Nikki Haley isn’t exactly sweeping all before her, but she’s had a sustained rise that marks one of the major events in a presidential primary race with few new dynamics.
She’s tied with Ron DeSantis for second in Iowa, and is in second place in New Hampshire and South Carolina. She’s still not remotely close to Donald Trump in the 2024 Republican contest, but to have caught or overtaken DeSantis — given the buzz that the Florida governor had earlier in the year — is an accomplishment in itself.
In New Hampshire, a St. Anselm poll in March had Trump at 42 percent, DeSantis at 29 and Haley at 4. The latest USA Today poll in the state had Trump at 49 percent, Haley at 19 and DeSantis at 10.
Now, this may be inconsequential shuffling among no-hope candidates; it certainly is if Trump stays at roughly 50 percent. Worse, Haley eclipsing DeSantis may mean a candidate lacking broad-enough appeal in the party to win a majority is nudging aside the candidate with, in theory, the right profile to get to 50 percent plus 1.
That said, rising is better than falling, and running a campaign that has shown results is better than running one that hasn’t. Why has she ascended and what does it mean?
Haley has been helped immeasurably by the debates, where she’s been cogent, well-informed and combative. She’s tapped into the tough and unapologetic Thatcherite model of what a female politician should be that’s still so resonant for Republicans.
There was a tendency to pair her at the outset of the race with Sen. Tim Scott, a fellow South Carolinian who also has a more conventional Republican message. Scott, though, has been outworked and outperformed by the former governor.
Scott has never really told anyone why he wants to be president, and has almost been a non-entity in terms of earned media. Whereas Haley has thrived in the debates, he was barely a factor in the first debate and over-compensated in the second with uncharacteristically off-putting cross-talk and interruptions.
DeSantis has been solid in the debates, but so far hasn’t shown Haley’s willingness to mix it up and has yet to demonstrate any forward momentum in public polling after spending most of the year shedding support.
The DeSantis approach to the race has been inside-out — establish a spot in the center of the MAGA-ish Republican Party, and expand on both edges, winning enough Trump-friendly and Trump-skeptical voters to get to a winning plurality or a majority.
The Haley approach has been outside-in — establish dominance among the Trump-skeptical wing of the party and then use that strength to eat into soft Trump supporters willing to give her a look as she rises.
I’ve been supportive of the DeSantis strategy, and it still seems most promising on paper. One problem, though, is that DeSantis has always been subject to two different pincer movements — from above and below, and from MAGA and non-MAGA.
From above, because Trump has attacked him more than anyone else, and from below, because everyone else has had an incentive to try to overtake him for second place. From MAGA, because Trump loyalists want to push back at him, and from the non-Trump element of the party because of what he’s done and said to try to win over MAGA.
In other words, the way DeSantis has positioned himself has created lots of natural enemies and risked pleasing no one.
Sure enough, as Charles Franklin, the director of Marquette’s poll, has pointed out, DeSantis has lost ground both among voters who are favorable to Trump and unfavorable to Trump.
Another problem is that DeSantis has been smack in the middle of the party in regard to Trump, but not in terms of ideology. In other words, he hasn’t been too hot or cold on Trump; at the same time, he’s made the case that he’s to Trump’s right, which has grated on the non-MAGA element of the party.
He’s also been so focused on winning over MAGA that he’s communicated very little interest in having the support of non-Trump voters.
This has created the opening for Haley. She has been gaining exclusively among voters who are unfavorable to Trump. The problem for her is that this is only 20 percent or so of the party.
The hot-button issue of Ukraine illustrates the dynamic. DeSantis has played to the skepticism of the party’s base for continued aid, but alienated the traditional element of the party when he over-sauced the goose by calling the war a “territorial dispute.” On the other hand, Haley has been stalwart in favor of supporting Ukraine. This has pleased the traditional element of the party, but at the cost of further defining herself as too establishment and moderate for MAGA voters.
How to square these circles? Given Trump’s formidable position, it may be that both candidates are simply playing losing hands differently.
The DeSantis theory of the case is that he’s the only thing standing in the way of an even-greater Trump victory. In Iowa at the moment, where DeSantis has high favorables, and a large majority of potential caucus-goers are considering him, this seems correct. According to a recent Des Moines Register poll, Trump is the second choice of 41 percent of DeSantis supporters and Haley is the second choice of 27 percent of DeSantis supporters. So, the Florida governor’s exit probably wouldn’t help her.
As for Haley, DeSantis is the second choice of 34 percent of her supporters and another 33 percent choose Tim Scott or Doug Burgum, who may not be around much longer. If presented a choice between Trump or DeSantis, presumably these voters would feel compelled to go to DeSantis.
The Haley theory of the case is that nothing succeeds like success and if she’s the last non-Trump candidate standing and Republican voters conclude early next year that they want something new, she’ll be in position to benefit.
If this seems unlikely or wishful, no one is beating Trump unless a critical mass of Republican voters decides it doesn’t really want him again.
It’s hard to resist seeing the current race through a 2016 prism — with Trump as Trump, DeSantis as Ted Cruz, and Haley as Marco Rubio or John Kasich. In 2016, none of those non-Trump candidates had the strength to escape their “lane” and match Trump’s breadth of support.
Fighting the last war is usually a mistake, but Republicans are on a trajectory to replicate it in 2024 almost exactly.
The mayors of Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles and New York are pressing to meet with President Joe Biden about getting federal help in managing the surge of migrants they say are arriving in their cities with little to no coordination, support or resources from his administration.
The Democratic leaders say in a letter obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday that while they appreciate Biden’s efforts so far, much more needs to be done to ease the burden on their cities.
Migrants are sleeping in police station foyers in Chicago. In New York, a cruise ship terminal was turned into a shelter. In Denver, the number of migrants arriving has increased tenfold and available space to shelter them has withered. With fewer available work authorizations, these migrants cannot find work that would allow them to get into proper housing.
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, who is leading the coalition, said nearly every conversation he has had with arriving migrants is the same: Can he help them find a job, they ask.
“The crisis is we have folks here who desperately want to work. And we have employers here who desperately want to hire them. And we have a federal government that’s standing in the way of employers who want to hire employees who want to work,” Johnston said.
Also signing on were the mayors of the country’s four largest cities: Eric Adams of New York, Karen Bass of Los Angeles, Brandon Johnson of Chicago and Sylvester Turner of Houston.
The situation at the U.S.-Mexico border has vexed the Democratic president, who is seeking reelection in 2024. He is increasingly under fire from members of his own party who are managing the growing number of migrants in their cities. Republicans claim Biden is soft on border security and is allowing too many people to enter the United States.
He has responded by toughening rules at the border meant to curb illegal crossings and by offering work authorizations and other incentives to those who come to the U.S. legally — applying ahead of time and arriving by plane.
The reason for the ballooning number of migrants in these cities is complicated, but economic and climate-related hardships in their home countries are key drivers. There are increasing numbers of families arriving and asking for asylum.
Some conservative-leaning states have sent migrants to so-called sanctuary cities such as New York or Chicago, where laws are more favorable to noncitizens. But that alone does not explain why the cities are facing such increases.
In years past, when migrants arrived, they would be released and picked up by nonprofit groups before usually going to stay with a relative already in the U.S. But the nationalities of the people arriving have changed, and many no longer have any place to go.
Winning asylum is a long and difficult process through a badly clogged immigration court system. In some cases, migrants may wait up to a decade for a court date. They are released into the U.S. to wait. Some are eligible to work, but such authorizations are badly delayed. There are concerns, too, that allowing too much work authorization will encourage more people to make the dangerous journey to the U.S. on foot. So thousands are in limbo, unable to work, sleeping in shelters or government facilities.
Biden has requested $1.4 billion from Congress to help state and local governments provide shelter and services for migrants after earlier pleas from Democratic mayors and governors.
Johnston and the other mayors say in their letter that more is needed, and they are asking for $5 billion.
“While we are greatly appreciative of the additional federal funding proposed, our city budgets and local taxpayers continue to bear the brunt of this ongoing federal crisis,” the letter says. “Cities have historically absorbed and integrated new migrants with success.”
Denver is spending $2 million a week on sheltering migrants. New York has surpassed a total of $1.7 billion and Chicago has spent $320 million, according to the letter.
“Our cities need additional resources that far exceed the amount proposed in order to properly care for the asylum seekers entering our communities,” the mayors’ letter says. “Relying on municipal budgets is not sustainable and has forced us to cut essential city services.”
The mayors also want an accelerated work authorization approval process so migrants can find work.
“We are extremely appreciative of the work the Biden-Harris administration has done in expanding work authorization and providing funding for this mission, but we need to go one step further to ensure we continue to meet the moment and provide care for new arrivals,” Johnson’s office said in a statement.
The cities are full of people who have applied, but there are delays of six months or more. The mayors also are pushing to expand authorizations so anyone released into the U.S. would become eligible to find work while they wait for their immigration cases to play out.
Lastly, they are asking for the administration to create a regional migrate coordinator who would work with the federal government, nonprofits and state and local officials. The aim is to better coordinate and place migrants in areas where there is capacity for them.
It’s unclear whether Congress, including the Republican-controlled House, will pass any of the funding Biden has requested, let alone an increase for local support.
“We think there is a real commonsense path here that and that’s why we thought it was important,” Johnston said.
As California Gov. Gavin Newsom met in China with Chinese government officials last week, a top federal prosecutor in his home state quietly told Congress that Beijing is trying to influence elections in California.
“We’re the gateway to Asia,” Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for the central district of California, said in a closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 24. “And we have the People’s Republic of China trying to influence our elections, trying to target some of our individuals.”
Estrada’s comment is the latest sign of the evolving threats of foreign election interference as the U.S. heads into the 2024 election cycle. In recent cycles, most attention has focused on Russian interference, but in the lead-up to the 2022 midterms, intelligence officials warned that China, too, was ramping up efforts to sway state and local races by boosting candidates seen as favorable to Beijing’s interests.
And in recent months, California government officials have had heightened concerns about China’s interference in the state’s elections, according to a state official granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive topic.
Public disclosure of Estrada’s comment underscores the political minefield of broadened engagement with China not only for a top state official like Newsom, but also for the Biden administration. Newsom, whose chief focus on his China visit was climate, faced blowback from human rights activists and Republican China hawks for making the trip at all, and President Joe Biden is already taking heat for a planned upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Estrada’s congressional interview last week mostly dealt with an unrelated matter: the federal probe of Hunter Biden. The interview was not public, but POLITICO obtained a transcript. In the interview, Estrada did not elaborate further on China’s influence efforts, and a spokesperson for his office declined to comment for this story.
Joe Kocurek, an aide to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, told POLITICO that for years, the state’s elections office has been taking steps to fortify the elections systems and to inoculate the public from disinformation — “an approach based on our own concerns and at the advice of U.S. security agencies,” Kocurek said.
“These efforts are in response to a number of identified foreign threats, including from Russia, Iran and China, as well as from emerging domestic bad actors,” added Kocurek, a deputy secretary.
Estrada spoke to the committee one day before Newsom became the first governor in four years to meet with Xi. Newsom did not discuss election interference during that meeting.
“There were issues the Biden administration did want us to raise, and this was not one of them,” Anthony York, an adviser to the governor, said.
Ahead of Newsom’s trip, which was primarily focused on bolstering cooperation with China on climate change, he and his staff held several briefings with National Security Council officials, the U.S. State Department and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, York said. Those talks didn’t include threats of Chinese election interference.
After the meeting, Newsom said he discussed human rights violations and anti-democratic efforts in Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan. He also raised the plight of California pastor David Lin, who has been imprisoned in China since 2006, and the scourge of fentanyl.
“These were honest conversations,” Newsom told reporters on Tuesday. “They were pointed, but no fingers were being pointed. And the overriding purpose was around a substantive desire to engage and a need and desire to reconcile our differences.”
Biden is set to meet face-to-face with Xi next month at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco.
Biden appointed Estrada last year to be the top federal prosecutor in California’s central district, an area that includes Los Angeles. House Judiciary Republicans sought to interview him about his decision not to formally team up with Delaware prosecutors investigating the president’s son.
In the interview, a staffer asked Estrada about how closely he monitored work by the Delaware prosecutors in his district. Estrada replied by laying out the enormous swath of issues faced by his district — signaling that he had other priorities, and insufficient bandwidth, to track the day-to-day moves of prosecutors focused on the president’s son.
“We have a national security section, a division, unlike most other offices,” before going on to note China’s election influence efforts.
Estrada’s office has not recently brought any charges related to Chinese efforts to influence U.S. elections. But the office has prosecuted a number of sensitive Beijing-linked cases. In one recent case, a U.S. Navy sailor pleaded guilty to gathering sensitive military information for a Chinese intelligence officer in exchange for more than $14,000 in bribes. Estrada’s office also secured a guilty conviction of a Chinese billionaire’s company for bribing a Los Angeles city councilman. That former councilman, José Huizar, also pleaded guilty to financial crimes early this year.
In July of 2022 — a few months before Estrada was confirmed as U.S. attorney — a top U.S. counterintelligence agency warned state and local officials that the Chinese government was trying to persuade them to advocate for Beijing’s interests.
“The PRC understands U.S. state and local leaders enjoy a degree of independence from Washington and may seek to use them as proxies to advocate for national U.S. policies Beijing desires,” the report reads, “including improved U.S. economic cooperation with China, and reduced U.S. criticism of China’s policies towards Taiwan, Tibetans, Uyghurs, pro-democracy activists, and others.”
And Facebook’s parent company, Meta, released a report in September of 2022 describing small networks of fake Chinese social media accounts that aimed to influence U.S. public opinion in the lead-up to the midterms. Some of the accounts posed as liberal Californians.
A top Senate Democrat said that the Marine Corps commandant's recent medical emergency may be due in part to the fallout from Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s hold on top military promotions, which has forced several top officers to hold down multiple jobs.
Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed (D-R.I.) leveled the accusation a day after the service disclosed that Gen. Eric Smith, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was hospitalized on Sunday. There was no immediate word of when Smith would be released or return to work.
“One of the reasons, I think contributed to his condition was he was doing two jobs at once,” Reed said in a brief interview. “I’ve read where he was working from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. As a result, if he had, as is normal, an assistant, he could switch off.”
The New York Times, citing people familiar, said Smith had an apparent heart attack while jogging on Sunday. The service has declined to go into specifics, citing the family’s privacy.
Reed said Smith’s medical emergency underscored, “the fallacy and the danger” of Tuberville’s (R-Ala.) tactic of delaying top military nominees from being confirmed. Tuberville has maintained the blockade over the Pentagon’s abortion travel policy, ensnaring more than 300 generals and admirals at the upper rungs of the armed forces.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has the option of holding votes on individual nominees, but has argued that doing so for so many nominees would allow the Senate to do nothing else.
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Tuberville is asking his colleagues to support an effort to quickly confirm Lt. Gen. Christopher Mahoney for the No. 2 position in the Marine Corps. A spokesperson for Tuberville, Steven Stafford, later confirmed the news.
Stafford declined to respond to Reed's comments.
Because the service’s No. 2 is one of the unfilled jobs, Lt. Gen. Karsten Heckl, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, is serving as acting commandant. This means he will continue to run Marine Corps Combat Development Command, while effectively acting as the assistant commandant and the commandant.
Smith, who had been the assistant commandant and serving as commandant in an acting role, was confirmed for the top job in late September.
In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, Heckl said the Corps' thoughts and prayers are with Smith.
"In typical Marine fashion, I am the next Marine up," Heckl said. "This is what we do, as so many have done before us throughout the history of our Corps. We must continue the march forward on behalf of our fellow Marines and Nation, regardless of the situation or the uncertainty that we may face."
"That is what our Commandant wants," he continued, "and what the citizens of our Nation require of each and every one of us."
Some of Tuberville's Republican colleagues are trying privately to persuade him to refocus his blockade on civilian nominees at the Pentagon rather than uniformed officials, according to a person familiar with the conversations.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a Senate Armed Services member, said he spoke with Schumer and several Republicans Tuesday in an effort to resolve Tuberville’s holds. He said Smith’s health was part of those conversations.
“We're talking about … that we have a commandant who's in the hospital, and we don't have a vice commandant, so the Marine Corps essentially doesn't have any leadership,” Kelly said. “I mean, when was the last time that happened?”
Senate Armed Services ranking member Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said Tuesday that Smith's illness was part of talks to move forward on nominees.
"It's a factor, and we remain concerned and hopeful for the general. But that's an individual situation that needs to be resolved while we look at the overall picture," Wicker said.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said Tuesday he would, in the wake of Smith’s hospitalization, push his colleagues even more vigorously to break Tuberville’s logjam. He also pointed to nine open positions at Central Command, where there have been attacks on U.S. troops by forces supported by Iran.
“I am so angry as much as I am saddened that the Marine Corps will be handicapped by the absence of a commandant, potentially,” said Blumenthal, another senior Senate Armed Services member. “The potential as well for an absence in the commandant position just reemphasizes how the Tuberville hold is a desperate threat to our national security.”
Blumenthal said he has, with colleagues, have drafted a potential solution to Schumer, but he declined to discuss the details with reporters Tuesday. He said there has been an “increasing interest” from Republicans.
“We have a plan that I have worked to draft, and I am going to continue to press for the Senate to address some legislation,” Blumenthal said.
Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.
Top Biden administration officials warned senators on Tuesday that if they approve aid to Israel but cut out funding for Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will win.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin argued against decoupling President Joe Biden’s $106 billion supplemental request for Israel, Ukraine and the Pacific while testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee. The pair warned Russia would prevail without continued U.S. assistance and would have implications outside of Europe.
"I think it would do both terrible harm to our values, but also to our core interests,” Blinken said of leaving out Ukraine aid.
"We are much better sustaining our effort now, seeing this to success, than having to pay a much higher price later when we have to deal with a world full of aggression,” he said.
Austin also argued that not sending aid to Ukraine increases the likelihood that American troops might one day face combat against Putin’s forces in defense of a NATO ally in Europe.
“If Putin is successful, he will not stop at Ukraine,” Austin said. “If you’re a Baltic state, you’re thinking you’re next, and there’s no question in my mind that sooner or later, he will challenge NATO and we’ll find ourselves in a shooting war.”
Blinken and Austin’s plea for lawmakers to keep Biden’s emergency aid package intact comes as the Senate and House are on a collision course over Ukraine aid.
New Speaker Mike Johnson plans to hold a vote on legislation that grants $14.3 billion in military funding for Israel, matching Biden’s request for that country but leaving out money for Ukraine. The Republican-led bill also offsets the new Israel aid with cuts to the Internal Revenue Service. The move is a non-starter in the Senate and likely means many House Democrats will oppose the bill this week.
In separating Israel aid, Johnson argued the fight against Hamas after this month’s brutal attacks is the most urgent need. But Senate leaders, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, argue lawmakers should pass aid for both countries in the same package.
Biden’s proposal includes over $60 billion to continue to assist Ukraine. A previous $24 billion Ukraine request the White House submitted in August, meant to help Kyiv in the first quarter of the fiscal year, has languished on Capitol Hill.
Pressed on how long Ukraine can hold out if more funding isn’t approved, Austin said it’s a “guarantee” that Russia will prevail.
“It’s hard to put a timeline on exactly how long it would take, but I guarantee that without our support, Putin will be successful,” Austin said. “If we pull the rug out from under them now, Putin will only get stronger and he will be successful.”
Administration officials made the case that the Israeli and Ukrainian fights are linked because Tehran supplies drones and other weapons Russia’s military has used to attack Ukraine’s infrastructure. Russian technology, according to Blinken, is making Iran’s arsenal “more sophisticated.”
“That could be used against Israel or potentially against us, against our forces, against our personnel, either directly or via Iranian proxies,” Blinken said
“This two-way relationship is of increasing concern to us, and one we have to be acting against resolutely in both theaters, because they’re closely linked,” Blinken added.
Cutting off support for Ukraine would also embolden China, and weaken America’s standing as a reliable ally, Austin argued. The administration’s emergency proposal also includes money aimed at deterring China in the Pacific and implementing the trilateral AUKUS submarine pact with the U.K. and Australia.
Senators on both sides of the committee voiced support for linking the two conflicts, in contrast to the House’s Republican skeptics of further Ukraine funding.
"We must recognize that our national security interests are being aggressively challenged by all these authoritarian actors," said Senate Appropriations ranking Republican Susan Collins of Maine.
“We need to support Israel, they’re fighting for their very existence. … I believe we also need to support Ukraine,” said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.). “If you look at history, you understand that tyrants, like Putin, don’t stop. They have to be stopped.”
At the same time, Hoeven nodded to a path for an ultimate deal on aid — including border security — by expressing dissatisfaction with the administration’s approach to migrants at the southern border. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is expected to testify before the committee next week on the border security funding Biden also sought in the package.
Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) also noted that more Ukraine funding is backed by “huge supermajorities” in both chambers.
"So getting this funding across the finish line should not be controversial,” Murray said.
