ReportWire

Tag: New Hampshire

  • PolitiFact – Nikki Haley exaggerates rate of federal telework

    PolitiFact – Nikki Haley exaggerates rate of federal telework

    [ad_1]

    For many Americans, the coronavirus pandemic has receded into the past. But it wrought some lasting changes on the nation’s workforce — a point Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley described at a Jan. 2 town hall in Rye, New Hampshire.

    Haley criticized the size of the federal budget and said some of the federal government’s duties can be shifted to the states. “Do you know right now over 70% of federal employees are still working from home three years after COVID?” she said.

    Haley repeated the statistic Jan. 4 during a CNN town hall in Des Moines, Iowa.

    Haley’s campaign confirmed that this data point came from a recently released annual study by the Office of Personnel Management, the agency that handles the federal government’s human resources. 

    However, the 70% figure misleads by leaving out important information: Only half of that figure involves people who said they worked remotely most or all of the workweek. The other half consists of employees who work two days or less per week from home, including some who do so “rarely.”

    Kevin Rockmann, a professor of management at George Mason University’s Costello College of Business who has studied telework, said politicians often confuse measures of “telework” with measures of working entirely by telework, even though the two “are quite different.” 

    Rockmann added that research shows benefits from telework, such as saving on commuting costs and enabling a better work-life balance.

    “So the real debate is not the one Haley suggests,” he said. “Most private companies are OK with one or two days of telework a week. The real debate is over full-time telework. This is where organizations are struggling a bit.”

    Data from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

    Every year, the federal government publishes a survey of employees from a wide range of federal agencies. The most recent survey, released in November 2023, queried about 1.6 million federal employees and received responses from more than 625,000.

    One of the survey’s many questions involves remote work, also known as telework.

    Thirty-seven percent of the 2023 survey’s respondents said they typically worked remotely from three to five days a week. Seventeen percent more said they worked remotely one or two days a week, while 46% said they did so rarely or never. (The 46% who rarely or never worked from home included employees whose jobs made remote work impossible and those who could have worked remotely but chose not to.)

    To approach the figure Haley cited, you would have to include not just the 37% who work remotely three to five days a week, but also the 17% who work remotely one or two days a week; the 4% who said they telework one or two days a month; and the 10% who said they telework even less often than that. That adds up to 68%, which is close to the 70% figure she cited.

    A little more than half of the federal employees Haley considers to be “working from home” do so from two days a week to “very infrequently.”

    How government telework compares

    Haley’s campaign argued the percentage of remote government work is still higher than it was pre-pandemic. Looking back to the 2019 survey, she has a point, mainly for those working a three-to-five day remote schedule. That number has risen from 7% in 2019 to 37% in 2023. (The share working remotely one or two days a week is virtually unchanged.)

    But telework’s growth isn’t limited to the federal government. Telework has also expanded in other parts of the private-sector economy in which working remotely is feasible, such as information and professional and business services.

    An analysis of Census Bureau data by the Government Accountability Office found that from 2010 to 2019, 4% to 6% of workers “primarily” worked at home, but that share jumped to almost 18% during the pandemic. And the share doing “any work from home during an average work day” rose from the low-20% range before the pandemic to 38% during it.

    Comparing federal government telework patterns with those in the private sector is complicated, because different industry sectors, for practical reasons, cannot embrace telework equally. But some data suggests that federal government telework rates are similar to or lower than other economic sectors in which remote working is feasible.

    In 2022, Bureau of Labor Statistics data found that 42% of information sector employees worked remotely all the time and an additional 25% worked remotely sometimes. In the professional and business services sector, 25% worked remotely fully and 24% worked remotely sometimes.  

    “Has there been a shift?” Rockmann said. “Yes. But it is not nearly the shift Haley suggests.”

    Our ruling

    Haley said, “Right now, over 70% of federal employees are still working from home three years after COVID.”

    Getting to that 70% figure requires counting not just full-time teleworkers but anyone who ever works from home, however infrequently. In 2023, a benchmark federal survey found that about half that figure — 37% — worked a majority of their week remotely and about 17% worked remotely one or two days a week. But 46% of respondents said they worked remotely rarely or never. 

    Federal government telework is more common than it was before the pandemic, but it this work style has also increased in private sector companies. The federal government’s rate of teleworking is broadly similar to what it is in private-sector industries in which teleworking is feasible, such as information and professional and business services.

    We rate the statement Mostly False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How New Hampshire voters feel heading into Republican primary

    How New Hampshire voters feel heading into Republican primary

    [ad_1]

    How New Hampshire voters feel heading into Republican primary – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary is just 20 days away with Donlad Trump still leading Republican polls despite Nikki Haley’s recent surge. CBS News campaign reporter Jake Rosen has more on how voters in the Granite State are feeling about their choices.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nikki Haley Backtracks on Civil War Gaffe: “Yes, I Know It Was About Slavery”

    Nikki Haley Backtracks on Civil War Gaffe: “Yes, I Know It Was About Slavery”

    [ad_1]

    Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley retreated on Thursday from an answer she gave during a presidential town hall in New Hampshire a day earlier, in which she did not mention slavery when asked about the cause of the US Civil War.

    “Of course, the Civil War was about slavery, that’s the easy part,” Haley said on Pulse of New Hampshire, a radio show. The former UN ambassador, who removed the Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the South Carolina statehouse in 2015, said, “Yes, I know it was about slavery. I am from the South.”

    But it wasn’t easy on Wednesday, when Haley gave a stumbling, evasive answer to the question, arguing that the issue “comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are.”

    After her questioner said it was “astonishing” that her answer did not include the word “slavery,” Haley replied, “What do you want me to say about slavery?” Then, she quickly moved on to another question.

    “I want to nip it in the bud. Yes, we know the Civil War was about slavery,” Haley said Thursday. “But more than that, what’s the lesson in all this? That freedom matters. And individual rights and liberties matter for all people. That’s the blessing of America. That was a stain on America when we had slavery.”

    In her radio interview, Haley argued that the questioner was “definitely a Democrat plant” and accused the Joe Biden campaign of sending people to her town halls to sabotage her campaign and ensure that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee.

    The Biden campaign quickly seized on the Wednesday gaffe, and Biden himself replied to Haley’s answer in a post on X, formerly Twitter. “It was about slavery,” the president wrote.

    “I am disgusted, but I’m not surprised — this is what Black South Carolinians have come to expect from Nikki Haley, and now the rest of the country is getting to see her for who she is,” Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement.

    Ron DeSantis’s campaign also posted a video of Haley’s response, adding the comment, “Yikes.” The Florida governor, who faced criticism from some Black Republicans last summer when his state’s new history standards included a line about slaves developing skills from enslavement, said in a press conference Thursday that it was “not that difficult to identify and acknowledge the role slavery played in the Civil War.” 

    Haley is now nearly tied with DeSantis for second place in national polling, and has leapfrogged him in New Hampshire, where, according to a recent poll, she has closed to within 4 points of  Trump. Haley is hoping to peel off some of the state’s more moderate Republicans and independents, who are allowed to vote in the state’s January 23 primary.

    But the gaffe underscores both the difficulties she faces in still appealing to a largely Trumpified GOP electorate, as well as her own checkered record on the subjects of slavery and racism. 

    Haley frequently touts her decision as governor to remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse following the white supremacist shooting of 9 Black parishioners in South Carolina. But she has also frequently spoken about the flag as a symbol of Southern “heritage,” and has downplayed the existence of racism in other ways.

    Christale Spain, the chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, called Haley’s comments “vile, but unsurprising,” adding, “The same person who refused to take down the Confederate Flag until the tragedy in Charleston, and tried to justify a Confederate History Month. She’s just as MAGA as Trump.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • Nikki Haley fails to mention slavery when asked about cause of Civil War:

    Nikki Haley fails to mention slavery when asked about cause of Civil War:

    [ad_1]

    Berlin, New Hampshire — Republican presidential candidate and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley declined to mention slavery as the cause of the Civil War during a campaign event Wednesday evening in Berlin, New Hampshire. 

    “What was the cause of the United States Civil War?” a male attendee asked Haley during the town hall. 

    The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations appeared to be taken aback by the question and paused before answering. 

    “Well, don’t come with an easy question,” Haley joked. “I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms, and what people could and couldn’t do. What do you think the cause of the Civil War was?”

    The questioner — who later identified himself to reporters off camera as “Patrick” — immediately shot back at Haley, saying he’s not the one running for president. 

    Haley attempted to further elaborate her response, but still with no mention of slavery.  

    “I think it always comes down to the role of government, and what the rights of the people are,” Haley said. “And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life.” 

    When the voter followed up with Haley on why she wasn’t mentioning slavery in her response, she asked, “What do you want me to say about slavery?”

    Haley’s exchange was met with some applause from the town hall’s audience. However, the criticism was almost immediate, with many taking to social media to react, including President Biden, who tweeted late Wednesday night: “It was about slavery.”

    “This isn’t hard, condemning slavery is the baseline for anyone who wants to be President of the United States, but Nikki Haley and the rest of the MAGA GOP are choking on their words trying to rewrite history,” said Jaime Harrison, DNC chair, in a statement released to CBS News after the town hall. 

    The confrontation comes amid Haley’s growing momentum in New Hampshire, as the latest polls show she has been gaining on former President Donald Trump, something no other Republican presidential candidate has been able to do in the granite state. Earlier this month, she was endorsed by Republican New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu. 

    Throughout her campaign, Haley has championed South Carolina’s 2015 removal of the Confederate flag on the State House grounds under her tenure as governor. The removal came in the wake of the 2015 mass shooting at Mother Emanuel AME church in Charleston that killed 9 Black people. 

    As part of her stump speech, Haley often tells the story of the moments leading up to the removal. 

    “50% of South Carolinians saw the Confederate flag as heritage and tradition, the other 50% of South Carolinians saw it as slavery and hate,” Haley told Iowa voters during a town hall in Spirit Lake, Iowa, earlier this month. 

    “My job wasn’t to judge either side,” Haley said. “My job was to get them to see the best of themselves and go forward.”

    Haley often pitches to voters that “the tone at the top matters” in bringing the country together across different and sensitive issues.

    “We were able to bring that Confederate flag down,” she said in Spirit Lake. “We didn’t have riots, we had vigils. We didn’t have protests, we had hugs. And South Carolinians showed the world what strength and grace look like. That’s how you do it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Trump said the Biden administration wants to ‘make our army tanks all electric.’ That’s False

    PolitiFact – Trump said the Biden administration wants to ‘make our army tanks all electric.’ That’s False

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump said at a recent New Hampshire rally that President Joe Biden is imposing his climate agenda on the U.S. military.

    “The worst thing is they want to make our Army tanks all electric,” Trump said Dec. 16 in Durham.

    Trump said the vehicles will be used “as we blast our way through enemy territory in an environmentally friendly manner.” He added that Biden puts “environmental maniacs first.” 

    He has made similar statements on Truth Social and at Florida and Texas campaign rallies.

    The U.S. Army has outlined a strategy to transition to electric vehicles, but it begins with the nontactical fleet — which includes commercially available vehicles such as sedans, station wagons, utility vehicles and trucks — and some goals are decades away. Army spokesperson Ellen Lovett told PolitiFact that the Army is focusing strategy on tactical wheeled vehicles, not tanks. 

    “There is no goal to fully electrify every single vehicle in the fleet by 2050,” said Fabian Villalobos, an engineer at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan research organization that has an Army research division.

    Strategy calls for electrical tactical vehicles by 2050 

    The U.S. Army released a 2022 climate strategy that says “fully electric tactical vehicles are still years into the future.” Villalobos said tactical vehicles carry troops or fuel and are different from combat vehicles such as tanks. 

     The strategy includes a timeline to add: 

    • An all-electric light-duty nontactical vehicle fleet by 2027.

    • An all-electric nontactical vehicle fleet by 2035.

    • Hybrid-drive tactical vehicles by 2035.

    • Fully electric tactical vehicles by 2050, and the necessary charging infrastructure.

    The strategy document doesn’t mention tanks.

    Villalobos said he currently knows of no plans to introduce or prototype an electric tank. 

    “Tanks are simply too heavy to be fully electrified at this time, but hybrids may be possible,” as demonstrated by prototyping efforts, Villalobos said. 

    The strategy aims to maximize efficiency in warfighting logistics, Michael Knickerbocker, a U.S. Navy surface warfare officer, wrote in a 2022 op-ed when he was a federal executive fellow at the Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas at Austin. 

    Military experts told us that electric vehicle advantages include:

    • Reducing dependency on foreign adversaries for fuel.

    • Fewer front-lines trips and less risk. If less fuel needs to be delivered to the new vehicles on front lines, soldiers make fewer delivery trips and reduce their risk of harm. 

    • Stealthier travel without emissions, smoke or noise that alert adversaries.

    The Modern War Institute at West Point published a 2022 article that said the Army successfully piloted electric light-duty nontactical vehicles. But generally “the technology is not ready for tactical vehicles because it requires incredibly heavy and bulky infrastructure for power generation and charging.” 

    The article said critics of electrifying military vehicles ignore telectrification’s benefits, which “will help make our forces more lethal and save the military money.” 

    The idea of introducing electric Army vehicles is not new or unique to the Biden administration. The Army entertained the idea of an electric “cannon-vehicle” as far back as 1995, Rand researchers wrote. In 2012, the Defense Department studied the possibility of adding nontactical electric vehicles. 

    When contacted for comment, a Trump campaign spokesperson sent news articles about the Biden administration’s goals for military electric vehicles, but none showed that the administration wants electric Army tanks.

    The Trump campaign also cited a 2021 Military.com article that was published before the 2022 Army strategy. In it, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said tactical vehicles would first go to hybrid and nontactical vehicles on bases could transition directly to electric. 

    Our ruling

    Trump said “they want to make our Army tanks all electric.”

    A 2022 Army climate strategy document sets a timeline for transitioning certain types of vehicles to electric over decades, with a goal of having fully electric tactical vehicles by 2050. The strategy document doesn’t mention tanks, and tactical vehicles are different from combat vehicles such as tanks. 

    We rate this statement False.

    PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this fact-check.

    RELATED: Donald Trump’s off-base claims about electric car ‘mandates’ and markets

    RELATED: Climate change fact-checks

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nikki Haley says she’s “surging” against Trump in New Hampshire

    Nikki Haley says she’s “surging” against Trump in New Hampshire

    [ad_1]

    Nikki Haley says she’s “surging” against Trump in New Hampshire – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Wednesday at a town hall in Iowa, GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley touted a recent New Hampshire poll showing she’s narrowing the gap between herself and Donald Trump. CBS News campaign reporter Nidia Cavazos has more.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Donald Trump’s rally spotlighted the Biden, Trump economies. We fact-checked the graphics

    PolitiFact – Donald Trump’s rally spotlighted the Biden, Trump economies. We fact-checked the graphics

    [ad_1]

    Before former President Donald Trump spoke for 90 minutes in Durham, New Hampshire, his team compared Trump’s record with President Joe Biden’s record by projecting a series of statistics on the wall.

    The images shown Dec. 16 had the tagline “Better off with Trump” and covered mortgage payments, mortgage rates and inflation.

    Here’s a fact-check of three statements. The Trump campaign did not answer an inquiry for this article.

    Some of the statistics cited on projections at Donald Trump’s rally Dec. 16, 2023, in Durham, N.H. (Rebecca Catalanello/PolitiFact)

    “Under Joe Biden, we’ve had a three-year inflation rate of 20%.”

    This needs context.

    The standard inflation measure, the consumer price index, has risen by 17.2% since January 2021, when Biden took office. That was an increase over three years, so the annual inflation rate was lower — about 5.9% per year during Biden’s presidency.

    Rising wages have helped consumers manage some of this increase in prices.

    A standard wage measure, average hourly earnings of all private-sector employees, has risen by 14% during Biden’s presidency, or about 4.8% per year. That means wages are still trailing inflation by about 1.1% a year, but it’s a smaller gap than Trump’s headline number.

    The time frame for the calculation also matters.

    As inflation has cooled over the past year, wage gains have narrowed the cumulative shortfall from inflation. Since November 2022, inflation has risen by 3.1%, but wages have risen by 4%. If the pattern holds, wage growth during Biden’s presidency may soon surpass the increase in prices. 

    Also, Americans are in a better place than they were on the eve of the coronavirus pandemic, which started during Trump’s last year in office. Since February 2020, the last full month before the pandemic hit, inflation has increased by 18.8%, while wages have increased by 19.4%.

    “After three years of Bidenomics, the 30-year mortgage rate has hit a 22-year high.”

    This is Mostly True. Numerically, Trump is on target. However, Trump’s blaming Biden is less sound, economists said.

    The 30-year fixed rate mortgage peaked at 7.79% on Oct. 26, 2023. That was the highest since the identical percentage on Nov. 10, 2000.

    Mortgage rates have spiked because the Federal Reserve in March 2022 began raising interest rates to combat inflation. Fed interest rate hikes are considered the most effective economic tools for curbing inflation, because they tend to cool the economy, which eases demand and lowers prices.

    Since the Fed hikes began, inflation has receded by about two-thirds. But a side effect has been that other types of interest rates — including mortgages — have also risen. 

    Since the mortgage rate peak in October, the average for a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage has fallen, hitting 6.67% on Dec. 21. Not counting the peak in recent months, that’s still higher than any rate going back to Aug. 2, 2007, when the rate was 6.68%.

    Economists generally agree that some of Biden’s policies likely added to the pressures that pushed up prices.

    Biden’s coronavirus relief bill, the American Rescue Plan, put stimulus money into Americans’ hands when supply chains couldn’t produce enough goods to fulfill consumer demand. This worsened the rise of prices, which started because of pandemic-related supply-chain disruptions. 

    However, “the drivers of this inflation go back to COVID-19 — issues like supply-chain constraints, workforce shortages, and other factors,” John Deskins, director of the West Virginia University Bureau of Business and Economic Research, told PolitiFact West Virginia in October. “That is much larger than any particular Biden policy.”

    Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, said Biden should “assume some responsibility, but so should members of Congress who voted in favor of stimulus payments, tax cuts, generous unemployment benefits, aid to states and private businesses during and after the COVID-19 pandemic recession.”

    The American Rescue Plan got no Republican support in Congress, but earlier pandemic relief bills Trump signed were passed with bipartisan support.

    “The average monthly mortgage payment: Under Trump, $1,746; Under Biden: $3,322.”

    This needs context.

    These are the figures for average monthly payments on a new home, real estate company CBRE reports. That’s a significant out-of-pocket increase for someone buying a new home, but it doesn’t affect homeowners who aren’t looking to move.

    The figure is calculated for the purchase of a new home valued at the U.S. median of $430,000, with a 10% down payment.

    The majority of American mortgage holders have fixed-rate mortgages that were locked in at much lower rates. In 2022, about 85% of mortgages had fixed rates.

    Given the current high rates, adjustable-rate mortgages are gaining popularity. If mortgage rates decrease in 2024, homeowners who hold adjustable-rate mortgages should see their payments drop.

    A different calculation shows a lower average monthly mortgage payment. The most recent data from the Mortgage Bankers Association at the time of Trump’s statement showed that in October 2023, the national median mortgage payment for conventional loan applicants was $2,208. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CBS News poll: Trump holds big lead in Iowa as Haley gains on him in New Hampshire

    CBS News poll: Trump holds big lead in Iowa as Haley gains on him in New Hampshire

    [ad_1]

    CBS News poll: Trump holds big lead in Iowa as Haley gains on him in New Hampshire – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    A new CBS News poll shows Nikki Haley just 15 points behind Donald Trump in New Hampshire, but the former president has a very large lead in Iowa. Senior White House and political correspondent Ed O’Keefe reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Nikki Haley Debate

    The Nikki Haley Debate

    [ad_1]

    Listen to this article

    Produced by ElevenLabs and NOA, News Over Audio, using AI narration.

    Anyone watching the fourth Republican primary debate tonight would be forgiven for thinking that Nikki Haley was the favorite to win the GOP presidential nomination next year.

    Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy sure were acting like it. Neither man had finished answering his first question before he began attacking the former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador. “She caves any time the left comes after her, anytime the media comes after her,” warned DeSantis, the Florida governor. Ramaswamy went much further. He called Haley “corrupt” and “a fascist” for suggesting that social-media companies ban people from posting anonymously on their platforms.

    The broadsides continued throughout the two-hour debate in Tuscaloosa, Alabama: DeSantis and Ramaswamy used every opportunity to go after Haley, even when they were prodded to criticize the Republican who is actually dominating the primary race, Donald Trump.

    “I’m loving all the attention, fellas,” Haley said at one point. What she’d love even more is about 30 additional points in the polls. As well as Haley has been doing lately, she is capturing just about 10 percent of Republican voters nationwide, according to the polling average. Time is running out for her—or any other GOP candidate—to catch Trump. He skipped this meeting of the Republican also-rans, just as he did the three previous debates. This debate narrowed to four Trump alternatives, but the evening devolved into a familiar dynamic: Most of the challengers largely declined to criticize—or even discuss—Trump.

    Chris Christie was the exception, as usual. The former New Jersey governor lit into Trump and mocked his rivals for being too “timid” to do the same. “I’m in this race because the truth needs to be spoken: He is unfit,” Christie said. Acting the part of pundit as much as candidate, Christie noted ruefully how little Haley, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy wanted to talk about Trump and how fearful they seemed to be of angering him. DeSantis tiptoed toward criticism of Trump when he warned Republicans not “to nominate somebody who is almost 80 years old.” “Father Time is undefeated,” DeSantis said. But when he danced around the question of whether Trump was mentally fit to serve again as president, Christie bashed him. “This is the problem with my three colleagues: You are afraid to offend.”

    Ramaswamy was next to speak. Instead of contradicting Christie and confronting Trump, he held up a handwritten sign that read, NIKKI=CORRUPT.

    The reluctance of Trump’s rivals (aside from Christie) to attack the former president has frustrated Republicans who are rooting against his renomination. But on some level it makes sense. Haley, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy aren’t actually running against Trump—at least not yet. The best way to think of these Trump-less debates is as a primary within a primary. The four Republicans on stage tonight were battling merely for the right to face off against Trump. In sports terms, these preliminary matchups are like the divisional round of the NFL playoffs, except that Trump has already earned a bye to the conference championship. (The general election would be the Super Bowl.)

    The all-important question is whether one of these four can break away from the others in time to wage a fair fight against Trump. The window for doing so is closing fast, but it is not shut completely. Although Trump is capturing nearly 60 percent of Republican primary voters in the national polling average, he remains below 50 percent in Iowa and New Hampshire, the early states where his challengers are campaigning most aggressively. A majority of Republicans in both Iowa and New Hampshire are backing someone other than Trump at the moment, suggesting at least the possibility that Haley or DeSantis could consolidate the anti-Trump vote and overtake him in one or both states. Trump’s lead has been consistent—and it has actually grown since the debates started without him—but historically, primary races are most volatile in the final few weeks before voters begin casting ballots.

    The debate stage has shrunk by half since the first GOP primary forum in August, when eight candidates met the Republican National Committee’s criteria for participation. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina ended his bid after appearing in last month’s debate in Miami, as did North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, who did not qualify.

    Yet four candidates might be as small as it gets. No more RNC-sanctioned debates are scheduled before the Iowa caucuses on January 15 or the New Hampshire primary eight days later. If Trump wins both states against a divided field—as polls suggest he will—his nomination would probably seem unstoppable.

    The most likely path to preventing Trump’s nomination is the same as it was when the primary began: for anti-Trump Republicans to agree on a single candidate to go up against him one-on-one. Nikki Haley is making her move. But if tonight’s debate revealed anything, it’s that her Republican competitors aren’t ready to let her have that chance.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Is Nikki Haley right in how she measures China’s naval power?

    PolitiFact – Is Nikki Haley right in how she measures China’s naval power?

    [ad_1]

    On the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has warned audiences about a growing military threat from China, arguing that its navy is catching up to the United States’.

    “China has built up their military at a scary pace,” Haley said in Derry, New Hampshire. China has “the largest naval fleet in the world. They had 370 ships. They’ll have 400 ships in two years. We won’t even have 350 ships in two decades.”

    Haley’s numbers, which were similar to ones she cited in the Nov. 8 Republican presidential primary debate in Miami, are about right. Naval ship counts have been a presidential campaign topic since 2012. But do they tell the whole story about naval dominance? Military experts caution that other factors, including ships’ capabilities and advanced technologies, are just as important, if not more so. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has called ship counts “a one-dimensional measure.” 

    Haley’s campaign did not respond to an inquiry for this article. The Pentagon’s 2023 China Military Power Report said China’s navy had about 370 warships. The fleet is expected to grow to 395 ships by 2025 and 435 ships by 2030.

    The current U.S. fleet is smaller, with more than 280 vessels. The secretary of the Navy expects to reach 300 in the early 2030s.

    China is surely gaining ground on the U.S., both in ship counts and overall tonnage — the combined weight of all ships, which helps quantify how many assets a navy has. When Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, compared the two countries’ ship tonnage a decade ago, the U.S. had a roughly 3-1 edge. Now, he said, it’s closer to a 2-1 margin.

    Although “tonnage is not a perfect metric,” O’Hanlon said, simply counting ships “is a terrible one.” 

    Lance Janda, a Cameron University military historian, said the Chinese navy includes many smaller ships and handles regional duties primarily. 

    “Ours is a true blue water navy capable of deploying anywhere in the world for an extended period, and we have many more aircraft carriers, far more naval aircraft, more advanced submarines and a larger Marine Corps.”

    John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, a think tank, added that “most of the ‘warships’ in the count (for China) are corvettes of a couple of thousand tons,” referring to the smallest type of warship. “It’s a class of ship so small the U.S. Navy has never much used them, because they are too small for high-seas operations,” Pike said.

    Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank focused on national security, agreed that ship numbers “miss a lot.”

    “The U.S. Navy has global responsibilities, whereas (China’s navy focuses) exclusively on the region,” Cancian said.

    Our ruling

    Haley said China “had the largest naval fleet in the world. They had 370 ships. They’ll have 400 ships in two years. We won’t even have 350 ships in two decades.”

    Numerically, she’s on target with both countries’ ship counts. But experts say that simply counting ships omits context about a country’s true military capabilities. 

    Ship counts ignore overall ship size, specific warfighting capabilities, and overall geographic reach, all of which are metrics where the United States maintains an edge over China.

    We rate the statement Half True.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Now It’s Nikki Haley

    Now It’s Nikki Haley

    [ad_1]

    Does Nikki Haley really have a shot at beating Donald Trump? Does any Republican?

    On Monday afternoon, a basketball gym in Bluffton, South Carolina, was packed with people who had come to hear Haley’s latest sales pitch. Hundreds more were waiting outside. No Republican candidate besides Trump can reliably draw more than a thousand attendees, but about 2,500 showed up for Haley. (Granted, this speech was in Haley’s home state, where she formerly served as governor. Also, the gym was a stone’s throw from the Sun City retirement community, a place where, gently speaking, people may have had nothing better to do at 2 p.m. on a Monday.) One of Haley’s volunteers told me this weekday event had originally been booked at a nearby restaurant, but that, given the current excitement of the campaign, organizers pivoted to the gym, on the University of South Carolina at Beaufort campus. Everyone in Haley’s orbit is understandably riveted. She’s squarely challenging Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for second place in the Republican presidential primary, no matter how second that place may be.

    While the former president still floats high above his dwindling field of competitors, Haley is the only person who keeps rising in the polls. Her climb is steady, not a blip. Haley’s campaign and super PAC are planning to spend $10 million on advertisements over the next eight weeks across Iowa and New Hampshire. On Tuesday, she received an endorsement from the Koch brothers’ network, Americans for Prosperity Action, and along with it an undisclosed amount of financial support. (It will be a lot.) But this year-end, all-in effort to stop Trump ignores the fact that he is a singular vortex, a once-in-a-century figure, a living martyr with a traveling Grateful Dead–like roadshow. His abhorrent behavior and legal woes do not matter. Three weeks ago, at his rally in South Florida, vendors told me that items with Trump’s mug shot are their biggest sellers. How does a mere generational figure, as her supporters hope Haley might be, compete with that?

    Haley bounded up onstage in a light-blue blazer and jeans. “We’ve been through a lot together,” she told the crowd. She meandered back and forth—no lectern, no teleprompter. When you ask people what they like about her, many point to her presence, her poise. Haley delivers her stump speech in a singsong voice. A few words, a pause, a smile. Speaking to the Low Country crowd, she seemed to be thickening her southern accent and peppering in a few extra-emphatic finger points for good measure. She’s just a down-home, neighborly southerner whose most recent job happened to be in Manhattan, serving at the United Nations. The volunteer who had bragged to me about the venue change later pulled out his phone and showed me a photo of himself and Haley at a wedding reception. He pointed to her bare feet. She’s so real, he said.

    Several women in the audience were wearing pink shirts with a Margaret Thatcher quote on the back: If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman. Sue Ruby, a 74-year-old attendee from nearby Savannah, Georgia, was wearing a WOMEN FOR NIKKI button on her sweater. “I feel like we’ve given men a lot of years to straighten our society out, and they haven’t done so great, so let’s try a woman,” she said. Ruby told me she’s a Republican who begrudgingly voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in the past two elections because she viewed Trump as a threat to democracy. A Sun City resident named Lorraine, age 79, told me that “it’s time for a woman,” but that she would nevertheless vote for Trump if he wins the nomination. “I don’t want to vote for the opposite,” she said, refusing to say Biden’s name. Carolyn Ballard, an 80-year-old woman from Hilton Head, South Carolina, told me she’s a lifelong Republican who voted for Trump twice, but that she believes he’s past his prime and that Haley is her candidate. “He just irritates people and he stirs up a lot of trouble,” she said of Trump. “Although he’s very smart, and he did a lot for the country. I mean, everybody was happy when he was president.”

    Haley doesn’t lean as hard into gender dynamics as past female presidential candidates have. Nevertheless, she skillfully uses her womanhood and Indian heritage as setups for certain lines. “I have been underestimated in everything I’ve ever done,” she told the room. “And it’s a blessing, because it makes me scrappy. No one’s going to outwork me in this race. No one’s going to outsmart me in this race.” Or this: “Strong girls become strong women, and strong women become strong leaders,” which had a surprise left turn: “And none of that happens if we have biological boys playing in girls’ sports.” (Huge applause.)

    Courting Never Trump voters, exhausted Trump voters, and, yes, even some likely Trump voters simultaneously is not an easy trick. She hardly ever criticizes her former boss. Here’s her most biting critique from Monday: “I believe President Trump was the right president at the right time … and I agree with a lot of his policies. But the truth is, rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him.” (Note the passivity; she won’t even say Trump catalyzes the chaos.) Having already served as his ambassador to the UN, she may be under consideration for vice president. Compared with his attacks on Ron DeSantis, Trump has gone relatively soft on her, opting for the mid-century misogynistic slight “birdbrain.” Like most of her competitors, Haley has said she would pardon him.

    Whereas Trump has tacked authoritarian and apocalyptic, Haley has mostly kept her messaging grounded. At the rally, she bemoaned the price of groceries and gas. “Biden worries more about sagebrush lizards than he does about Americans being able to afford their energy,” she quipped. (She also called out her fellow Republicans for adding to the deficit.) She’s a military wife, and spoke about her husband’s PTSD and the persistent problem of homeless veterans. Though she lacks Trump’s innate knack for zingers, she landed one about how things might change if members of Congress got their health care through the VA: “It’ll be the best health care you’ve ever seen, guaranteed.”

    Although many of her fellow Republicans have adopted a nativist view of the world, Haley waxes at length about America’s geopolitical role. (And subsequently gets tagged as a globalist.) “The world is literally on fire,” she said Monday. She affirmed her support for both Israel and Ukraine, and went long on the triple threat of Russia, China, and Iran, paying particular attention to China as a national-security issue. In doing so, knowingly or not, she began to sound quite Trumpy. “They’re already here. They’ve already infiltrated our country,” Haley said. “We’ve got to start looking at China the way they look at us.” She called for an end to normal trade relations with China until they stop “murdering” Americans with fentanyl. She chastened the audience with images of China’s 500 nuclear warheads and its rapidly expanding naval fleet. “Dictators are actually very transparent. They tell us exactly what they’re going to do,” she said.

    Perhaps Haley’s biggest advantage right now is her relative youth. She’ll turn 52 three days before the New Hampshire primary. Trump has lately been making old-man gaffes, drawing comparisons to Biden, who was first elected to the Senate the year Haley was born. She speaks wistfully of “tomorrow,” of leaving certain things—unspecified baggage—in the past. “You have to go with a new generational leader,” Haley proclaimed. Onstage, she endorsed congressional term limits and the idea of mental-competency tests for public servants older than 75. The Senate, she joked, had become “the most privileged nursing home in the country.” Throwing shade at both Trump and Biden, she spoke of the need for leaders at “the top of their game.” Hundreds of gray-and-white-haired supporters before her nodded and murmured in approval.

    Monday’s event took place roughly 90 miles south of Charleston, where, in 2015, Dylann Roof murdered nine Black parishioners at Emanuel AME Church, hoping to start a race war. At the time, Haley was governor of South Carolina, and Trump—who had descended the golden escalator and announced his candidacy for president just the day before—still seemed like a carnival act. Photos of Roof posing with a Confederate flag ricocheted across social media. Haley had the flag taken down from the South Carolina statehouse, a reversal from her earlier position on the flag. Five years later, after the murder of George Floyd, Haley tweeted that, “in order to heal,” Floyd’s death “needs to be personal and painful for everyone.” During Monday’s rally, though, she sounded much more like an old-school Republican: “America’s not racist; we’re blessed,” she said. “Our kids need to love America. They need to be saying the Pledge of Allegiance when they start school.”

    As her audience grows, she continues to tiptoe along a very fine line: not MAGA, not anti-MAGA. In lieu of Trump-style airbrushed fireworks and bald eagles and Lee Greenwood, she’s going for something slightly classier (leaving the stage to Tom Petty’s “American Girl”) while still seizing every opportunity to own the libs. At the rally, she attacked the military’s gender-pronoun training and received substantial applause. “We’ve got to end this national self-loathing that’s taken over our country,” she said. Early in her speech, she promised that she would speak hard truths. As she approached her conclusion, one hard truth stuck out: “Republicans have lost the last seven out of eight popular votes for president. That is nothing to be proud of. We should want to win the majority of Americans.” It was the closest thing to a truly forward-thinking message that any serious Republican has offered this cycle.

    In the most generous of interpretations, the race for the GOP nomination is now among three people: Haley, DeSantis, and Trump. Mike Pence is already out. Tim Scott, Haley’s fellow South Carolinian, dropped out two weeks ago. Vivek Ramaswamy, who has struggled to break out of single digits in the polls, recently rented an apartment in Des Moines and will almost certainly stay in the race through the Iowa caucuses. Ramaswamy has also unexpectedly become Haley’s punching bag: Her campaign said she pulled in $1 million in donations after calling him “scum” during the last debate.

    At next week’s debate in Alabama, the stage will likely be winnowed to Ramaswamy, Haley, and DeSantis. (“When the stage gets smaller, our chances get bigger,” Haley told her rally crowd.) DeSantis seems to be betting his whole campaign on Iowa, and has secured the endorsement of Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds. This weekend, DeSantis will complete his 99-county tour of the state. Haley needs to beat DeSantis, but she also needs his voters if she has any serious shot of taking on Trump. If DeSantis drops out before Haley, his supporters are far more likely to flock to Trump. So maybe Haley needs a deus ex machina. In 2020, Biden’s campaign was viewed as all but cooked when, here in South Carolina, with the help of Representative Jim Clyburn, everything turned around, propelling him to Super Tuesday and the nomination.

    Haley’s campaign declined to let her speak with me. A spokesperson, Olivia Perez-Cubas, instead emailed me the following statement: “Poll after poll show Nikki Haley is the best challenger to Donald Trump and Joe Biden. That’s why the largest conservative grassroots coalition in the country just got behind her. Nikki is second in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and is the only candidate with the momentum to go the distance. Ron DeSantis has a short shelf life with his Iowa-or-bust strategy.”

    As rally-goers made their way to the parking lot, I struck up conversation with a man in a T-shirt that read NOPE NOT AGAIN, with Trump’s hair and giant red necktie decorating the O. He wore a camouflage baseball hat with an American flag on the dome. The man, Mike Stevens, told me he was a 25-year Army veteran, and that he was disgusted with Trump.

    “He’s a bully. He’s not good. He causes hate and discontent,” Stevens said. “I mean, he didn’t uphold the Constitution. And now we’ve had a judge say that. First time ever—no peaceful transfer of power? Even Al Gore did it. I’ve always been a Republican, but if it’s him and Biden, I’ll vote for Biden, I guess.”

    He was excited about Haley, and had been texting his friends and family about her rally—trying to wean them off their Trump addiction. But he also told me he had written Haley a letter: He was dismayed by her promise to pardon Trump, and he needed her to know that.

    [ad_2]

    John Hendrickson

    Source link

  • The ‘Anti-Defeat’ Candidate

    The ‘Anti-Defeat’ Candidate

    [ad_1]

    Like many politicians, Representative Dean Phillips likes to look people in the eye. And because he’s a politician, Phillips can glean things, just as President George W. Bush did when he peered into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and saw his soul.

    “I’ve looked Benjamin Netanyahu in the eye,” Phillips told a group of students at Dartmouth College, in Hanover, New Hampshire, last week.

    And?

    “I did not like what I saw,” Phillips said of the Israeli prime minister. “I do not like his government. He’s got to go.”

    Philips has also looked into Donald Trump’s eyes. That, too, was ominous. It was a few years ago, and the former president had invited a bunch of new House members to the White House for an introductory visit.

    “I looked him in the eye for the better part of an hour,” Phillips told me.

    And?

    “I saw right through him,” Phillips said. “I know exactly how to handle weaklings like Donald Trump.”

    How?

    “You’ll see,” he said. “Why would I give away my special sauce?”

    Phillips was telling me this while tucked into the back of a minivan, having just set off on a 90-minute ride from Hanover to Manchester. He wore a down vest over a blue dress shirt and looked me straight in the you-know-what as he described the “gravity of this entire circumstance” he was now embarked upon.

    He had just concluded one of his early days as an official primary challenger to President Joe Biden, the incumbent he must first dispatch before he can douse Trump with his proprietary Dean Sauce. Phillips is pursuing this mission despite long odds and an unsurprising chorus of how dare yous and not helpfuls from various Democratic gatekeepers. He has already said plenty about why he is doing this—about how Democrats are desperate for a Plan B to Biden, who Phillips says has no business seeking reelection at his age (81 on Monday), with his poll numbers and the catastrophic threat of his likely GOP opponent (yes, him). Phillips agonized over his decision and unburdened himself in multiple forums, including, quite expansively last month, to my colleague Tim Alberta.

    I was in New Hampshire because I wanted to see Phillips transition from theoretical to actual challenger. It is one thing to scream warnings about alarming data, and another to segue into the granular doings of a campaign. “This is an all-hands-on-deck initiative,” he told me, his words landing somewhere between hyper-earnest and naive, with occasional tips into grandiose. Phillips, 54, is a figure of uncommonly big plans and weighty burdens, especially given his relatively modest station (he has represented Minnesota’s Third Congressional District since 2019). He seems sincere about what he’s doing, especially compared with the two-faced default of so many elected Democrats who tout Biden’s reelection in public while privately pining for some other candidate, like Gretchen Whitmer, the Rock, or whomever they want instead. In this sense, Phillips’s gambit is noble, even necessary. It can also be lonely and awkward to watch up close.

    Since entering the race a month ago, Phillips has held a series of mostly low-key events in New Hampshire and has made a stop in South Carolina. I first encountered him during a heartfelt give-and-take with half a dozen members of the Dartmouth Political Union. “This is a beautiful American moment,” Phillips declared after a dialogue about abortion policy with a polite young Nikki Haley supporter. Later, at a town hall across campus, Phillips described that bridge-building exchange as “one of the most profound hours of engagement” he’s had in a long while and something “I will remember for years to come.”

    Phillips told me that his initial campaign forays have only—surprise—reaffirmed the premise of his errand: “Other than some Democratic elected officials, and only a few of them, I’ve not yet encountered a single person who doesn’t feel the same way,” he said, about the need for a Biden alternative. His go-to weapon against the president is public opinion, for which Phillips keeps getting fresh ammunition. “I want to give you some simple data,” he said during a meet and greet with about 50 students, faculty, and community members before the town hall. He mentioned a recent survey of voters in battleground states that had Biden trailing Trump by four points, 48–44. “But then you look at how Trump does against a ‘generic Democrat,’” Phillips said, “and the generic Democrat wins 48–40.” Heads bobbed in the classroom; Phillips shook his in exasperation.

    Phillips himself is polling at just 10 percent among likely New Hampshire Democratic-primary voters, according to a CNN survey released last week that had Biden at 65 percent. During our car ride, I suggested to Phillips that maybe he should change his name to “Generic Democrat.”

    “I never in my life aspired to be generic,” he replied, chuckling.

    Primary challenges to incumbent presidents have historically been associated with signature causes and fiery rhetoric. They tend to be ideologically driven—such as Ted Kennedy’s challenge to President Jimmy Carter from the left in 1980 and Pat Buchanan’s to President George H. W. Bush from the right in 1992. No one will mistake Phillips for a brawling populist. He is affable, well mannered, and extremely rich, with a net worth of about $50 million, some portion of it derived from the gelato-and-sorbet company—Talenti—that he co-owned before it was sold.

    Still, Phillips frequently brings up the late Senator Eugene McCarthy, a fellow Minnesota Democrat, whose uprising against President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 helped push Johnson to not seek reelection. The comparison is fraught in that Democrats wound up nominating another Minnesotan, Hubert Humphrey, who went on to lose to Richard Nixon. Carter and Bush also lost their general elections. This tends to be the main critique of Phillips: that his project could weaken Biden against Trump.

    One student at Dartmouth questioned Phillips about the 1980 example, arguing that Kennedy was the reason that Carter was ultimately blown out by Ronald Reagan. Phillips came back with a lengthy and somewhat defensive response. “Ted Kennedy didn’t cause Carter’s problems any more than I’ve caused Joe Biden’s problems,” he said. The student nodded and thanked the candidate, who in turn thanked the student—and another beautiful American moment was forged.

    “I am the anti-defeat candidate,” Phillips said, describing his enterprise to me later. “I am the truth-telling candidate.” “Truth-telling” is of course subjective, in campaigns as in life. Phillips then told me about a visit he’d made to a Hanover restaurant that day. After a series of “wonderful conversations” with random diners, he’d encountered a young woman who “I sensed was not showing any compassion for butchered Israelis”—a reference to the Hamas attacks on October 7. So Phillips, who is Jewish, paused the conversation and asked a question of his own. “I said, ‘Are you telling me that you support Hamas?’” Phillips said. “And she goes, ‘Yes.’” At which point, he’d heard enough.

    “I said, ‘Look, I really enjoyed our conversation, but I can’t continue this.’”

    “Wait, did you really enjoy that conversation?” I interrupted, questioning his truth-telling.

    “I’ll tell you what, that’s a good point,” Phillips acknowledged. “I did not enjoy it.”

    In that spirit of engaging with people of different backgrounds and persuasions, Phillips frequently invokes his friendship with Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, who was censured by the House this month for her comments about Israel. Phillips refers to Tlaib as “my Palestinian sister” and to himself as “her Jewish brother.”

    I pressed Phillips on the state of his relations with Tlaib. “It’s as difficult as ever and more important than ever,” he said. He then raised the stakes even higher. “I believe that as Rashida Tlaib and Dean Phillips go, so will the Middle East,” he said. (A lot of pressure there!)

    As our nighttime ride persisted southeast down Interstate 89, the conversation took some quick turns.

    “Is Kamala Harris prepared to step in if something happened to Biden?” I asked Phillips.

    “I think that Americans have made the decision that she’s not,” he said.

    I replied that I was interested in the decision of one specific American, Dean Phillips.

    “That is not my opinion,” Phillips clarified. He said that every interaction he’s had with the vice president has been “thoughtful” and that “I’ve enjoyed them.”

    “That said …” Phillips paused, and I braced for the vibe shift.

    “I hear from others who know her a lot better than I do that many think she’s not well positioned,” he said of Harris. “She is not well prepared, doesn’t have the right disposition and the right competencies to execute that office.” Phillips also noted that Harris’s approval numbers are even worse than Biden’s: “It’s pretty clear that she’s not somebody people have faith in.”

    But again, Phillips is not one of those people: “From my personal experiences, I’ve not seen those deficiencies.”

    If Phillips had looked me in the eye at that moment—and granted, it was dark in the back of the van—he would have seen a slightly confused expression. Why was he hiding behind these Trumplike “many people are saying” attributions? Similarly, he often speaks in glowing terms about Biden’s performance in office—“his administration has been quite extraordinary”—while leaning heavily on “the opinion of others” or “the data” to make his case that the president himself needs to go. Phillips can seem torn at times as he attempts to hedge his way through somewhat contradictory impulses: to give Biden his proper due while also trying to end his career.

    I asked Phillips what would happen if his campaign really takes off—he wins a bunch of primaries—and then Biden tries to placate the insurgents by dumping Harris in favor of their hero, Dean Phillips. Would he agree to serve as Biden’s new understudy?

    I anticipated the “I’m not answering hypothetical questions” blow-off that they teach in Candidate School. But Phillips apparently skipped class that day. “That’s a really interesting question,” he said, before letting me down gently.

    “President Biden will never replace Vice President Harris on the ticket, ever,” he said.

    For the record—bonus nugget—Phillips predicts that Trump will select Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be his running mate. “And they will be very difficult to beat,” he fears. These are the kinds of empty punditing calories that get passed around during long drives on chilly campaign nights.

    As we approached Manchester, Phillips flashed back to reality, or something. “I am the best positioned to defeat Donald Trump,” he said. “All I’m focused on right now is to run a spirited, thoughtful, and energetic campaign.”

    “What about ‘vigorous’ and ‘robust’?” I asked.

    “Yes, yes,” Phillips said, nodding. It was getting late, and we were both getting a bit punchy.

    “And bold,” he added.

    Our van pulled into the Manchester DoubleTree just before 10 p.m. Phillips had to wake up in a few hours to catch a 6:15 a.m. flight back to Washington. He looked me in the eye. I’m not sure what he saw, or what I saw, but I wished him luck.

    “I’ve enjoyed this,” Phillips said.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – How familiar are US students with the Holocaust? Checking Dean Phillips’ claim

    PolitiFact – How familiar are US students with the Holocaust? Checking Dean Phillips’ claim

    [ad_1]

    Dean Phillips, the Minnesota U.S. representative who’s taking on President Joe Biden in the Democratic primaries, decried a lack of knowledge about the Holocaust among American youth. 

    With a war in the Middle East, pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses and polls showing widespread criticism of Israel among younger Americans, Phillips expressed support for Israel.

    “When half of American high school students are not familiar with the Holocaust, is it surprising that we’re in a circumstance now where they do not understand why there must be one nation in the world with a Jewish majority that … Jews can take refuge in?” Phillips said Nov. 13 at Dartmouth College.

    Half of U.S. high schoolers are not familiar with the Holocaust? We checked the most relevant and recent polls available that examined what young people know about the Holocaust and found that Phillips’ claim is exaggerated.

    Two polls surveyed school-aged children. A third — the one Phillips cited when we inquired — surveyed young adults.

    None of the polls, from the Pew Research Center, Liberation75 and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, shows rates of ignorance of the Holocaust’s existence as high as 50%. But the polls found that high schoolers were less familiar with the details, including how many Jews were murdered (6 million), what a ghetto was (an area where Jews were forced to live), and how Adolf Hitler came to power (democratically). Many could not name a concentration camp, such as Auschwitz.

    Hutton Cooney, a spokesperson for Phillips’ campaign spokesperson, told PolitiFact that Phillips was likely referring to the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany survey, “though I realize it’s not exact.”

    Here’s a rundown.

    • Pew Research Center survey, 2019

    The Pew poll, which surveyed U.S. people ages 13 to 17, may offer the strongest evidence for Phillips’ claim. Using a multiple-choice format, the survey asked to name the decades the Holocaust occurred (57% answered correctly), what Nazi-created ghettos were (53% got it correct), how many Jews were killed (38% were correct), and how Hitler became chancellor (33% were correct).

    This poll’s four questions were geared toward gauging how accurately respondents could recall the Holocaust’s granular details rather than whether they knew about it at all.

    The other two polls asked broader questions like the one Phillips framed, producing results that don’t align with his statement.

    • Liberation75 survey, 2021

    This survey’s age group, ages 10 to 19, is reasonably close to “high school,” but the respondents were mostly Canadian, not American. It was sponsored by the Ontario-based Holocaust education group Liberation75. About 15% of respondents were from the U.S.

    The survey found that 80% had definitely heard about the Holocaust. Seven percent said that they might have heard of it. 

    • Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany survey, 2020

    The third poll was the one Phillips’ campaign cited when we asked for corroboration for his claim. But its age range was out of sync; it surveyed U.S. respondents 18 to 39 — and so excluded most high schoolers. Those ages were chosen because they represented members of the millennial and Gen Z population.

    When the poll asked, “Have you ever seen or heard the word Holocaust before?” 12% of respondents said they definitely hadn’t heard about the Holocaust or didn’t think they’d heard about the Holocaust. That was a far lower rate of uncertainty about the Holocaust than what Phillips said. Also, virtually all of those who said they had heard about the Holocaust said they learned about it in school.

    As with the Pew survey, respondents’ knowledge of the Holocaust’s details was narrower. More than half believed, incorrectly, that 2 million Jews or fewer were killed, while nearly half of respondents couldn’t name a concentration camp or ghetto.

    Alexis M. Lerner, an assistant political science professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who designed the Liberation75 poll, said that even the middle school students she surveyed displayed higher rates of knowing that the Holocaust occurred than what Phillips said.

    “It’s harmful to the cause of Holocaust education to inflate the numbers” of students who don’t know about the Holocaust, she said. Now that about two dozen states require Holocaust education, “it would be hard to believe that students haven’t heard about it.”

    Experts cautioned that even if the Holocaust knowledge gap is not as broad as Phillips signaled, Holocaust knowledge among younger Americans stands to be improved.

    For instance, the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany survey found that 20% of millennials and Gen Z respondents in New York believed the Jews caused the Holocaust, said Greg Schneider, the group’s executive vice president, a finding he called “shocking.”

    “These results underscore the need for more Holocaust education, mandates and curriculum,” Schneider said.

    Alan Cooperman, Pew’s religion research director, said that the polls together signal that there are legitimate concerns about how much young people know about the Holocaust. But he added that Phillips’ statement “is more sweeping and less precise than I’d like.”

    Our ruling

    Phillips said, “Half of American high school students are not familiar with the Holocaust.”

    Recent polls we found don’t support this claim and reveal that well more than half of younger Americans broadly understand that the Holocaust occurred. 

    However, Phillips’ statement contains an element of truth, because the polls show young people are less familiar with granular details, such as the number of Jews killed or about concentration camps.

    We rate the statement Mostly False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Fact check: West Virginia, not New Hampshire, ranks first in fatal drug overdoses

    PolitiFact – Fact check: West Virginia, not New Hampshire, ranks first in fatal drug overdoses

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump claimed during a New Hampshire rally that the state has an unexplained drug problem. But his claim hinges on outdated data.

    “I don’t understand New Hampshire for whatever reason, you have a worse drug problem per capita than any other state,” Trump said during a Nov. 11 rally in Claremont. “Nobody’s explained that.”

    Trump didn’t define what he meant by “worse drug problem,” but he also praised the fire and police departments for “saving people from overdoses.”

    Trump’s campaign did not answer PolitiFact’s question on whether he was referring to overdose deaths, an often used metric, or something else.

    But Trump’s assessment isn’t supported by federal fatal overdose data.

    West Virginia, not New Hampshire, tops nation in per capita drug overdoses

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gathers data from states showing how many people die annually from drug overdoses. The most recent final data is for 2021.

    That year, West Virginia had the highest per capita drug overdose death rate, with 90.9 deaths per 100,000 population. New Hampshire’s per capita death rate was 32.3, placing it at No. 23 among all states. CDC’s provisional 2022 data shows that New Hampshire ranked similarly and West Virginia remained first.

    But even with New Hampshire ranking in the middle of the nation, there is cause for concern: drug overdose deaths have been rising. There were 487 drug overdose deaths in 2022, an 11% increase from 2021.

    New Hampshire officials found that the majority of the 2022 deaths were linked to overdoses from fentanyl (a potent synthetic opioid), or fentanyl with other drugs. 

    The CDC national data says that in 2021 most drug overdose deaths involved opioids; and New Hampshire placed in the middle again for deaths involving only opioids.

    New Hampshire’s per capita ranking has been worse in the past. From 2014 to 2016, the state’s per capita death rate was in the top two or top three among all states.

    “New Hampshire was one of the first states seriously affected by fentanyl,” said Peter Reuter, a University of Maryland public policy analyst and professor. Yet its death rates have remained constant while the rates of other states, such as Ohio and West Virginia, have soared, he said.

    In the same New Hampshire speech, Trump said drug dealers should be given the death penalty. But experts say that the death penalty would not wipe out addiction.

    The death penalty will not result in many executions; the courts have been very resistant to such penalties, Reuter said. “If Mr. Trump means much harsher penalties, we ran that experiment in the 1980s and 1990s,” Reuter said. “It did not noticeably reduce the national drug problem.”

    Our ruling

    Trump said that New Hampshire has “a worse drug problem per capita than any other state.” 

    Trump didn’t provide evidence for his statement. CDC data on fatal drug overdoses shows that West Virginia is the state with the highest per capita death rate. New Hampshire ranks toward the middle of the 50 states.

    New Hampshire years ago ranked second or third in terms of per capita fatal overdoses. But Trump’s recent statement overreaches.

    We rate his claim False. 

    RELATED: Fact-check: What Trump said about ‘$6 billion to Iran,’ immigration, economy at New Hampshire rally

    RELATED: Common myths about fentanyl debunked: No, you can’t accidentally overdose by touching fentanyl

    RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Do rising fentanyl seizures at the border signal better detection or more drugs?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nikki Haley Offers an Alternate Reality

    Nikki Haley Offers an Alternate Reality

    [ad_1]

    For some Republican voters, to attend a Nikki Haley campaign rally is to dive headfirst into the warm waters of an alternate reality—a reality in which Donald J. Trump is very old news.

    Last Thursday, this comfortable refuge could be found at the Poor Boy’s Diner in Londonderry, New Hampshire, where a few dozen white retirees wedged into booths adorned with vintage license plates and travel posters suggesting a visit to sunny Waikiki. The crowd, mostly Republican and “undeclared” voters wearing sundry combinations of flannel and cable-knit, clapped along as Haley—a youthful 51-year-old—outlined her presidential priorities: securing the border, supporting veterans, promoting small business, and “removing the kick me sign from America’s back.” Haley’s voice was steady; her words were studied; and the attendees beamed from their tables as though they couldn’t believe their luck: Finally, their relieved smiles seemed to say, here was a conservative candidate who didn’t sound completely unhinged.

    The voters I met had had it up to here with the former president, they told me: the insults, the drama, the interminable parade of indictments and gag orders. They’ve been yearning for a standard-issue Republican with governing experience and foreign-policy chops, and Haley, the former accountant turned South Carolina governor turned ambassador to the United Nations fits their bill and then some. When Haley finished speaking, voters scrambled to secure a campaign button reading NH ♥ NH. Some of them waited in line for half an hour to shake her hand.

    If you haven’t checked the scoreboard lately, Haley’s support has been ticking up steadily for weeks. New polling shows her at nearly 20 percent support in New Hampshire, up more than a dozen points since August, and knocking Florida Governor Ron DeSantis out of second place. She also leads DeSantis in her home state of South Carolina. In Iowa, Haley’s support has grown to double digits, putting her in third.

    Haley is not exactly gaining on Trump. In all three states, he’s leading the pack by roughly 30 points, which is a heck of a lot of ground for any candidate to make up. But in New Hampshire, voters were hopeful—even confident—that Haley could win this thing. Maybe, some told me, with a hint of desperation in their eyes, their Trump-free alternate reality could soon be the one we all live in. “She’s normal,” Bob Garvin, a lifelong Republican who had driven up with his wife from Dartmouth, Massachusetts, told me outside the diner. With a sigh, he said, “I just want somebody normal to run for president.”

    Some of Haley’s new support comes from her strong performance in the first two GOP primary debates, where she often stood, stoic and unimpressed, as the dudes shouted over one another. When Haley did speak, she generally sounded more measured—and frankly, more relatable—than the others. In the second debate, she turned, eyes rolling, toward the cocky newcomer Vivek Ramaswamy and channeled the exasperation many watching at home felt: “Honestly, every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber for what you say.”

    Haley has a clear lane. She’s seeking to build a coalition of Never Trump Republicans who’d really rather not pull the lever for Biden and onetime Trump voters who now find him tiresome. She also seems to be appealing to the types of Americans the GOP needs to win in a general election: the college-educated, women, suburbanites. DeSantis, who was once expected to bring the strongest primary challenge to Trump, no longer seems to have a lane at all: Voters who love the former president don’t need DeSantis as an option, and many of the voters who hate Trump have come to see DeSantis as a charmless, watered-down version of the big man himself. “He’d be Donald Trump in a Ron DeSantis mask,” one GOP voter told me in Londonderry.

    Haley and DeSantis are surely both well aware that they’re vying for second place. The two have traded attack ads throughout the past month, and a few days ago, Haley was on the radio mocking the governor’s alleged use of heel lifts in his cowboy boots. Overall, though, the trend seems to be that, as the candidates introduce themselves to more and more Americans, DeSantis is losing fans and Haley is gaining them.

    At a town-hall event that Thursday evening in nearby Nashua, Haley channeled Stevie Nicks in a white eyelet top and flared jeans—a look that probably worked well for her audience of a few hundred more silver-haired New Hampshirites. The vibe was decidedly un-Trumpian. At one point, the audience burst into admiring applause when a scheduled speaker highlighted Haley’s past life as an accountant.

    In a disciplined, 30-minute stump speech, she laid out her conventionally conservative plans for shrinking the federal government, securing the border, and lowering taxes—but she also tossed in a few ideas that might appeal to Democrats, including boosting childhood-reading proficiency, reducing criminal-recidivism rates, and adjusting policy to support “the least of us.”

    She took questions from the crowd, and when abortion inevitably came up, Haley was ready. “I am unapologetically pro-life,” she said. “But I don’t judge anyone for being pro-choice.” As president, she elaborated, she’d restrict abortion in late pregnancy and promote “good quality” adoption.

    Haley tends to speak with such a straight face that she appears almost stern. And she begins many sentences as though she is imparting a very wise lesson: “This is what I’ll tell you.” The voters I met found this appealing. Three separate women told me that they like Haley because they see her as a “strong woman.” One of them, Carol Holman, who had driven from nearby Merrimack with her husband, had voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. But she’s ready for a change.

    “People are getting tired of hearing about Trump’s problems,” Holman told me, as she buttoned up her leopard-print coat. Holman loved Haley’s performance in the second debate, and couldn’t wait to hear from the candidate in person. “She knows how to do it; she’s not just a blowhard,” she said, citing Haley’s time as a governor. “She made up my mind tonight!”

    The unfolding war in the Middle East also seems to have prompted more voters to take a second look at Haley’s campaign, given her two years of experience at the UN. “People are nervous right now, and she acknowledged a little bit of that fear,” Katherine Bonaccorso, a retired schoolteacher from Massachusetts, told me.

    Haley sees the attacks on Ukraine and Israel “as a security issue” for America, Jeanene Cooper, who volunteers as a co-chair for Haley’s campaign in Rockingham County, New Hampshire, told me. “She believes in peace through strength.” In a television interview after the Hamas assault in southern Israel, Haley advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “finish them.” Haley has long been hawkish on foreign policy; it’s one of the major differences she has with Trump and DeSantis, who tend to be more isolationist.

    The more people hear Haley, the more she’ll rise, Cooper said. It’s time, she added, for the lower-polling candidates—such as former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Ramaswamy—to drop out and endorse Haley. As for DeSantis, she added, he can’t fall that far and “think that somehow it’s going to come back.” (The DeSantis campaign has countered such assessments recently, saying they’re confident in the governor’s potential in Iowa—and arguing that polling at this stage in the primary season is not always predictive.)

    The third GOP primary debate, which will be held Wednesday in Miami, could give Haley a further boost. And new rules for the fourth debate in December would reportedly require candidates to have reached 6 percent in the polls, which, if their present numbers hold, would narrow the stage to three candidates: DeSantis, Haley, and Ramaswamy (assuming that Trump continues to boycott the debates).

    The path for Haley to progress requires DeSantis to fall flat. If she can knock him out of the way, Haley could come in second to Trump in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, and then score strongly in her home state of South Carolina, where voters know her best. Trump’s legal standing is an important variable: At least one of the former president’s criminal trials is scheduled to begin just before Super Tuesday, which could cause some of his supporters to switch candidates. If the more mainstream Republicans drop out and endorse her, that could theoretically bring her close to beating out Trump to clinch the GOP nomination.

    That’s a lot of ifs. The added national scrutiny that comes with being a primary front runner could send Haley’s star plummeting just as quickly as it rose. But the biggest problem for her and her supporters is the same conundrum that Republican candidates faced in 2020, and again in the 2022 midterm elections: The stubborn core of the GOP base wants Trump and only Trump, even if others in the party are desperate to wake up in an alternate reality.

    [ad_2]

    Elaine Godfrey

    Source link

  • Mr. One Percent

    Mr. One Percent

    [ad_1]

    The phrase one percent could be used to describe Doug Burgum’s socioeconomic status and, less gloriously, his national-polling average. On a recent Thursday night in New Hampshire, the North Dakota governor squared up to the reality of his presidential campaign: “The first question I get is ‘When are you going to drop out?’”

    He was speaking to about 100 people in a private back room at Stark Brewing Company, in downtown Manchester. Republicans had come together to celebrate the state GOP’s 170th birthday, sheet cake and all. Burgum was the biggest star on the program, along with former Representative Will Hurd, who was a no-show after ending his own campaign three days earlier. The next-biggest name? Perry Johnson, a businessman who attempted to deliver his remarks by phone and, about a week later, would also drop out.

    Burgum is an affable midwestern guy with virtually zero national name recognition. He spins his long-shot bid for the Republican nomination as “an entrepreneur’s dream”—huge market potential. Like another one-percenter, Succession’s Connor Roy, Burgum is fighting for his 1 percent in the polls: “Polling trails, you know, people’s impressions.” He’s been running for president for about five months. His campaign profile on X (formerly Twitter) has just over 13,000 followers. He’s not a fixture on Fox News. He hasn’t written a best-selling book, or any book, offering voters a glimpse of his life. As you’re reading this sentence, can you even conjure what his voice sounds like?

    This summer, to qualify for the first Republican debate, each candidate had to secure at least 40,000 individual donors. As July 4 approached, Burgum’s campaign had the idea to sell American flags for donations as a way to boost his numbers. But they soon pivoted to a savvier pitch: free money. Burgum’s team would mail anyone who donated $1 a $20 prepaid Visa or Mastercard, dubbed a “Biden inflation relief card,” netting the supporter $19 in profit. Burgum, who made millions in the software business, has described this plan as “a hack.” Though he was criticized for it, he’s executing it again as he hopes to qualify for this month’s debate in Miami. The new thresholds are stricter: at least 70,000 donors and 4 percent of support in two national polls to make the cut. Currently, Burgum has the donors but not the polls. “We are optimistic he will make it,” his spokesperson told me.

    “Newt Gingrich said it the other day, twice to two different news outlets: Everybody should drop out because the race is already over. I heard that Newt’s already picked the Super Bowl winner. So we’re gonna cancel the NFL season. No games need to be played,” Burgum told the brewery crowd. Most people in the room laughed. The woman standing next to me, scrolling through her phone, muttered that he had just reminded her to set her fantasy-football lineup.

    Former President Donald Trump enjoys a ridiculously large lead in what has come to feel almost like a Potemkin primary. Burgum is among a handful of candidates who seem to earnestly believe that Republicans are still maybe, possibly, you never know, searching for an alternative. But whereas someone like Ron DeSantis has fashioned himself into a wet-blanket version of Trump, Burgum refuses to support book bans or cosplay as MAGA. He does not appear to be courting members of the old guard in the manner of Nikki Haley or Tim Scott. He’s not firing off rhetorical napalm like Vivek Ramaswamy, or casting himself as the anti-Trump, like Chris Christie. What, then, is he doing? I spent a few days following him in New Hampshire, trying to figure that out.


    Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, and first lady of North Dakota, Kathryn Burgum, at the New Hampshire state house filing the paperwork to be on the 2024 Presidential ballot in New Hampshire.

    B

    urgum presents as a down-to-earth, slightly nerdy guy who spent most of his life in business and speaks softly, with a thick Fargo accent. (He’s heard all of your wood-chipper jokes.) He has the requisite ego to run for president but freely admits that pretty much nobody outside North Dakota has any clue who he is. He insists that the modern electoral system is broken, and that, if he is to find any national GOP success, he’ll need to be his honest, authentic, inoffensive self—nothing more. He says he is committed to avoiding the ugly reality-TV tropes of modern electoral politics. It is a noble goal. Is it doomed? Week after week, he presses on, spreading the gospel of Doug Burgum to small groups of people.

    I watched Burgum and his entourage roll into Airport Diner, in southern Manchester. (Another long-shot candidate, the Democrat Marianne Williamson, had her campaign bus parked in the adjacent Holiday Inn lot; Burgum was traveling in a black SUV.) He stopped to chat with an elderly couple in matching blue shirts, but the conversation didn’t seem to go anywhere. (“We’re Democrats,” the wife sheepishly told me a few minutes later.) At another table, a 78-year-old woman told me that some man had just come by, but she had no idea who he was. She said that God speaks to her and has told her that Trump is returning to office, but that there won’t even be an election next year—Trump will merely resume his prior presidency. She was reluctant to share her name on the record. “I have lost a lot of friends,” she said. Because of Trump? “Oh, yeah. But, hey, that’s life.”

    Out on the trail, Burgum rolls his eyes at The Narrative—capital T, capital N—and scoffs at what he sees as the “nationalization” of the primary system. Cable news, coastal elites, anyone trying to pull a lever inside the Beltway—these are the forces stripping power away from regular people, in Burgum’s view. In almost every speech, he takes umbrage at what he describes as the Republican National Committee’s “clubhouse rules.” Burgum disagrees with, among other things, the RNC’s apparent eagerness to narrow the presidential field. He counters that Americans benefit from a large pool of qualified applicants, and that early-state voters should do the winnowing themselves. He often quotes his favorite president, Theodore Roosevelt: “Let the people rule!”

    Like Roosevelt, Burgum projects an Americana-heavy image. He usually steps out in blue jeans and brown cowboy boots. He has praised those who take a shower at the end of the day versus at the beginning. He’s eager to talk about his experience working at his family’s grain elevator and his stint as a chimney sweep. He has a mop of thick hair, a strong jawline, and a hard-to-explain “just happy to be here” vibe. In August, on the eve of the first Republican debate, Burgum blew out his Achilles while playing pickup basketball. (“​​The skies were clear, but it was raining threes,” he told a reporter.) He’s been using a knee scooter to get around ever since, and told me that when he encounters long ramps, he likes to “let it rip” on his way down. His name is embroidered in big block letters on the blue puffer vest he wears almost every day. He’s rarely in a rush to get out of interactions with strangers, and will be sure to ask, with genuine curiosity, “Where’s home for you?” Burgum himself is from Arthur, North Dakota, population 323. No one from North Dakota has ever won the presidency or, for that matter, been a major party’s nominee.


    After finishing at the diner, he traveled north to Hanover, specifically Dartmouth College, where he sat for an interview with a reporter from the school’s conservative newspaper, The Dartmouth Review, and taped an episode of a campus podcast. Later, during a town hall at the college’s public-policy school, he told students that, thanks to AI, they were all “going to live to be a hundred.” This sort of techno-optimism is something that separates Burgum from his competitors. Whereas Trump paints a picture of a failing, dystopian country in need of a supreme leader, Burgum’s focus remains narrow and future-oriented. He waxes long about energy, the economy, and national security. His stump speech isn’t exactly thrilling, yet it can be refreshing—if only because he avoids campaigning on the standard GOP culture-war themes.

    Still, as governor, he’s signed several hard-right bills: a near-total abortion ban, a bathroom bill, legislation preventing transgender children from receiving gender-affirming surgery. Additionally, in North Dakota, teachers must now notify parents or guardians if one of their students identifies as trans, and they are permitted to misgender their students. North Dakota is a deep-red state, and many of these bills reached his desk veto-proof. When I asked Burgum to help me understand the motivation behind all of this legislation, he grew defensive, insisting that it’s not about discrimination.

    “But like other things,” he said, “what goes on in one state, it’s not going to go in another … As president, I’m focusing on economy, energy, national security, and the limited set of things the federal government is actually supposed to do.”


    Picture of Doug Burgum, Governor of North Dakota at Dartmouth College speaking at a town hall with students.
    Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, at Dartmouth College speaking at a town hall with students.

    In high school, basketball was Burgum’s passion, and it served as the backdrop of one of the defining moments of his life. He told me about a particularly cold Friday night during his freshman year. He was climbing aboard the team bus to an away game when the school principal pulled him aside. Burgum’s father was in the hospital battling brain cancer; Doug had planned to visit the following day. The principal told him that he had to go to the hospital right away. Burgum was shocked; he’d believed that his dad was on the path to recovery. “No one was being honest with me about the fact that it was imminent,” he said. His father died that night.

    As Burgum told me this story, his stoicism slipped. His eyes welled up, and he let out a deep exhale. His family was not wealthy, and his stay-at-home mother immediately started working full-time more than 30 miles away in Fargo, at North Dakota State University. His two elder siblings were now also living in Fargo. His mom wanted to move there, but he says he was stubborn, and refused to leave the basketball team in Arthur. “I didn’t understand the level of economic insecurity,” he said. In practical terms, this meant that his mom would often stay in Fargo overnight instead of commuting back and forth. Burgum told me he spent most of his high-school years alone, fixing things around the house in his father’s absence.

    “My mom was good at all these things, but she didn’t know how to grieve. Her solution to grieving was to go back to work and just kind of bury it,” he said, later adding, “So I developed this incredible work ethic that kind of mirrored my mother, which was: Just work your way through.”

    After finishing his undergraduate degree at North Dakota State, Burgum went on to Stanford for business school, spent two years in Chicago working for McKinsey, then returned home. He likes to say he “literally” bet the farm when he mortgaged his family farmland in order to get a computer-accounting business, Great Plains Software, off the ground. “There is a bit of, I think, geographic bigotry that actually exists in our country, where people that haven’t been to places, they assume that we’re still, you know, plowing fields with horses or something.”

    His wife, Kathryn, is the sister of one of Burgum’s fraternity brothers from North Dakota State. Burgum almost always uses the first-person plural pronoun we when discussing his political career. On the campaign trail, he praises his wife’s courage.

    She later told me some of her story. When the couple first started dating, about two decades ago, Kathryn was newly in recovery. She had begun drinking during high school, using alcohol to self-medicate. “I had anxiety and depression and didn’t really have anybody to talk to about it,” she said. She then spent 20 years trying, and failing, to stop. She was constantly blacking out. She told me she didn’t know people who could have only a single glass of wine, or who could choose not to drink, because they were driving home. “I didn’t have deep relationships even with my family, because addiction gets in the way of all that,” she said. During her darkest days with booze, she became suicidal.

    For years, Kathryn worked to keep her recovery a secret from most everyone in her life, and she credits Burgum with being supportive throughout her sobriety. In 2016, when he told her about his plan to run for governor, she had a flash of panic: How am I going to handle all these people all the time? All of these events have alcohol. The couple reached an agreement: She could leave, or simply skip, any event she wanted to. When Burgum won the election, Kathryn decided to finally talk publicly about her addiction.

    At a USA Today–network town hall in Exeter, Burgum described his wife’s journey as she looked on from the front row. He also made a plea for more compassion toward people with drug addiction who have committed crimes. He decried the obstacles that nonviolent offenders face after they leave prison, including trouble finding housing and employment: “We have legalized discrimination against people who had a disease—a brain disease that led them into that spot.” His stance is forward-thinking. It’s also out of step with much of the GOP. Were he to move up in the polls, he’d almost certainly be attacked by his peers as soft on crime.


    Picture of  Doug Burgum, Governor of North Dakota at Dartmouth College speaking at a town hall with students.
    Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, at Dartmouth College speaking at a town hall with students.

    While Trump continues to float miles above his Republican competitors, the rest of them dutifully show up to various “cattle calls” in the early states. One such event, the New Hampshire GOP’s First in the Nation Leadership Summit, took over a Sheraton the weekend I was following Burgum. Reporters and camerapeople and the cast of Showtime’s The Circus stalked the grounds looking for something—anything—resembling a story. As Burgum and Mike Pence momentarily exchanged pleasantries in the lobby, journalists materialized en masse, then vanished; no meat to be had. (Pence would drop out just over two weeks later.)

    Burgum navigated the crowded hallways on his scooter. He recorded a podcast next to an area where Kevin Sorbo, the Hercules actor turned right-wing culture warrior, sold copies of his books. He also sat on a national-security panel with Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. (At one point, Burgum fired off a seemingly improvised joke about how Iowa is “Canada’s Florida.”) During the Q&A, an audience member asked what could prevent someone like Bill Gates from buying up all of America’s farmland. Burgum gently pointed out that agriculture is far less concentrated than people believe. Gates, he said, is already among America’s largest private owners of farmland, but that means he has a fraction of a percent of what’s out there. It was a surprising statistic—though perhaps not as surprising as watching Burgum instinctively defend one of the GOP’s biggest bogeymen.

    In 2001, Burgum and his associates sold Great Plains to Microsoft for $1.1 billion. That deal has led many people to infer that Burgum himself is a billionaire. During our interview, after he continually sought to portray himself as an underdog, outsider candidate, I asked him if the phrase billionaire underdog might be considered an oxymoron. He strongly denied that he’s worth $1 billion. Even after much prodding, though, he refused to share his exact net worth. (It’s reportedly in the hundreds of millions of dollars.) So far this year, he’s lent his campaign more than $12 million of his own fortune. His super PAC, Best of America, has raised about that same amount, notably with the help of his cousin Frederick Burgum, who donated $2 million. But I was most interested in his relationship with Gates, the single biggest donor to Burgum’s 2016 gubernatorial bid.

    I asked Burgum what Gates is like as a person.

    “It’d be a good question for him, I suppose.”

    “Well, I mean, aren’t you friends?”

    He said that he has observed an “evolution” in Gates over the four decades they’ve known each other, then remarked, “He’s the most, you know, one of the most misunderstood people that we have in America right now.”

    Burgum said that Gates and his ex-wife, Melinda, have saved more lives than anyone “probably in the history of the planet.” I asked Burgum how he plans to reckon with the portion of the GOP electorate—those who adhere to conspiracies such as QAnon and Pizzagate—who believe that Gates drinks the blood of children.

    Burgum said that he knows how to talk to voters “of all stripes and beliefs,” and that, if you’re going to lead people, you have to meet them where they are. Still, he said, “there are some people that believe things, and they believe ’em like it’s religion. And you’re sort of asking me, What would I say to them? Well, you can’t tell them to stop believing [their] religion if they believe it. In politics, you have to say, then, that that voter may or may not be available.”

    I found his willingness to draw lines admirable, but it didn’t extend to Donald Trump. He likes to say that, as governor of North Dakota, nukes are in his backyard. (“I have friends who, literally, they farm here and the nuclear silo is right there,” he told me.) I asked him if voters can trust Trump with the nuclear codes. He paused. “Voters will have to decide that,” he said. I asked him if he, Doug Burgum, trusts Trump with the nuclear codes. He dodged: “Nuclear weapons exist for one reason.” I asked him for a yes-or-no answer. He responded, “So when you say ‘trust him,’ what does that mean?” I noted that people in the Department of Defense—including former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley—have specifically said that Trump can’t be trusted with the nuclear codes, and that although many questions understandably have gray answers, this one seemed black-and-white. He paused again, then eventually offered another trained-politician answer.

    “I think it’s a question of, do we think that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent for our country? And if you think we have a president that will never use them, then they don’t work. If you have a president that will use them, they do work. And it’s partly not what we think. It’s partly what the enemy thinks. And if the enemy thinks that we have a president that will actually launch a nuclear weapon, then the deterrents work. And so, I think we have to look at who they’re pointed at, not just who’s pulling the trigger.”


    Picture of Doug Burgum and his wife Kathryn at an event in Stark Brewing Company in Manchester for a GOP 100th birthday event.
    Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, and his wife, Kathryn, at Stark Brewing Company in Manchester, NH for a GOP 170th birthday event.

    The next morning, Burgum and his team wandered among rows of tailgaters outside a University of New Hampshire football game. A Fox News reporter filmed a quick-hit interview with the governor while students played touch football in the background. (One wide receiver dramatically spiked the ball after completing a slant route that took him right past Burgum and toward a Dumpster.) Tailgaters looked on quizzically, or not at all, as Burgum and his entourage sauntered by.

    “Oh, it’s Doug!” someone in dark sunglasses called out. The man, 28, told me that he’s from Boston and has the type of job where he can’t share his political views with his name attached. He said he voted for Joe Biden in 2020 but lost respect for him after he appeared to go back on his implicit promise to serve only one term. He added that he appreciates how Burgum seems like “a genuinely good person” and isn’t a career politician, though he’d like to see him move up in the polls.

    A middle-aged woman offered Burgum a homemade cheesesteak. He accepted, and held the greasy bread in his bare hand for minutes before another tailgater offered him a napkin. He took a bite, but not before wisely asking the Fox News person not to film him eating.

    Kickoff was soon approaching. The tailgaters showed no signs of packing it in. Grills sizzled; beers were pounded; beanbags thunked against cornhole sets. Burgum waved and smiled.

    Three girls were standing at a distance, alternately watching him with the cheesesteak and fiddling with their phones.

    I asked one of them if she knew anything about Doug Burgum.

    “What’s he running for?” she asked.

    “President.”

    “Good for him,” she said.

    Picture of Doug Burgum, Governor of North Dakota at Stark Brewing Company in Manchester, MA for a GOP 100th birthday event.
    Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, at Stark Brewing Company in Manchester, NH for a GOP 170th birthday event.

    [ad_2]

    John Hendrickson

    Source link

  • Dean Phillips Has a Warning for Democrats

    Dean Phillips Has a Warning for Democrats

    [ad_1]

    This article was featured in One Story to Read Today, a newsletter in which our editors recommend a single must-read from The Atlantic, Monday through Friday. Sign up for it here.

    To spend time around Dean Phillips, as I have since his first campaign for Congress in 2018, is to encounter someone so earnest as to be utterly suspicious. He speaks constantly of joy and beauty and inspiration, beaming at the prospect of entertaining some new perspective. He allows himself to be interrupted often—by friends, family, staffers—but rarely interrupts them, listening patiently with a politeness that almost feels aggravating. With the practiced manners of one raised with great privilege—boasting a net worth he estimates at $50 million—the gentleman from Minnesota is exactly that.

    But that courtly disposition cracks, I’ve noticed, when he’s convinced that someone is lying. Maybe it’s because at six months old he lost his father in a helicopter crash that his family believes the military covered up, in a war in Vietnam that was sold to the public with tricks and subterfuge. I can hear the anger in his voice as he talks about the treachery that led to January 6, recalling his frantic search for some sort of weapon—he found only a sharpened pencil—with which to defend himself against the violent masses who were sacking the U.S. Capitol. I can see it in his eyes when Phillips, who is Jewish, remarks that some of his Democratic colleagues have recently spread falsehoods about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and others in the party have refused to condemn blatant anti-Semitism.

    Deception is a part of politics. Phillips acknowledges that. But some deceptions are more insidious than others. On the third Saturday of October, as we sat inside the small, sun-drenched living room of his rural-Virginia farmhouse, Phillips told me he was about to do something out of character: He was going to upset some people. He was going to upset some people because he was going to run for president. And he was going to run for president, Phillips explained, because there is one deception he can no longer perpetuate.

    “My grave concern,” the congressman said, “is I just don’t think President Biden will beat Donald Trump next November.”

    This isn’t some fringe viewpoint within the Democratic Party. In a year’s worth of conversations with other party leaders, Phillips told me, “everybody, without exception,” shares his fear about Joe Biden’s fragility—political and otherwise—as he seeks a second term. This might be hyperbole, but not by much: In my own recent conversations with party officials, it was hard to find anyone who wasn’t jittery about Biden. Phillips’s problem is that they refuse to say so on the record. Democrats claim to view Trump as a singular threat to the republic, the congressman complains, but for reasons of protocol and self-preservation they have been unwilling to go public with their concerns about Biden, making it all the more likely, in Phillips’s view, that the former president will return to office.

    Phillips spent the past 15 months trying to head off such a calamity. He has noisily implored Biden, who turns 81 next month—and would be 86 at the end of a second term—to “pass the torch,” while openly attempting to recruit prominent young Democrats to challenge the president in 2024. He name-dropped some Democratic governors on television and made personal calls to others, urging someone, anyone, to jump into the Democratic race. What he encountered, he thought, was a dangerous dissonance: Some of the president’s allies would tell him, in private conversations, to keep agitating, to keep recruiting, that Biden had no business running in 2024—but that they weren’t in a position to do anything about it.

    What made this duplicity especially maddening to Phillips, he told me, is that Democrats have seen its pernicious effects on the other side of the political aisle. For four years during Trump’s presidency, Democrats watched their Republican colleagues belittle Trump behind closed doors, then praise him to their base, creating a mirage of support that ultimately made them captives to the cult of Trumpism. Phillips stresses that there is no equivalence between Trump and Biden. Still, having been elected in 2018 alongside a class of idealistic young Democrats—“the Watergate babies of the Trump era,” Phillips said—he always took great encouragement in the belief that his party would never fall into the trap of elevating people over principles.

    “We don’t have time to make this about any one individual. This is about a mission to stop Donald Trump,” Phillips, who is 54, told me. “I’m just so frustrated—I’m growing appalled—by the silence from people whose job it is to be loud.”

    Phillips tried to make peace with this. As recently as eight weeks ago, he had quietly resigned himself to Biden’s nomination. The difference now, he said—the reason for his own buzzer-beating run for the presidency—is that Biden’s numbers have gone from bad to awful. Surveys taken since late summer show the president’s approval ratings hovering at or below 40 percent, Trump pulling ahead in the horse race, and sizable majorities of voters, including Democratic voters, wishing the president would step aside. These findings are apparent in district-level survey data collected by Phillips’s colleagues in the House, and have been the source of frenzied intraparty discussion since the August recess. And yet Democrats’ reaction to them, Phillips said, has been to grimace, shrug, and say it’s too late for anything to be done.

    “There’s no such thing as too late,” Phillips told me, “until Donald Trump is in the White House again.”

    In recent weeks, Phillips has reached out to a wide assortment of party elders. He did this, in part, as a check on his own sanity. He was becoming panicked at the prospect of Trump’s probable return to office. He halfway hoped to be told that he was losing his grip on reality, that Trump Derangement Syndrome had gotten to him. He wanted someone to tell him that everything was going to be fine. Instead, in phone call after phone call, his fears were only exacerbated.

    “I’m looking at polling data, and I’m looking at all of it. The president’s numbers are just not good—and they’re not getting any better,” James Carville, the Democratic strategist, told me, summarizing his recent conversations with Phillips. “I talk to a lot of people who do a lot of congressional-level polling and state polling, and they’re all saying the same thing. There’s not an outlier; there’s not another opinion … The question is, has the country made up its mind?”

    Jim Messina, who ran Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, told me the answer is no. “This is exactly where we were at this stage of that election cycle,” Messina said. He pointed to the November 6, 2011, issue of The New York Times Magazine, the cover of which read, “So, Is Obama Toast?” Messina called the current situation just another case of bedwetting. “If there was real concern, then you’d have real politicians running,” he said. “I’d never heard of Dean Phillips until a few weeks ago.”

    The bottom line, Messina said, is that “Biden’s already beaten Trump once. He’s the one guy who can beat him again.”

    Carville struggles with this logic. The White House, he said, “operates with what I call this doctrine of strategic certainty,” arguing that Biden is on the same slow-but-steady trajectory he followed in 2020. “Joe Biden has been counted out by the Beltway insiders, pundits, DC media, and anonymous Washington sources time and time again,” the Biden campaign wrote in a statement. “Time and time again, they have been wrong.” The problem is that 2024 bears little resemblance to 2020: Biden is even older, there is a proliferation of third-party and independent candidates, and the Democratic base, which turned out in record numbers in the last presidential election, appears deflated. (“The most under-covered story in contemporary American politics,” Carville said, “is that Black turnout has been miserable everywhere since 2020.”) Carville added that in his own discussions with leading Democrats, when he argues that Biden’s prospects for reelection have grown bleak, “Nobody is saying, ‘James, you’re wrong,’” he told me. “They’re saying, ‘James, you can’t say that.’”

    Hence his fondness for Phillips. “Remember when the Roman Catholic Church convicted Galileo of heresy for saying that the Earth moves around the sun? He said, ‘And yet, it still moves,’” Carville told me, cackling in his Cajun drawl. The truth is, Carville said, Biden’s numbers aren’t moving—and whoever points that out is bound to be treated like a heretic in Democratic circles.

    Phillips knows that he’s making a permanent enemy of the party establishment. He realizes that he’s likely throwing away a promising career in Congress; already, a Democratic National Committee member from Minnesota has announced a primary challenge and enlisted the help of leading firms in the St. Paul area to take Phillips out. He told me how, after the news of his impending launch leaked to the press, “a colleague from New Hampshire”—the congressman grinned, as that description narrowed it down to just two people—told him that his candidacy was “not serious” and “offensive” to the state’s voters. In the run-up to his launch, Phillips tried to speak with the president—to convey his respect before entering the race. On Thursday night, he said, the White House got back to him: Biden would not be talking to Phillips.

    Cedric Richmond, the onetime Louisiana congressman who is now co-chair of Biden’s reelection campaign, told me Phillips doesn’t “give a crap” about the party and is pursuing “a vanity project” that could result in another Trump presidency. “History tells us when the sitting president faces a primary challenge, it weakens him for the general election,” Richmond said. “No party has ever survived that.”

    But Phillips insists—and his friends, even those who think he’s making a crushing mistake, attest—that he is doing this out of genuine conviction. Standing up and leaning across a coffee table inside his living room, Phillips pulled out his phone and recited data from recent surveys. One showed 70 percent of Democrats under 35 wanting a different nominee; another showed swing-state voters siding with Trump over Biden on a majority of policy issues, and independents roundly rejecting “Bidenomics,” the White House branding for the president’s handling of the economy. “These are not numbers that you can massage,” Phillips said. “Look, just because he’s old, that’s not a disqualifier. But being old, in decline, and having numbers that are clearly moving in the wrong direction? It’s getting to red-alert kind of stuff.”

    Phillips sat back down. “Someone had to do this,” the congressman told me. “It just was so self-evident.”

    If the need to challenge the president is so self-evident, I asked, then why is a third-term congressman from Minnesota the only one willing to do it?

    “I think about that every day,” Phillips replied, shaking his head. “If the data is correct, over 50 percent of Democrats want a different nominee—and yet there’s only one out of 260 Democrats in the Congress saying the same thing?”

    Phillips no longer wonders whether there’s something wrong with him. He believes there’s something wrong with the Democratic Party—a “disease” that discourages competition and shuts down dialogue and crushes dissent. Phillips said his campaign for president won’t simply be about the “generational schism” that pits clinging-to-power Baby Boomers against the rest of the country.  If he’s running, the congressman said, he’s running on all the schisms that divide the Democrats: cultural and ideological, economic and geographic. He intends to tell some “hard truths” about a party that, in its attempt to turn the page on Trump, he argued, has done things to help move him back into the Oval Office. He sounded at times less like a man who wants to win the presidency, and more like someone who wants to draw attention to the decaying state of our body politic.

    Over the course of a weekend on Phillips’s farm, we spent hours discussing the twisted incentive structures of America’s governing institutions. He talked about loyalties and blind spots, about how truth takes a back seat to narrative, about how we tell ourselves stories to ignore uncomfortable realities. Time and again, I pressed Phillips on the most uncomfortable reality of all: By running against Biden—by litigating the president’s age and fitness for office in months of town-hall meetings across New Hampshire—isn’t he likely to make a weak incumbent that much weaker, thereby making another Trump presidency all the more likely?

    “I want to strengthen him. If it’s not me, I want to strengthen him. I won’t quit until I strengthen him. I mean it,” Phillips said of Biden. “I do not intend to undermine him, demean him, diminish him, attack him, or embarrass him.”

    Phillips’s friends tell me his intentions are pure. But they fear that what makes him special—his guileless, romantic approach to politics—could in this case be ruinous for the country. They have warned him about the primary campaigns against George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Jimmy Carter in 1980, both of whom lost in the general election.

    Phillips insisted to me that he wouldn’t be running against Biden. Rather, he would be campaigning for the future of the Democratic Party. There was no scenario, he said, in which his candidacy would result in Trump winning back the White House.

    And in that moment, it was Dean Phillips who was telling himself a story.

    He didn’t see the question coming—but he didn’t try to duck it, either.

    It was July of last year. Phillips was doing a regular spot on WCCO radio, a news-talk station in his district, when host Chad Hartman asked the congressman if he wanted Biden to run for reelection in 2024. “No. I don’t,” Phillips replied, while making sure to voice his admiration for the president. “I think the country would be well served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up.”

    Phillips didn’t think much about the comment. After all, he’d run for Congress in 2018 promising not to vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House (though he ultimately did support her as part of a deal that codified the end of her time in leadership). While he has been a reliable vote in the Democratic caucus—almost always siding with Biden on the House floor—Phillips has simultaneously been a squeaky wheel. He’s a centrist unhappy with what he sees as the party’s coddling of the far left. He’s a Gen Xer convinced that the party’s aging leadership is out of step with the country. He’s an industrialist worried about the party’s hostility toward Big Business. (When he was 3 years old, his mother married the heir of a distilling empire; Phillips took it over in his early 30s, then made his own fortune with the gelato company Talenti.)

    When the blowback to the radio interview arrived—party donors, activists, and officials in both Minnesota and Washington rebuked him as disloyal—Phillips was puzzled. Hadn’t Biden himself said, while campaigning in 2020, that he would be a “bridge” to the future of the Democratic Party? Hadn’t he made that remark flanked by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer on one side and future Vice President Kamala Harris on the other? Hadn’t he all but promised that his campaign was about removing Trump from power, not staying in power himself?

    Phillips had never seriously entertained the notion that Biden would seek reelection. Neither had many of his Democratic colleagues. In fact, several House Democrats told me—on the condition of anonymity, as not one of them would speak on the record for this article—that in their conversations with Biden’s inner circle throughout the summer and fall of 2022, the question was never if the president would announce his decision to forgo a second term, but when he would make that announcement.

    Figuring that he’d dealt with the worst of the recoil—and still very much certain that Biden would ultimately step aside—Phillips grew more vocal. He spent the balance of 2022, while campaigning for his own reelection, arguing that both Biden and Pelosi should make way for younger Democratic leaders to emerge. He was relieved when, after Republicans recaptured the House of Representatives that fall, Pelosi allowed Hakeem Jeffries, a friend of Phillips’s, to succeed her atop the caucus.

    But that relief soon gave way to worry: As the calendar turned to 2023, there were rumblings coming from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that Biden might run for reelection after all. In February, Phillips irked his colleagues on Capitol Hill when he gave an extensive interview to the Politico columnist Jonathan Martin shaming Democrats for suppressing their concerns about Biden. At that point, his friends in the caucus still believed that Phillips was picking a fight for no reason. When Biden announced his candidacy two months later, several people recalled to me, some congressional Democrats were stunned.

    “Many actually felt, I think, personally offended,” Phillips said. “They felt he had made a promise—either implicitly, if not explicitly.”

    Around the time Biden was launching his reelection campaign, Phillips was returning to the United States from an emotional journey to Vietnam. He had traveled to the country, for the first time, in search of the place where his father and seven other Americans died in a 1969 helicopter crash. (Military officials initially told his mother that the Huey was shot down; only later, Phillips says, did they admit that the accident was weather related.) After a local man volunteered to lead Phillips to the crash site, the congressman broke down in tears, running his hands over the ground where his father perished, reflecting, he told me, on “the magnificence and the consequence of the power of the American presidency.”

    Phillips left Vietnam with renewed certainty of his mission—not to seek the White House himself, but to recruit a Democrat who stood a better chance than Biden of defeating Donald Trump.

    Back in Washington, Phillips began asking House Democratic colleagues for the personal phone numbers of governors in their states. Some obliged him; others ignored the request or refused it. Phillips tried repeatedly to get in touch with these governors. Only two got back to him—Whitmer in Michigan, and J. B. Pritzker in Illinois—but neither one would speak to the congressman directly. “They had their staff take the call,” Phillips told me. “They wouldn’t take the call.”

    With a wry grin, he added: “Gretchen Whitmer’s aide was very thoughtful … J. B. Pritzker’s delegate was somewhat unfriendly.”

    By this point, Phillips was getting impatient. Trump’s numbers were improving. One third-party candidate, Cornel West, was already siphoning support away from Biden, and Phillips suspected that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who had declared his candidacy as a Democrat, would eventually switch to run as an independent. (That suspicion proved correct earlier this month.) As a member of the elected House Democratic leadership, Phillips could sense the anxiety mounting within the upper echelons of the party. He and other Democratic officials wondered what, exactly, the White House would do to counter the obvious loss of momentum. The answer: Biden’s super PAC dropped eight figures on an advertising blitz around Bidenomics, a branding exercise that Phillips told me was viewed as “a joke” within the House Democratic caucus.

    “Completely disconnected from what we were hearing,” Phillips said of the slogan, “which is people getting frustrated that the administration was telling them that everything is great.”

    Everything was not great—but it didn’t seem terrible, either. The RealClearPolitics average of polls, as of late spring, showed Biden and Trump running virtually even. As the summer wore on, however, there were signs of trouble. When Phillips and certain purple-district colleagues would compare notes on happenings back home, the readouts were the same. Polling indicated that more and more independents were drifting from the Democratic ranks. Field operations confirmed that young people and minorities were dangerously disengaged. Town-hall questions and donor meetings began and ended with questions about Biden’s fitness to run against Trump.

    Phillips decided that he needed to push even harder. Before embarking on a new, more aggressive phase of his mission—he began booking national-TV appearances with the explicit purpose of lobbying a contender to join the Democratic race—he spoke to Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, to share his plans. He also said he called the White House and spoke to Biden’s chief of staff, Jeff Zients, to offer a heads-up. Phillips wanted both men to know that he would be proceeding with respect—but proceeding all the same.

    In August, as Phillips dialed up the pressure, he suddenly began to feel the pressure himself. He had spent portions of the previous year cultivating relationships with powerful donors, from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, who had offered their assistance in recruiting a challenger to Biden. Now, with those efforts seemingly doomed, the donors began asking Phillips if he would consider running. He laughed off the question at first. Phillips knew that it would take someone with greater name identification, and a far larger campaign infrastructure, to vie for the party’s presidential nomination. Besides, the folks he’d met with wanted someone like Whitmer or California Governor Gavin Newsom or Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, not a barely known congressman from the Minneapolis suburbs.

    In fact, Phillips had already considered—and rejected—the idea of running. After speaking to a packed D.C.-area ballroom of Gold Star families earlier this year, and receiving an ovation for his appeals to brotherhood and bipartisanship, he talked with his wife and his mother about the prospect of doing what no other Democrat was willing to do. But he concluded, quickly, that it was a nonstarter. He didn’t have the experience to run a national campaign, let alone a strategy of any sort.

    Phillips told his suitors he wasn’t their guy. Flying back to Washington after the summer recess, he resolved to keep his head down. The congressman didn’t regret his efforts, but he knew they had estranged him from the party. Now, with primary filing deadlines approaching and no serious challengers to the president in sight, he would fall in line and do everything possible to help Biden keep Trump from reclaiming the White House.

    No sooner had Phillips taken this vow than two things happened. First, as Congress reconvened during the first week of September, Phillips was blitzed by Democratic colleagues who shared the grim tidings from their districts around the country. He had long been viewed as the caucus outcast for his public defiance of the White House; now he was the party’s unofficial release valve, the member whom everyone sought out to vent their fears and frustrations. That same week, several major polls dropped, the collective upshot of which proved more worrisome than anything Phillips had witnessed to date. One survey, from The Wall Street Journal, showed Trump and Biden essentially tied, but reported that 73 percent of registered voters considered Biden “too old” to run for president, with only 47 percent saying the same about Trump, who is just three and a half years younger. Another poll, conducted for CNN, showed that 67 percent of Democratic voters wanted someone other than Biden as the party’s nominee.

    Phillips felt helpless. He made a few last-ditch phone calls, pleading and praying that someone might step forward. No one did. After a weekend of nail-biting, Phillips logged on to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday, September 11, to write a remembrance on the anniversary of America coming under attack. That’s when he noticed a direct message. It was from a man he’d never met but whose name he knew well: Steve Schmidt.

    “Some of the greatest acts of cowardice in the history of this country have played out in the last 10 years,” Schmidt told me, picking at a piece of coconut cream pie.

    “Agreed,” Phillips said, nodding his head. “Agreed.”

    The three of us, plus the congressman’s wife, Annalise, were talking late into the night around a long, rustic table in the farmhouse dining room. Never, not even in the juicy, adapted-to-TV novels about presidential campaigns, has there been a stranger pairing than Dean Phillips and Steve Schmidt. One is a genteel, carefully groomed midwesterner who trafficks in dad jokes and neighborly aphorisms, the other a swaggering, bald-headed, battle-hardened product of New Jersey who specializes in ad hominem takedowns. What unites them is a near-manic obsession with keeping Trump out of the White House—and a conviction that Biden cannot beat him next November.

    “The modern era of political campaigning began in 1896,” Schmidt told us, holding forth a bit on William McKinley’s defeat of William Jennings Bryan. “There has never been a bigger off-the-line mistake by any presidential campaign—ever—than labeling this economy ‘Bidenomics.’ The result of that is going to be to reelect Donald Trump, which will be catastrophic.”

    Schmidt added: “A fair reading of the polls is that if the election were tomorrow, Donald Trump would be the 47th president of the United States.”

    Schmidt, who is perhaps most famous for his work leading John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign—and, specifically, for recommending Sarah Palin as a surprise vice-presidential pick—likes to claim some credit for stopping Trump in the last election. The super PAC he co-founded in 2019, the Lincoln Project, combined quick-twitch instincts with devastating viral content, hounding Trump with over-the-top ads about everything from his business acumen to his mental stability. Schmidt became something of a cult hero to the left, a onetime conservative brawler who had mastered the art and science of exposing Republican duplicity in the Trump era. Before long, however, the Lincoln Project imploded due to cascading scandals. Schmidt resigned, apologizing for his missteps and swearing to himself that he was done with politics for good.

    He couldn’t have imagined that inviting Phillips onto his podcast, via direct message, would result in the near-overnight upending of both of their lives. After taping the podcast on September 22, Schmidt told Phillips how impressed he was by his sincerity and conviction. Two days later, Schmidt called Phillips to tell him that he’d shared the audio of their conversation with some trusted political friends, and the response was unanimous: This guy needs to run for president. Before Phillips could respond, Schmidt advised the congressman to talk with his family about it. It happened to be the eve of Yom Kippur: Phillips spent the next several days with his wife and his adult daughters, who expressed enthusiasm about the idea. Phillips called Schmidt back and told him that, despite his family’s support, he had no idea how to run a presidential campaign—much less one that would have to launch within weeks, given filing deadlines in key states.

    “Listen,” Schmidt told him, “if you’re willing to jump in, then I’m willing to jump in with you.”

    Phillips needed some time to think—and to assess Schmidt. Politics is a tough business, but even by that standard his would-be partner had made lots of enemies. The more the two men talked, however, the more Phillips came to view Schmidt as a kindred spirit. They shared not just a singular adversary in Trump but also a common revulsion at the conformist tactics of a political class that refuses to level with the public. (“People talk about misinformation on Twitter, misinformation in the media,” Schmidt told me. “But how is it not misinformation when our political leaders have one conversation with each other, then turn around and tell the American people exactly the opposite?”) Schmidt had relished working for heterodox dissenters like McCain and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Listening to Schmidt narrate his struggles to prevent the Republican Party’s demise, Phillips felt a strange parallel to his own situation.

    Back on January 6, 2021, as he’d crawled for cover inside the House gallery—listening to the sounds of broken glass and the gunshot that killed the Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, overhearing his weeping colleagues make goodbye calls to loved ones—Phillips believed that he was going to die. Later that night, reflecting on his survival, the congressman vowed that he would give every last measure to the cause of opposing Trump. And now, just a couple of years later, with Trump’s recapturing of power appearing more likely by the day, he was supposed to do nothing—just to keep the Democratic Party honchos happy?

    “My colleagues, we all endured that, and you’d think that we would be very intentional and objective and resolute about the singular objective to ensure he does not return to the White House,” Phillips said. “We need to recognize the consequences of this silence.”

    On the first weekend of October, Phillips welcomed Schmidt to his D.C. townhome. They were joined by six others: the congressman’s wife and sister; his campaign manager and one of her daughters; Bill Fletcher, a Tennessee-based consultant; and a Democratic strategist whom I later met at the Virginia farm—one whose identity I agreed to keep off the record because he said his career would be over if he was found to be helping Phillips. Commanding the room with a whiteboard and marker, Schmidt outlined his approach. There would be no org chart, no job titles—only three groups with overlapping responsibilities. The first group, “Headquarters,” would deal with day-to-day operations. The second, “Maneuver,” would handle the mobile logistics of the campaign. The third, “Content,” would be prolific in its production of advertisements, web videos, and social-media posts. This last group would be essential to Phillips’s effort, Schmidt explained: They would contract talent to work across six time zones, from Manhattan to Honolulu, seizing on every opening in the news cycle and putting Biden’s campaign on the defensive all day, every day.

    When the weekend wrapped, Phillips sat alone with his thoughts. The idea of challenging his party’s leader suddenly felt real. He knew the arguments being made by his Democratic friends and did his best to consider them without prejudice. Was it likely, Phillips asked himself, that his candidacy might achieve exactly the outcome he wanted to avoid—electing Trump president?

    Phillips decided the answer was no.

    Running in the Democratic primary carried some risk of hurting the party in 2024, Phillips figured, but not as much risk as letting Biden and his campaign sleepwalk into next summer, only to discover in the fall how disengaged and disaffected millions of Democratic voters truly are.

    “If it’s not gonna be me, and this is a way to elevate the need to listen to people who are struggling and connect it to people in Washington, that to me is a blessing for the eventual nominee,” Phillips said. “If it’s Joe Biden—if he kicks my tuchus in the opening states—he looks strong, and that makes him stronger.”

    It sounds fine in theory, I told Phillips. But that’s not usually how primary campaigns work.

    He let out an exaggerated sigh. “I understand why conventional wisdom says that’s threatening,” Phillips said. “But my gosh, if it’s threatening to go out and listen to people and talk publicly about what’s on people’s minds, and that’s something we should be protecting against, we have bigger problems than I ever thought.”

    It was two weeks after that meeting in D.C. that Phillips welcomed me to his Virginia farmhouse. He’d been staying there, a 90-minute drive from the Capitol, since far-right rebels deposed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, sparking a furious three-week search for his replacement. The irony, Phillips explained as he showed me around the 38-acre parcel of pastureland, is that he and Schmidt couldn’t possibly have organized a campaign during this season had Congress been doing its job. The GOP’s dysfunctional detour provided an unexpected opportunity, and Phillips determined that it was his destiny to take advantage.

    With Congress adjourned for the weekend as Republicans sought a reset in their leadership scramble, Phillips reconvened the kitchen cabinet from his D.C. summit, plus a Tulsa-based film production crew. Content was the chief priority. Phillips would launch his campaign on Friday, October 27—the deadline for making the New Hampshire ballot—at the state capitol in Concord. From there, he would embark on a series of 120 planned town-hall meetings, breaking McCain’s long-standing Granite State record, touring in a massive DEAN-stamped bus wrapped with a slogan sure to infuriate the White House: “Make America Affordable Again.”

    The strategy, Schmidt explained as we watched his candidate ad-lib for the roving cameras—shooting all manner of unscripted, stream-of-consciousness, turn-up-the-authenticity footage that would dovetail with the campaign’s policy of no polling or focus grouping—was to win New Hampshire outright. The president had made a massive tactical error, Schmidt said, by siding with the Democratic National Committee over New Hampshire in a procedural squabble that will leave the first-in-the-nation primary winner with zero delegates. Biden had declined to file his candidacy there, instead counting on loyal Democratic voters to write him onto the primary ballot. But now Phillips was preparing to spend the next three months blanketing the state, drawing an unflattering juxtaposition with the absentee president and maybe, just maybe, earning enough votes to defeat him. If that happens, Schmidt said, the media narrative will be what matters—not the delegate math. Americans would wake up to the news of two winners in the nation’s first primary elections: Trump on the Republican side, and Dean Phillips—wait, who?—yes, Dean Phillips on the Democratic side. The slingshot of coverage would be forceful enough to make Phillips competitive in South Carolina, then Michigan. By the time the campaign reached Super Tuesday, Schmidt said, Phillips would have worn the incumbent down—and won over the millions of Democrats who’ve been begging for an alternative.

    At least, that’s the strategy. Fanciful? Yes. The mechanical hurdles alone, starting with collecting enough signatures to qualify for key primary ballots, could prove insurmountable. (He has already missed the deadline in Nevada.) That said, in an age of asymmetrical political disruption, Phillips might not be the million-to-one candidate some will dismiss him as. He’s seeding the campaign with enough money to build out a legitimate operation, and has influential donors poised to enter the fray on his behalf. (One tech mogul, who spoke with Phillips throughout the week preceding the launch, was readying to endorse him on Friday.) He has high-profile friends—such as the actor Woody Harrelson—whom he’ll enlist to hit the trail with him and help draw a crowd. Perhaps most consequentially, his campaign is being helped by Billy Shaheen, a longtime kingmaker in New Hampshire presidential politics and the husband of the state’s senior U.S. senator, Jeanne Shaheen. “I think the people here deserve to hear what Dean has to say,” Billy Shaheen told me. If nothing else, with Schmidt at the helm, Phillips’s campaign will be energetic and highly entertaining.

    Yet the more time I spent with him at the farm, the less energized Phillips seemed by the idea of dethroning Biden. He insisted that his first ad-making session focus on saluting the president, singing his opponent’s praises into the cameras in ways that defy all known methods of campaigning. He told me, unsolicited, that his “red line” is March 6, the day after Super Tuesday, at which point he will “wrap it up” and “get behind the president in a very big way” if his candidacy fails to gain traction. He repeatedly drifted back to the notion that he might unwittingly assist Trump’s victory next fall.

    Whereas he once spoke with absolute certainty on the subject—shrugging off the comparisons to Pat Buchanan in 1992 or Ted Kennedy in 1980—I could sense by the end of our time together that it was weighing on him. Understandably so: During the course of our interviews—perhaps five or six hours spent on the record—Phillips had directly criticized Biden for what he described as a detachment from the country’s economic concerns, his recent in-person visit to Israel (unnecessarily provocative to Arab nations, Phillips said), and his lack of concrete initiatives to help heal the country the way he promised in 2020. Phillips also ripped Hunter Biden’s “appalling” behavior and argued that the president—who was acting “heroically” by showing such devotion to his troubled son—was now perceived by the public to be just as corrupt as Trump.

    All of this from a few hours of conversation. If you’re running the Biden campaign, it’s fair to worry: What will come of Phillips taking thousands of questions across scores of town-hall meetings in New Hampshire?

    At one point, under the dimmed lights at his dinner table, Phillips told me he possessed no fear of undermining the eventual Democratic nominee. Then, seconds later, he told me he was worried about the legacy he’d be leaving for his two daughters.

    “Because of pundits attaching that to me—” Phillips suddenly paused. “If, for some circumstance, Trump still won …” He trailed off.

    Schmidt had spent the weekend talking about Dean Phillips making history. And yet, in this moment, the gentleman from Minnesota—the soon-to-be Democratic candidate for president in 2024—seemed eager to avoid the history books altogether.

    “In other words, if you’re remembered for helping Trump get elected—” I began.

    He nodded slowly. “There are two paths.”

    Phillips knows what path some Democrats think he’s following: that he’s selfish, maybe even insane, recklessly doing something that might result in another Trump presidency. The way Phillips sees it, he’s on exactly the opposite path: He is the last sane man in the Democratic Party, acting selflessly to ensure that Trump cannot reclaim the White House.

    “Two paths,” Phillips repeated. “There’s nothing in the middle.”

    [ad_2]

    Tim Alberta

    Source link

  • Jimmy Kimmel Spots Trump’s Truly Weird New Threat Against Joe Biden

    Jimmy Kimmel Spots Trump’s Truly Weird New Threat Against Joe Biden

    [ad_1]

    “There’s a war going on, a terrible war, one of our closest allies was viciously attacked,” Kimmel said. “And what’s Donnie Dum-Dum talking about? This.”

    Kimmel played a clip of Trump fantasizing about punching President Joe Biden in the nose. Trump made a fist and mimed three soft jabs, complete with his own sound effects.

    “Poof, poof, poof,” Trump said as the audience howled with delight. “I’d hit him right in that fake nose.”

    “He went from fake news to fake nose,” Kimmel countered. “Wait a minute, Joe Biden has a fake nose? I know he has wooden teeth… I think the nose is real.”

    Then Kimmel mimicked Trump’s jabs.

    “By the way, how about that punching?” he asked. “Poof. Poof.”

    See more in his Monday night monologue:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Said So Many Crazy Things Today That We Can’t Pick The Strangest

    Trump Said So Many Crazy Things Today That We Can’t Pick The Strangest

    [ad_1]

    Depending on how you feel about Donald Trump, today was either an embarrassment of riches or just an embarrassment.

    The former president was in Derry, New Hampshire, on Monday to hold a rally and to sign up for the New Hampshire presidential primary, The Associated Press reported.

    Trump took the opportunity to make so many bizarre, false statements that it’s hard to choose the wackiest.

    The most newsworthy quote probably came prior to the rally, when a reporter asked Trump if his recent perplexing claim that Sidney Powell was never his attorney (although he’s previously said she was) meant that his interactions with her wouldn’t be covered by attorney-client privilege.

    Trump, who has been indicted four times, responded by making the completely false statement that he was “never indicted.”

    “We did nothing wrong,” Trump said. “This is all Biden’s stuff … I was never indicted. You practically never heard the word.”

    Another strange quote occurred during Trump’s rally when he told his supporters to watch other voters, but not to “worry about voting” themselves.

    “You don’t have to vote, don’t worry about voting. The voting, we got plenty of votes,” he said.

    Trump also remarked that “U.S.” and “us” are spelled the same and noted that he’d “just picked that up.”

    “Has anyone ever thought of that before?” he asked the crowd. “Couple of days, I’m reading, and it said ‘us.’ and I said, you know, when you think about it, us equals U.S. Now if we say something genius, they will never say it.”

    The former U.S. president also apparently confused Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s authoritarian prime minister, with Turkey’s authoritarian president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, while praising Orbán as “one of the strongest leaders anywhere in the world.”

    Trump also promised to keep immigrants who “don’t like our religion” from entering the United States. Of course, the First Amendment establishes that there is no state religion in America.

    He also justified challenging the 2020 election results by saying he doesn’t mind “being Nelson Mandela because I’m doing it for a reason.”

    Trump seems to be on a roll with his bluster and falsehoods.

    Last week, he told reporters outside a New York City courtroom that his Mar-a-Lago estate was the “most expensive house probably in the world” — which it’s not!

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DeSantis says US should not accept refugees from Gaza | CNN Politics

    DeSantis says US should not accept refugees from Gaza | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said Saturday that the US should not accept refugees from Gaza, as tens of thousands flee their homes following an evacuation warning from Israel ahead of a possible ground assault.

    “I don’t know what (President Joe) Biden’s gonna do, but we cannot accept people from Gaza into this country as refugees. I am not going to do that,” DeSantis, who is vying for the GOP presidential nomination, said at a campaign stop in Creston, Iowa.

    “If you look at how they behave, not all of them are Hamas, but they are all antisemitic. None of them believe in Israel’s right to exist,” he continued.

    DeSantis argued that Arab states should accept refugees from Gaza, who are attempting to cross south into Egypt, rather than refugees being “import(ed)” to the United States.

    DeSantis’ characterization of Gaza residents is not supported by public polling on the issue. In a July poll by the pro-Israel organization the Washington Institute, 50% of Gazans agreed that “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction and instead accept a permanent two state solution based on the 1967 borders.”

    One of DeSantis’s 2024 rivals, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, agreed with the Florida governor that the US should not accept refugees from Gaza but warned against making generalizations about them.

    “It’s a danger any time that you categorize a group of people as being simply antisemitic, but I’ve said it also that we should not have refugees in here from Palestine. That’s not our role. It’s the role of those countries surrounding there,” Hutchinson told reporters in Nashua, New Hampshire, on Saturday.

    In the wake of the surprise attack on Israel last weekend by the militant group Hamas, DeSantis and other Republican presidential hopefuls have voiced strong support for Israel. DeSantis and others have used the attack to argue for hardline immigration policies and stronger border security in the US.

    On Thursday, DeSantis pushed back when confronted by a voter at a market in Littleton, New Hampshire, who questioned Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.

    The voter said that he doesn’t condone what Hamas did or the “killing of any innocent civilians,” but that “Israel is doing the exact same thing with Benjamin Netanyahu, who is a radical, right-wing crazy person,” referring to the country’s prime minister.

    “And I see hundreds of Palestinian families that are dead, and they have nowhere to go because they can’t leave Gaza, because no one’s opening their borders,” the voter said.

    DeSantis said the voter made a “really good point” by bringing up neighboring countries, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

    “Why aren’t these Arab countries willing to absorb some of the Palestinian Arabs? They won’t do it,” DeSantis said.

    The pair continued to have a back-and-forth about the conflict. Before walking out of the market, the voter said: “You had my vote, but you don’t now.”

    DeSantis has also taken steps as governor of Florida to evacuate state residents from Israel. He told reporters in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Friday that he anticipated the first evacuation flight would land in Florida on Sunday. The governor’s press secretary, Jeremy Redfern, confirmed to CNN that the first flight will depart on Saturday and land in Florida on Sunday.

    DeSantis has also seized on former President Donald Trump’s criticism of Netanyahu, slamming the GOP front-runner repeatedly in media appearances and on the campaign trail.

    “He attacked Bibi after the country suffered the worst attack it’s had in its modern history. … And he did that because Bibi did not – Bibi congratulated Biden in November. That’s why he did it. He hates Netanyahu because of that. That’s about him. That’s not about the greater good of what Israel is trying to do or American security,” DeSantis said Friday in New Hampshire.

    [ad_2]

    Source link