Connect with us

News

Donald Trump’s camp reels after debate injects new doubt into re-election bid

Published

on

Donald Trump’s camp reels after debate injects new doubt into re-election bid

Donald Trump’s campaign is reeling after his poor performance in the debate against Kamala Harris exasperated Republican allies who thought he had been unprepared, outplayed by the vice-president, and delivered erratic messages to voters. 

The televised face-off in Philadelphia on Tuesday — watched by nearly 60mn Americans, according to preliminary Nielsen estimates — marked a new campaign inflection point that could hurt Trump, who is now battling to regain his footing with less than two months left before the November 5 US presidential election.

“I think it was a missed opportunity to knock her out . . . She was losing momentum. I think it probably stabilised her,” a top Trump donor told the Financial Times.

Although Republican strategists and lawmakers did not think Trump’s uneven performance had crippled his campaign, many conceded the former president had struggled and that his re-election bid now looked more tenuous. 

“The biggest frustration about his performance is he took the bait on nonsense stuff, which prevented him from closing the deal. So definitely a missed opportunity,” said one senior Republican strategist close to Trump.  

Advertisement

“Maybe he was overconfident. Maybe he didn’t prepare. Maybe he was just tired,” said John Catsimatidis, the billionaire New York City grocery magnate and Trump donor. 

Catsimatidis also conceded that the vice-president had performed “much better than people expected” in the debate. “She kept her mouth shut for the last three months. Everybody thought that she was not capable of debating.”

Harris put Trump on the defensive for much of the 90-minute debate on Tuesday night, starting with an unexpected handshake between the two leaders — who had never met — before she tore into him over issues from abortion to his reputation with foreign leaders.

The former president appeared rattled at several points, including when Harris questioned the size of the crowds at his campaign rallies. Trump railed about migrants in response, rehashing an internet conspiracy theory that some were stealing people’s pets to eat them.

The debate had shown “Trump at his absolute worst”, said Frank Luntz, the veteran pollster who has worked for many Republicans over the years.

Advertisement

“He was given so many opportunities . . . every time inflation could have been raised, he chose to divert to a different issue,” Luntz said “Did [Harris] rattle him? Absolutely. Should he have been rattled? No way. But it is who he is.”

Luntz said Trump had “no choice” but to seek another televised showdown offered by Harris’s campaign, although the Republican candidate has not said if he will take part. “He has to recover. He has to give people a reason not to see this as his defining moment.”

On Wednesday morning, Trump and Harris appeared together at a ceremony to commemorate the September 11 2001 attacks in New York City, and shook hands again.

But minutes earlier, Trump had called into a morning television show on Fox News, insisting he “did great” and that the debate had been “rigged” against him, accusing the debate’s moderators at ABC News of being “dishonest” and saying their broadcasting licence should be revoked. 

A CNN poll conducted by SSRS immediately after the debate found 63 per cent of 605 people who watched it thought Harris had won, compared with 37 per cent for Trump. Before the debate, a panel of voters was evenly split, 50-50, on which candidate would perform better.

Advertisement

A YouGov poll from Wednesday of more than 3,300 people found 43 per cent thought Harris had laid out a clearer plan, with 32 per cent saying Trump had, and 24 per cent were unsure.

Betting markets also moved sharply in Harris’s favour during the debate. While Harris and Trump entered Tuesday night with similar odds, traders predicting the winner of the presidential election gave the vice-president a seven-point advantage over the former leader by the end of the night.

Even some of Trump’s top allies in Congress conceded that Harris had scored some points against the former president. “Kamala Harris? She knows how to needle people,” said Byron Donalds, the Florida Republican congressman, after the debate.

“[She] answered the question of can she stand on the stage and look the part, OK. But where was the policy, where was the leadership? She dodged and deflected on her own record,” he added. 

According to the FT’s national poll tracker, Harris had a slim 2.1 percentage point lead over Trump on Tuesday before the debate, with tight races in all of the key battleground states. 

Advertisement

The senior Republican strategist said that, despite their concerns, Trump’s poor showing was “unlikely to drastically move the race”. “She was better than passable, but hardly a knockout,” the strategist said of Harris. 

It remains unclear whether Trump will agree to a second presidential debate. Jen O’Malley Dillon, Harris’s campaign manager, signalled late on Tuesday that the vice-president would be willing to participate in another face-off next month.

Yet Trump on Wednesday expressed reservations to Fox News, which has proposed three possible debate dates in October.

“I don’t know that I want to do another debate,” Trump said. “I’d be less inclined to because we had a great night.”

Advertisement

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending