ReportWire

Tag: better chance

  • Trump Is About to Steamroll Nikki Haley

    Trump Is About to Steamroll Nikki Haley

    If one word could sum up Nikki Haley’s ambivalent challenge to Donald Trump in the New Hampshire Republican primary, that word might be: if.

    If as used by New Hampshire’s Republican Governor Chris Sununu, Haley’s most prominent supporter in the state, when he concluded his energetic introduction of her at a large rally in Manchester on Friday night. “If you think Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, don’t sit on your couch and not participate in democracy,” Sununu insisted. “You gotta go vote, right?”

    In that formulation, if served as more shield than sword. By framing his argument that way, Sununu clearly intended to appeal to the voters who do consider Trump a threat to democracy, but without endorsing that sentiment himself.

    That slight hesitation about fully confronting the GOP’s fearsome front-runner has been the consistent attitude of Haley’s campaign. Haley, the former South Carolina governor, has shown impressive political skills and steely discipline to outmaneuver a large field of men and emerge as the most viable remaining alternative to Trump. She has displayed fortitude in soldiering on against Trump as a procession of Republican elected officials has endorsed him for the nomination over the past few weeks. And beginning with her speech last Monday night after the Iowa caucus, Haley has turned up the volume on her own criticism of Trump, yoking him to Joe Biden as too old and divisive. “With me, you’ll get no drama, no vendettas, no vengeance,” she told the crowd on Friday night.

    But in this possibly decisive week of the GOP race, Haley has made clear that she will go so far and no further in criticizing or challenging Trump, just as Sununu did with his telltale if. Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary realistically represents the last chance for Haley to stop, or even slow, the former president’s march to his third consecutive GOP nomination. If Trump wins, especially by a big margin, he will be on a glide path to becoming the nominee. Nothing Haley has done this week reflects the gravity of that moment. “She’s got to swing for the fences, and so far she’s just throwing out bunts,” Mark McKinnon, who served as the chief media adviser to George W. Bush’s two presidential campaigns, told me.

    Many New Hampshire political leaders resistant to Trump fear that Haley has not done nearly enough to generate a surge of turnout among independent voters—known locally as “undeclared voters.” Mike Dennehy, a longtime GOP strategist in New Hampshire, says that Haley’s messaging to these undeclared voters has lacked enough urgency to generate the brushfire of excitement she needs among them. “In my opinion, she’s not doing what she needs to do to connect with independent voters,” Dennehy told me. Haley, he believes, should be framing the choice to New Hampshire voters much more starkly, telling them: “It’s the end of the road here; I’m your last chance to stop a Trump-Biden rematch.” Haley fleetingly raised that argument in her remarks following the Iowa caucus, but it has receded as she’s reverted toward her standard stump speech in New Hampshire.

    McKinnon and Dennehy know something about New Hampshire presidential campaigns that catch fire among independents. Dennehy was the New Hampshire campaign manager for then–Senator John McCain when he stunned George W. Bush, McKinnon’s candidate, in the 2000 New Hampshire primary. Bush arrived after a big win in the kickoff Iowa caucus and held a commanding lead in national polls. On the day of that New Hampshire primary, I had lunch with McKinnon; Matthew Dowd, the campaign’s voter-targeting guru; and Karl Rove, Bush’s chief strategist. They were relaxed, confident, and starting to kick around ideas for how they would contest the general election, while I scribbled in a notebook. Then, halfway through the lunch, Rove took a call, abruptly left the table, and never came back. The reason for his sudden summons back to campaign headquarters became apparent a few hours later: McCain that night beat Bush among independent voters by three to one, exit polls found, and won the state overall by nearly 20 percentage points.

    In retrospect, McKinnon said, the Bush campaign should have seen what was coming. “McCain was definitely on fire; you could feel it on the ground,” he told me. For months McCain had held lengthy town halls across the state, answering questions for hours and then driving to the next event on the “Straight Talk Express” campaign bus, taking questions from reporters for hours more. He was provocative, funny, unfiltered, and unafraid of challenging Republican orthodoxy. “He was entirely authentic, entirely accessible; he was campaigning like he was running for governor of New Hampshire, steely, granite-like,” McKinnon recalled.

    Like McCain, Haley has burrowed into New Hampshire with months of grassroots events. But the similarities stop there. Haley’s town halls are much more structured and controlled; sometimes she doesn’t even take questions from the audience. Her interactions with reporters are limited and often stilted. And she made a choice this week to reject debates by ABC and CNN unless Trump also participated, which forced the sponsors to cancel the sessions. Some Republican strategists are sympathetic to her decision not to appear again with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, but more of the people I spoke with believe that by withdrawing, she forfeited the biggest platforms she would have had this week to drive a message to New Hampshire voters. “It’s about pulling as many independents out to vote as you can, and you can’t get to those independents if you don’t go on places like CNN and WMUR,” Dennehy said, referring to the powerful local New Hampshire television station that would have co-hosted one of the debates with ABC.

    Haley is pushing a tougher message against Trump than she was before Iowa. When a reporter this weekend asked her what her closing message was to New Hampshire voters, Haley replied, “Americans deserve better than what the options are. You’ve got Biden and Trump both distracted with investigations, both distracted with other things that aren’t about how to make Americans’ lives safer and better.” She says flatly that Trump is lying about her record and that America should not have to choose between two roughly 80-year-old candidates. After Trump at a Friday-night rally confused Haley with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during an extended monologue about the January 6 riot, Haley on Saturday responded by questioning his mental acuity: “When you’re dealing with the pressures of a presidency, we can’t have someone else that we question whether they’re mentally fit to do this.” And she’s been willing to differentiate from Trump on issues where she can reaffirm positions that were considered conservative in the Ronald Reagan–era GOP. That includes criticizing Trump for running up the federal deficit, not taking a tough enough stand against China, and playing “footsy,” as she termed it, with dictators such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

    But Haley has muffled her case against Trump by more often refusing to confront him or by even defending him. When asked by CNN’s Dana Bash last week about Trump being held liable for sexual abuse in the defamation case brought against him by writer E. Jean Carroll, Haley implausibly replied, “I haven’t paid attention to his cases.” Last Friday, reporters asked Haley whether she saw racism in Trump’s multiplying jabs at her immigrant ancestry, which included reposting an inaccurate “birther”-like claim that she was ineligible to run because her parents had not been U.S. citizens when she was born. Her response could not have been more tepid: “I’ll let people decide what he means by his attacks.”

    Haley has also continued to insist that, if elected, she would pardon Trump should he be convicted in any of the cases against him. Hours before the Iowa caucuses last Monday, she told a Fox News anchor that she would vote for Trump over Biden “any day of the week.” She’s closing her New Hampshire campaign with an unusual three-minute ad centered on a testimonial to her compassion and commitment from the mother of Otto Warmbier, the American college student who died in North Korean captivity; but nowhere does the ad criticize Trump for his coziness with the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. In Haley’s stump speech to New Hampshire voters, she still declares that chaos “follows” Trump “rightly or wrongly,” as he if is potentially just an innocent bystander to all the firestorms that he ignites with his words and actions. (Haley does Olympic-level contortions to avoid expressing any value judgments about Trump.) On Saturday, she even tempered her criticism of Trump’s confusion the night before when she reassuringly told a Fox interviewer, “I’m not saying that this is a Joe Biden situation.” To truly threaten a front-runner as commanding as Trump, “you’ve just got to throw caution to the wind,” McKinnon said.  “And it’s the opposite with Haley: The wind throws caution to her.”

    The evidence from Iowa suggests that Haley’s cautious approach has left her with a coalition too narrow to make a strong stand. With Trump bashing her in ads and his stump speech as “liberal” and “weak,” particularly on issues relating to immigration, Haley predictably ran poorly in Iowa among the most conservative voters, according to the entrance poll conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of media organizations.

    But although she performed better among more moderate elements of the GOP coalition—particularly those with four-year college degrees—she failed to inspire enough of them to come out and vote on a cold night. In Iowa, Haley won her highest share of the vote in the most populous urban and suburban counties. But the total number of votes she won in the big counties was only a fraction of the total that had come out for Marco Rubio, a candidate who appealed to a similar coalition, in the 2016 GOP caucus. Max Rust, a data analyst at The Wall Street Journal, told me in an email that his unpublished analysis found that Iowa turnout fell more compared with 2016 in better educated and more affluent areas than in rural and blue-collar places. “I was really surprised how much Haley underperformed in the suburbs,” David Kochel, a longtime GOP strategist, told me.

    With Trump holding a steady double-digit lead over her in the New Hampshire tracking polls, Haley faces the prospect of a similar squeeze in Tuesday’s primary. Trump’s ferocious attacks on her from the right leave her with little opportunity to crack his support among staunch conservatives. And her much more carefully nuanced criticism of him leaves her facing long odds of catalyzing the massive turnout among independent voters she’d need to generate any momentum moving forward. The Suffolk University/Boston Globe/NBC-10 tracking poll released Saturday showed Haley only running even with Trump among undeclared voters, signaling that she’s failing to draw into the primary the large center-left contingent most hostile to the former president. (At the same time, Trump continued to lead her in the survey by two-to-one among Republicans.)

    “There’s always been this ambivalence that emanates from her about Trump,” Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, told me. Scala, the author of Stormy Weather, a book about the New Hampshire primary, said that he understands that Haley must maneuver carefully, because “ultimately, if you want to win the nomination of this party, you are going to have to win over voters who like Trump.” But, Scala added, “I have to think [her] ambivalence rubs off on voters” and may discourage many of those most critical of Trump from bothering to turn out. (Sununu hasn’t helped that problem by publicly insisting that Haley may be hoping only for a strong second-place finish, and repeatedly declaring that he would vote for Trump if he wins the nomination.)

    In my interactions with voters at a few Haley events here, she seems to inspire more respect than enthusiasm. Some are drawn to her contained and cerebral style, and to her message of generational change. “I was thinking if we give her a chance, we will get an opportunity to go in a new direction,” George Jobel, a marketing manager from Concord, told me after Haley’s Manchester rally. But for many others, Haley is simply the last option to register a vote of disapproval about Trump. Dan O’Donnell, a realtor and undeclared voter from Hollis, is planning to cast his ballot for the former South Carolina governor. But he told me that when friends ask him if he’s voting for Haley, “I tell them, ‘No, I’m going to vote against Trump.’” In the latest Suffolk tracking poll, most independent voters backing Haley likewise said that they were motivated primarily to vote against Trump, rather than for her.

    In fairness to Haley, it’s not like anyone else this year—or, for that matter, in 2016—cracked the code of beating Trump in a Republican primary. DeSantis tried the opposite of her strategy, by running to Trump’s right and hoping that moderates would eventually consolidate around him if he was the only alternative remaining; that approach has left DeSantis in an even weaker position than Haley, barely surviving in the race. And toppling a front-runner is never easy: Even after McCain’s New Hampshire upset in 2000, he won only a few more states, and Bush recovered to resoundingly win the nomination.

    But McCain at least went down swinging, indelibly imprinting a maverick image that allowed him to come back and win the GOP nomination eight years later. In his own way, even DeSantis seems liberated by the prospect of defeat, publicly declaring that Trump cares more about personal loyalty than the good of the country or even the party, and accurately complaining that Fox and other conservative media outlets function as a “Praetorian guard” suppressing criticism of the former president.

    Haley, by contrast, still seems here to be weighing every word, as if she expects she will eventually need to defend it from the witness box in some Stalin-esque future MAGA-loyalty trial. If Haley thought she had a better chance to win, maybe she and her allies would dispense with the word if when describing Trump’s potential threat to American democracy. But her reluctance to fully confront Trump probably betrays what she really thinks about the odds that she can wrest control of the party from him this year. In this break-the-glass moment for Trump’s Republican opponents, Haley has made clear she will do no more than tap lightly on the window.

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • We Got Lucky With the Mystery Dog Illness

    We Got Lucky With the Mystery Dog Illness

    In late July 1980, a five-month-old Doberman pinscher puppy in Washington, D.C., started throwing up blood. It died the next day at an animal hospital, one of many pets that suffered that year from a new illness, parvovirus. “This is the worst disease I’ve ever seen in dogs,” a local veterinarian told The Washington Post, in an article describing the regional outbreak. It killed so fast that it left pet owners in disbelief, he said.

    The world was in the middle of a canine pandemic. The parvovirus, which was first recognized in 1978, can live for months outside the body, spreading not just from animal to animal but through feces, sneaking into the yards of dog owners via a bit of excrement stuck to the bottom of a person’s shoe. It quickly traveled across countries and continents, infecting thousands and possibly millions of dogs in the late ’70s and early ’80s. Essentially every dog alive at the time caught it, Colin Parrish, a virology professor at Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, told me. And untold numbers  died: A single Associated Press report from August 1980 mentions the city of Chicago losing 300 dogs by July of that year, and South Carolina losing more than 700 in just two months.

    A vaccine was quickly developed, but with doses in short supply, the outbreaks dragged on for years. Today, puppies are routinely vaccinated for parvovirus, and the 1978 canine pandemic has faded from public consciousness. Since then, no outbreak has unfolded on that scale, even as dogs have become more integrated into American households. Few people stay up at night worrying about what might happen if a new and devastating disease did appear. Yet, for a moment at the end of last year, it seemed like one might have.

    In late 2023, veterinarians started noticing something odd. They’d seen an uptick in cases of dogs sick with respiratory symptoms responding poorly to antibiotics. Some would develop severe pneumonia quickly and die. Soon, cases of this suspected illness started popping up in states across the country. Around Thanksgiving, media reports began warning dog owners about a “mystery dog illness” spreading nationwide.

    Many experts now suggest that there probably was no “mystery dog illness.” More likely, some mix of previously known illnesses were surging around the same time. Still, the case is not entirely closed, and the prospect of a deadly new disease has left dog owners fearful and jumpy: How much should they worry? Could that seemingly normal cough in the family pet actually be something much more dangerous?

    And if a new disease had started a modern dog pandemic, the world’s first in almost 50 years, what would have happened next is not entirely clear. Unlike humans and livestock, companion animals do not have sophisticated, coordinated infrastructure dedicated to monitoring and managing their diseases. The technology and science might exist to fight a dog pandemic, but any response would depend on what kind of illness we found ourselves dealing with—and whether it could infect humans as well.

    Because dogs don’t interact with one another as much as humans do, dog transmission networks are different from ours. They see one another on walks, in day cares, or in dog parks. Some might travel between states or even between countries, but many just stay in their backyard. Their cloistered networks make it hard for some viruses to move among them. In 2015 and 2016, outbreaks of a nasty canine flu called H3N2, which was traced to a single introduction in the United States from South Korea, never reached full pandemic status. “I just remember seeing so many of these pretty sick dogs, like every day,” Steve Valeika, a veterinarian and infectious-disease specialist in North Carolina, told me. “And then it just stopped.” Most of his cases were from one boarding facility.

    A disease such as parvo, which can spread without direct contact, has a better chance of circulating widely. But even then, authorities could respond quickly, maybe even quicker than in 1978. The same mRNA tools that led to the speedy development of a COVID vaccine for humans could be used in a dog pandemic; the ability to test for dog diseases has improved since parvovirus. Information travels that much faster over the internet.

    Still, as companion animals, dogs and cats fall into an awkward space between systems. “There is no CDC for dogs,” Valeika said. “It’s all very patchwork.” Typically, animal disease is managed by agricultural agencies—in this country, the USDA. But these groups are more focused on outbreaks in livestock, such as swine flu, which threaten the food supply, the economy, or human safety. If an outbreak were to emerge in companion animals, veterinary associations, local health departments, and other dog-health groups may all pitch in to help manage it.

    The dairy and pig industries, for example, are far more coordinated. “If they said, ‘We need to get all the players together to talk about a new emerging disease issue on pigs,’ that’d be easy. They’d know who to call, and they’d be on the phone that afternoon,” Scott Weese, professor in veterinary infectious diseases at the University of Guelph, in Canada, explains. Organizing a conference call like that on the topic of a dog disease would be trickier, especially in a big country like the United States. And the USDA isn’t designed around pets, although “it’s not that they don’t care or don’t try,” he said. (The USDA did not respond to a request for comment.) No one is formally surveilling for dog disease in the way government agencies and other groups monitor for human outbreaks. At base, monitoring requires testing, which is expensive and might not change a vet’s treatment plan. “How many people want to spend $250 to get their swab tested?” Parrish asked.

    Dogs aren’t human. But they are close to humans, and it is easy to imagine that, in a dog pandemic, owners would go to great lengths to keep their pets safe. Their closeness to us, in this way, could help protect them. It also poses its own risk: If a quickly spreading dog disease jumped to humans, a different machinery would grind into gear.

    If humans could be vulnerable and certainly if they were getting sick, then the CDC would get involved. “Public health usually takes the lead on anything where we’ve got that human and animal side,” Weese told me. These groups are better funded, are better staffed, and have more expertise—but their priority is us, not our pets. The uncomfortable truth about zoonotic disease is that culling, or killing, animals helps limit spread. In 2014, after a health-care worker in Spain contracted Ebola, authorities killed her dog Excalibur as a precaution, despite a petition and protests. When the woman recovered, she was devastated. (“I’ve forgotten about everything except the death of Excalibur,” she later told CNN.) Countries routinely cull thousands of livestock animals when dealing with the spread of deadly diseases. If a new dog-borne pathogen threatened the lives of people, the U.S. would be faced with the choice of killing infected animals or dedicating resources to quarantining them.

    A scenario in which pet owners stand by while their dogs are killed en masse is hard to imagine. People love their pets fiercely, and consider them family; many would push to save their dogs. But even in a scenario where humans were safe, the systems we’ve set up might not be able to keep pets from dying on a disturbing scale. Already, there’s a nationwide shortage of vets; in a dog-health emergency, people would want access to emergency care, and equipment such as ventilators. “I am concerned that we don’t have enough of that to deal with a big pandemic as it relates to pets,” Jane Sykes, a medicine and epidemiology professor at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine and the founder of the International Society for Companion Animal Infectious Diseases, told me.

    Congress has mandated that the CDC, USDA, and Department of the Interior, which oversees wildlife, work on strengthening “federal coordination and collaboration on threats related to diseases that can spread between animals and people,” Colin Basler, the deputy director of CDC’s One Health Office, wrote in an email statement. A new, deadly canine disease would almost certainly leave experts scrambling to respond, in some way. And in that scramble, pet owners could be left in a temporary information vacuum, worrying about the health of their little cold-nosed, four-legged creatures. The specifics of any pandemic story depend on the disease—how fast it moves, how it sickens and kills, and how quickly—but in almost any scenario it’s easy to imagine the moment when someone fears for their pet and doesn’t know what help will come, and how soon.

    Caroline Mimbs Nyce

    Source link

  • The Two Republican Theories for Beating Trump

    The Two Republican Theories for Beating Trump

    The latest GOP presidential debate demonstrated again that Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley are pursuing utterly inimical strategies for catching the front-runner, Donald Trump.

    The debate, on Wednesday evening, also showed why neither approach looks remotely sufficient to dislodge Trump from his commanding position in the race.

    DeSantis delivered a stronger overall debate performance than Haley. But the evening mostly displayed the structural limitations of the theory that each campaign is operating under, and the limited progress either candidate has made toward surmounting those obstacles.

    As he showed during the debate, DeSantis is grounding his coalition on the right by defining himself as an unflagging champion for the party’s most conservative elements. During the debate, the Florida governor’s frequent attacks on Haley, and more infrequent (and oblique) jabs at Trump, both represented variations on the charge that neither rival can be trusted to advance conservative priorities.

    Haley, in mirror image, is grounding her coalition in the party’s center. She has focused on consolidating the centrist GOP voters and donors who have long expressed the most resistance to Trump. That includes moderates, people with at least a four-year college degree, GOP-leaning independents, and suburbanites.

    DeSantis’s vision, in other words, has been to start on the right and over time build toward the center; Haley wants to grow in the opposite direction by locking down the center, and then expanding into the right.

    Supporters of both Haley and DeSantis believe that the other’s approach lowers their ceiling too much to ultimately topple Trump. The problem for all Republicans looking for an alternative to the former president is that last week’s debate offered the latest evidence that each camp may be right about the other’s limitations. With the voting beginning only five weeks from Monday in the Iowa caucus, neither Haley nor DeSantis has found any effective way to loosen Trump’s grip on the party.

    Neither, in fact, has even tried hard to do so. Instead, they have centered their efforts almost entirely on trying to squeeze out the other to become Trump’s principal rival. To beat Trump, or to come close, eventually either of them will need to peel away some of the roughly 60 percent of GOP voters who now say in national polls that they intend to support him for the nomination. But both have behaved as if they can leave that challenge for a later day, while focusing on trying to clear the field to create a one-on-one contest with the front-runner.

    The theory in DeSantis’s camp has been that the only way to beat Trump is to aim directly at his core supporters with a conservative message. DeSantis advisers acknowledge that his positioning has not connected with many centrist voters. But his camp believes that if DeSantis can emerge after the early states as the last viable alternative to Trump, the moderates most resistant to the former president will have no choice but to rally around the Florida governor, even if they consider him too Trump-like himself.

    The voters now drawn to Haley “share a goal in common with Governor DeSantis in that they want an alternative to Trump,” Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent Iowa religious conservative who has endorsed DeSantis, told me. “The more that DeSantis proves there is one alternative to Trump, he will start peeling off that lane as well.” By contrast, Vander Plaats argues, if DeSantis falls out of contention, his support is more likely to flow back to Trump than toward Haley. “I haven’t heard any supporter of DeSantis yet saying: ‘I’m deciding between him and Haley,’” he told me. “Basically, they are between Trump and him.”

    DeSantis’s supporters anticipate that his strategy will pay off if he finishes strongly in Iowa. But so far, his decision to offer voters what amounts to Trumpism without Trump has returned few dividends. With his Trump-like agenda on immigration and foreign policy, and emphasis on culture-war issues such as transgender rights, DeSantis has alienated many of the centrist GOP voters most dubious of the former president while failing to dislodge many of his core supporters.

    “Ron DeSantis should have consolidated the non-Trump wing of the party from the get go and then gone after soft Trump supporters,” Alex Stroman, a former executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party, told me in an email. “Instead, he tried to out-MAGA Trump from the right and alienated not only soft-Trump voters but also the more pragmatic wing of the party. It was a strategic blunder.”

    Haley has filled that vacuum with the elements of the party most skeptical of Trump. Her approach has been to start with the primary voters who like the former president the least, with the hope of eventually attracting more of those ambivalent about him. Her backers believe she has a better chance than DeSantis to reach those “maybe Trump” voters. As the veteran GOP pollster Whit Ayres told me, DeSantis “has tried to appeal to some of the ‘always Trump’ voters, but the ‘always Trump’ voters are always Trump for a reason. Nikki Haley seems to have figured out the job is to consolidate the ‘maybe Trump’ voters who supported Trump twice but now … want a different style and different temperament.”

    DeSantis still leads Haley in most national polls, though that may be changing. And he remains even or ahead of her in the polls in Iowa, where he has campaigned relentlessly, won support from most of the state’s Republican leadership (including Governor Kim Reynolds), attracted broad backing in the influential religious-conservative community, and spent heavily on building a grassroots organization.

    But DeSantis is in a much weaker position in the other early states. A recent poll by CNN and the University of New Hampshire found him falling to fourth in the Granite State. That poll found Haley emerging as a clear second to Trump, as did another recent CNN survey in South Carolina. In each state, she attracted about twice as much support as DeSantis did. Polls also consistently show Haley running much better than DeSantis, or Trump, in hypothetical general election match ups against President Joe Biden.

    All of these positive trends largely explain why DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, another GOP contender, attacked Haley at the debate. Haley was right when she suggested that the attention reflected anxiety in DeSantis’s camp about her rise. But that motivation doesn’t necessarily make the attacks any less effective.

    After delivering the most assured performances in the first three GOP debates, Haley seemed wobbly last week as DeSantis and Ramaswamy pummeled her from the right. Dave Wilson, a longtime Republican and social-conservative activist in South Carolina, told me that Haley had not faced that kind of sustained ideological assault from the right during her career in the state. “It hasn’t been used against her in South Carolina,” Wilson said. “Nikki has never been some kind of mainstreamer or a shill for the big corporations. That’s not who she has portrayed herself as, or how she governed, when she was governor of South Carolina.”

    At the debate, Haley never seemed to find solid ground when DeSantis accused her of resisting the hard-line approaches he has championed in Florida on issues affecting transgender people. Haley neither embraced DeSantis’s agenda nor challenged it and instead insisted he was mischaracterizing her own record, without entirely clarifying her views. “Especially on those types of cultural issues, it is probably always going to be advantage DeSantis,” Vander Plaats told me. “I think if you turned down the volume and just [looked at] the physical appearance, Nikki was very concerned at that point, like she knew she was in a tough space, and DeSantis was in a very confident space.”

    Her uneasy response on issues of LGBTQ rights was a stark contrast to the confident course she has set on abortion. One reason Haley has gained favor with more centrist Republicans is that she has so clearly argued that the GOP cannot achieve sweeping federal abortion restrictions and must pursue consensus around more limited goals. “I think Nikki Haley talks about social issues the same way that real people do: not through demagoguery or hysterics like some candidates, but having real policy disagreements while showing compassion for those affected—and I think that’s the winning formula,” Stroman said.

    But at the debate, Haley was unwilling to apply that formula to LGBTQ issues, even as she seemed to seek a more empathetic tone than DeSantis.

    “She has clearly thought through a more moderate, nuanced position on abortion that would have greater appeal in a general election,” Alice Stewart, a longtime GOP strategist who has worked for leading social-conservative candidates, told me. “It appears she has not mapped out her position on other culture-war issues, such as transgender procedures and school bathrooms.”

    Doubling down on his message at the debate, DeSantis’s campaign told me afterward that “within the confines of the Constitution” he would support nationalizing the key laws affecting transgender people that he has passed in Florida, such as banning gender-affirming care for minors. Haley’s campaign still appeared focused mostly on deflecting this argument: In comments to me after the debate, her aides stressed that although DeSantis criticized her for opposing legislation as governor requiring students to use the restroom of the gender they were assigned at birth, he similarly indicated that the issue was not a priority for him not long thereafter, during his first gubernatorial campaign in 2018. Their message was that DeSantis is stressing these issues now merely out of expediency. But in an email exchange with me after the debate, Haley’s campaign drew a clearer distinction with DeSantis than she did during the encounter: rather than national action to impose on every state the restrictions Florida has approved on LGBTQ issues, the campaign said Haley would “encourage states to pass laws” that ban classroom discussion of sexual orientation or regulate bathroom use for transgender kids. The one exception the campaign noted is that, like DeSantis, she would also support national legislation banning transgender girls from competing in school sports.

    The debate drew only a small audience and is unlikely by itself to significantly change the trajectory of the DeSantis and Haley competition. Wilson and Stroman both said they doubt that DeSantis’s ideological attacks will hurt Haley much in the South Carolina primary. “It’s going to be harder in South Carolina than he thinks, because everyone knows what Nikki Haley did in this state,” Wilson said. “Under her leadership, a lot of strong conservative stands were taken.”

    But, of course, GOP voters don’t know nearly as much about Haley in the cascade of states that will vote in early March, after South Carolina. DeSantis supporters view her unsteady response to his ideological assault at the debate as validation of their belief that Haley can never attract enough conservative voters to genuinely threaten Trump. “There’s just no path for her to win the nomination,” Vander Plaats argued. “That lane doesn’t exist.”

    The path for any alternative to beat Trump is a rocky one, but it’s premature to assume that Haley cannot outlast DeSantis to become the last viable challenger to the former president. She still has time to formulate better responses to the charge that she’s insufficiently conservative for the Trump-era GOP. Portraying Haley as too squishy in the culture war might help her in New Hampshire, the state where she’s hoping to emerge as Trump’s principal rival.

    But the debate underscored her need to sharpen her answers on those issues as the race moves on. And for Haley’s supporters, it raised an ominous question: If she couldn’t respond more effectively to an attack on her conservative credentials from DeSantis and Ramaswamy, how would she hold up if she ever becomes enough of a threat for Donald Trump to press that case himself?

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Ron Johnson Does It Again

    Ron Johnson Does It Again

    Senator Ron Johnson has survived another hairy reelection bid to win a third term in Wisconsin. This time, however, no one should be surprised.

    Six years ago, Johnson’s defeat seemed so likely that the national Republican Party pulled its money from Wisconsin, all but conceding his race. Johnson won anyway. This past August, a Marquette poll found him trailing his Democratic opponent, Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes, by seven points, 51 percent to 44 percent. This morning, when the race was called, Johnson was leading Barnes by about one percentage point.

    In the end, Johnson’s race wasn’t much of a nail-biter. Polls swung in his favor beginning in September, seemingly the result of a ruthless, well-funded—and to many Barnes supporters, downright racist—ad campaign blaming the lieutenant governor for a rise in violent crime and picturing him alongside other progressive Democrats of color.

    Yet to Democrats, no setback in the scramble for the Senate was likely more frustrating than their failure to oust Johnson. The former businessman’s turn toward the conspiratorial wing of the GOP over the past few years had made him one of the worst-polling senators in the country and easily the most vulnerable Republican incumbent up for reelection this fall. Johnson became a vocal critic of COVID-19 vaccines and a champion of what he called “the vaccine injured.” He was embroiled in both impeachments of former President Donald Trump and downplayed the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

    In Barnes, many Democrats believed they had found a rising national star—a 35-year-old onetime community organizer from a union family who could excite Black voters in Milwaukee and progressives in Madison while winning over working-class white voters in the rest of the state. Barnes, a former state legislator who won election as lieutenant governor in 2018, led the Democratic Senate primary from the get-go and ultimately won in a walk after his opponents dropped out and endorsed him in the closing weeks of the campaign. Barnes courted labor unions aggressively and broadcast the sunniest of TV ads that showed him unpacking groceries and hitting baseballs off a tee.

    But Barnes had emerged from the progressive left’s Working Families Party, an ally of Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Exploiting fears over rising crime, Johnson’s campaign resurfaced images and quotes linking Barnes to the “Defund the police” movement from the aftermath of the George Floyd protests in 2020. Polls over the summer showed Barnes ahead of Johnson, but the Democrat’s standing dropped after weeks of crime-focused negative ads.

    Wisconsin Democrats are left to wonder whether another one of their choices in the August primary—Alex Lasry, the son of a co-owner of the Milwaukee Bucks; Tom Nelson, a county executive; or Sarah Godlewski, the state treasurer—would have stood a better chance against Johnson. Perhaps Johnson has benefited from a bit of luck: The three years he has been on the ballot—2010, 2016, and now 2022—have all been relatively strong Republican years. (A few red-state Democratic senators, including Jon Tester of Montana and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, have had the similar good fortune of running in favorable environments for their party.)

    Yet as I wrote last month, the polls that have pointed to Johnson’s unpopularity might not be capturing the full wellspring of his support in Wisconsin. To a person, the Republicans with whom I spoke said they viewed Johnson’s seemingly quixotic fight against conventional COVID treatments and vaccines not as a liability but as a strength, and that it was a big reason they supported him. During his first term, Johnson seemed to embody a traditional conservatism of low taxes and low spending, the small-government ethos of a fellow Wisconsite, former House Speaker Paul Ryan. He still champions those policies, but he has become far more closely linked to the establishment-toppling, media-fighting style of Trump. Johnson now inspires more passion on both sides, whether it’s hatred from his critics or sympathy from his supporters. “The news is just crucifying him constantly. They made him out to be a horrible person, and he’s not,” Ann Calvin, a 57-year-old who worked for years in an assisted-living facility, told me during my visit.

    Like Trump, Johnson has also made a habit of defying expectations and foiling his critics. He did so again yesterday, completing his second comeback in six years to deprive Democrats of a seat that once seemed theirs to lose.

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • The Kari Lake Effect

    The Kari Lake Effect

    As election returns rolled in on the evening of November 3, 2020, a local news host in Phoenix was starring in an intensely awkward broadcast. The Fox 10 anchor Kari Lake was refusing to call Arizona for Joe Biden—even though her network had already done so. “If [voters] wake up tomorrow or two days later and it flips,” she insisted, her pendant earrings swinging, “there’s distrust in the system.” Lake’s co-anchor, John Hook, lost patience. “Well, we’re taking our cues from Fox, the mothership,” he interrupted. “That’s kind of what we do.”

    A few weeks after the election, Lake went on leave. In March 2021, the 51-year-old announced that she was quitting TV altogether. What happened next was a political rise that not even Lake herself could have anticipated.

    That June, she declared a bid for governor of Arizona. Unlike other Republicans, Lake said, she would kowtow to nobody and nothing—not the would-be election fraudsters of the Democratic Party, not the federal government’s mandates, and certainly not the radical left. She quickly earned Donald Trump’s endorsement, began paying visits to Mar-a-Lago, and started speaking alongside the former president at rallies—he’s joining her on the stump in Mesa today. By August of this year, Lake had defeated all of her GOP primary opponents. Now Lake is one election away from the governor’s office.

    I’ve been following Lake’s campaign since January, when I went to cover a Trump rally in Florence, about an hour’s drive southeast of Phoenix. Because I was there for his 2024 “soft launch,” as I called it then, I hadn’t paid much attention when Lake walked up to the podium, wrapped in a gray poncho. The crowd started screaming for her, chanting her name. Lake vowed to lock up “that liar” Anthony Fauci, as well as anyone involved with the “corrupt, shady, shoddy election of 2020.” The applause was deafening.

    The way Lake has imitated Trump’s rhetoric is obvious, but as I’ve followed her in the months since, something else has become clear: She is much better at this than Trump’s other emulators. That makes sense, given her first career in front of the camera, cultivating trust among thousands of Maricopa County viewers. But this is more than imitation: Lake has made MAGA her own. She’s agile as a politician in a way that other high-profile Trump-endorsed candidates, like scandal-plagued Herschel Walker and crudités-eating Mehmet Oz, are not. Lake is more likable than Senate hopefuls like Blake Masters or J. D. Vance. And she bats at the press with a vivacity unmatched by anyone but the big man himself.

    Lake is in a neck-and-neck race in Arizona, but she arguably has a better chance than any other famous Trump endorsee this cycle. Her Democratic opponent, the current Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, is a remarkably dull candidate who has refused to debate Lake, calling her a “conspiracy theorist.” That refusal might be a gift: This week, Lake will get a 30-minute solo interview on the local PBS affiliate.

    If Lake wins in November, the stakes are clear: Her administration will oversee elections in a swing state that will help decide the next president of the United States. All “Stop the Steal” candidates pose a threat to American democracy, but Lake’s race “is a category on its own,” Tim Miller, a Republican strategist and Trump critic, told me. “On a scale of one to 10, this is a 13-level threat.”

    Win or lose, Lake’s political trajectory seems set to stretch well beyond the November election. Her success so far has unlocked glittering possibilities, including book deals and prime-time pro-Trump TV slots. She may even be rewarded with a spot alongside Trump on the 2024 presidential ticket. Whatever happens, Kari Lake is here to stay.

    “I would really love to talk to you,” I told Lake. By this point, on a stiflingly hot September evening in Tempe, I’d been asking Lake’s campaign team for an interview with her for weeks. I’d sent repeated emails, lobbied, and cajoled, but to no effect other than an appointment that fell through. When that didn’t pan out, I introduced myself to Lake amid a small crowd outside the Sun Devil Stadium ahead of an Arizona State football game. Members of her team formed a tight circle around us, and her husband, Jeff Halperin, filmed the interaction. (He gathers footage for campaign ads and social-media mockery purposes.)

    Lake stood so close that I could see the different shades of brown in her irises. Sweat dripped down my back. “I’ve read your work,” she said. There’s a seductive power to Lake’s voice: deep but still feminine; firm, even severe, but smooth. Like black tea with a little honey. This is what I was thinking as she noted that I had used phrases like election denier and conspiracy theorist to describe her in past articles. “That,” she told me, not breaking eye contact, “is judgment, not journalism.”

    All the same, Lake told me that she’d think about an interview. Two days later, at an “Ask Me Anything” public event, her campaign skirted my requests. An aide suggested that we make it a Zoom interview, but this never happened. Lake and I never met again.

    This was too bad, because Lake is adept at telling her story. She grew up in rural Iowa, near the Quad Cities, as the youngest of nine children—eight girls and one boy. “My family was very poor,” she says in a campaign ad. “I lived off of a gravel road. We didn’t even have a house number!” (Route numbers were standard at the time, regardless of income; I know this because I too grew up in rural Iowa.) Lake studied journalism at the University of Iowa and worked at news stations in Iowa and New York State before moving to Arizona. She was an anchor at Fox 10 for 22 years, mostly covering the evening news.

    I talked with half a dozen of Lake’s former Fox 10 co-workers for this story, and all but one requested anonymity—partly because current employees are not authorized to talk to reporters about Lake, and partly because they fear retaliation from the candidate and her supporters. She was demanding, they told me, and always wanted her lighting just so. She would sometimes belittle the production staff. But she was good at her job, fluent and warm on camera. Viewers liked her.

    Back then, most of her friends at work assumed that she was politically liberal. She was a casual Buddhist, they said, and she’d donated to John Kerry and Barack Obama. She’d once called for amnesty for the roughly 11 million immigrants living in America illegally. (Lake was reportedly a Republican before she registered as an independent in 2006, and as a Democrat in 2008. She reregistered as a Republican in 2012.) Plus, Lake was fun. She liked to host dinner parties, and entertained guests with her bawdy sense of humor. She was good friends with some of the gay men in the newsroom—she’d vacationed with a few on occasion. And she sometimes attended drag shows at a local bar with other newsroom staff, former colleagues and friends told me. She even became friends with the well-known Phoenix drag queen, Barbra Seville. Lake “was the queen of the gays!” a former colleague told me.

    Nowadays, Lake wears a small gold cross on a chain around her neck. She prays before rallies and has warned of the dangers of “drag-queen story hour.” “They kicked God out of schools and welcomed the Drag Queens,” she tweeted in June. “They took down our Flag and replaced it with a rainbow.” This is puzzling and hurtful to Lake’s former friends. Lake did not used to be the “anti-choice, anti-science, election-denying caricature that she’s become,” Richard Stevens, who performs as Seville, told me. A former colleague sighed when I asked him about Lake’s evolution, “It’s like the death of a friend.” (Lake’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this story. Previously, her campaign has acknowledged that Stevens was “once a friend” and that she attended an event with a “Marilyn Monroe impersonator,” but has accused Stevens of spreading “defamatory lies.”)

    Before her campaign, Lake had praise for the late Senator John McCain, and she was friends with his son Jimmy for years. But during her bid, Lake has repeatedly attacked the late Arizona politician. “It’s extremely upsetting on a personal level,” Meghan McCain, the senator’s daughter, told me. “I don’t know if it’s authentic,” she added, referring to Lake’s campaign persona, but “she is a savant at imitating Trump.”

    Two of Lake’s former co-workers pointed to Trump’s political rise as the start of her evolution. She liked that he was an outsider, not a politician, they said. She would even score an interview with him, a major get for a local news anchor.

    Lake was a skilled—and frequent—poster on social media. Starting in 2018, a wide-screen monitor sat above the assignment desk at the Fox 10 newsroom, showing which of the on-air talent had the most retweets, likes, and replies—and who was trailing. “We called it the Hunger Games,” another former colleague told me. Lake’s name nearly always appeared at the top of the rankings.

    Soon, her posts took on a right-wing tinge. On Facebook, she’d sometimes share a defense of Trump with a just-asking-questions line at the end: “The cry-baby establishment Republicans are now saying they ‘can’t support’ Donald Trump,” she wrote in 2016. “Your thoughts??” In 2018, she said on Twitter that the “Red for Ed” movement in Arizona was secretly an effort to legalize marijuana. (She later apologized.) She retweeted an unverified claim of election fraud. Then the pandemic hit. Lake shared misinformation about the virus, including a debunked video that YouTube had previously removed. (She went on to host anti-mask rallies and question the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.)

    But the part of Lake’s TV career that got Arizonans’ attention was the part when she left. “She had the guts, the courage, to quit being an anchor,” a supporter named Sandra Walker told me at a Latinos for Lake event in Mesa in late September. “That says a lot about her character.” A man named Dennis told me excitedly that he watched Lake “quit her job live on air!” She didn’t. What she did do was post a two-and-a-half-minute video on the site Rumble in March 2021 to announce her resignation from Fox 10. “Journalism has changed a lot since I first stepped into a newsroom, and I’ll be honest, I don’t like the direction it’s going,” Lake says to the camera. The video looks filmed in soft focus: Lake’s skin is impossibly smooth, and the background is blurry, giving the recording an ethereal quality that continues to characterize her campaign videos, as though she is speaking to voters through some sort of religious vision. In the past few years, she goes on, “I found myself reading news copy that I didn’t believe was fully truthful, or only told part of the story … I’ve decided the time is right to do something else.”

    Many of Lake’s former newsroom colleagues felt blindsided by that video. “For her to say what she did and what we’re doing now is fake news and that we’re some sort of media monster is baffling,” one of them told me. (I sought comment from Fox 10 on this but did not receive a response.) “She had a very good life making very good money paid for by Fox, you know? Now we’re the enemy of the people?”

    People change. But some people who knew Lake view her evolution—and her unflinching support for Trump—as mostly an act. Lake has always been good at image management, Diana Pike, the former HR director at Fox 10, told me. “She’s a performer.” Lake “read the room, took the temperature, and realized there’s an anti-media sentiment for a lot of people,” Stevens said. “Rather than using her platform to fix it, she chose to throw fuel on that fire.”

    When Lake made her resignation announcement, she implied that her departure was a way to stick it to the network as a whistleblower. But according to Pike, who left Fox 10 in 2019 but is familiar with the matter through her existing contacts with the network and her understanding of its operation, Lake and Fox reached a settlement agreement. “She wanted to go, and we wanted her to go,” Pike said. “She walked away with a pot of gold.”

    All political campaigns are a performance. Regardless of whether such a seasoned journalist as Lake actually believes, in the absence of any evidence, that the 2020 presidential election was rigged for Biden, her persistent middle finger to the political establishment carries a conviction that appeals to people. “Kari Lake is like my comments section turned into a person,” Kyle Conklin, a supporter from Show Low, told me at the Ask Me Anything event. “I’m unapologetic about what I feel—and she seems to be on the same page.”

    “We know that if we have another election that is stolen from us, we’re going to lose this country forever,” Lake told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando last February. She’d been campaigning for about eight months, and she had her talking points down: She’d called the reporters in the back “propaganda” for not talking about the benefits of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in warding off COVID-19. She’d suggested that all of America’s political “tyrants”—those bossy public-health officials and the coastal elites—could “shove it.” Stolen elections have consequences, she said, listing them off: sky-high inflation; open borders; schools masking children; vaccine mandates. “None of this would be happening if the man who truly won the election was sitting in the Oval Office,” Lake told the cheering crowd.

    During her campaign, Lake has promised that, as governor, she’d issue a “declaration of invasion” at the southern border, and she’s pledged to end the “woke” curriculum taught in Arizona’s public schools. But the message that set her apart from other Republicans in the primary was her commitment to the claim that the 2020 election was stolen. She helped lead the charge to audit the results of the election in 2021, and despite that review’s confirmation of Biden’s victory, Lake continued to bang the election-integrity drum. She told reporters that if she’d been governor instead of Doug Ducey, she would not have certified Arizona’s election results. “Deep down, I think we all know this illegitimate fool in the White House—I feel sorry for him—didn’t win,” she told The New York Times in August. Before her own primary election, Lake warned that she was already detecting signs of fraud (for which she declined to offer proof).

    The former president appears delighted by Lake’s commitment to the 2020-election bit. “It doesn’t matter what you ask Kari Lake about—‘How’s your family?’ And she’s like, ‘The family’s fine but they’re never going to be great until we have free and fair elections,’” Trump reportedly told donors. Lake is a lot like Trump, whose wild assertions carry the implication that he should be taken seriously, but not literally. But she’s different from him in several ways—ways that might ultimately make her a better standard-bearer for the MAGA movement.

    Lake is an elegant, polished speaker. Unlike Trump, she doesn’t ruminate on flushing toilets or offer random asides about stabbings and rapes. She presents a calm self-assurance that can make even the wackiest conspiracy theories seem plausible. “She could talk about lizard people and you’d be like, ‘What is up with those lizard people? That is a great point!’” an Arizona Republican operative told me. What other MAGA Republicans possess this kind of magnetism? Although Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is regarded as the most likely contender to inherit the mantle of Trumpism, onstage he is a charmless, wax-statue version of Trump. No, there’s something about Lake that makes people—viewers, voters—want to buy what she’s selling.

    “She’s using 25 years of high-level journalism to present an idea,” another former Fox 10 colleague told me. “And she’s smart! She’s not dumb. Which makes her frickin’ dangerous, if you ask me.”

    Like Trump, Lake is fluent in media, and she knows how to deliver a zinger that will quickly go viral. “I’ll do an interview as long as it airs on CNN+. Does that still exist?” she asked a CNN reporter in June. Later that month, during a circus of a primary debate, Lake looked around, watching her three Republican opponents argue over one another about election integrity. “I feel like I’m in an SNL skit here,” she said, smiling and gesturing to her opponents. She turned to the moderator. “Are you going to be able to take control of the debate or do you want me to do it?” Lake is good at spotting her opponents’ vulnerabilities, “and the quickness to use them in her responses is absolutely devastating,” Nicole Hemmer, a historian at Columbia University who studies the conservative movement, told me. “It’s sticking it to the libs in such a clever, twist-of-the-knife way.”

    Sticking it to the libs, though, isn’t a recipe for general-election success in Arizona. Although history suggests that Republicans should sweep the midterms, the state is sending mixed signals this year. A newly relevant 1864 law banning abortion could help drive Democratic turnout in the state. And though still a pale red, Arizona is purpling: Biden won the state in 2020, despite what Trump and Lake allege. Yet Lake is better positioned in her race than other prominent would-be GOP governors: In Pennsylvania and Michigan respectively, Republicans Doug Mastriano and Tudor Dixon are trailing their Democratic opponents by double digits.

    Last week, Lake made one of her first significant mistakes when she seemed to contradict her own campaign’s anti-abortion position—a confusion that may reflect an awareness that she still needs to attract independents and moderates for any hope of a November victory. At the Ask Me Anything event I attended last month in downtown Phoenix, Lake came onstage after the crowd had stood for both the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, as if we were at a basketball game. She was late because she’d been in a huddle with her team. “I always like to start with a little prayer,” she explained to the audience with a smile.

    For an hour, Lake answered questions from a moderator about rising homelessness in Phoenix (“We will provide help … But we will be banning urban camping in Arizona!”), and about how “Mama bears” feel about “critical race theory” in schools (“I don’t like this woke stuff, I really don’t. Am I alone in that?”). She spent a while talking about a few of her more interesting policy ideas, including an education plan that would give high-school kids the option to study a trade in school. Lake alluded to 2020 only briefly: “We can’t keep having every election where half of the electorate or more feels that the election—or knows the election—was not fair.”

    All along, Lake’s campaign has seemed like an audition—not just before the people of Arizona but before all of MAGA world. If she wins on November 8, she will have proved that her smooth, put-together version of Trumpism works. The former president already loves her, talks about her, rallies with her—and, just maybe, might decide that she’d make the perfect running mate. “It’s not crazy to think she’d be on a Trump VP list,” Miller, the Trump-critical Republican strategist, told me. Over and over, Arizona strategists suggested the same thing. They could see Lake as “Trump’s Sarah Palin,” they told me—only Lake could be much more effective. (A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to requests for comment on this.)

    Lake has grown accustomed to the heat of the national spotlight, and even if next month doesn’t go her way, she won’t be retreating to her Phoenix home. With her TV experience, she could join a pro-Trump network. Another Arizona Senate seat will be open in two years, and she’d have a good shot at it. The MAGA movement will carry on, regardless of the midterms outcome—and Lake will be at the forefront of it. Or, as Meghan McCain put it to me, “Even if she loses, she’s won.”

    Late on August 2, several hours after polls had closed, Lake’s campaign learned that she’d taken the lead in the primary. There were still many votes to count, and most news organizations hadn’t yet called the race, including Fox. But Lake walked onstage in a satiny blue shirt. “We are going to win this,” she told the crowd of lingering supporters, while a ceiling-high projection of the Arizona state flag rippled behind her. She promised to continue her crusade to root out corruption in Arizona’s elections, and she addressed Republican state legislature candidates in the back of the room. “The first week, we’ve got to have legislation to turn these elections around,” she instructed them. “No more corrupt elections, no more BS. We will not take it!”

    A few moments later, Lake spoke to the rest of the audience, her voice low but forceful. “God placed us here for a reason,” she said. “The very same God who parted the Red Sea, the very same God who moved mountains, is with us right now as we take back our country and save this republic.”

    Elaine Godfrey

    Source link