’s legal elites — even leaders with impeccable conservative credentials — as out of step.Andrew Harnik/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Seeking Lawyers to Bless Trump’s Full Ambition” (front page, Nov. 2):In his first term as president, Donald Trump made, from his point of view, several key mistakes. Among them was selecting well-known conservatives with at least some experience and gravitas for important positions in his administration.The problem with these people was that they had at least a shred of decency and, ultimately, respect for the law and the Constitution. They, and others in his administration, refused in the end to execute his orders when those orders clearly violated the law.He won’t make that mistake again. As this article reveals, a second-term Trump cabinet, and the rest of his administration, would be filled with inexperienced sycophants whose only qualifications are their total loyalty to him alone and their willingness to do anything he says, illegal or not.Mr. Trump’s presidency was by far the worst in our history. A second Trump term, supported by these carefully chosen lackeys, would be nightmarish.Tim ShawCambridge, Mass.Don’t Call Them ‘Conservative’ Mark Peterson/Redux, for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Roots of Republican Dysfunction,” by Jamelle Bouie (column, Oct. 22):The MAGA supporters who call themselves “conservative” yet supported the Big Lie are not conservative. Overthrowing a legitimate election and installing a strongman you like is radical; it is not the least bit conservative.I wish America had a real conservative party, which would serve a legitimate purpose in balancing the urges of us liberals. But nobody should be allowed to impose authoritarianism on fellow citizens and call it “conservative.” That is radical extremism.Brett LindenbachNorth Haven, Conn.Precious Views: Saving the Skyline of New York George Etheredge for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Regulate the Skyline? What’s Your View?,” by Michael Kimmelman (Critic’s Notebook, Oct. 26):Fifty years ago, when I was young, the Empire State Building could be seen from almost everywhere. It was, in the words of John Milton, “the cynosure of neighboring eyes.” Now, as Mr. Kimmelman writes, a uniquely unobstructed view can be glimpsed from an alley he found off 28th Street.“The alley framed a postcard view of the Empire State Building,” he writes, “magically” preserving something lost elsewhere in the city, as widespread new construction has blotted out views, “occasionally breaking hearts.”The Landmarks Preservation Commission designated the Empire State Building a landmark. But operating under existing law, the agency could not protect the view corridors nearby.Old photographs will tell us something about what the Empire State Building once was. But will the historic preservation movement offer any strong strategic criticism of the planning policy vacuum Mr. Kimmelman’s criticism reveals? Who else will now defend the public interest in preserving views of our distinctive local architecture?Christabel GoughHudson, N.Y.To the Editor:We fall deeply in love with our favorite views and hope they will never change. But, like people, views have life spans. I have mourned several lost cityscapes in recent years, but learned a valuable lesson in the process: Hold back your tears until the new building is revealed.The Copper building on First Avenue near 35th Street took away the span of open sky that had delighted me for years with its unobstructed sunrises. But the quirky K-shaped Copper now serves as a compelling centerpiece for my sky photography. The sunrises are as splendid as ever, and there is a bonus: The Copper reflects the setting sun, lush with light as its colors fade to black.On the other hand, I am angry to hear that a precious Manhattan view will no longer exist. Sign me up to support view cones. If the Empire State Building can be eclipsed, what will be next?Roberta HershensonNew York More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Lauren Boebert, Facing Primary, Is Haunted by ‘Beetlejuice’ Episode

      by

      The “Beetlejuice” incident continues to haunt the once-unrepentant congresswoman from Colorado. The state’s old guard is lining up behind a primary challenger.At a casino bingo hall in southwestern Colorado, Lauren Boebert, the Republican congresswoman, bounced her 6-month-old grandson on her knee.“The election’s still a ways away,” she said, as the guests arriving for the Montezuma County Republican Party’s annual Lincoln Day dinner trickled into the room. “And in talking with people at events like this, you know, it seems like there’s a lot of mercy and a lot of grace.”The month before, Ms. Boebert, then in the midst of finalizing a divorce, was caught on a security camera vaping and groping her date shortly before being ejected from a performance of the musical “Beetlejuice” at the Buell Theater in Denver for causing a disturbance. The footage contradicted her own initial claims about the incident, and the venue’s statement that Ms. Boebert had demanded preferential treatment added to the outrage.The episode has proved surprisingly sticky for Ms. Boebert, a politician who more than almost any other has embodied the gleefully provocative, no-apologies politics of the party’s right wing in the Biden era. Several local Republican officials have since announced their endorsement of Jeff Hurd, a more conventional Republican challenging her for the nomination this year.Mr. Hurd’s candidacy has become a vessel for Republican discontent with the perceived excesses of the party’s MAGA wing. His backers include old-guard party fixtures such as former Gov. Bill Owens, former Senator Hank Brown, and Pete Coors, the brewery scion, former Senate candidate and 2016 Trump fund-raiser, who will soon be offering his endorsement, according to Mr. Hurd’s campaign.Other Hurd supporters are more narrowly concerned about extending the party’s recent run of defeats in the state, and some are one-time fans of Ms. Boebert who complain that she has been changed by her political celebrity.“That crap she pulled in Denver pissed me off,” David Spiegel, a 53-year-old road traffic controller and Montezuma party activist, told Mr. Hurd as he mingled with guests at the dinner, near where Ms. Boebert was sitting.Jeff Hurd, a moderate Republican who is challenging Ms. Boebert for the nomination this year, has received endorsements from several local Republican officials.Polls have not yet been released in the primary race, and the question of whether Ms. Boebert, whose political celebrity far exceeds her official influence in Congress, has actually fallen in favor among the party’s voters remains theoretical for now. In interviews around the district, it was easy to find supporters who still stood by her.“She’s aggressive, she’s young, she’s got better ideas than most of them,” said Charles Dial, who runs a steel fabrication and recycling business in deep-red Moffat County, which Ms. Boebert won by more than 59 points in 2022. He shrugged off the theater incident and compared the attention it generated to “what they’re doing to Trump.”But Mr. Hurd’s endorsements suggest a concern among some party stalwarts that if Ms. Boebert remains a spirit animal for the right, she may be a wounded one.In 2022, despite the solidly Republican lean of her district, she won re-election by just 546 votes. The near-loss established her as the most vulnerable of the party’s most base-beloved politicians, and has made her defeat this year a sought-after trophy for Democrats.Adam Frisch, an Aspen businessman and former city councilman who ran as a Democrat against her in 2022, is hoping to challenge her again next year, though he first faces a primary contest against Anna Stout, the mayor of Grand Junction. Mr. Frisch has pulled in nearly $7.8 million in donations, more than any 2024 House candidate besides Kevin McCarthy, the recently deposed Republican speaker, and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader.Adam Frisch, a Democrat who is challenging Ms. Boebert, has pulled in nearly $7.8 million in donations: more than any 2024 House candidate besides Kevin McCarthy, the recently deposed Republican speaker, and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader.In August, before the theater incident, a poll commissioned by Mr. Frisch’s campaign found him leading Ms. Boebert by two points.In a rematch with Mr. Frisch, “I’ll definitely vote for Lauren,” said Cody Davis, a Mesa County commissioner who switched his endorsement from Ms. Boebert to Mr. Hurd. “But at the same time, I don’t think she can win.”Ms. Boebert burst onto the political scene in 2020 after winning a primary upset in Colorado’s Third District, which spans the entirety of the state’s western slope and nearly half of the state’s area.Then a 33-year-old owner of a gun-themed, pandemic-lockdown-defying bar and restaurant in the small town of Rifle, she was an immediate sensation in the right wing of the party, which had transparently longed for its own answer to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the social media-savvy young left-wing Democratic congresswoman from New York.“She was a firebrand,” Kevin McCarney, at the time the chairman of the Mesa County Republican Party, recalled admiringly. Last year, Mr. McCarney defended Ms. Boebert in the media after she was criticized for heckling President Biden as he spoke about his son’s death in his State of the Union speech.Ms. Boebert burst onto the political scene in 2020 after winning a primary upset in Colorado’s Third District, which spans nearly half of the state. But her celebrity is far greater than her official power in Congress.For some Colorado Republicans, the primary contest for Ms. Boebert’s seat is a proxy battle in the ongoing conflict between an old guard of politicians and donors and the right-wing grass-roots activists that have come to dominate its state and county organizations.“I was still standing with her until her little escapade,” he said, referring to Ms. Boebert’s behavior during “Beetlejuice.”After that, Mr. McCarney endorsed Mr. Hurd.A 44-year-old attorney from Grand Junction, Mr. Hurd is, by his account, a lifelong conservative but a newcomer to politics. The son of a local medical clinic director, he attended the University of Notre Dame and was planning on becoming a Catholic priest when he met his wife, Barbora, at an American Enterprise Institute seminar in Bratislava. He went to law school instead.Soft-spoken and cerebral — he cites the Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius’s “Meditations” as his favorite book — Mr. Hurd holds similar policy views to Ms. Boebert on gun rights and conservative but less absolute views on abortion.He is presenting himself as a reprieve from the turmoil, tabloid headlines and Trump-centricity that Ms. Boebert has represented to her detractors.Mr. Hurd appears only peripherally in his first campaign ad, in which Barbora describes her journey to American citizenship after a childhood in Communist Czechoslovakia and warns that “we can’t take this freedom for granted” — a Reagan-revivalist pitch that also nods toward his concern about the risk of authoritarianism within his own party.Mr. Hurd is presenting himself as a reprieve from the turmoil, tabloids and Trump-centricity that Ms. Boebert has represented in the eyes of her detractors.Asked if he had voted for Mr. Trump in past elections, Mr. Hurd declined to answer, but then described a vision of the Republican Party where “we believe in, you know, the rule of law, the peaceful transfer of power in elections.”“When we as Republicans lose an election,” he went on, “we need to figure out how we go about winning the next one.”Ms. Boebert was early and vocal in promoting Mr. Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen.For some Colorado Republicans, the primary contest for her seat has become a proxy battle in the ongoing conflict within the party between an old guard of politicians and donors and the right-wing grass-roots activists that have come to dominate its state and county organizations — a fight in which 2020 election denial is a major dividing line.Others are simply concerned that Ms. Boebert could easily lose to Mr. Frisch, a self-described conservative Democrat. “We all know what happened last cycle,” said Bobbie Daniel, a Mesa County commissioner who supported Ms. Boebert last year and is now backing Mr. Hurd. “There wasn’t a lot of room for error.”Mr. Frisch’s near-victory came as a surprise in a race that few in either party expected to be competitive. “We got blown off by everybody,” Mr. Frisch recalled. His campaign effectively ran out of money two weeks before the election, at which point his operation was “just me doing another couple of thousand miles in the pickup truck,” he said.He will not have that problem this year. Mr. Frisch and outside Democratic groups have already reserved $1.2 million in advertising for the race — more than any other 2024 House race so far and more than 100 times what Republicans have spent in the district, according to Ad Impact, a media tracking firm.Drew Sexton, Ms. Boebert’s campaign manager, noted that her campaign last year spent little time trying to shape voters’ impressions of Mr. Frisch, and argued that 2024 would be a different contest.“A lot of folks sat out the midterm election, whether it was apathy or a belief that there was a red wave and they didn’t need to participate, or just the fact that President Trump wasn’t on the top of the ticket,” he said. “Those folks are going to come back in droves this cycle.”On the stump, Ms. Boebert has worked hard to show supporters that she is not taking their votes for granted. In her speech at the Montezuma County dinner, she had only one applause line about investigating the Biden family and had many particulars about water policy. There was also contrition.“You deserve a heartfelt, humble apology from me,” she told the crowd.Many of her backers have accepted the apology, if not unconditionally. “Lauren’s made it harder for herself,” said Kathy Elmont, the secretary of the Ouray County Republican Party, who has supported Ms. Boebert since her first campaign. “But I look at it as a Christian.” She recalled the passage in the Gospel of John in which Jesus admonishes a crowd against stoning an adulterous woman: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”But Mrs. Elmont pointed out that wasn’t the last of the story. “He ended with, ‘And sin no more,’” she said. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Haley Says She Would ‘Send Back’ Migrants Already Here, Pledges to ‘Close’ Border

      by

      Tough promises on immigration from Nikki Haley and her rivals for the Republican nomination face logistical and legal barriers.On the national debate stage, in interviews and at town halls, the message on immigration from every top Republican in the 2024 presidential race has resounded clearly: It is time to shut down the nation’s southern border.Coming into view now is how candidates would approach the issue of undocumented immigrants who are already in the United States — of both those who have been living and working in the country for years, and those who have entered more recently.In a packed diner in Londonderry, N.H., on Thursday, Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina who has called on the United States to “close” the border and defund “sanctuary cities,” was pressed on just that issue by a potential voter. The question of how to provide an avenue to citizenship or permanent legal residency for immigrants, whether undocumented or under temporary forms of protection like DACA, has long been at the center of the debate around overhauling the nation’s immigration laws.Her response to Neil Philcrantz, 71, a Republican and retired quality engineer from the nearby town of Hudson, was revealing in its encapsulation of Republicans’ embrace of hard-line tactics and her own rhetorical shifts on the issue.A question for Nikki Haley“If you do get ‘catch and deport,’ what would you do with all of the ones who are here now?”The subtextThe phrase “catch and deport” refers to Ms. Haley’s campaign trail riff on the term “catch and release,” which generally refers to the longtime practice of allowing people who have been vetted and deemed a low risk to live in communities, instead of detention, as they wait for their immigration cases to move through the courts.Former President Donald Trump made ending the practice central to his first White House campaign, and frequently derided it while in office. But his administration widely expanded it in 2019 before scaling it back again, as it struggled to process an increase in families arriving at the nation’s southern border from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. In 2020, Trump officials began to turn away people who sought asylum at the border, which led to their expulsion without the right to claim they feared returning to their home country because of persecution or torture. The removals were carried out amid the coronavirus pandemic, under a public health order called Title 42, which expired under President Biden in May.With migration patterns changing and reaching new highs around the world, the Biden administration has expanded legal pathways to entry for some migrants. Still, illegal border crossings continue to set records, straining city support systems. Ms. Haley has said she would immediately deport those who enter unlawfully.Haley’s answer“OK, of the six to seven million that have come over since Biden did this — this is going to sound harsh — but you send them back. And the reason you send them back, the reason you send them back is because, my parents, they came here legally. They put in the time, they put in the price. I take care of my parents. They live with us. They’re 87 and 89. There’s not a time I’ve had dinner with my mom when she doesn’t say, ‘Are those people still crossing the border?’ And the reason is, they are offended by what’s happening on the border. And when you allow those six or seven million to come, to all those people who’ve done it the right way, you’re letting them jump the line.”The subtextAs governor of South Carolina, Ms. Haley signed some of the harshest immigration laws in the country in 2011, including measures that required police officers to check the immigration status of some people. But she tended to refrain from fire and brimstone in her language on the issue, and tended to describe immigrants and refugees as part of the fabric of American society.On the campaign trail now, Ms. Haley and her top rivals have spent months trying to outdo each other with extreme immigration proposals and rhetoric as the party’s primary base has veered hard right on the issue. Ms. Haley, the daughter of Indian American immigrants, has in particular wielded her background to significant effect as a messenger for hard-line proposals.Undocumented immigrants already in the country, she continued on Thursday, should be divided between those working and paying taxes and “those that are feeding off the system,” she said. “If they’re feeding off the system, you send them back.”Why it mattersImmigration has become a dominant issue among Republicans, and it is particularly salient in New Hampshire, where a Suffolk University/Boston Globe/USA TODAY poll released last month found that immigration and the border were the top concern for voters likely to cast their ballot in the G.O.P. primary.Responses like Ms. Haley’s capture the way Mr. Trump’s approach, both in style and substance, has become Republican conviction as the nation’s immigration challenges have grown more intractable.With her call to “send them back,” she embraces a position that Mr. DeSantis took in early October regarding undocumented immigrants who have entered during Mr. Biden’s presidency. Mr. Trump has also pledged to enact mass deportations. Other promises among the G.O.P. field include calls to eliminate or limit birthright citizenship; and ramp up military responses at the southern border. The tough proposals face logistical and legal barriers.Much of the candidates’ language tends to conflate illegal and legal types of immigration, and overestimates the number of people who have entered the country unlawfully under President Biden. And some of the measures may not be feasible; plans to deport hundreds of thousands of people would require huge investments in immigration officers, judges and detention spaces. And the economic impact could be enormous.But at Ms. Haley’s town hall gatherings and campaign events, voters have consistently asked her for more in-depth solutions to fix an immigration system where legal migration to the country has become almost impossible, though many businesses and local economies are struggling through labor shortages, and rely on foreign workers.On a farm in a rural town in Iowa this fall, business owners welcomed a pledge from Ms. Haley to ease legal pathways for new workers as an effort to alleviate labor shortages. At a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire last month, one audience member asked what Ms. Haley believed was “the compassionate way,” or “the American way,” to handle the undocumented immigrants living in the United States. What the voter saidFor Mr. Philcrantz, Ms. Haley’s answer was satisfying, he said in a follow-up interview. He had been undecided when he walked into the diner Thursday afternoon. A few hours later, he called a reporter back to declare that he had changed his mind: “I am voting for Nikki.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Abortion Is on the Ballot in Tuesday’s Elections, Giving a Preview for 2024

      by

      Elections in Kentucky, Ohio and Virginia will give an early preview of how abortion will shape the political landscape in 2024, and the effectiveness of both parties’ approaches.Abortion has emerged as a defining fault line of this year’s elections, with consequential contests in several states on Tuesday offering fresh tests of the issue’s political potency nearly 18 months after the Supreme Court ended a federal right to an abortion.The decision overturning Roe v. Wade scrambled American politics in 2022, transforming a longstanding social conflict into an electoral battering ram that helped drive Democrats to critical victories in the midterm races. Now, as abortion restrictions and bans in red states have become reality, the issue is again on the ballot, both explicitly and implicitly, in races across the country.In Kentucky, Democrats are testing whether abortion can provide a political advantage even in a red state, as Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, has used the state’s near-total ban on abortions — which was triggered by the fall of Roe — to bludgeon his Republican opponent as an extremist. In Ohio, a socially conservative state, a ballot question that would enshrine abortion rights in the State Constitution will measure the extent of the country’s political pivot toward abortion rights.And in Virginia, the only Southern state without an abortion ban, Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, is trying to flip the script in the state’s legislative elections, casting Democrats as “extreme” and saying his party supports a “common-sense position” — a 15-week ban.The contests give an early preview of how abortion will shape the political landscape in next year’s presidential and congressional elections — and the effectiveness of both parties’ approaches.Strategists across the political spectrum agree that abortion remains highly energizing for the Democratic coalition, particularly in states where Republicans could pass further restrictions. In Pennsylvania, where the parties are battling over a State Supreme Court seat, even a gun control advocacy group began ads backing the Democratic candidate by raising alarms about the future of abortion rights — a tacit nod to the issue’s resonance.“It’s still a very, very powerful issue to folks, both in terms of motivating Democrats to vote and as a very fruitful persuasion issue for swing voters,” said Angela Kuefler, a longtime Democratic pollster working on the proposed Ohio amendment.What remains less clear is how far into conservative areas Democrats’ arguments will be effective and whether Republicans can deflect some of the attacks.That’s what Republicans are trying to do in Virginia, where G.O.P. candidates like State Senator Siobhan Dunnavant, an OB-GYN running in one of the state’s most hotly contested races for a newly redrawn seat, have aired numerous ads on the issue.In one ad, she says, “I don’t support an abortion ban,” even though she supports a 15-week ban on the procedure with exceptions for rape, incest, the woman’s health and cases of several fetal anomalies. She argues that a 15-week restriction is not a ban but rather “legislation that reflects compassionate common sense.”“Every Republican in a swing district knows the Democrat playbook that’s going to be run against them,” said Liesl Hickey, a Republican strategist and ad maker working on the race. “The abortion issue can either define you, or you can define it in your campaign.”In Ohio, a red state with a history of opposition to abortion rights, Democrats are pushing a referendum that would enshrine abortion rights in the State Constitution.Julie Carr Smyth/Associated PressSince Roe was overturned, Democrats have prevailed in six out of six ballot measures that put the question of abortion straight to voters. This year, national groups backing both sides have poured tens of millions of dollars into the Ohio contest, transforming an off-year ballot measure into one of the most important races this fall.A victory in Ohio would provide further fuel for abortion rights efforts next year. That will be especially true in pivotal battleground states where campaigns are already underway, including Arizona, Florida and Missouri, said Amy Natoce, a spokeswoman for Protect Women Ohio, a group founded by national anti-abortion groups to oppose the amendment.“We know that all eyes are on Ohio right now,” she said. “States that are considering similar constitutional amendments are looking to us.”In Kentucky, Mr. Beshear is further testing the limits of where abortion can mobilize a Democratic coalition. Since Roe ended, the state has become engulfed in a political battle over how abortion should be regulated. A trigger law that took effect immediately after the decision banned abortion in nearly all circumstances, except to save the life of the woman or prevent severe injury. Efforts by abortion providers to block the ban in court were denied.Last fall, voters rejected a ballot measure that would have amended the state’s Constitution to ensure that no right to an abortion was in the document.In his campaign ads, Mr. Beshear has focused on how his Republican opponent, Daniel Cameron, supports a near-total ban.The Beshear campaign has aired some of the cycle’s most searing spots, including a straight-to-camera testimonial from a woman who was raped as a child by her stepfather. She says in the ad that Mr. Cameron would force child victims to carry the babies of their rapists.“We have the most extreme law in the country, where victims of rape and incest, some as young as 9 years old, have no options,” Mr. Beshear said this past week in Richmond, Ky. “The people of Kentucky have enough empathy to believe that those little girls ought to have options.”After the ad aired, Mr. Cameron, the state attorney general, flipped his position and said that he would support carving an exception in state law in instances of rape or incest. Even if Mr. Beshear wins re-election, he would most likely struggle to change the state’s abortion law because Republicans control the Legislature.Courtney Norris, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cameron, said in a statement, “Andy mischaracterizes and flat-out lies about Daniel’s position on a number of issues in an attempt to deflect attention away from his failures as governor and his extreme record on this issue.”Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, a Democrat, has used the state’s near-total ban on abortions to paint his Republican opponent as an extremist.Jon Cherry for The New York TimesStill, not every Democrat running in a red state has embraced Mr. Beshear’s approach. Just as in the midterms, when abortion benefited Democrats most in states like Arizona and Michigan, where the right to the procedure was directly at risk, Democrats are leveraging the issue race by race.In Mississippi, Brandon Presley, the Democratic candidate for governor, has promoted his “pro-life” stance in television ads and has focused on issues like Medicaid expansion. And Shawn Wilson, a Democratic who lost the race for governor in Louisiana last month, said he was personally “pro-life.” Both are deeply conservative states where abortion is banned in almost all circumstances.In Virginia, where abortion remains legal through the second trimester, Republicans are the ones mitigating their approach. Mr. Youngkin has tried to be proactive in his messaging on abortion, promising to sign a 15-week ban if he and his Republican allies take over both chambers of the Legislature.Such a policy would have significant implications for the entire region, because Virginia has become a destination for patients across the South seeking the procedure. Currently, abortion remains legal in the state until nearly 27 weeks, and afterward if needed to save the life of the woman.Most doctors say there is no medical basis for an abortion cutoff at 15 weeks of pregnancy. Nor would it stop the vast majority of abortions, given that more than 93 percent happen before that stage in pregnancy, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But 15 weeks is the point at which many polls indicate that a majority of Americans would support restrictions.That’s one of the reasons Mr. Youngkin’s political committee has spent $1.4 million on ads pushing what the spots call a “reasonable” 15-week limit and accusing Democrats of disinformation as a heartbeat can be heard in the background. “Here’s the truth: There is no ban,” the narrator says.National Republican strategists have been pushing that message as well, urging their candidates to embrace a 15-week ban and exceptions in cases of rape, incest and risks to the physical health of the woman — all relatively popular positions with the general public.Zack Roday, a top political adviser to Mr. Youngkin, said Republicans were trying to reclaim and redirect the extremist label. He said Republicans needed to proactively neutralize that attack and create a “permission structure” for voters who are wary of G.O.P. candidates’ stances on abortion but like their approach to other issues.“They understand 40 weeks, no limits is extreme,” Mr. Roday said. “We’re trying to reclaim and bat that down. Because when you do, the voters will look at you more broadly.”Democrats say there are significant complications to Mr. Youngkin’s strategy. Polls show that a plurality of voters dislike the Republican approach to abortion rights. In private meetings and research memos, even some Republican strategists have urged their candidates to move away from the “pro-life” label, saying that many Americans now equate the term with support for a total ban.Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who worked for Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign in 2020, said that voters tended to see the issue of abortion as a fight over personal autonomy, and were less interested in litigating a number of weeks or specific exceptions.“Before Dobbs, people were very willing to entertain exceptions and restrictions,” she said. “Now they are much less open to that conversation because they just think there’s a bigger fundamental point here.”She added, “The fundamental freedom to an abortion has been taken away, and we want to guarantee that right.”State Senator Scott Surovell, the campaign chairman of the Virginia Senate’s Democratic caucus, said abortion remained the No. 1 issue driving people to vote.When Mr. Surovell first heard that Mr. Youngkin’s operation was planning to spend more than $1 million on abortion ads, he said he felt like what “the Union troops thought at Gettysburg,” when the Confederate army made a famously ill-fated charge.“You’re going to try to charge us here?” he said. “They’re going to try to attack us while we’re on the high ground here?”Reid J. Epstein More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Temporarily Free From Gag Order in Election Case

      by

      A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington lifted the order for at least two weeks, freeing the former president to say what he wants about prosecutors and witnesses.An appeals court in Washington on Friday paused the gag order imposed on former President Donald J. Trump in the federal case accusing him of seeking to overturn the 2020 election, temporarily freeing him to go back to attacking the prosecutors and witnesses involved in the proceeding.In a brief order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the pause of about two weeks was needed to give it “sufficient opportunity” to decide whether to enact a longer freeze as the court considered the separate — and more important — issue of whether the gag order had been correctly imposed in the first place.The panel’s ruling came in response to an emergency request to lift the order pending appeal that Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed on Thursday night. While the judges — all three of whom were appointed by Democrats — paused the gag order until at least Nov. 20 to permit additional papers to be filed, they wrote in their decision on Friday that the brief stay “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of Mr. Trump’s broader motion for a more sustained pause.The gag order, which was put in place last month by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Federal District Court in Washington, has now been frozen, reinstated and frozen again. The protracted battle, with its back-and-forth filings and multiple reversals, has pitted two visions of Mr. Trump against each other.Prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, have repeatedly tried to portray the former president as a serial abuser of social media whose often belligerent posts about people involved in the election subversion case have had dangerous effects in the real world.Mr. Trump’s lawyers, by contrast, have sought, without evidence, to paint Judge Chutkan’s order as an attempt by President Biden to “silence” his chief opponent in the 2024 election as the race heats up. The former president’s lawyers have argued that the order undermines Mr. Trump’s First Amendment rights to express one of the central messages of his campaign: that the four criminal prosecutions brought against him in the past several months are a form of political persecution.Mr. Trump appears to have paid close attention to the various iterations of the order, and the most recent pause opened the possibility that he could return to making threatening posts that violated the initial restrictions that Judge Chutkan put in place.Her written order barred Mr. Trump from targeting members of her court staff, Mr. Smith or members of his staff, or any people who might reasonably be called to appear as witnesses at trial.The previous time the gag order was lifted — a move Judge Chutkan herself undertook — Mr. Trump almost immediately assailed Mr. Smith as “deranged.”He also made at least two public comments that appeared to target his former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who could be called as a witness in the case. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Republican National Committee Announces Fourth Debate Over Trump’s Objections

      by

      Over the objections of its front-runner, the party has set a date for a fourth primary debate that will take place in Tuscaloosa, Ala., next month.The Republican National Committee has set a date for the fourth debate of the 2024 primaries — over the objection of the party’s front-runner, Donald J. Trump — and incrementally ratcheted up the criteria to make the stage, according to a memo sent to campaigns on Friday.The next debate, the party told campaigns, will be in Tuscaloosa, Ala., on Dec. 6. Candidates will be required to have a minimum of 80,000 unique donors and to have reached 6 percent in two national polls, or in one national poll and in one poll in one of the four early states.The previous criteria had been 4 percent in the polls and 70,000 donors, a level that some of the candidates, including Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, had struggled to reach for the November debate in Miami, although Mr. Christie met it and Mr. Scott is expected to. Other debate attendees next week will be Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina and the businessman Vivek Ramaswamy.The debate field has been steadily shrinking: Former Vice President Mike Pence, who attended the first two debates, announced he was ending his 2024 bid last week, and Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota appears at risk of missing the next debate. Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who made the first debate, has fallen short of the criteria since.Mr. Trump and his top advisers have lobbied the party to cancel the remaining debates because he is so far ahead in the polls.In a statement last month, Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita of the Trump campaign had called for the party to nix all the debates, including next week’s contest in Miami, “in order to refocus its manpower and money on preventing Democrats’ efforts to steal the 2024 election.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly echoed versions of that thought on his social media website.In an interview on Friday at an Orlando hotel, Mr. Christie said he didn’t “love” the new criteria, calling the thresholds “arbitrary,” but said he would abide by them.While Mr. Christie expressed confidence that he would meet the higher bar for polling and donors, he also cautioned: “I think it distracts a bit from our efforts to campaign because you’ve got to focus on going and finding $1 donors to reach some arbitrary number. And there’s no question it’s arbitrary. Why is it 80? Why isn’t it 85? Why isn’t it 75? What’s that really mean anymore? So I don’t love it, but I’ll comply with it.”“My view is I wouldn’t have raised it at all, but I don’t get to make that call,” he said, adding that “we’re not at 80,000 as we sit here today, but we’ll go work on it.” More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump 14th Amendment Disqualification Trial: What to Know About the Colorado Case

      by

      The lawsuit in Denver is one of several across the country arguing that former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold office again.The continued existence of former President Donald J. Trump’s 2024 campaign is being litigated this week in an unassuming courtroom in Colorado.The trial stems from a lawsuit brought by voters in the state who argue that Mr. Trump is ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution because of his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. And the Colorado disqualification case isn’t isolated. Oral arguments stemming from a similar suit, in Minnesota, were held on Thursday.Here is a look at the Colorado case and beyond.What is the background on the Colorado lawsuit?It was filed in September in a state district court in Denver by six Colorado voters — four Republicans and two independents — who are suing with the help of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.These voters argue that Mr. Trump’s presence on the Republican primary ballot next year would harm them by siphoning support from their preferred candidates and, if he won the nomination, by depriving them of the ability “to vote for a qualified candidate in the general election.”They are demanding that the Colorado secretary of state not print Mr. Trump’s name on the ballot, and are asking the court to rule that Mr. Trump is disqualified in order to end any “uncertainty.”What is the 14th Amendment, and what does it say?The Colorado case specifically concerns Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.The central questions are whether the 14th Amendment applies to the presidency; whether Mr. Trump’s behavior before and on Jan. 6 constitutes “engaging in insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution; and whether election officials or the courts can deem a person ineligible under Section 3 without specific action by Congress identifying that person.Constitutional experts have emphasized in interviews with The New York Times that the answers to these questions are not simple or self-evident.In public writings, some scholars have argued that Mr. Trump is ineligible. In an academic article, the conservative law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen concluded: “It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction.” Others have argued the opposite, with the law professors Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman saying in a recent draft paper that they see “no sound basis” for Mr. Baude’s and Mr. Paulsen’s conclusions.What is the plaintiffs’ side saying?From Monday through Wednesday, lawyers for the plaintiffs — the six Colorado voters — called seven witnesses:Daniel Hodges, a Washington, D.C., police officer, and Winston Pingeon, a Capitol Police officer, who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6. They testified that rioters had come equipped with tactical gear and had made it clear that they believed themselves to be acting on Mr. Trump’s behalf. On cross-examination, lawyers for Mr. Trump sought to distance him from the rioters, noting that the officers could not know that any individual rioter had heard his speech.Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, who said lawmakers had read Mr. Trump’s Twitter posts during the attack and saw them as connected “to our own safety in the chamber and also the integrity of the proceedings.” On cross-examination, lawyers for Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Swalwell’s own Twitter post urging Democrats to “fight” against abortion restrictions and asked if that was a call for violence; Mr. Swalwell said no.William C. Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University and an expert on presidential authority in national security. He testified that Mr. Trump could have deployed National Guard troops without a request or permission from local officials.Peter Simi, a professor of sociology at Chapman University and an expert on political extremism. He testified that the far right used “doublespeak” — language that insiders understood to be calling for violence but that maintained plausible deniability. For years, he said, Mr. Trump built credibility with members of groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, such that they saw him as an ally speaking to them in that way.Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University and an expert on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. He said that when the amendment was ratified, “insurrection” was understood to refer to “any public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of the law,” and “engaged” meant “any voluntary act in furtherance of an insurrection, including words of incitement.”Hilary Rudy, a deputy elections director in the Colorado secretary of state’s office. She testified that the secretary of state had a legal obligation to grant ballot access only to qualified candidates, that courts could play a legitimate role in determining who was qualified, and that the office would abide by whatever the court decided.The plaintiffs’ lawyers plan to call one additional witness Friday afternoon.What is Trump’s side saying?As of Thursday, lawyers for Mr. Trump had called six witnesses:Kashyap Patel, a former chief of staff at the Defense Department. He testified that Mr. Trump had pre-emptively authorized the deployment of 10,000 to 20,000 National Guard troops to keep the peace on Jan. 6, and that they were absent because the mayor of Washington had not requested them. Under cross-examination, Mr. Patel said he did not know of any document showing Mr. Trump’s authorization.Katrina Pierson, a former spokeswoman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, who described internal disagreements over who should speak at Mr. Trump’s Jan. 6 rally. She testified that Mr. Trump nixed most of the planned speakers, including the most incendiary ones. She also said he had expressed a desire for 10,000 National Guard troops.Amy Kremer, an organizer of the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse, called the rally attendees “freedom-loving citizens” and “happy warriors,” and said she had seen no indication of violence or violent intent while Mr. Trump was speaking. Under cross-examination, she acknowledged that she had been inside the area that required magnetometer scans, and that she would not have seen anything that happened outside that area.Thomas Van Flein, general counsel and chief of staff to Representative Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona. He testified that the rally crowd was peaceful, but acknowledged that he had left before Mr. Trump spoke.Tom Bjorklund, who is the treasurer of the Colorado Republican Party but testified as a private citizen, attended Mr. Trump’s speech and then went to the Capitol, where he witnessed the riot but did not enter the building himself. He said in the first part of his testimony that he had not seen any violence from Trump supporters. Later, he said he had watched people break windows, but advanced the conspiracy theory that it was a false-flag operation by “antifa.” He also said he had understood Mr. Trump’s “instructions” to be for peaceful protest.Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, testified that he believed the Jan. 6 committee’s report — which the plaintiffs have frequently cited as evidence in their case — was one-sided in its assessment of Mr. Trump’s “culpability” in the attack.Mr. Trump’s team plans to call one more witness Friday morning: an expert who will offer a different interpretation from Professor Magliocca’s of the wording in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.What has the judge said?Before the trial began on Monday, Mr. Trump’s team made several motions to dismiss the case. Judge Sarah B. Wallace, who is overseeing the trial, rejected them.On Wednesday, after the plaintiffs had finished calling most of their witnesses, Mr. Trump’s lawyers requested a “directed verdict” — a conclusion, before the defense had called any witnesses, that no legally sufficient basis existed for the plaintiffs to prevail. They argued that even if the plaintiffs’ claims were accepted as fact, that would not legally justify disqualifying Mr. Trump. His words, they said, did not meet the Supreme Court’s standard for incitement and therefore were protected by the First Amendment.Judge Wallace denied the request, but emphasized that her denial should not be construed as a ruling on the legal questions involved — including whether Mr. Trump had “engaged in insurrection” as the 14th Amendment meant that phrase, and whether the First Amendment limited how the 14th could be applied.Rather, she said she was denying the request because in order to grant it, “I would have to decide many legal issues that I am simply not prepared to decide today.”What happens next?It is not clear how long it will take for Judge Wallace to rule after the trial ends on Friday.However, the trial is being conducted under an expedited process with the goal of having a final resolution before a January deadline for the Colorado secretary of state to certify who is on the primary ballot — and everyone involved understands that her initial ruling needs to come with enough time for appeals to be resolved, too.The United States Supreme Court is expected to have the final say.Chris Cameron More