United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      At a Rally in North Carolina, Trump Avoids Topic A: Mark Robinson

      by

      Through an awkward quirk of scheduling former President Donald J. Trump found himself headlining a rally in North Carolina on Saturday just two days after the man he endorsed to become the state’s next governor, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, was accused of making a series of disturbing posts on a pornographic website.In the lead-up to the rally, there was a great deal of curiosity in political circles about how Mr. Trump, who had called Mr. Robinson “Martin Luther King on steroids,” might react to an explosive CNN report that Mr. Robinson had once called himself a “black NAZI” and defended slavery years ago on a pornographic forum.The answer? He wouldn’t.Speaking for just over an hour at a boisterous rally on an airport tarmac in Wilmington, N.C., Mr. Trump made no mention of Mr. Robinson or the scandal surrounding him, even as he gave shout-outs to a number of the state’s officials and politicians. And Mr. Robinson, who has denied the accusations, was conspicuous by his absence.Instead, Mr. Trump delivered a fairly standard rally speech, attacking Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrats on the economy and immigration while digressing to criticize Ms. Harris’s livestreamed event this week with Oprah Winfrey; to call her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, “weird”; to say that he would ask Elon Musk to help him send rockets to Mars; and to claim falsely that an Olympic boxer was transgender.One of the only speakers at Saturday’s rally to acknowledge the controversy engulfing Mr. Robinson was Representative Dan Bishop, the Republican candidate for state attorney general, who called the revelations “a meticulously timed and coordinated character assassination.”Building on his effort to make immigration, an area where voters are dissatisfied with Democrats, the central issue of the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump announced that he would push Congress to pass legislation outlawing so-called sanctuary cities, places that limit how local law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration authorities. During his presidency, Mr. Trump issued an executive order that tried to withhold federal grants to such locales, an effort that was blocked by federal courts.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Heads to North Carolina as Mark Robinson’s Campaign Reels

      by

      With somewhat awkward timing, former President Donald J. Trump plans to campaign in North Carolina on Saturday as his pick for governor, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, faces accusations of making disturbing posts on a pornographic website.Mr. Trump’s visit to Wilmington, N.C., for a rally will take place two days after CNN reported that Mr. Robinson had once called himself a “black NAZI!” and defended slavery years ago on a pornographic forum.Mr. Robinson, whom Mr. Trump endorsed in March, has denied the report and vowed to stay in the race. But both parties are looking closely at the fallout, which could have a spillover effect in the presidential contest, given that North Carolina is a key battleground state that Mr. Trump won twice but that Democrats see as competitive.The lieutenant governor, who has a long history of making inflammatory and offensive remarks, is not expected to attend Mr. Trump’s rally on Saturday, according to a person familiar with the program’s details. Mr. Robinson was also absent when Mr. Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, visited the state on Wednesday, the day before CNN released its report.A spokesman for Mr. Robinson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. The Trump campaign avoided weighing in on the controversy when asked for comment on Friday.Democrats, who last carried North Carolina in the 2008 presidential race, are seeking to remind voters in the increasingly competitive state about Mr. Trump’s past praise for Mr. Robinson. Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign released a television ad on Friday, “Both Wrong,” highlighting Mr. Trump’s past warm words for Mr. Robinson and some of Mr. Robinson’s past polarizing statements. At least nine electronic billboards around the state will display ads on Friday and Saturday paid for by the Democratic National Committee linking the two Republicans.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How One Man’s Vote in Nebraska Could Change the Presidential Election

      by

      A single Republican state senator appears to be holding back a push by Donald J. Trump to net a potentially pivotal electoral vote even before ballots are cast.In Eastern Nebraska, far from the presidential battleground states, a drama is playing out that could, in a perfectly plausible November scenario, have history-altering repercussions for the nation’s future and the next president — and it may all come down to one man.A single Republican state senator from Omaha, Mike McDonnell, has so far stood firm against a push by former President Donald J. Trump, national Republicans and the Nebraska G.O.P. to change Nebraska from a state that divides its electoral votes by congressional district to one that awards all of them to the statewide winner. Maine is the only other state without a winner-take-all system.If Mr. McDonnell buckles, two other Republican senators in Nebraska’s unicameral legislature who have also not yet committed to changing Nebraska’s system are likely to follow his lead, according to a number of Republicans and Democrats involved in the discussions going on at the State Capitol.The tumbling dominoes would almost certainly give the single electoral vote of Omaha and its suburbs, which Vice President Kamala Harris is favored to win, to Mr. Trump.That might not sound like much, but if Ms. Harris were to win the so-called blue wall — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — while losing every other battleground state, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina, that one electoral vote would be the difference between a 270-268 Electoral College victory for the vice president or a 269-269 tie. And in the event of a tie, the House of Representatives would determine the winner, not by raw votes of House members but by the support of each state delegation.With more delegations in Republican control, Mr. Trump would almost certainly win.As of Friday, Mr. McDonnell, who is barred by Nebraska’s term limits law from seeking re-election, had not changed his position.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Won’t Restore Jill Stein to the Nevada Ballot

      by

      Democrats had argued that Ms. Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, was ineligible because the party had failed to submit a required statement.The Supreme Court said on Friday that it would not restore the Green Party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein, to the Nevada ballot in the coming election. Democrats had challenged her eligibility, saying her party had submitted flawed paperwork.The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when it acts on emergency applications. There were no noted dissents.The Nevada Supreme Court ruled this month that the Green Party’s failure to submit a sworn statement required by state regulations meant that its candidates could not appear on the ballot. The party acknowledged the lapse but said it had relied on instructions from a state election official.The party was represented in the Supreme Court by Jay Sekulow, who has served as a lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump.In response to an inquiry from the party in July, an official sent what she said were the required forms, saying “please use the documents attached to begin collecting signatures.”The party submitted the required number of signatures, and election officials placed its candidates on the ballot after they verified a sampling of the signatures. The Nevada Democratic Party sued, saying the Green Party had failed to supply a sworn statement that the signatures were believed to be from voters registered in the counties in which they lived.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      In Jan. 6 Case Filing, Trump Lawyers Again Demand Dismissal

      by

      Testing procedure, and perhaps the judge’s patience, the former president’s team sought to short-circuit a process to consider how much of the indictment can survive the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.For more than a year, lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump have employed aggressive tactics in defending him against two federal indictments.But late Thursday night, the lawyers tested the boundaries of normal legal process — and perhaps the patience of the federal judge overseeing the case in which the former president stands accused of plotting to overturn his 2020 election defeat.They used what was supposed to have been a procedural request for more information from prosecutors to demand that the judge strike the charges altogether — or at least remake the carefully considered schedule she set this month for pursuing next steps in the proceeding.“This case should be dismissed,” the lawyers wrote in the first sentence of their 30-page motion to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. “Promptly.”While that sort of blunt assertion might not have been surprising in a filing that was actually meant to seek dismissal, Judge Chutkan had requested only that the lawyers weigh in on a procedural question. They were supposed to provide her with their arguments as to why she should force federal prosecutors led by the special counsel, Jack Smith, to give them more discovery information about the charges their client is facing.And yet, as they have done in other cases Mr. Trump is facing, the lawyers sought to repurpose the filing to their client’s own ends, employing the same type of combativeness expressed by Mr. Trump in discussing the charges against him.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Says That if He Loses, ‘the Jewish People Would Have a Lot to Do’ With It

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump, speaking on Thursday at a campaign event in Washington centered on denouncing antisemitism in America, said that “if I don’t win this election,” then “the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss.”Mr. Trump repeated that assertion at a second event, this one focused on Israeli Americans, where he blamed Jews whom he described as “voting for the enemy,” for the hypothetical destruction of Israel that he insisted would happen if he lost in November.Mr. Trump on Thursday offered an extended airing of grievances against Jewish Americans who have not voted for him. He repeated his denunciation of Jews who vote for Democrats before suggesting that the Democratic Party had a “hold, or curse,” on Jewish Americans and that he should be getting “100 percent” of Jewish votes because of his policies on Israel.Jews, who make up just over 2 percent of America’s population, are considered to be one of the most consistently liberal demographics in the country, a trend that Mr. Trump has lamented repeatedly this year as he tries to chip away at their longstanding affiliation with Democrats.Much as he repeatedly spins a doomsday vision of America as he campaigns this year, Mr. Trump has pointed to Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 massacre and to the war in Gaza as he has insisted that Israel will “cease to exist” within a few years if he does not win in November.“With all I have done for Israel, I received only 24 percent of the Jewish vote,” he said during his earlier speech on Thursday, at a campaign event where he spoke to an audience of prominent Republican Jews — including Miriam Adelson, the megadonor who is a major Trump benefactor — and lawmakers. Mr. Trump added that “I really haven’t been treated very well, but it’s the story of my life.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Harris lidera en el promedio de encuestas en Pensilvania y empata a nivel nacional

      by

      Aunque este escenario inesperado podría reflejar una variación usual en los resultados de las encuestas, también podría señalar una ventaja cada vez menor de Trump en el Colegio Electoral.Kamala Harris lidera por cuatro puntos en nuestro nuevo sondeo de Pensilvania.Kenny Holston/The New York Times[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Tenemos nuestras dos primeras encuestas desde el debate presidencial de la semana pasada: una a nivel nacional y otra sobre Pensilvania.Combinadas, son un pequeño enigma.En la encuesta nacional, Kamala Harris y Donald Trump están empatados entre los votantes probables, ambos con un 47 por ciento, un ligero avance para Harris desde nuestra encuesta nacional más reciente, realizada inmediatamente antes del debate.Al mismo tiempo, Harris tenía una ventaja de cuatro puntos en una encuesta de The New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College de Pensilvania, 50 por ciento a 46 por ciento.Antes de entrar en detalles, empecemos por el panorama general:No ha cambiado mucho tras el debate. A pesar de su buena actuación, la vicepresidenta Harris no ganó mucho terreno en comparación con nuestras encuestas más recientes a nivel nacional y en Pensilvania. La encuesta está llena de señales de que nuestros encuestados pensaron que Harris tuvo un buen debate —y que Trump uno malo— pero no ha hecho una gran diferencia, al menos por ahora y al menos en nuestro sondeo.Pensilvania, Pensilvania, Pensilvania. Es posible que Harris no haya ganado mucho, pero su campaña seguramente estará contenta con las cifras en Pensilvania. El resultado nacional, por otra parte, es bastante favorable para Trump (esa es la parte que nos desconcierta y que estamos a punto de analizar). Pero nuestras elecciones se deciden en el Colegio Electoral, y ningún estado tiene un lugar más relevante en las matemáticas electorales que Pensilvania.Ahora vayamos a nuestro enigma: ¿una clara ventaja para Harris en Pensilvania, pero un empate a nivel nacional? Esto es inesperado. Hace cuatro años, el presidente Joe Biden ganó el voto nacional por 4,5 puntos porcentuales, pero ganó Pensilvania por solo 1,2 puntos. Del mismo modo, nuestros promedios de encuestas han mostrado que Harris obtiene mejores resultados a nivel nacional que en Pensilvania. Esta encuesta es casi lo contrario.Por lo general diría que se trata de ruido estadístico, la inevitable variación en los resultados de las encuestas que es inherente al muestreo aleatorio. Y puede que lo sea, como veremos. Pero creo que es difícil suponer que se trata simplemente de ruido, por dos razones:Es lo que hemos señalado antes. Es fácil descartar cualquier resultado de una encuesta como una casualidad estadística. Pero hemos encontrado resultados similares en nuestras dos encuestas más recientes a nivel nacional y en Pensilvania.Esto se está convirtiendo en una tendencia para los encuestadores de alta calidad. Sí, el promedio de nuestras encuestas revela que Harris obtiene mejores resultados a nivel nacional que en Pensilvania, pero la historia es un poco diferente si nos centramos solo en las encuestas de mayor calidad (a las que llamamos “encuestadoras selectas” en nuestra tabla). En el último mes, muchos de estos sondeos muestran que a Harris le va relativamente mal a nivel nacional, pero le va bien en los estados disputados del norte de Estados Unidos.Nota sobre los encuestadores “selectos”: para ser considerados selectos en nuestro promedio de encuestas, los encuestadores deben cumplir dos de los tres criterios siguientes: un historial de resultados superiores a los de otros encuestadores, una metodología transparente y el uso de un método que tenga posibilidades de llegar a la mayoría o a todos los votantes potenciales. No se trata de un enfoque perfecto (omite algunas encuestas muy buenas e incluye otras que no lo son tanto), pero incluye a la mayoría de los pesos pesados del sector y elimina gran parte de lo que no funciona. More