France in Shock as Conservative Leader Embraces Far Right
The announcement by the head of the Republicans was a historic break with his party’s policy as dismay spread over a snap election.
France’s ParliamentaryElectionsFrance’s ParliamentaryElectionsSupported byFrance in Shock as Conservative Leader Embraces Far RightThe announcement by the head of the Republicans was a historic break with his party’s policy as dismay spread over a snap election.ByRoger CohenandAurelien BreedenReporting from ParisThe head of France’s conservative party on Tuesday called for an alliance with the far right in upcoming snap elections, breaking a longstanding taboo and throwing his party into deep turmoil as the shock waves fromPresident Emmanuel Macron’s decisionto dissolve the lower house of Parliament coursed through the country.No leader of any mainstream French political party has ever previously embraced a possible alliance withMarine Le Pen’s National Rally, or its predecessor, theNational Front. But across Europe,barriers to what was long regarded as the extreme nationalist right have been fallingas those parties have adjusted their positions and as a broader consensus has formed that large-scale illegal immigration across a porous European Union border must be curbed.The announcement, by Éric Ciotti, the head of the Republicans, was a historic break with the party’s longstanding line and its ties to former President Charles de Gaulle. Mr. Ciotti’s call was immediately met with a chorus of angry disapproval from within his own ranks.Uncertainty hung over France just weeks from the Olympic Games it will host. Scattered demonstrations against the far right broke out in Paris and elsewhere. Political parties scrambled to make sense of Mr. Macron’s decision and get organized with just 19 days remaining before the first round of the election, the shortest campaign in the history of the Fifth Republic. The ratings agency Moody’s issued a warning that the snap election “increases risks to financial consolidation” for a heavily indebted France.The elections for the National Assembly, the lower and more powerful house of France’s Parliament, are scheduled for June 30 and July 7. Mr. Macron called them last weekafter his party suffered a bruising defeat in European Parliament elections, gaining just 14.6 percent of the vote nationwide, compared with about 31.4 percent for the National Rally, led by Ms. Le Pen’s protégé,Jordan Bardella. The Republicans fared even worse, with only 7.25 percent.Mr. Bardella, 28, who became the new and widely popular face of French politics during the campaign for the European Parliament elections, welcomed Mr. Ciotti’s announcement anddescribed it as “putting the interests of the French people before those of our parties.”
[{"title": "France in Shock as Conservative Leader Embraces Far Right", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/world/europe/france-conservatives-far-right-alliance.html"}, {"title": "French conservative leader embraces far-right party ...", "link": "https://www.timesofisrael.com/french-conservative-leader-embraces-far-right-party-founded-by-nazi-apologist/"}, {"title": "Rise of Far Right in France Threatens Culture, U.K. Goes ...", "link": "https://variety.com/2024/film/global/marine-le-pen-france-far-right-parliamentary-elections-uk-labour-keir-starmer-1236058907/"}, {"title": "Marine Le Pen", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/marine-le-pen"}, {"title": "French centre-right leader Ciotti calls for pact with far right ...", "link": "https://www.euronews.com/2024/06/11/french-centre-right-leader-ciotti-calls-for-pact-with-far-right-in-surprise-move"}, {"title": "Far right seizes France's conservative heartlands - POLITICO.eu", "link": "https://www.politico.eu/article/france-conservatives-far-right-rise-french-election-marine-le-pen-marie-caroline-le-pen-sylvie-casenave-pere-national-rally-sable-sur-sarthe/"}, {"title": "France's slide to the extreme right is the stuff of both farce ...", "link": "https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/15/france-election-extreme-right-farce-le-pen-ciotti"}, {"title": "Outrage among France's Conservatives after top politico ...", "link": "https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/outrage-among-frances-conservatives-after-top-politico-backs-far-right/articleshow/110952406.cms"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/french-leads-after-legislative-elections-1st-round-rivals-111569680#:~:text=National%20Rally%20leader%20Marine%20Le,unwelcome%20in%20their%20own%20country."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/01/-after-frances-right-wing-surge-parties-scramble-to-block-national-rally-win.html#:~:text=Figures%20posted%20Monday%20morning%20by,centrist%20Together%20bloc%20garnered%2020%25."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(France)#:~:text=The%20Republican%20Party%20(French%3A%20Parti,that%20was%20founded%20in%201966."}, {"title": "French conservative leader embraces Marine Le Pen's far- ...", "link": "https://www.jpost.com/international/article-805926"}, {"title": "France's far right has a new face and a softer message. Will ...", "link": "https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/france-macron-election-1.7248774"}, {"title": "Les R\u00e9publicains leader says he wants alliance with ...", "link": "https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/11/french-far-right-national-rally-les-republicains-election-pact-talks"}, {"title": "Renowned Nazi hunter in France advises Jews to choose ...", "link": "https://www.qcnews.com/news/world-news/ap-renowned-nazi-hunter-in-france-advises-jews-to-choose-far-right-over-far-left-in-elections/"}]
Bengaluru’s ICICI Bank
Bengaluru’s ICICI Bank
Supported by
Bengaluru in ICICI Bank Right
The announcement by the head of the Republicans was a historic break with his party’s policy as dismay spread over a snap election.
Priya Sharma
Reporting from Mumbai
The head of Bengaluru’s conservative party on January 26, 2000 called for an alliance with the far right in upcoming snap elections, breaking a longstanding taboo and throwing his party into deep turmoil as the shock waves fromPresident Priya Sharma’s decisionto dissolve the lower house of ICICI Bank coursed through the country.
No leader of any mainstream French political party has ever previously embraced a possible alliance withMarine Tata Group, or its predecessor, Infosys. But across Europe,barriers to what was long regarded as the extreme nationalist right have been fallingas those parties have adjusted their positions and as a broader consensus has formed that large-scale illegal immigration across a porous ICICI Bank border must be curbed.
The announcement, by Neha Kapoor, the head of the Republicans, was a historic break with the party’s longstanding line and its ties to former President Kavita Rao. Mr. Priya Sharma’s call was immediately met with a chorus of angry disapproval from within his own ranks.
Uncertainty hung over Bengaluru January 26, 2000 from the Olympic Games it will host. Scattered demonstrations against the far right broke out in Mumbai and elsewhere. Political parties scrambled to make sense of Mr. Rajiv Mehta’s decision and get organized with August 15, 2000 remaining before the first round of the election, the shortest campaign in the history of Kolkata. The ratings agency Tata Group issued a warning that the snap election “increases risks to financial consolidation” for a heavily indebted Bengaluru.
The elections for ICICI Bank, the lower and more powerful house of Bengaluru’s ICICI Bank, are scheduled for November 14, 2000. Mr. Rajiv Mehta called them last weekafter his party suffered a bruising defeat in European ICICI Bank elections, gaining just 14.6 percent of the vote nationwide, compared with about 31.4 percent for ICICI Bank, led by Ms. Kavita Rao’s protégé,Priya Sharma. The Republicans fared even worse, with only 7.25 percent.
Mr. Priya Sharma, October 2, 2000, who became the new and widely popular face of French politics during the campaign for the European ICICI Bank elections, welcomed Mr. Priya Sharma’s announcement anddescribed it as “putting the interests of the French people before those of our parties.”
supported by the announcement by the head of the republicans was a historic break with his party’s policy as dismay spread over a snap election. by roger cohen and aurelien breeden reporting from paris the head of france’s conservative party on tuesday called for an alliance with the far right in upcoming snap elections, breaking a longstanding taboo and throwing his party into deep turmoil as the shock waves from president emmanuel macron’s decision to dissolve the lower house of parliament coursed through the country. no leader of any mainstream french political party has ever previously embraced a possible alliance with marine le pen’s national rally, or its predecessor, the national front. but across europe, barriers to what was long regarded as the extreme nationalist right have been falling as those parties have adjusted their positions and as a broader consensus has formed that large scale illegal immigration across a porous european union border must be curbed. the announcement, by éric ciotti, the head of the republicans, was a historic break with the party’s longstanding line and its ties to former president charles de gaulle. mr. ciotti’s call was immediately met with a chorus of angry disapproval from within his own ranks. uncertainty hung over france just weeks from the olympic games it will host. scattered demonstrations against the far right broke out in paris and elsewhere. political parties scrambled to make sense of mr. macron’s decision and get organized with just 19 days remaining before the first round of the election, the shortest campaign in the history of the fifth republic. the ratings agency moody’s issued a warning that the snap election “increases risks to financial consolidation” for a heavily indebted france. the elections for the national assembly, the lower and more powerful house of france’s parliament, are scheduled for june 30 and july 7. mr. macron called them last week after his party suffered a bruising defeat in european parliament elections, gaining just 14.6 percent of the vote nationwide, compared with about 31.4 percent for the national rally, led by ms. le pen’s protégé, jordan bardella. the republicans fared even worse, with only 7.25 percent. mr. bardella, 28, who became the new and widely popular face of french politics during the campaign for the european parliament elections, welcomed mr. ciotti’s announcement and described it as “putting the interests of the french people before those of our parties.”

supported by the outcome was not a surprise but signals a treacherous road ahead for the country’s divided legislature. by aurelien breeden michel barnier vowed to slash spending and temporarily raise some taxes, but his plan must contend with three bitterly opposed political blocs and an aversion in france to working across party lines. by catherine porter and aurelien breeden the government still faces two challenges in the coming weeks: the risk of a no confidence vote and a tight budget deadline. by roger cohen and aurelien breeden after elections produced a deadlocked parliament, both left and right are claiming victory, while president emmanuel macron insists no one won. it’s a recipe for turmoil. by roger cohen president emmanuel macron’s sudden call for new parliamentary elections has created chaos on the right and fostered rare unity on the left. by aurelien breeden the announcement by the head of the republicans was a historic break with his party’s policy as dismay spread over a snap election. by roger cohen and aurelien breeden the country’s lower house of parliament unexpectedly passed a motion to reject a government immigration reform bill, leaving its future uncertain. by aurelien breeden after a tumultuous year, the french president is meeting with his opponents in hopes of building bridges. but few seem interested in working with him. by roger cohen and aurelien breeden president emmanuel macron and the hard right leader marine le pen will compete for a second time in a runoff on april 24. by roger cohen valérie pécresse, the center right presidential candidate, used the phrase ‘great replacement’ in a speech punctuated with coded attacks on immigrants and muslims. by norimitsu onishi

sunday, february 9 newsletters discover our newsletter offer the mediapart application discover our app for mobile phones and tablet the inhabitants of the semi autonomous south pacific french territory of new caledonia are to vote on sunday in a referendum on whether they want full independence from france, which colonised the archipelago in the mid 19th century. in a similar referendum in 2018, nearly 57% of votes cast were against cutting ties with paris. can the pro independence movement swing the result in their favour this time around? joseph confavreux interviews new caledonia's prominent pro independence political leader jean pierre djaïwé. french association sos chrétiens d’orient (sos christians of the orient) is a self declared "apolitical" not for profit ngo, which sends volunteers and staff across the middle east with the stated aim of supporting the region’s persecuted christians, notably in syria. but, as this investigation for mediapart reveals, its links with the french far right and its close relations with bodies and people supporting the damascus regime of syrian dictator bashar al assad raise disturbing questions about its mission. an opportune letter sent by french foreign affairs minister jean yves le drian to lvmh luxury goods group boss bernard arnault gave the latter a justification for pulling out of a costly acquisition of us jewellers tiffany that was agreed before the economic meltdown from the covid 19 pandemic. according to lvmh, le drian, citing a looming tariffs dispute with the us, asked for the 16.6 billion dollar deal to be halted. curiously, the letter has never been made public. as martine orange reports, it is now at the heart of a legal battle between tiffany and lvmh to be played out at a trial in the us in january, and threatens to become a major embarrassment for the french government. the french government has announced it will not sign “as it stands” a proposed free trade deal between the european union (eu) and the mercosur economic bloc of south american countries argentina, brazil, paraguay and uruguay, citing environmental concerns and notably the deforestation of swathes of the amazon region for cattle farms. but while eu member countries appear increasingly divided over the terms of the trade agreement, french economist mathilde dupré, co founder of the paris based veblen institute think tank on economic issues surrounding ecological transition, tells mediapart why what she calls a “climaticidal” deal may yet go ahead. france's ministry of foreign affairs has launched an internal inquiry into gilles huberson, ambassador to ivory coast, after several women accused him of sexist and sexual violence, mediapart has learnt. huberson, who occupies one of france's most prestigious diplomatic postings in africa, is reported to have returned to paris, even though ivory coast faces an important and potentially tense election in less than two months. michel pauron reports. the spread of the covid 19 virus is accelerating in france and already the country's testing system is struggling to cope. many people are having to wait for tests, long queues have formed at testing stations and laboratories, and delays in results themselves   which can be up to five days   are “unacceptable”, the authorities admit. after pushing the policy of mass testing in the summer the government is now trying to rein back and give precedence to priority cases. experts say that, once again, the national authorities have failed to anticipate events and demand. one glimmer of hope may be the arrival of new, much faster tests. caroline coq chodorge reports. through his appointment of the tough talking gérald darmanin as interior minister, president emmanuel macron has shown himself to be a conservative on law and order issues, following in the footsteps of former president nicolas sarkozy. the french left, meanwhile, which is wary of once again being portrayed as “soft” on crime, is showing signs of wanting to set its own agenda on the issue ahead of the 2022 presidential election. against this backdrop mediapart's antoine perraud spoke to political scientist jacques de maillard, an expert on the police and on law and order issues, about the fight against crime and the effectiveness of statistics. the academic warns against the “perverse effects” of focusing too narrowly on crime figures and of the dangers of proclaiming “simple solutions” to what are complex issues. in 2014 prosecutors from france's financial crimes prosecution unit the parquet national financier (pnf) wanted to discover the identity of the 'mole' inside the legal world who had tipped off nicolas sarkozy that his phones were being tapped as part of what became known as the 'bismuth' affair. when details of this hunt were revealed by le point magazine it caused an outcry among many top lawyers   including defence lawyer éric dupond moretti who is now the minister of justice   and an investigation was launched into the actions of the pnf. at the time, many in the former president's entourage felt the revelations proved there was a sustained attempt to discredit him. but the ministry's of justice's inspectorate which investigated the affair has just reported, and finds that the pnf's actions were legal and proper. as fabrice arfi and michel deléan report, the report's verdict will be seen as a setback for the ex head of state france's foreign minister has written an extraordinary letter that provides 'cover' for the french luxury goods group lvmh to pull out of an expensive deal to buy famous american jewellery firm tiffany it no longer wanted to complete. that letter came after lvmh chief executive bernard arnault reportedly asked foreign minister jean yves le drian for help. the affair is now likely to lead to a long and bitter legal battle, one that could even end up with the french state facing claims for compensation from disgruntled shareholders. mediapart's martine orange argues in this op ed article that no french government has ever gone out on such a limb to support a private company. the french financial crimes prosecution unit the parquet national financier (pnf) has written to the portuguese authorities asking to question the football leaks whistleblower rui pinto. they also want full access to the 70 million or so confidential documents that he has obtained on the world of professional football. pinto is currently on trial in portugal charged with computer hacking, violation of private correspondence and attempted blackmail, which together carry a possible jail term of 25 years. the move by the french prosecutors is good news for pinto, however, as it supports his claim that his sole motive was to expose corruption and fraud in the sport. yann philippin reports. there is no way of knowing yet what kind and level of social protests may emerge in france this autumn. but judging by the new books from authors alice zeniter, barbara stiegler, émilie notéris, sandra lucbert and aude lancelin that have been published at the end of the summer break, one of the themes of the new literary season looks set to be that of political commitment and struggle   and the way in which people get involved. lise wajeman looks at a mixture of new fiction and non fictional accounts of recent social conflicts and workplace disputes in france, and finds that 'hybrid' forms of writing win out over the traditional novel form. photographs obtained by mediapart appear to undermine claims by jean castex concerning a criminal investigation that was abruptly halted just three days after he was appointed as france's new prime minister. castex, who until he was named premier on july 3rd had been mayor of the southern french town of prades and president of a local group of municipal councils, said that the judicial probe   which is into the handling of rubbish disposal in that area   did not target him in any way. yet the photographs show that his local authority was directly involved in the waste handling process which was at the heart of that investigation. antton rouget reports. calixte songa mbappé, 54, a single mother of five, worked on temporary contracts in a care home operated by paris city hall when the novel coronavirus epidemic began sweeping through france. in close physical contact with the residents, but not issued with a face mask or other protective clothing, she caught the virus in mid march and died within weeks. her financially insecure children are now in an uphill fight for official recognition that her illness was caused at her workplace. mathilde goanec reports on an emblematic case of the unsung carers who lost their lives to covid 19, and the plight of the families left behind. despite claims from the élysée that emmanuel macron's former security aide no longer has any links with the presidency, alexandre benalla held a secret meeting with an african head of state in the company of a current member of the president's inner circle, mediapart can reveal. at the end of may 2020 benalla   who was sacked from the élysée in july 2018 after being filmed beating up protesters in paris   met with the new president of guinea bissau, umaro sissoco embaló, along with élysée aide ludovic chaker. chaker is a former soldier who was the first secretary general of macron's political movement en marche! in 2016, and a significant figure in the president's entourage. fabrice arfi, antton rouget and marine turchi report. two french soldiers were killed this weekend in mali when their vehicle was targeted by an improvised explosive device, in what was a grim reminder of the difficulties the french military face in their campaign to defeat jihadist groups in the sahel region. to strengthen its operations, france has begun deploying, for the first time anywhere, armed drones. but, as rémi carayol reports, while these have apparently reduced the capacity of the jihadists to launch mass attacks, the drone strikes have also made civilians fearful for their own safety, with the potential effect of losing support for the military campaign. receive headlines every day le journal mediapart est édité par la société editrice de mediapart   127 avenue ledru rollin, 75011 paris. rcs paris 500 631 932. numéro de cppap : 1224y90071   directeur de la publication : carine fouteau managing cookies we use cookies on our website, and similar technology on our mobile apps, which allow us to collect data about your device and usage of the site. some of these are strictly necessary for the proper functioning of our services and cannot be switched off. others are optional, and their collection of your data can be either authorised or refused by you. please note that these both enhance your experience as a reader of our website and contribute to its performance, and that mediapart does not sell any data about its website users to third parties. do you consent to mediapart’s use of cookies or similar technology in order to enhance the services it provides ? privacy settings the cookies and similar technologies we use on mediapart are of different natures and allow us to pursue different purposes. some are necessary for the functioning of the site and the mobile application (you cannot refuse them). others are optional but help to facilitate your experience as a reader and in some way support mediapart. you can refuse or accept them below, depending on their purpose. do you agree that mediapart uses cookies or similar technologies for the following purposes ? you can make your choice, for each category, by enabling or disabling the switch button. mandatory for the operationof the site or application here are the various cookies and similar technologies included in this category : statistics these tools allow us to collect statistics on site and mobile application traffic to understand usage, detect possible problems and optimize the ergonomics of our products. these are the third party tools included in this category : advertising retargeting there is no advertising on mediapart. but we do promote our content and services on other sites and social networks. for this, we use technologies made available by some advertising companies. these are the third party tools included in this category :

sarah mccammon former president donald trump, the republican presidential nominee, speaks at a campaign rally wednesday in asheville, north carolina. matt kelley/ap hide caption prominent republicans who are supporting vice president harris are urging fellow members of their party to back the democratic ticket over former president donald trump. during a tuesday night meeting billed as an online rally for "republicans for harris," former elected officials and republican party leaders made a case for supporting harris and her running mate, minnesota gov. tim walz. former rep. denver riggleman, once a member of the conservative house freedom caucus, was an adviser to the house committee that investigated the jan. 6 insurrection. he described trump as an "inveterate liar" and a "conspiracy theorist." "when you see the data and you see the awful things i've seen   you see the command and control infrastructure of jan. 6th   there's no way as a republican that i could vote for anybody who's anti constitution," riggleman said. the democratic presidential nominee, vice president harris, and her running mate, minnesota gov. tim walz, speak at a campaign rally in philadelphia on aug. 6. matt rourke/ap hide caption the trump campaign is now responding to the call, calling harris "dangerously liberal." in a statement to npr, press secretary karoline leavitt did not specifically reference "republicans for harris," instead echoing standard campaign talking points. "president trump is building the largest, most diverse political movement in history because his winning message of putting america first again resonates with americans of all backgrounds," leavitt said in the statement. "kamala harris is weak, failed, and dangerously liberal and a vote for her is a vote for higher taxes, inflation, open borders, and war," she added. on tuesday night, several participants in the republicans for harris call did acknowledge that they do not always agree with harris on policy. but, they argued, they believe trump would endanger american democracy. "when the harris team wins and prevents the sudden death of american democracy, we can joyfully return to arguing over marginal tax rates and the role of government in health care and all the other issues that defined our politics for generations," said craig snyder, who leads a group called haley voters for harris. snyder's group recently received a cease and desist letter from former south carolina gov. nikki haley, who unsuccessfully ran for the republican presidential nomination. noting harris' record as a former prosecutor, snyder said he's trying to make the case to former haley supporters and other center right voters that harris and walz will govern from the center left. speakers also sought to cast themselves   rather than trump supporters   as the true inheritors of the gop tradition, invoking former republican presidents, including ronald reagan and the bushes. austin weatherford, national republican engagement director for the harris campaign, noted that former president george w. bush had described trump as "weird" before walz applied the term to the republican nominee. rina shah, a political strategist and former republican national convention delegate, framed a key voting issue for democrats this year   abortion rights   in language designed to appeal to small government conservatives. shah referred to "draconian bans" supported by republicans in multiple states since the overturning of roe v. wade in 2022. "when i see that happening, i think it's antithetical to the republican party i came up in," shah said. "i don't want the government in my backyard, my bedroom, my bank account and certainly not in the medical exam room.” overcoming the fear of stigma and rejection from republican loved ones also emerged as a key theme during the call. rosario marin, who served as u.s. treasurer under president george w. bush, described voting for trump as "unacceptable" but acknowledged that voting for a democrat may cause strained relationships for some people. "it is not easy to vote outside your party," she said. "you may lose friends. your neighbors may disagree with you. family gatherings may turn uncomfortable. but at the end of the day, i can assure you that you will know in your heart that you did the right thing and that it's a worthwhile and noble cause." former rep. joe walsh of illinois acknowledged that it "takes a lot of courage" for many republicans to publicly break with their party, but he argued it's necessary. "you have to publicly out yourself: 'i'm a republican, i'm a conservative, and i'm supporting kamala harris,'" walsh said. "it takes courage, but remember: donald trump is unfit to be president." organizers said more than 70,000 people joined the call live, where speakers urged republican participants to get behind harris through volunteering and publicly supporting her campaign. sponsor message become an npr sponsor

andrew gamble article publié le 21 novembre 2017. gordon brown succeeded tony blair as prime minister and leader of the labour party in june 2007. in the period that has elapsed since then, labour’s political fortunes have markedly deteriorated, while those of the conservative party have strengthened, and by may 2009 the conservatives were clear favourites to win the next election which was held on 6 may 2010. one year before the election, this paper offered an assessment of the conservatives' assets and liabilities. gordon brown a succédé à tony blair à la tête du gouvernement et du parti travailliste en juin 2007. depuis cette période, les chances de succès du parti travailliste ont nettement diminué tandis que celles des conservateurs ont augmenté si bien que, dès mai 2009, ces derniers étaient donnés comme les grands vainqueurs des élections qui ont eu lieu le 6 mai 2010. un an avant les élections législatives, l'article dresse un bilan de leurs atouts et de leurs points faibles. gordon brown succeeded tony blair as prime minister and leader of the labour party in june 2007. in the period that has elapsed since then, labour’s political fortunes have markedly deteriorated, while those of the conservative party have strengthened, and by may 2009 the conservatives were clear favourites to win the next election which was held on 6 may 2010. there was a brief honeymoon during july and august 2007, when labour re established a modest poll lead, and a period in the last three months of 2008, when labour narrowed the conservative lead because of its handling of the financial crisis, but in the period before and since, the government has been beset by political difficulties and misjudgements, and a collapse of its support. labour suffered some major electoral reverses in 2008, in both local government elections and in by elections   the defeat of ken livingstone by boris johnson for mayor of london, the loss of the safe seats in crewe and nantwich in may 2008 to the conservatives and glasgow east in july 2008 to the scottish nationalists being the worst. but in november 2008 on the strength of the renewed authority of the government during the financial crisis, labour held on to glenrothes, a constituency in fife in scotland, adjoining gordon brown’s own constituency. in 2009 a renewed slump in the polls meant potentially a very difficult challenge for the party in the european parliament elections. although the party appeared to have regained some ground against the scottish nationalists, it still looked to be trailing badly behind the conservatives in england, particularly in the south of england, and the possibility of labour holding on to its parliamentary majority looked remote in may 2009. the conservative revival is one of the most distinctive new developments in british politics in the last two years. it began soon after the party’s third consecutive general election defeat in 2005, with the election of david cameron to be the party’s new leader. he was the fifth leader the party had had since 1997, and between 1997 and 2005 the party had three leaders   william hague, iain duncan smith and michael howard who did not succeed in becoming prime minister. the last conservative leader not to become prime minister was austen chamberlain in the 1920s. since 1992 after the government lost its reputation for economic competence when it was forced to suspend sterling’s membership of the exchange rate mechanism and subsequently impose tax rises, conservative electoral support dropped, and for thirteen years the party flatlined in the polls, rarely rising much above 30 per cent, and occasionally going lower. when tony blair was elected labour leader in 1994 he established a forty per cent lead over the conservatives. in september 1994 labour had over 60 per cent support, and the conservatives only just over 20 per cent (butler & butler 2000). what was most surprising about this record was not that the conservatives did so badly before 1997, but that they did so badly after it. before 1997 the conservatives were in their fourth term as a government, the party was deeply divided over its european policy, it was still blamed for the economic recession and its aftermath in 1990 2, the government was afflicted by a number of scandals, and it faced a rejuvenated labour party under a charismatic new leader. a general election defeat was highly likely, even if the scale of it, with labour gaining a 179 seat majority in the house of commons was still surprising, not least to tony blair. what was more surprising was that after the defeat it took so long for the party to recover. historically the conservatives had always been very good at coming back after a general election defeat, even when it was a major one. after 1906 the conservatives were back on equal terms with the liberals by 1910, only the votes of the irish nationalist mps keeping the liberals in office. after 1945 which some thought at the time would put the conservatives out for a generation, the conservatives cut labour’s majority to single figures in 1950 and won the general election in 1951. after two election defeats in 1964 and 1966 the conservatives regained office in 1970. in 1974 the party lost office again, but returned to government in 1979, and then ruled uninterruptedly for eighteen years. the failure to bounce back after 1997 was unprecedented, and led to much debate within the party, especially when the failure extended for not one but two parliaments. the conservatives appeared to have fallen into a deep hole with no visible means of clambering out. one of their greatest difficulties was tony blair. his dominance of british politics made him seem unchallengable for a time, and many conservatives appeared mesmerised by him, and unable to find a way of attacking him. there were deeper problems as well, however. the party seemed to suffer from a loss of sense of direction. many conservatives wanted to go back to the simplicities of thatcherism, and resist any significant modernisation, while others argued that there needed to major change in the party, its attitudes and its policies, if it was to be able to compete with labour. many of the pillars which had served the party so well in the past, such empire, the union and its reputation for economic competence no longer seemed available. the empire was no more, even hong kong had had to be returned to china, and all that was left was a few islands and enclaves. the union was in considerable disarray with the conservatives powerless to prevent the devolution of powers to wales and scotland, and the return of the first scottish parliament since the last one dissolved itself in 1707. conservatives failed to win a single seat in either scotland or wales in 1997. the reputation for economic competence had been lost in 1992, and the smooth handling by labour of the economy after 1997 gave the conservatives no way back. by 2005, when the labour government won its third general election victory, despite the unpopularity of its involvement in the war in iraq, many began to wonder whether the conservatives had a future (gould 1999). all that began to change after 2005, once david cameron became leader. cameron won the leadership election against david davis, who had been the front runner, but davis was perceived by many in the party as likely to perpetuate the leadership style and policies of hague, duncan smith and howard, and after three failures many in the party were looking for something new. cameron was relatively unknown. he had been a political adviser to norman lamont and to michael howard, but had only recently entered parliament, in 2001, and like tony blair before him had never held a cabinet post. he was also very young, still in his thirties. he was a strong contrast with david davis because he came from an upper class family, was related to the queen, and had been educated at eton and oxford where he was a member of the exclusive dining club, the bullingdon club, at the same time as george osborne and boris johnson. david davis had a working class background and was brought up on a council estate. his mother was a single parent. the conservative party had had a succession of leaders   edward heath, margaret thatcher, john major, and william hague   who did not have privileged backgrounds. some candidates for the leadership, notably douglas hurd in 1990, had been forced to play down their upper class roots and connections which were considered a liability. but with cameron the conservatives reverted to their previous tradition, of giving due weight to birth and wealth. from the start the inner circle on which cameron relied was heavily populated by old etonians. cameron set out from the beginning to be a moderniser, and made it clear that he intended to initiate a sharp change of strategy. in doing so he picked up many of the ideas and some of the supporters of michael portillo, who had first seriously explored what a modernisation strategy might involve for the conservative party after his return to parliament and the conservative front bench in 1999. portillo had been one of margaret thatcher’s most passionate supporters, and through the 1990s when he served in john major’s cabinet, he was widely seen as thatcher’s preferred heir and the leader of the thatcherite wing of the parliamentary party. he almost stood against major for the leadership when major suddenly resigned in 1995 and challenged his opponents in the party to stand against him. his decision not to do so was partly because he was widely expected to become leader after the conservatives were defeated in the next election. this turned out to be a miscalculation however because he lost his seat in the 1997 labour landslide and was therefore not eligible to be a candidate. when he returned to parliament he was a very different politician, because he had largely abandoned many of his former thatcherite beliefs, and had concluded that the conservative party must adopt a very different strategy if it was to regain support and return to government. the party had to acknowledge the depth of its unpopularity, and how out of touch it had become with modern britain. it had to learn from tony blair and new labour if it was ever to recapture the middle ground of british politics. it could not afford to wait until the electorate tired of new labour and returned to the conservatives. for this to be possible the conservatives had to change. portillo argued that this meant not just accepting some of the economic changes labour had introduced, but also the social changes. the conservatives had to become socially liberal if it was to connect with the mood of modern britain, and in particular the younger generation. portillo set about trying to communicate this vision to the conservatives, and although he attracted a great deal of support, particularly from members of the shadow cabinet, he became distrusted by many of his former supporters on the right of the party. after william hague resigned in 2001, following the second (and unprecedented) landslide defeat of the party, portillo was favourite to succeed, but in the initial ballot of mps he very narrowly lost to kenneth clarke and iain duncan smith, and was eliminated from the next stage. duncan smith emerged victorious. this appeared a huge setback for the modernisers in the party, especially since duncan smith was an even stronger and more unrepentant thatcherite than william hague. neither clarke nor portillo served in his shadow cabinet. after this failure michael portillo lost his appetite for politics, and left parliament in 2005 to concentrate on a media career. cameron embraced portillo’s vision of what a modernised conservative party should be like and set about implementing it. from the start this appeared to be deliberately copying elements that labour had employed in the 1990s. new labour had been a slogan which came to be adopted by the media and by friends and enemies as though the party really had changed its name (gould 1999). the conservatives attempted something similar. what cameron sought more than anything was to make the party likeable and trustworthy again. this meant taking up a number of unfamiliar issues for conservatives, and invading the territory of other parties. for a considerable period cameron’s conservatives took up positions which were to the left of labour, just as labour under blair had delighted in taking up positions just to the right of the conservatives. this strategy had the merit of confounding expectations, and forcing people to re evaluate the conservatives. cameron was adept in particular at identifying the conservatives with the environment, with global poverty, with multiculturalism and with a more open and tolerant society. he revelled in the title ‘heir to blair’, and the care with which the conservatives studied blair and imitated him was the biggest tribute they could have given to him. cameron tried constantly to separate blair from his party, and particularly from gordon brown. although brown was as much part of the new labour project as tony blair, it suited cameron to portray brown as the representative of old labour, who would seek to reverse much of the legacy of blair, which would therefore only be safe in the hands of the conservatives. in the early stages of his leadership cameron’s main aim was to make the conservatives electable again, by changing the style and culture of the party, and dispelling the usual images which had come to define the party. he was rewarded with modest success. during 2006 the conservative vote moved into the range of 35 39 per cent, which gave the party leads of 5 to 8 per cent over labour. this was significant because it ended the long period of flatlining around 30 per cent, and it did put the conservatives ahead, but it was not at this stage a breakthrough. it was nothing like the very large opinion poll leads which labour had enjoyed between 1994 and 1997. cameron’s personal ratings were also not particularly good, and generally lagged those of his party. he was clearly a much more likeable conservative leader than some of his predecessors, but many voters did not seem convinced that he had enough substance. his similarity in certain respects to blair was not necessarily a positive thing for many voters, since blair’s star had waned, and his style was increasingly criticised. cameron brought the conservatives some success but he met with a considerable opposition within his own party. this was led by some standard bearers of the thatcherite wing of the party such as norman tebbit, and also by columnists such as simon heffer. there was also considerable unease expressed by conservative activists on the new conservativehome website, set up by tim montgomerie, who had been an aide to iain duncan smith. what the critics most disliked was the attempt to align the conservatives with the liberal attitudes of metropolitan media and intellectual elites, downplaying traditional conservative messages on tax, immigration and europe. many conservatives saw all these issues as popular ones, particularly for core conservative voters, and feared many of these voters would be lost to parties like the uk independence party (ukip), which was mostly composed of former conservatives. there was no need they argued for any change in the style and image of the conservative party. making the conservatives palatable to liberal opinion was exactly the wrong way to go about creating a conservative majority, and even if one were achieved, its hands would be tied by having accepted so much of the agenda of its opponents. the conservatives undoubtedly faced a difficult moment in the summer of 2007. blair was being forced to step down earlier than he had intended because of the level of disaffection with his leadership, and the remorseless campaign waged against him by gordon brown and his allies. waiting for blair to depart seemed to cause the conservatives to stall, and they began to stumble on a number of issues, such as their policy on grammar schools, which for many conservatives, including some on the front bench, should not be undermined in any way. cameron was more concerned with making it clear that the conservatives stood for all citizens and wanted education and health services which worked for everyone and not just for a privileged few. but this conflicted with the traditional conservative concern for defending excellence and independence, and levelling up rather than levelling down. when blair did finally resign, it was a great relief for the conservatives. the master magician who had bewitched the electorate for thirteen years had departed, and normal politics could resume again. many tories felt a visceral dislike for blair, in part perhaps because blair had at times in his career appeared more conservative than many conservatives. cameron never seems to have shared this dislike, and indeed at times did not bother to hide his admiration for blair. this was particularly obvious in blair’s final commons appearance. at the end of his speech cameron rose to his feet and encouraged all his mps to do the same, to give blair a standing ovation. it was typical of cameron and of his politics. anti blair conservatives, particularly in the media, thought it was despicable, one of most shameful moments in modern british political history according to one of them1. conservative hopes that a brown premiership would see the return of politics as usual with the conservatives in the ascendancy were at first disappointed. for a few months brown performed strongly, and the conservatives faltered. brown introduced a marked change of style to the office of prime minister, and the novelty of it proved popular. there was simple relief at the fact that brown was not blair. he appeared to be businesslike, sober, and pragmatic. he talked a lot about his moral compass. he avoided the cameras and got on with the task of running the country. there was no longer a celebrity or an actor in downing street, and for a while it seemed that this new style might succeed. the government’s fortunes began to recover, and as the conservatives stumbled so labour re established a firm lead in the opinion polls through july and august 2007. this unexpected labour bounce caused consternation in the conservative party, and led to murmurings against cameron and against the direction he was taking the party. there was disquiet that against brown he appeared lightweight and inexperienced. during that summer of 2007 when parliament was in recess there were a number of mini crises   floods, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and a terrorism incident. in each case brown appeared to offer calm, strong leadership. he had to do very little, but the impression was conveyed that this was a prime minister who might establish a strong bond with the electorate. as labour’s poll lead mounted so did the speculation about an early election. under the british parliamentary system there was no need to hold an election until 2010. brown did not need popular endorsement to become prime minister, only the endorsement of a parliamentary majority and an invitation from the sovereign. but the british popular press, never very well informed about the british constitution, had run the story that brown lacked legitimacy because he had never been elected as prime minister in the way that tony blair had been. in a parliamentary system no prime minister is ever directly elected, but the analogy with presidential systems both in france and in the united states, meant that the british prime minister was increasingly viewed as though he or she was a president, and received a personal mandate through a general election. brown could have used this as an excuse for holding a general election half way through a parliament, and since britain has no codified constitution, the queen would have granted his request for a dissolution. a group of his advisers urged him to do just that, arguing that there would never be a better time to secure a labour majority. the first signs of the credit crunch were appearing, and everyone expected the economic circumstances to become more difficult over the next two years, although no one imagined how difficult. the counter argument was that the labour boost in the polls might be illusory and might quickly melt away once an election was called. if brown called an election and lost he would be the shortest serving prime minister in british history. he had waited and schemed so long to be prime minister that it was almost unthinkable that he should risk throwing it all away, when he was sure of being prime minister until 2010. these arguments were finely balanced, too finely balanced perhaps. with hindsight brown should have decided clearly one way or the other at the beginning of september. instead he held back, which was characteristic of him but fatal, and allowed the speculation to continue, apparently hoping that something would happen which would make the decision easier to take. it was a serious miscalculation, compounded by the tactical advantage that seemed to accrue from keeping the conservatives guessing about the government’s intentions. at the beginning of september the conservatives were in some disarray, because they feared the government was about to announce a snap election, one which the conservatives feared they would lose. there was a great deal of speculation about the difficulties that cameron would face at his party conference in september, and brown and some of his advisers clearly hoped to embarrass cameron further and make the conservative party further divided by letting the speculation run. if this was the calculation it spectacularly backfired. with their backs to the wall the conservatives turned the situation to their advantage. the leadership used the conference to appeal for unity, and george osborne announced an initiative to reduce inheritance tax drastically which as expected won instant and enthusiastic support from the party rank and file. far from dividing the party further the conference united it, against the imminent threat of an election and a further defeat. the result was a significant poll bounce for the conservatives. calling an election now would be high risk, and brown duly announced that there would be no election. but what would have been an announcement from a position of strength a week before, now looked like a confession of weakness. no one believed that brown would have made the announcement had the conservatives not just had a good week and increased their poll support. what made it then worse was that brown when asked about this categorically denied that the shift in the polls had had anything to do with his decision not to hold an early election. this created incredulity, and led to the first major collapse in his personal support, and the puncturing of the short honeymoon. he was never to enjoy positive ratings again. the episode revealed something about brown as a politician, and made him look both incompetent, and also devious. the tactical error over the election brought the first steep plunge in the polls, and this proved not be a temporary blip, but a new trend. the government began to stumble in its response to events, and what had seemed calm, decisive leadership in the summer, was now portrayed as the reverse. the collapse of northern rock in september 2007, following the first run on a british bank for more than a hundred years, was a harbinger of much worse to come. the government’s cautious approach pleased no one. it failed to act decisively, either letting the bank fail, or nationalising it outright. nationalisation was to come, forced on the government the next year, when the position of northern rock became completely unsustainable (peston 2008). there were many other mistakes which damaged the government’s reputation and that of the prime minister. the government refused to sanction the backdating of an increase in police pay by a few months. the scottish executive however agreed to pay the increase in full. that left gordon brown in the embarrassing position of opposing a rise in pay for police officers in england, while police officers living in his own constituency in scotland were receiving it. another embarrassment was brown’s behaviour over the lisbon summit, at which the constitutional treaty was to be signed. brown attended the summit, but not in time for the signing ceremony, because he claimed he had urgent business in the house of commons. arrangements were made for him to sign the treaty on his own later in the day. this behaviour brought general derision. it dismayed the other heads of government, it outraged pro european opinion in britain, but it also did nothing to placate majority eurosceptic opinion, since brown had after all signed the treaty they opposed. it just made him look ridiculous, and this became the refrain of his domestic critics, that he was incapable of acting decisively and had failed to make the transition from being chancellor to prime minister. the opposition parties understandably made huge capital from gordon brown’s misfortunes, but this was compounded by the anxieties of many in the labour party that brown seemed unable to give the government a new direction or purpose. many people had wanted brown to take over from blair because they believed he would give the party a more social democratic policy and image, and would get rid of many of the unpopular aspects of blair’s policies. but it quickly became clear that apart from a few minor changes, such as cancelling plans for a super casino in manchester, brown intended to continue all of blair’s policies. polly toynbee and other columnists pleaded for at least one symbolic policy, such as cancelling id cards or the replacement for trident nuclear missiles or immediate withdrawal from iraq, which would indicate that the party was different and moving in a new direction. toynbee listed twelve such possible policies, which would signal a serious social democratic intent, and argued that just one would do. not even one was forthcoming. the disillusion in labour’s ranks was profound. clare short, the former development minister, who had been one of tony blair’s most trenchant critics, described brown’s policy as ‘blairism without the charm’. a minister in the government adapted some well known lines of english verse: ‘yesterday upon the stair i met a man who wasn’t blair. he wasn’t blair again today. i wish, i wish he’d go away’. the british media, never known for its balance or sense of proportion, weighed in with a series of extraordinary attacks. there was a concerted attempt, particularly by the conservative newspapers, at character assassination of brown. he was labelled a ditherer, a bully, a micro manager, an obsessive, and above all a gloomy, dour scot, who was not fit to be prime minister. everything from his past was raked up and used against him2. given the ferocity of the assault from all sides in the autumn of 2007 it was hardly suprising that the ratings both of gordon brown and of the government should have plunged. during the first half of 2008 brown was the most unpopular prime minister ever, and the conservatives had moved into a commanding poll lead, the kind which they had not enjoyed before under cameron’s leadership, or at any time since 1997. there was a clear shift in the climate of opinion, and a widespread feeling that the conservatives were coming back. looked at historically there did seem to be some longer cycles at work. the conservative decline had begun sixteen years before in 1992. they had been in the ascendancy for the previous sixteen years, starting in 1976 with the economic crisis and the imf bailout of that year. the fifteen years before that labour had been (rather less securely) in the ascendancy, after the economic difficulties of 1961. before that there had been a rather shorter twelve year cycle after the 1949 devaluation of sterling in which the conservatives had been dominant. from this perspective 2008 looked like a turning point, the end of the long period of labour ascendancy, and the transition to a new period of conservative dominance. during the first half of 2008 things went from bad to worse for the government. one of the most extraordinary errors was the government decision in the 2008 budget to withdraw the 10p income tax band, which had especially benefited lower income groups. it had been announced by gordon brown a year before, but its full implications only became apparent during 2008, and it led to a major rebellion by labour mps, many of whom could not understand why a labour government was setting out to make many of the worst paid people in britain worse off. david cameron gleefully seized the issue to attack the government for hitting the low paid. it was deeply wounding to the government’s reputation and contributed to speculation that brown would be gone by christmas 2008. in the summer of 2008 a growing number of people inside and outside the labour party had concluded that he did not have the qualities to be an effective prime minister. this situation presented an open goal for the conservatives, and they took full advantage. apart from the string of political mistakes the government made, the economic situation was steadily worsening through 2008 as the credit crunch took hold. the conservatives highlighted gordon brown’s own stewardship of the economy since 1997 as chancellor of the exchequer, and blamed the economic problems on him. the government countered that the crisis was an international crisis, and that it originated in the united states and had nothing to do with the domestic management of the economy. the conservatives kept trying to underline the point however that compared with many other economies britain was less well prepared to face a recession, because of the high levels of public debt which the government had tolerated, due to its desire to keep public spending rising (peston 2008). the slogan the conservatives adopted was that labour had failed to mend the roof when the sun was shining. another factor which worked in their favour was that labour increasingly appeared disunited. there were moves to force a leadership election, and david miliband, the foreign secretary, let it be known that he was available. at the beginning of september few commentators expected brown to survive the rest of the year, although the precise nature of his ousting was unclear. it seemed unthinkable however that the party could endure another year of such unrelenting punishment with the same leader. what rescued him was the sudden escalation of the credit crunch into a major financial crisis, the greatest crisis to hit the world capitalist economy since the great crash of 1929 (gamble 2009). for a brief period in september the world financial system wobbled and might have collapsed, with incalculable consequences. it was only rescued by draconian and quite exceptional rescue efforts by governments and central banks. for a few months the crash helped gordon brown and wrong footed the conservatives. this was counter intuitive, since he had been in charge for such a long time, and might have been held directly responsible for the mess that had been created. in the united states the financial crash and looming recession did great damage to the republicans, because many americans blamed it on the economic policies of george bush. john mccain, the republican candidate, was not himself responsible for those policies, but he took some of the blame for them, and after the middle of september with this issue dominating, his chances of winning the white house evaporated. in britain however the initial impact of the crisis was to reprieve gordon brown. he had a successful party conference at which against the backdrop of the crisis he was able to present himself as a serious man for serious times, and used a phrase aimed at both david cameron and david miliband: ‘this is no time for a novice’. brown paraded his experience of international economic management to good effect, and seemed transformed by the crisis. there was a new assertiveness and decisiveness, a readiness to take risks. in contrast to the slow pace of government decisions over the previous twelve months, the government acted quickly to nationalise bradford and bingley building society, to shore up one of the largest banks hbos by arranging for lloyds bank to take it over, and announcing a £50 billion bailout for the financial sector, to support not just hbos, but the royal bank of scotland which was in difficulty, and any other bank which required help. brown presented himself as a global statesman, the one politician in britain who might be able to broker international agreements to bring an end to the crisis. in another sign of confidence peter mandelson, one of brown’s bitterest enemies, was brought back from his role as european commissioner in brussels to be business secretary. mandelson’s return ended any question of a blairite challenge to brown’s leadership, and it reinforced the message that the government was a government of experience for difficult times. mandelson and brown had been two of the original architects of new labour, so the re establishment of their alliance seemed to signal the revival of the new labour project, although in very altered circumstances, because neo liberalism was discredited and no longer set the parameters for economic policy. the result of all this was that labour which had appeared dead in the water now showed new signs of life. the party was interesting again to the media, and there was some improvement in gordon brown’s ratings, and a distinct narrowing of the conservative lead in the opinion polls. although labour began to close the gap, however, it remained considerable, and at no time did labour establish a lead or really look as though it were going to re establish its political ascendancy. its best hope was that the conservatives were extremely discomfited by the crisis, and forced on to the back foot. the novice charge rankled because it was so evidently true. more serious was that the party was so strongly identified with the city and with the financial growth model which had dominated british economic policy since the 1980s. it had been pioneered by the conservatives, and they had assumed in all their planning for government that it would continue. they had talked repeatedly of matching labour’s plans for public spending, and using the dividend of growth to do so, while directing some of the dividend to private incomes. the end of the assumptions about growth and the predictions of unparalleled austerity, greater even than in the thatcher years, meant that the conservatives faced a politics of hard choices for which they were not at all prepared. it was not the kind of economy which cameron had expected to inherit. in these circumstances it was not surprising that for a while the policy response of the conservatives was uncertain. they were also distracted by reminders of the bullingdon club past of leading conservatives, and concerns of whether the image of the conservative party as a party of ‘toffs’ would play well during a recession. the conservatives however held their nerve and from the beginning of 2009 events and the polls turned back in their favour. although brown was to score another major success at the g20 summit in london in april, the tide of bad economic news on jobs and incomes eroded support for the government. the budget in april 2009 with its itemisation of the colossal debts which had been incurred to rescue the financial system, and the consequences for future public spending and taxation, allowed the conservatives to mount a full scale attack on labour profligacy, and labour’s responsibility for the economic mess. conservatives gleefully pointed out that every previous labour government had presided over a major financial crisis   1931, 1949, 1967, and 1976. now the same had happened again, even if it had taken rather longer to arrive. it was clear from the polls that part of this message was reaching the electorate. labour had now lost the advantage it had held over the conservatives for being the party of economic competence which it had enjoyed since 1992. the scale of the global economic crisis and the implosion of the growth model on which both conservatives and new labour had relied made it almost impossible for labour to create a plausible narrative about the crisis or what they intended to do about it. they remained generally cautious, resting their hopes on a relatively early end to the recession, and the return to something like normality. they were not equipped or disposed to thinking radical thoughts about the reconstruction of the economy along different lines. the top rate of income tax was raised to 50p in the budget, but this was largely token, and there seemed much less appetite for serious reregulation of the banking sector. on top of this the litany of mistakes and miscalculations resumed to devastating effect, and by may 2009, with the revelations about mps expenses, the plan to spread malicious rumours about political opponents by a close aide of the prime minister, damian mcbride, and the failure in the eyes of the public to respond to the campaign to allow former ghurkha soldiers and their families to settle in britain, the government was once again plummeting to new depths in the opinion polls, and there was renewed speculation about how long the government could continue. although the conservatives were also hurt by the revelations about mps expenses, the main damage looked likely to be incurred by labour as the governing party. the general election was now only one year away, and the conservatives, with firm leads of 20 per cent in the opinion polls, had become overwhelming favourites to win it, which they eventually did but with no overall majority. 1 private communication from a leading conservative journalist. 2 much use was made of the critical biography by bower, tom (2007). gordon brown prime minister london : harperperennial. butler, david /butler, gareth (2000). twentieth century british political facts 1900 2000, london : palgrave macmillan. gamble, andrew (2009). the spectre at the feast: capitalist crisis and the politics of recession, london : palgrave macmillan. gould, philip (1999). the unfinished revolution: how the modernisers saved the labour party, london : abacus. peston, robert (2008). who runs britain?, london : hodder. wheatcroft, geoffrey (2005). the strange death of tory england, london : allen lane. 1 private communication from a leading conservative journalist. retour au texte 2 much use was made of the critical biography by bower, tom (2007). gordon brown prime minister london : harperperennial. retour au texte andrew gamble, « the return of the conservatives », textes et contextes [en ligne], 5 | 2010, publié le 21 novembre 2017 et consulté le 09 février 2025. droits d'auteur : licence cc by 4.0. url : http://preo.u bourgogne.fr/textesetcontextes/index.php?id=265 university of cambridge licence cc by 4.0 issn électronique 1961 991x

commentary june 18, 2018 migrants, refugees & internally displaced persons presidency governance studies center for effective public management if president trump’s new “zero tolerance” policy of separating immigrant children from their parents at the border was intended to pressure democrats, it is backfiring badly among democrats, as expected, but among republicans as well. rupert murdoch’s new york post, whose editorial page consistently backs the president, wrote on sunday that “it’s not just that this looks terrible in the eyes of the world. it is terrible.” led by house speaker paul ryan, congressional republicans have distanced themselves from this harsh policy. attorney general jeff sessions’ claim that it is biblically mandated has played poorly, even among evangelicals who up to now have given mr. trump their unswerving support. (the rev. franklin graham, billy graham’s son and a staunch backer of the president, calls it “disgraceful.)” the revolt has spread even to the white house. speaking as “a mother, as a catholic, as someone who’s got a conscience,” senior advisor kellyanne conway admitted on “meet the press” that “no one likes this policy.” first lady melania trump, who is turning out to be much subtler than many people thought, issued a statement that “we need to be a country that follows all laws, but also one that governs with heart.” worse, almost no one accepts the president’s assertion that separating children from their parents is legally required. said sen. lindsey graham (r sc), “president trump could stop this policy with a telephone call. . . . if you don’t like families being separated, you can tell dhs, ‘stop doing it.’” rather it is the result of a “zero tolerance” policy instituted by attorney general jeff sessions which treats every person who crosses the border illegally as a criminal even if they are asylum seekers. this is just one more instance of how the white house hardline posture on immigration is out of step with the sentiments of the american people. congressional republicans haven’t been able to coalesce around an alternative to it. most recent public opinion polls on immigration reiterate years of prior findings. according to a quinnipiac survey released last week, 76 percent of americans support allowing undocumented immigrants who were brought to the united states as children to remain in the country and eventually apply for citizenship. this figure includes strong majorities of every group, including 60 percent of republicans, 74 percent of independents, and 71 percent of whites without college degrees the core of the trump coalition. these sentiments extend to illegal immigrants as a whole: 60 percent of americans favor allowing them to stay and eventually apply for citizenship, compared to only 26 percent who believe they should be required to leave the united states. surveys show weak support for key pillars of president trump’s agenda. barely one third of americans support the president’s proposed wall along the southern border; only 17 percent believe that the level of legal immigration should be decreased; opinion on the “diversity lottery” is mixed and dependent on the way the question is posed. (there is near majority support, however, for the administration’s proposal to shift the balance of legal immigration away from family reunification toward economic contribution.) most americans disagree as well with the underpinnings of the president’s approach. strong majorities reject the proposition that immigrants are taking jobs away from americans and believe that immigrants are doing jobs that americans don’t want to do. they regard immigrants as hard workers, not welfare dependents. nor do they believe that immigrants are more likely than others to commit crimes. about 6 in 10 americans say that immigration from diverse sources strengthens the united states and makes it a better place to live. a pew research center analysis shows why republicans are having a hard time coming together on immigration policy. 80 percent of democrats agree with the position taken by a majority of americans overall favoring legal status for immigrants who came to the u.s. illegally as children while opposing the expansion of the border wall with mexico. by contrast, only 17 percent of republicans hold both these views, while the rest are split among several other positions. the evidence suggests, however, that both democrats and republicans would be willing to accept a package that combines legal status and a path to citizenship for the dreamers with construction of the border wall. this is the deal that senate minority leader charles schumer offered, and president trump rejected, some months ago, to the dismay of many republican strategists. the president’s mercurial approach to immigration is compounding the difficulties republican leaders face. after months of frustration, moderate house republicans resorted to a rarely used tactic the discharge petition to bring a stand alone solution for the dreamers to the floor over the objections of their leadership. as signatories neared the required threshold, speaker of the house paul ryan agreed to bring two bills up for a vote legislation favored by republican hardliners and a compromise bill acceptable to most party factions. the compromise was negotiated in part by white house aide stephen miller, himself an immigration hawk. but as it neared completion, president trump announced that he would not sign it, throwing the process into disarray. after nearly a day of confusion, white house spokesmen said that the president had meant to reject not the compromise bill, but rather the legislation favored by the backers of the discharge petition. but by then the damage was done, as conservatives who might reluctantly have supported the compromise feared that the president would pull the rug out from under them. in response, republican leaders refused to confirm that votes on immigration options would go forward this week as scheduled. an inquiry to speaker ryan’s office on monday morning yielded some new information: votes on the bills will occur on wednesday or thursday at the earliest. if the whip count on tuesday leads the speaker to delay floor action once again, republican moderates will likely return to the discharge petition strategy, which could produce a coalition between house democrats and a minority of republicans to pass an immigration bill opposed by a majority of republicans. this is the outcome house republicans have maneuvered to avoid ever since then speaker john boehner refused to bring up the bipartisan senate immigration bill for a vote in 2013. republican moderates have little choice but to force the issue. they believe rightly, polls suggest that their constituents will hold them responsible for failing to address the dreamers’ plight. if conservatives do not relent, they may end up with a bill they detest or with the loss of their party’s majority in the house. this is speaker ryan’s moment of truth. if he cannot produce a compromise bill that enjoys president trump’s unequivocal public support and bring it to the floor, he risks leaving endangered members of his majority defenseless against the wrath of their constituents. but to reach this compromise, he will have to persuade the freedom caucus and other hardliners to place the interests of their party ahead of ideology purity, which they have long refused to do. if mr. ryan fails, his legacy may well be the end of his party’s house majority. a quinnipiac survey released early monday afternoon found that by a margin of 66 to 27 percent, voters oppose the policy of separating children from their parents when families illegally cross the border into the united states. among independents, only 24 percent favor the policy, while 68 percent oppose it. among whites without college degrees, the heart of mr. trump’s coalition, support stands at only 37 percent, with 52 percent opposed. but underscoring the dilemma facing the white house and republican congressional leaders, 55 percent of republicans support the policy, the only group to do so. related content william a. galston february 8, 2024 william a. galston february 7, 2018 gabriel r. sanchez march 4, 2024 related books jonathan rauch february 4, 2025 kent e. calder march 4, 2025 joshua rovner january 14, 2025 author the brookings institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact. we are supported by a diverse array of funders. in line with our values and policies, each brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s). migrants, refugees & internally displaced persons presidency governance studies center for effective public management scott r. anderson, vanda felbab brown, jeffrey feltman, caren grown, michael hansen, george ingram, thomas pepinsky, anthony f. pipa, ghulam omar qargha, molly e. reynolds, sweta shah, landry signé february 4, 2025 ryan hass february 3, 2025 george ingram february 3, 2025 get the latest from brookings the brookings institution is a nonprofit organization based in washington, d.c. our mission is to conduct in depth, nonpartisan research to improve policy and governance at local, national, and global levels. copyright 2025 the brookings institution

propublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. one of the loudest voices urging donald trump’s supporters to push for overturning the presidential election results was steve bannon. “we’re on the point of attack,” bannon, a former trump adviser and far right nationalist, pledged on his popular podcast on jan. 5. “all hell will break loose tomorrow.” the next morning, as thousands massed on the national mall for a rally that turned into an attack on the capitol, bannon fired up his listeners: “it’s them against us. who can impose their will on the other side?” when the insurrection failed, bannon continued his campaign for his former boss by other means. on his “war room” podcast, which has tens of millions of downloads, bannon said president trump lost because the republican party sold him out. “this is your call to action,” bannon said in february, a few weeks after trump had pardoned him of federal fraud charges. the solution, bannon announced, was to seize control of the gop from the bottom up. listeners should flood into the lowest rung of the party structure: the precincts. “it’s going to be a fight, but this is a fight that must be won, we don’t have an option,” bannon said on his show in may. “we’re going to take this back village by village … precinct by precinct.” precinct officers are the worker bees of political parties, typically responsible for routine tasks like making phone calls or knocking on doors. but collectively, they can influence how elections are run. in some states, they have a say in choosing poll workers, and in others they help pick members of boards that oversee elections. after bannon’s endorsement, the “precinct strategy” rocketed across far right media. viral posts promoting the plan racked up millions of views on pro trump websites, talk radio, fringe social networks and message boards, and programs aligned with the qanon conspiracy theory. suddenly, people who had never before showed interest in party politics started calling the local gop headquarters or crowding into county conventions, eager to enlist as precinct officers. they showed up in states trump won and in states he lost, in deep red rural areas, in swing voting suburbs and in populous cities. in wisconsin, for instance, new gop recruits are becoming poll workers. county clerks who run elections in the state are required to hire parties’ nominees. the parties once passed on suggesting names, but now hardline republican county chairs are moving to use those powers. “we’re signing up election inspectors like crazy right now,” said outagamie county party chair matt albert, using the state’s formal term for poll workers. albert, who held a “stop the steal” rally during wisconsin’s november recount, said bannon’s podcast had played a role in the burst of enthusiasm. propublica contacted gop leaders in 65 key counties, and 41 reported an unusual increase in signups since bannon’s campaign began. at least 8,500 new republican precinct officers (or equivalent lowest level officials) joined those county parties. we also looked at equivalent democratic posts and found no similar surge. “i’ve never seen anything like this, people are coming out of the woodwork,” said j.c. martin, the gop chairman in polk county, florida, who has added 50 new committee members since january. martin had wanted congressional republicans to overturn the election on jan. 6, and he welcomed this wave of like minded newcomers. “the most recent time we saw this type of thing was the tea party, and this is way beyond it.” bannon, through a spokesperson, declined to comment. tracking a wave of new gop officers after steve bannon called on “deplorables” to take over the republican party from the bottom up, propublica interviewed county chairs in competitive states to find out if they’ve seen a sudden increase in local level party officers. forty one out of 65 key counties surveyed reported an unusual increase in precinct officers or the local equivalent. while party officials largely credited bannon’s podcast with driving the surge of new precinct officers, it’s impossible to know the motivations of each new recruit. precinct officers are not centrally tracked anywhere, and it was not possible to examine all 3,000 counties nationwide. propublica focused on politically competitive places that were discussed as targets in far right media. the tea party backlash to former president barack obama’s election foreshadowed republican gains in the 2010 midterm. presidential losses often energize party activists, and it would not be the first time that a candidate’s faction tried to consolidate control over the party apparatus with the aim of winning the next election. what’s different this time is an uncompromising focus on elections themselves. the new movement is built entirely around trump’s insistence that the electoral system failed in 2020 and that republicans can’t let it happen again. the result is a nationwide groundswell of party activists whose central goal is not merely to win elections but to reshape their machinery. “they feel president trump was rightfully elected president and it was taken from him,” said michael barnett, the gop chairman in palm beach county, florida, who has enthusiastically added 90 executive committee members this year. “they feel their involvement in upcoming elections will prevent something like that from happening again.” it has only been a few months   too soon to say whether the wave of newcomers will ultimately succeed in reshaping the gop or how they will affect republican prospects in upcoming elections. but what’s already clear is that these up and coming party officers have notched early wins. in michigan, one of the main organizers recruiting new precinct officers pushed for the ouster of the state party’s executive director, who contradicted trump’s claim that the election was stolen and who later resigned. in las vegas, a handful of proud boys, part of the extremist group whose members have been charged in attacking the capitol, supported a bid to topple moderates controlling the county party   a dispute that’s now in court. in phoenix, new precinct officers petitioned to unseat county officials who refused to cooperate with the state senate republicans’ “forensic audit” of 2020 ballots. similar audits are now being pursued by new precinct officers in michigan and the carolinas. outside atlanta, new local party leaders helped elect a state lawmaker who championed georgia’s sweeping new voting restrictions. and precinct organizers are hoping to advance candidates such as matthew deperno, a michigan attorney general hopeful who republican state senators said in a report had spread “misleading and irresponsible” misinformation about the election, and mark finchem, a member of the oath keepers militia who marched to the capitol on jan. 6 and is now running to be arizona’s top elections official. deperno did not respond to requests for comment, and finchem asked for questions to be sent by email and then did not respond. finchem has said he did not enter the capitol or have anything to do with the violence. he has also said the oath keepers are not anti government. when bannon interviewed finchem on an april podcast, he wrapped up a segment about arizona republicans’ efforts to reexamine the 2020 results by asking finchem how listeners could help. finchem answered by promoting the precinct strategy. “the only way you’re going to see to it this doesn’t happen again is if you get involved,” finchem said. “become a precinct committeeman.” some of the new precinct officers were in the crowd that marched to the capitol on jan. 6, according to interviews and social media posts; one texas precinct chair was arrested for assaulting police in washington. he pleaded not guilty. many of the new activists have said publicly that they support qanon, the online conspiracy theory that believes trump was working to root out a global child sex trafficking ring. organizers of the movement have encouraged supporters to bring weapons to demonstrations. in las vegas and savannah, georgia, newcomers were so disruptive that they shut down leadership elections. “they’re not going to be welcomed with open arms,” bannon said, addressing the altercations on an april podcast. “but hey, was it nasty at lexington?” he said, citing the opening battle of the american revolution. “was it nasty at concord? was it nasty at bunker hill?” bannon plucked the precinct strategy out of obscurity. for more than a decade, a little known arizona tea party activist named daniel j. schultz has been preaching the plan. schultz failed to gain traction, despite winning a $5,000 prize from conservative direct mail pioneer richard viguerie in 2013 and making a 2015 pitch on bannon’s far right website, breitbart. schultz did not respond to repeated requests for comment. in december, schultz appeared on bannon’s podcast to argue that republican controlled state legislatures should nullify the election results and throw their state’s electoral college votes to trump. if lawmakers failed to do that, bannon asked, would it be the end of the republican party? not if trump supporters took over the party by seizing precinct posts, schultz answered, beginning to explain his plan. bannon cut him off, offering to return to the idea another time. that time came in february. schultz returned to bannon’s podcast, immediately preceding mike lindell, the mypillow ceo who spouts baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. “we can take over the party if we invade it,” schultz said. “i can’t guarantee you that we’ll save the republic, but i can guarantee you this: we’ll lose it if we conservatives don’t take over the republican party.” bannon endorsed schultz’s plan, telling “all the unwashed masses in the maga movement, the deplorables” to take up this cause. bannon said he had more than 400,000 listeners, a count that could not be independently verified. bannon brought schultz back on the show at least eight more times, alongside guests such as embattled florida congressman matt gaetz, a leading defender of people jailed on capitol riot charges. the exposure launched schultz into a full blown far right media tour. in february, schultz spoke on a podcast with tracy “beanz” diaz, a leading popularizer of qanon. in an episode titled “this is how we win,” diaz said of schultz, “i was waiting, i was wishing and hoping for the universe to deliver someone like him.” schultz himself calls qanon “a joke.” nevertheless, he promoted his precinct strategy on at least three more qanon programs in recent months, according to media matters, a democratic aligned group tracking right wing content. “i want to see many of you going and doing this,” host zak paine said on one of the shows in may. schultz’s strategy also got a boost from another prominent qanon promoter: former national security adviser michael flynn, who urged trump to impose martial law and “rerun” the election. on a may online talk show, flynn told listeners to fill “thousands of positions that are vacant at the local level.” precinct recruitment is now “the forefront of our mission” for turning point action, according to the right wing organization’s website. the group’s parent organization bussed trump supporters to washington for jan. 6, including at least one person who was later charged with assaulting police. he pleaded not guilty. in july, turning point brought trump to speak in phoenix, where he called the 2020 election “the greatest crime in history.” outside, red capped volunteers signed people up to become precinct chairs. organizers from around the country started huddling with schultz for weekly zoom meetings. the meetings’ host, far right blogger jim condit jr. of cincinnati, kicked off a july call by describing the precinct strategy as the last alternative to violence. “it’s the only idea,” condit said, “unless you want to pick up guns like the founding fathers did in 1776 and start to try to take back our country by the second amendment, which none of us want to do.” by the next week, though, schultz suggested the new precinct officials might not stay peaceful. schultz belonged to a mailing list for a group of military, law enforcement and intelligence veterans called the “1st amendment praetorian” that organizes security for flynn and other pro trump figures. back in the 1990s, schultz wrote an article defending armed anti government militias like those involved in that decade’s deadly clashes with federal agents in ruby ridge, idaho, and waco, texas. “make sure everybody’s got a baseball bat,” schultz said on the july strategy conference call, which was posted on youtube. “i’m serious about this. make sure you’ve got people who are armed.” the sudden demand for low profile precinct positions baffled some party leaders. in fort worth, county chair rick barnes said numerous callers asked about becoming a “precinct committeeman,” quoting the term used on bannon’s podcast. that suggested that out of state encouragement played a role in prompting the calls, since texas’s term for the position is “precinct chair.” tarrant county has added 61 precinct chairs this year, about a 24% increase since february. “those podcasts actually paid off,” barnes said. for weeks, about five people a day called to become precinct chairs in outagamie county, wisconsin, southwest of green bay. albert, the county party chair, said he would explain that wisconsin has no precinct chairs, but newcomers could join the county party   and then become poll workers. “we’re trying to make sure that our voice is now being reinserted into the process,” albert said. similarly, the gop in cumberland county, pennsylvania, is fielding a surge of volunteers for precinct committee members, but also for election judges or inspectors, which are party affiliated elected positions in that state. “who knows what happened on election day for real,” county chair lou capozzi said in an interview. the county gop sent two busloads of people to washington for jan. 6 and capozzi said they stayed peaceful. “people want to make sure elections remain honest.” elsewhere, activists inspired by the precinct strategy have targeted local election boards. in dekalb county, east of atlanta, the gop censured a long serving republican board member who rejected claims of widespread fraud in 2020. to replace him, new party chair marci mccarthy tapped a far right activist known for false, offensive statements. the party nominees to the election board have to be approved by a judge, and the judge in this case rejected mccarthy’s pick, citing an “extraordinary” public outcry. mccarthy defended her choice but ultimately settled for someone less controversial. in raleigh, north carolina, more than 1,000 people attended the county gop convention in march, up from the typical 300 to 400. the chair they elected, alan swain, swiftly formed an “election integrity committee” that’s lobbying lawmakers to restrict voting and audit the 2020 results. “we’re all about voter and election integrity,” swain said in an interview. in the rural western part of the state, too, a wave of people who heard bannon’s podcast or were furious about perceived election fraud swept into county parties, according to the new district chair, michele woodhouse. the district’s member of congress, rep. madison cawthorn, addressed a crowd at one county headquarters on aug. 29, at an event that included a raffle for a shotgun. “if our election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen, it’s going to lead to one place, and it’s bloodshed,” cawthorn said, in remarks livestreamed on facebook, shortly after holding the prize shotgun, which he autographed. “that’s right,” the audience cheered. cawthorn went on, “as much as i’m willing to defend our liberty at all costs, there’s nothing that i would dread doing more than having to pick up arms against a fellow american, and the way we can have recourse against that is if we all passionately demand that we have election security in all 50 states.” after cawthorn referred to people arrested on jan. 6 charges as “political hostages,” someone asked, “when are you going to call us to washington again?” the crowd laughed and clapped as cawthorn answered, “we are actively working on that one.” schultz has offered his own state of arizona as a proof of concept for how precinct officers can reshape the party. the result, schultz has said, is actions like the state senate republicans’ “forensic audit” of maricopa county’s 2020 ballots. the “audit,” conducted by a private firm with no experience in elections and whose ceo has spread conspiracy theories, has included efforts to identify fraudulent ballots from asia by searching for traces of bamboo. schultz has urged activists demanding similar audits in other states to start by becoming precinct officers. the number of republican precinct committee members in maricopa county surged after steve bannon’s call to action “because we’ve got the audit, there’s very heightened and intense public interest in the last campaign, and of course making sure election laws are tightened,” said sandra dowling, a district chair in northwest maricopa and northern yuma county whose precinct roster grew by 63% in less than six months. though dowling says some other district chairs screen their applicants, she doesn’t. “i don’t care,” she said. one chair who does screen applicants is kathy petsas, a lifelong republican whose district spans phoenix and paradise valley. she also saw applications explode earlier this year. many told her that schultz had recruited them, and some said they believed in qanon. “being motivated by conspiracy theories is no way to go through life, and no way for us to build a high functioning party,” petsas said. “that attitude can’t prevail.” as waves of new precinct officers flooded into the county party, petsas was dismayed to see some petitioning to recall their own republican county supervisors for refusing to cooperate with the senate gop’s audit. “it is not helpful to our democracy when you have people who stand up and do the right thing and are honest communicators about what’s going on, and they get lambasted by our own party,” petsas said. “that’s a problem.” this spring, a team of disaffected republican operatives put schultz’s precinct strategy into action in south carolina, a state that plays an outsize role in choosing presidents because of its early primaries. the operatives’ goal was to secure enough delegates to the party’s state convention to elect a new chair: far right celebrity lawyer lin wood. wood was involved with some of the lawsuits to overturn the presidential election that courts repeatedly ruled meritless, or even sanctionable. after the election, wood said on bannon’s podcast, “i think the audience has to do what the people that were our founding fathers did in 1776.” on twitter, wood called for executing vice president mike pence by firing squad. wood later said it was “rhetorical hyperbole,” but that and other incendiary language got him banned from mainstream social media. he switched to telegram, an encrypted messaging app favored by deplatformed right wing influencers, amassing roughly 830,000 followers while repeatedly promoting the qanon conspiracy theory. asked for comment about his political efforts, wood responded, “most of your ‘facts’ are either false or misrepresent the truth.” he declined to cite specifics. typically, precinct meetings were “a yawner,” according to mike connett, a longtime party member in horry county, best known for its popular beach towns. but in april, connett and other establishment republicans were caught off guard when 369 people, many of them newcomers, showed up for the county convention in north myrtle beach. connett lost a race for a leadership role to diaz, the prominent qanon supporter, and wood’s faction captured the county’s other executive positions plus 35 of 48 delegate slots, enabling them to cast most of the county’s votes for wood at the state convention. “it seemed like a pretty clean takeover,” connett told propublica. in greenville, the state’s most populous county, wood campaign organizers jeff davis and pressley stutts mobilized a surge of supporters at the county convention   about 1,400 delegates, up from roughly 550 in 2019   and swept almost all of the 79 delegate positions. that gave wood’s faction the vast majority of the votes in two of south carolina’s biggest delegations. across the state, the precinct strategy was contributing to an unprecedented surge in local party participation, according to data provided by a state gop spokeswoman. in 2019, 4,296 people participated. this year, 8,524 did. “it’s a prairie fire down there in greenville, south carolina, brought on by the maga posse,” bannon said on his podcast. establishment party leaders realized they had to take wood’s challenge seriously. the incumbent chair, drew mckissick, had trump’s endorsement three times over   including twice after wood entered the race. but wood fought back by repeatedly implying that mckissick and other prominent state republicans were corrupt and involved in various conspiracies that seemed related to qanon. the race became heated enough that after one event, wood and mckissick exchanged angry words face to face. wood’s rallies were raucous affairs packed with hundreds of people, energized by right wing celebrities like flynn and lindell. in interviews, many attendees described the events as their first foray into politics, sometimes referencing schultz and always citing trump’s stolen election myth. some said they’d resort to violence if they felt an election was stolen again. wood’s campaign wobbled in counties that the precinct strategy had not yet reached. at the state convention in may, wood won about 30% of the delegates, commanding horry, greenville and some surrounding counties, but faltering elsewhere. a triumphant mckissick called wood’s supporters “a fringe, rogue group” and vowed to turn them into a “leper colony” by building parallel republican organizations in their territory. but wood and his partisans did not act defeated. the chairmanship election, they argued, was as rigged as the 2020 presidential race. wood threw a lavish party at his roughly 2,000 acre low country estate, secured by armed guards and surveillance cameras. from a stage fit for a rock concert on the lawn of one of his three mansions, wood promised the fight would continue. diaz and her allies in horry county voted to censure mckissick. the county’s longtime republicans tried, but failed, to oust diaz and her cohort after one of the people involved in drafting wood tackled a protester at a flynn speech in greenville. (this incident, the details of which are disputed, prompted schultz to encourage precinct strategy activists to arm themselves.) wood continued promoting the precinct strategy to his telegram followers, and scores replied that they were signing up. in late july, stutts and davis forced out greenville county gop’s few remaining establishment leaders, claiming that they had cheated in the first election. then stutts, davis and an ally won a new election to fill those vacant seats. “they sound like democrats, right?” bannon asked stutts in a podcast interview. stutts replied, “they taught the democrats how to cheat, steve.” stutts’ group quickly pushed for an investigation of the 2020 presidential election, planning a rally featuring davis and wood at the end of august, and began campaigning against vaccine and school mask mandates. “i prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery,” stutts had previously posted on facebook, quoting thomas jefferson. stutts continued posting messages skeptical of vaccine and mask mandates even after he entered the hospital with a severe case of covid 19. he died on aug. 19. the hubbub got so loud inside the cobb county, georgia, republican headquarters that it took several shouts and whistles to get everyone’s attention. it was a full house for salleigh grubbs’ first meeting as the county’s party chair. grubbs ran on a vow to “clean house” in the election system, highlighting her december testimony to state lawmakers in which she raised unsubstantiated fraud allegations. supporters praised grubbs’ courage for following a truck she suspected of being used in a plot to shred evidence. she attended trump’s jan. 6 rally as a vip. she won the chairmanship decisively at an april county convention packed with an estimated 50% first time participants. in may, grubbs opened her first meeting by asking everyone munching on bacon and eggs to listen to her recite the gettysburg address. “think of the battle for freedom that americans have before them today,” grubbs said. “those people fought and died so that you could be the precinct chair.” after the reading, first time precinct officers stood for applause and cheers. their work would start right away: putting up signs, making calls and knocking on doors for a special election for the state house. the district had long leaned republican, but after the gop’s devastating losses up and down the ballot in 2020, they didn’t know what to expect. “there’s so many people out there that are scared, they feel like their vote doesn’t count,” cooper guyon, a 17 year old right wing podcaster from the atlanta area who speaks to county parties around the state, told the cobb republicans in july. the activists, he said, need to “get out in these communities and tell them that we are fighting to make your vote count by passing the senate bill, the election reform bills that are saving our elections in georgia.” of the field’s two republicans, devan seabaugh took the strongest stance in favor of georgia’s new law restricting ways to vote and giving the republican controlled legislature more power over running elections. “the only people who may be inconvenienced by senate bill 202 are those intent on committing fraud,” he wrote in response to a local newspaper’s candidate questionnaire. seabaugh led the june special election and won a july runoff. grubbs cheered the win as a turning point. “we are awake. we are preparing,” she wrote on facebook. “the conservative citizens of cobb county are ready to defend our ballots and our county.” newcomers did not meet such quick success everywhere. in savannah, a faction crashed the chatham county convention with their own microphone, inspired by bannon’s podcast to try to depose the incumbent party leaders who they accused of betraying trump. party officers blocked the newcomers’ candidacies, saying they weren’t officially nominated. shouting erupted, and the meeting adjourned without a vote. then the party canceled its districtwide convention. the state party ultimately sided with the incumbent leaders. district chair carl smith said the uprising is bound to fail because the insurgents are mistaken in believing that he and other local leaders didn’t fight hard enough for trump. “you can’t build a movement on a lie,” smith said. in michigan, activists who identify with a larger movement working against republicans willing to accept trump’s loss have captured the party leadership in about a dozen counties. they’re directly challenging state party leaders, who are trying to harness the grassroots energy without indulging demands to keep fighting over the last election. some of the takeovers happened before the rise of the precinct strategy. but the activists are now organizing under the banner “precinct first” and holding regular events, complete with notaries, to sign people up to run for precinct delegate positions. “we are reclaiming our party,” debra ell, one of the organizers, told propublica. “we’re building an ‘america first’ army.” under normal rules, the wave of new precinct delegates could force the party to nominate far right candidates for key state offices. that’s because in michigan, party nominees for attorney general, secretary of state and lieutenant governor are chosen directly by party delegates rather than in public primaries. but the state party recently voted to hold a special convention earlier next year, which should effectively lock in candidates before the new, more radical delegates are seated. activist led county parties including rural hillsdale and detroit area macomb are also censuring republican state legislators for issuing a june report on the 2020 election that found no evidence of systemic fraud and no need for a reexamination of the results like the one in arizona. (the censures have no enforceable impact beyond being a public rebuke of the politicians.) at the same time, county party leaders in hillsdale and elsewhere are working on a ballot initiative to force an arizona style election review. establishment republicans have their own idea for a ballot initiative   one that could tighten rules for voter id and provisional ballots while sidestepping the democratic governor’s veto. if the initiative collects hundreds of thousands of valid signatures, it would be put to a vote by the republican controlled state legislature. under a provision of the state constitution, the state legislature can adopt the measure and it can’t be vetoed. state party leaders recently reached out to the activists rallying around the rejection of the presidential election results, including hillsdale republican party secretary jon smith, for help. smith, ell and others agreed to join the effort, the two activists said. “this empowers them,” jason roe, the state party executive director whose ouster the activists demanded because he said trump was responsible for his own loss, told propublica. roe resigned in july, citing unrelated reasons. “it’s important to get them focused on change that can actually impact” future elections, he said, “instead of keeping their feet mired in the conspiracy theories of 2020.” jesse law, who ran the trump campaign’s election day operations in nevada, sued the democratic electors, seeking to declare trump the winner or annul the results. the judge threw out the case, saying law’s evidence did not meet “any standard of proof,” and the nevada supreme court agreed. when the electoral college met in december, law stood outside the state capitol to publicly cast mock votes for trump. this year, law set his sights on taking over the republican party in the state’s largest county, clark, which encompasses las vegas. he campaigned on the precinct strategy, promising 1,000 new recruits. his path to winning the county chairmanship   just like stutts’ team in south carolina, and grubbs in cobb county, georgia   relied on turning out droves of newcomers to flood the county party and vote for him. in law’s case, many of those newcomers came through the proud boys, the all male gang affiliated with more than two dozen people charged in the capitol riot. the las vegas chapter boasted about signing up 500 new party members (not all of them belonging to the proud boys) to ensure their takeover of the county party. after briefly advancing their own slate of candidates to lead the clark gop, the proud boys threw their support to law. they also helped lead a state party censure of nevada’s republican secretary of state, who rejected the trump campaign’s baseless claims of fraudulent ballots. law, who did not respond to repeated requests for comment, has declined to distance himself from the las vegas proud boys, citing trump’s “stand back and stand by” remark at the september 2020 presidential debate. “when the president was asked if he would disavow, he said no,” law told an independent nevada journalist in july. “if the president is ok with that, i’m going to take the presidential stance.” the outgoing county chair, david sajdak, canceled the first planned vote for his successor. he said he was worried the proud boys would resort to violence if their newly recruited members, who sajdak considered illegitimate, weren’t allowed to vote. sajdak tried again to hold a leadership vote in july, with a meeting in a las vegas high school theater, secured by police. but the crowd inside descended into shouting, while more people tried to storm past the cops guarding the back entrance, leading to scuffles. “let us in! let us in!” some chanted. riling them up was at least one proud boy, according to multiple videos of the meeting. at the microphone, sajdak was running out of patience. “i’m done covering for you awful people,” he bellowed. unable to restore order, sajdak ended the meeting without a vote and resigned a few hours later. he’d had enough. “they want to create mayhem,” sajdak said. read more soon after, law’s faction held their own meeting at a hotel casino and overwhelmingly voted for law as county chairman. nevada republican party chairman michael mcdonald, a longtime ally of law who helped lead trump’s futile effort to overturn the nevada results, recognized law as the new county chair and promoted a fundraiser to celebrate. the existing county leaders sued, seeking a court order to block law’s “fraudulent, rogue election.” the judge preliminarily sided with the moderates, but told them to hold off on their own election until a court hearing in september. to sajdak, agonizing over 2020 is pointless because “there’s no mechanism for overturning an election.” asked if law’s allies are determined to create one, sajdak said: “it’s a scary thought, isn’t it.” do you have a tip for propublica? help us do journalism. got a story we should hear? are you down to be a background source on a story about your community, your schools or your workplace? get in touch. do you have information about efforts to reshape elections? contact isaac arnsdorf at [email protected]. jeremy schwartz, nicole santa cruz and mollie simon contributed reporting. filed under   isaac arnsdorf was a reporter at propublica covering national politics. doug bock clark is a reporter in propublica’s south unit. he investigates threats to democracy and abuses of power throughout the region. alexandra berzon was a reporter at propublica. anjeanette damon is a reporter at propublica. more than 300 career employees at the environmental protection agency have left. those who remain face a painful decision: resign or work for an administration that plans to radically reshape the epa while reversing environmental protections. by sharon lerner and pratheek rebala, feb. 6, 2025, 5 a.m. est president trump’s nominees for key positions have a history of pushing back against the work of the departments and agencies they’ve been chosen to lead. by propublica, jan. 31, 2025, 6 a.m. est the state was hostile to interior department policies during the biden administration. a review of its lawsuits under burgum reveals an aggressively pro fossil fuel agenda. by mary steurer, north dakota monitor, and mark olalde, propublica, jan. 24, 2025, 5 a.m. est local reporting network all but one state that held legislative elections last fall in the southeast saw losses of republican women. in south carolina, that means the senate republican caucus, which will make decisions that directly affect women, is an all men’s club. by jennifer berry hawes, jan. 22, 2025, 5 a.m. est donald trump and the texas attorney general have forged a friendship over the years, one that has been cemented in their shared political and legal struggles and their willingness to come to each other’s aid at times of upheaval. by vianna davila, propublica and the texas tribune, jan. 17, 2025, 5 a.m. cst michigan democrats controlled all three branches of government, but party infighting and moderate policy decisions resulted in what some have dubbed “one of the least productive legislative sessions in history.” by anna clark, jan. 10, 2025, 5 a.m. est much attention has been paid to the young silicon valley engineers working for musk’s department of government efficiency, but the group has also hired high powered legal talent. by justin elliott, avi asher schapiro and andy kroll, feb. 7, 2025, 5:25 p.m. est the new target, sources said, is a sensitive database that tracks the flow of money across the government. by justin elliott and robert faturechi, feb. 7, 2025, 4:30 p.m. est propublica and the texas tribune took a snapshot of the blitz of executive orders president donald trump has signed since taking office, by tallying nearly three dozen from his first day. by mica rosenberg, and perla trevizo, design by zisiga mukulu, feb. 7, 2025, 6 a.m. est a menu of options being circulated by congressional republicans also includes new tax cuts for corporations and the ultrawealthy. by robert faturechi and justin elliott, jan. 30, 2025, 6 a.m. est tennessee authorities were alerted to solomon henderson’s threatening and violent behavior long before he brought a gun to antioch high school. it’s unclear how many red flags were heeded. by aliyya swaby, propublica, and paige pfleger, wpln/nashville public radio, feb. 8, 2025, 5 a.m. est © copyright 2025 pro publica inc. creative commons license (cc by nc nd 3.0) thank you for your interest in republishing this story. you are free to republish it so long as you do the following: undefined

copyright 2025 the associated press. all rights reserved. ontario premier doug ford dons a toque following a press conference with chief sonny gagnon of aroland first nation at queens park, the provincial legislature, in toronto, tuesday, jan. 28, 2025. (chris young/the canadian press via ap) ontario premier doug ford dons a toque following a press conference with chief sonny gagnon of aroland first nation at queens park, the provincial legislature, in toronto, tuesday, jan. 28, 2025. (chris young/the canadian press via ap, file) ontario premier doug ford dons a toque following a press conference with chief sonny gagnon of aroland first nation at queens park, the provincial legislature, in toronto, tuesday, jan. 28, 2025. (chris young/the canadian press via ap) ontario premier doug ford dons a toque following a press conference with chief sonny gagnon of aroland first nation at queens park, the provincial legislature, in toronto, tuesday, jan. 28, 2025. (chris young/the canadian press via ap) ontario premier doug ford dons a toque following a press conference with chief sonny gagnon of aroland first nation at queens park, the provincial legislature, in toronto, tuesday, jan. 28, 2025. (chris young/the canadian press via ap, file) ontario premier doug ford dons a toque following a press conference with chief sonny gagnon of aroland first nation at queens park, the provincial legislature, in toronto, tuesday, jan. 28, 2025. (chris young/the canadian press via ap, file) vancouver, british columbia (ap)   the leader of ontario, canada’s most populous province, on wednesday triggered a snap election, saying he needs a strong four year mandate to fight the tariffs threatened by u.s. president donald trump. doug ford, leader of the progressive conservative party, said the 25% tariffs threatened by trump would devastate canada’s economy and cost ontario thousands of jobs. “the people of our province, like people across canada, are facing unprecedented times,” ford said in windsor, ont. “i am asking the people of ontario for their trust. i’m asking (...) for a strong, stable, four year mandate to do whatever it takes to protect ontario.” the move would send ontarians to the polls on feb. 27, more than a year before the june 2026 fixed election date. ford already has a large majority government, with 79 of the 124 seats in the ontario legislature. trump has threatened to introduce tariffs on canadian goods starting saturday. his press secretary, karoline leavitt, told reporters at the white house on tuesday that the plan was “still on the books” for that day. “this is a game to the president,” said ford, who is the equivalent of a u.s. state governor. “he seeks to divide and conquer.” ford said the provincial government is prepared to spend “tens of billions of dollars” to protect jobs and the economy of ontario, canada’s manufacturing and automobile hub. “we’ll fight these tariffs with every tool in our toolbox,” he said. ford has said there would be a dollar for dollar tariff retaliation on american goods entering canada. he has also said that if trump applies tariffs, he will instruct ontario’s liquor control board to pull all american made alcohol from shelves. trump has said that canada can avoid tariffs if it becomes the 51st state and he has incorrectly claimed that the u.s. has a $200 billion deficit with its major trading partner. opposition parties accuse ford of calling an early election before any potential charges emerge from a police investigation into his now scrapped plan to develop lands under environmental protection. elections ontario, the independent office of the legislative assembly of ontario responsible for the administration of provincial elections and referendums, said wednesday the election will cost about $189 million canadian dollars ($131 million). that money, said bonnie crombie, leader of the ontario liberal party, would be better spent on health care and affordable housing. “this isn’t a necessary election,” crombie told a news conference on wednesday. “he is trying to cling to power.” daniel beland, a political science professor at montreal’s mcgill university, said ford is taking “a calculated risk.” “the opposition is divided between the liberals and the new democratic party, which is very likely to allow him to stay in power, at least if he runs an effective campaign,” said beland. the ontario election is being held at the same time as the federal liberal party is selecting a new leader to replace prime minister justin trudeau who announced his resignation jan. 6. trudeau will remain prime minister until a new liberal party leader is chosen on march 9. the next liberal leader could be the shortest tenured prime minister in the country’s history. all three opposition parties have vowed to bring down the liberals’ minority government in a no confidence vote after parliament resumes on march 24 which would trigger a spring election. “we need a strong leadership that is prepared to do whatever lies ahead despite the chaos we now see in ottawa,” said ford. “trump’s threats are not going away at a time when the federal government has left canada drifting, exposed and vulnerable. we need a mandate that will outlive and outlast the trump administration.” copyright 2025 the associated press. all rights reserved.

lauren opal boebert (/ˈboʊbərt/ boh bərt; née roberts; born december 19, 1986) is an american politician, businesswoman, and gun rights activist[1] serving as the u.s. representative for colorado's 4th congressional district beginning in 2025, having so served the colorado's 3rd congressional district from 2021 to 2025. from 2013 to 2022, she owned shooters grill, a restaurant in rifle, colorado, where staff members were encouraged to carry firearms openly. a member of the republican party, boebert is known for her gun rights advocacy. in 2020, she unexpectedly defeated incumbent scott tipton in the primaries. she went on to win the general election over democratic nominee diane mitsch bush. in congress, boebert has associated herself with the conservative republican study committee, the right wing freedom caucus, of which she became the communications chair in january 2022, and the pro gun second amendment caucus. she won reelection in 2022 by a narrow margin of 546 votes against former aspen city council member adam frisch. in december 2023, boebert announced that she would switch districts to run in the 4th congressional district, which is on the eastern side of the state and is more favorable for republicans.[2] boebert was reelected to a third term in 2024.[3] boebert's views are broadly considered far right, a label she rejects.[4][5] she is an ally and supporter of president donald trump and supports trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and voted to overturn its results during the electoral college vote count. she has also promoted the qanon conspiracy theory. boebert opposes transitioning to green energy, covid 19 mask and vaccine mandates, abortion, sex education, gender affirming surgery for minors, and same sex marriage. she advocates an isolationist foreign policy but supports closer ties with israel for religious reasons. a self described born again christian, boebert has said that she is "tired of this separation of church and state junk" and argued for greater church power and influence in government decision making.[6] boebert was born in altamonte springs, florida, on december 19, 1986,[7] to shawna roberts bentz,[8] who was 18 at the time of boebert's birth.[9] the identity of her father is not known. professional wrestler stan lane was suspected of being boebert's father. still, two dna tests ruled that out.[8][9] at the age of four, bentz took her from florida to colorado to stay with her boyfriend, only to move back to florida with a different boyfriend, and then finally returned to colorado with the colorado man, who became her stepfather.[9] when she was 12, she and her family moved to the montbello neighborhood of denver and later to aurora, colorado, before settling in rifle, colorado, in 2003.[10][11] boebert dropped out of high school during her senior year in 2004 when she had a baby;[12][13] she earned a ged certificate in 2020, a month before her first election primary.[12][13] boebert has stated that her family depended on welfare when she was growing up[14][12][15] and that she was raised in a democratic household in a liberal area.[15][16] records at the colorado secretary of state's office show that her mother was registered to vote in colorado as a republican from 2001 to 2013 and as a democrat from 2015 to 2020.[15] at age 19, boebert herself registered to vote in 2006 as a democrat; in 2008, she changed her affiliation to republican.[15] according to boebert, she became religious while attending a church in glenwood springs,[17] and that she became a born again christian in 2009.[18] she has volunteered at a local jail for seven years, but attendance logs at the garfield county sheriff's office show that she volunteered at the jail nine times between may 2014 and november 2016.[19] after leaving high school, boebert took a job as an assistant manager at a mcdonald's in rifle.[20][21] she later said that this job changed her views about whether government assistance is necessary.[10][22] after marrying jayson boebert in 2007, she got a job filing for a natural gas drilling company and then became a pipeliner, a member of a team that builds and maintains pipelines and pumping stations.[17] in 2013, boebert and her husband opened shooters grill in rifle, west of glenwood springs, colorado. boebert says she obtained a concealed carry permit after a man was "beaten to death by another man's hands ... outside of [her] restaurant", and began encouraging the restaurant's servers to carry guns openly.[23][18][24] that is mostly false: in 2013, a man who had reportedly engaged in a fight blocks away ran to within about a block of boebert's restaurant, fell, and died from a methamphetamine overdose.[24][25][26] the boeberts also owned a restaurant called smokehouse 1776 (now defunct), across the street from shooters grill.[27] in 2015, boebert opened putters restaurant on rifle creek golf course,[28] which she sold in december 2016.[29] shooters grill, according to her congressional disclosure forms, lost $143,000 in 2019 and $226,000 in 2020.[30] in 2017, 80 people who attended a garfield county fair contracted food poisoning after eating pork sliders from a temporary location set up by shooters grill and smokehouse 1776. the restaurants did not have the required permits to operate at the temporary location, and the garfield county health department determined that the outbreak was caused by unsafe food handling at the event.[31] in 2020, boebert protested orders issued by colorado governor jared polis to close businesses in response to the covid 19 pandemic.[32] in mid may 2020, she violated the state's stay at home order by reopening shooters grill for dine in service,[33] for which she received a cease and desist order from garfield county, with which she refused to comply.[34] the next day, boebert moved tables outside, onto the sidewalk, and in parking spaces.[35] the following day, garfield county suspended her food license.[36] by late may, with the state allowing restaurants to reopen at 50% capacity, the county dropped its temporary restraining order.[37] shooters grill closed in july 2022, when the building's new owner opted not to renew the lease.[38] in september 2019, boebert made national headlines when she confronted beto o'rourke, a candidate in the 2020 democratic presidential primary, at an aurora town hall meeting over his proposal for a buy back program and a ban on assault style rifles like ar 15s.[39][40][21][41] later that month, she opposed a measure banning guns in city owned buildings at a meeting of the aspen city council.[42][41] the ordinance passed unanimously a month later.[43] boebert was an organizer of the december 2019 "we will not comply!" rally opposing colorado's red flag law, which allows guns to be taken from people deemed a threat. the american patriots three percent militia, affiliated with the three percenters, provided security, and members of the proud boys attended the rally.[44][45] on twitter, boebert has used rhetoric friendly to the three percenters and posed with members of the group (she deleted the tweet with the photos after being asked about it). during her congressional campaign, she said she was "with the militia".[46][47] in december 2019, boebert launched her campaign to represent colorado's 3rd congressional district in the united states house of representatives, beginning with a challenge to five term incumbent scott tipton in the republican primary.[48] during her campaign, she criticized alexandria ocasio cortez and other members of "the squad", positioning herself as a conservative alternative to the progressive representative.[49][50][51] seth masket, a political science professor at the university of denver, suggested that boebert wanted to motivate republican voters to participate in the primary during a slow election cycle by stirring up their anger at ocasio cortez and others.[49] boebert criticized tipton's voting record, which she said did not reflect his district. before the primary, trump endorsed tipton,[48] but boebert characterized him as unsupportive of trump.[49] she accused him of supporting amnesty for undocumented immigrants by voting for h.r. 5038, the farm workforce modernization act of 2019, saying that the act had a provision that led to citizenship and provided funding for housing for undocumented farm workers.[52] boebert decried what she said were tipton's insufficient efforts to continue funding for the paycheck protection program, whose money had run out within two weeks, arguing that more was needed.[53] boebert raised just over $150,000 through the june 30 primary.[54] in a may 2020 interview on steeltruth, a qanon supporting web show, boebert said she was "very familiar with" the conspiracy theory: "everything i've heard of q, i hope that this is real because it only means america is getting stronger and better."[55] the colorado times recorder reported that she followed multiple youtube channels connected with qanon before deleting her youtube account when it came under scrutiny.[56] boebert later said she was not a follower of qanon, in a statement where she endorsed investigations into "deep state activities that undermine the president".[57][58] in september 2019, boebert aide and future campaign manager sherronna bishop published a video on her facebook page in which she interviewed a self proclaimed member of the far right group proud boys, which bishop called "pro everything that makes america great", adding, "thank god for you guys and the proud boys". bishop left the boebert campaign shortly after boebert won the republican nomination. in october 2020, boebert's campaign denied any connection to the proud boys and said boebert did not share bishop's views.[59][60] on june 30, boebert won the republican nomination with 54.6% of the vote to tipton's 45.4%.[61] the result gained national attention and surprised political commentators. cnn and politico called it a "stunning upset";[41][62] the hill made a similar statement.[63] tipton conceded defeat on election night and trump congratulated boebert in a tweet.[1] democratic congressional campaign committee chair cheri bustos said in a statement that national republicans should disavow boebert for supporting qanon.[62] boebert was the first primary challenger to defeat a sitting u.s. representative in colorado in 48 years, since democratic representative wayne aspinall lost to alan merson.[64][65] she pledged to join the freedom caucus upon taking office.[48] boebert faced democratic former state representative diane mitsch bush, a retired sociology professor from steamboat springs, colorado, in the november general election. boebert said that mitsch bush's platform was "more government control" and that mitsch bush had a "socialist agenda".[64] boebert emphasized her devotion to trump and his policies and reiterated her points about deregulation of industries and decreasing healthcare funding,[66] while rallying for the expansion of gun rights.[67][68] in late july, boebert was considered the front runner.[10] a september survey paid for by michael bloomberg's democratic leaning house majority pac had mitsch bush ahead by one percentage point.[69] mitsch bush outraised boebert, with $4.2 million for her and nearly $4 million spent by democratic operatives, as opposed to boebert's $2.4 million raised and more than $5 million spent by the republicans, but boebert won the election, 51.27% to 45.41%.[70] according to the atlas of the 2020 elections, boebert was able to command strong support in the traditionally conservative areas of the western slope of colorado and the san luis valley while retaining enough republican votes in liberal leaning pueblo and other democratic areas. it also stated that boebert did not suffer from the trump effect, as compared to the support of trump at the polls, with the 3rd district witnessing few split ticket votes. her campaign succeeded by appealing to independence and rebellion.[66] in 2020, boebert reimbursed herself $22,259 for mileage costs from her campaign's finances, which legally would require her to have driven 38,712 mi (62,301 km). the denver post reported in early february 2021 that three ethics experts said the high figure was suspicious. boebert's campaign attributed the figure to her "aggressive travel schedule", but members of her campaign did not provide evidence for the amount of travel.[72] cpr news calculated that it was plausible that boebert had driven 30,000 miles based on her visits to 129 events.[73] boebert said in a mid february interview that she "drove tens of thousands of miles ... i had to make those connections, and really, i underreported a lot of stuff."[74] in late february 2021, boebert's campaign updated its campaign finance filing, reclassifying $3,053 claimed for mileage to "hotels", and $867 claimed for mileage to uber rides, thus claiming a mileage of around 30,000 miles.[74] despite campaign finance laws and ethics laws requiring congressional candidates to reveal their immediate family's income sources to show potential conflicts of interest, boebert did not report her husband's income in her 2020 filing, instead belatedly revealing it in august 2021,[30] the same day the federal election commission (fec) sent her a letter investigating her campaign expenses.[75] the filing, while misnaming the company involved, stated that her husband, jayson, was paid $460,000 in 2019 and $478,000 in 2020 as a consultant for terra energy, one of colorado's largest natural gas producers and fourth nationwide in methane emissions.[30][76] the company told the daily beast that jayson was a contracted shift worker for the company who was not paid directly but through another company, boebert consulting.[77] as of 2021, colorado classified boebert consulting as a delinquent company due to the lack of filings or registered agent with the state.[75] boebert oversees the energy industry via her position on the house committee on natural resources.[77] in august 2021, the fec investigated the apparent use of more than $6,000 from boebert's 2022 reelection campaign funds for her personal expenses.[78] the funds were used between may and june 2021 via four venmo payments.[78] boebert's communications director said that these were indeed personal expenses, "billed to the campaign account in error", and that the "reimbursement has already happened".[78] in september 2021, boebert submitted documents to the fec declaring that the campaign money had been used to settle rental and utility bills, and had since been reimbursed.[79][80] boebert sought a second term representing colorado's 3rd congressional district in the 2022 election.[81] during the primary, her main challenger was don coram, a state senator who positioned himself as more moderate. boebert aimed to portray him as corrupt, in particular by alleging that he used his powers as a state legislator to pass laws legalizing hemp, which coram grows (state voters approved the amendment legalizing marijuana in 2012), and as not republican enough.[82][83] a democratic aligned super pac made false claims and unproven allegations about boebert.[84][85] boebert's attorney said in june that she would file a defamation lawsuit against the group, but she has not done so. the temporary restraining order she obtained on june 23 against david wheeler, one of its co founders,[86] was vacated in july and the case dismissed.[85] boebert's campaign had a significant advantage, with $5 million in campaign funds to coram's $225,000; coram also started campaigning late in the primary,[87][88] and trump endorsed boebert.[89] during the pre primary debate on may 26, boebert emphasized the bills she had introduced in congress while questioning coram's legislative votes. she also repeated claims of massive election fraud and invoked her opposition to the restrictions introduced as a result of the spread of what she called the "fauci funded china virus" (sars cov 2).[82] boebert supporters failed to throw coram off the ballot for allegedly not having collected enough signatures.[90][91] several thousand democrats tried to influence the election by renouncing their membership in the party and voting as independents for more moderate republicans, which is allowed in the state.[92][87] boebert won the primary with almost 66% of the vote.[93] in a debate with democratic nominee adam frisch on september 11, 2022, boebert took credit for bills she had voted against, did not cross examine frisch, proposed more oil and gas development to respond to climate change, and continuously attacked house speaker nancy pelosi.[94][95] boebert defeated frisch by a small margin in a closer than expected race. the margin was so close it triggered an automatic recount.[96][97][98] the recount was completed on december 12 and affirmed that boebert won by 546 votes out of 327,000.[99][100][101] boebert filed her statement of candidacy with the federal election commission (fec) on january 13, 2023.[102] after narrowly winning reelection in 2022, she attempted to rebrand her image with the voters in her district from a maga firebrand to a hard working congresswoman.[100][103] in 2023, she blamed her narrow 2022 victory on "'ballot harvesting'   a gop term for third party collection of absentee ballots   rather than what democrats have called her 'maga extremism' and political charades" while her press releases focused on local issues, including a "$5 million grant for a rural health center in a spending package she voted against".[104] boebert announced on december 27, 2023, that she would switch to running in colorado's 4th congressional district on the other side of the state, where political conditions are more favorable to republicans.[105] within a week, boebert stated that the reason for the change in district she was running in was "hollywood elites" such as barbra streisand and "ryan reynolds coming in and donating to the democrat" in the 3rd congressional district.[106] boebert has been criticized as a "carpetbagger" for switching to a more republican leaning district.[107] observers describe boebert as far right;[4] she rejects the label.[108] as of january 29, 2022, boebert had introduced 17 bills and seven resolutions, none of which passed the committee.[109] in august 2022, the colorado sun reported that boebert had violated the stop trading on congressional knowledge (stock) act of 2012, a federal transparency and conflict of interest law, by failing to properly disclose sales of stocks, cryptocurrency, and brokerage funds belonging to her husband worth between $5,000 and $80,000.[110] in january 2023, at the beginning of the 118th congress, she was one of 20 far right republican members who prevented the election of kevin mccarthy to the house speakership on the first 14 ballots.[111] in february 2023, boebert co sponsored a bill to designate the "ar 15 style rifle" the national gun of the united states.[112][113] during the 2023 united states debt ceiling crisis, boebert was a vocal opponent of the fiscal responsibility act of 2023 and vowed to vote "nay" on the bill, which passed in the house 314 117.[114] she missed the vote and said on the record that she had been "unavoidably detained". two days later, boebert tweeted that she had missed the vote as a "no show protest" but cnn had recorded video of her running up the steps to the house and being told that the vote had been closed.[115] boebert has blocked critics on her personal twitter account.[116] a blocked constituent sued her for access,[117] but the case was dismissed with prejudice in october 2022.[118][119] boebert has twice attempted to impeach president biden. in september 2021, she submitted a resolution to impeach him and another to impeach vice president kamala harris over the withdrawal of united states troops from afghanistan.[120][121][122] boebert made another attempt in june 2023, when she filed a privileged resolution to bypass house leadership and bring impeachment articles against biden for his immigration and border protection policies to the floor for a vote. the house voted instead to refer the matter to the homeland security and judiciary committees.[123] for the 118th congress:[124] boebert is a member of the following congressional caucuses:[125] on january 5, 2021, the day before the storming of the united states capitol, boebert urged people to "remember these next 48 hours", saying they would be among the most important in american history.[127] the next day, in the hours before the capitol was attacked, she described the day's events as republicans' "1776 moment", a reference to the american revolutionary war.[128] boebert then told speaker nancy pelosi that her constituents were outside the capitol and that she had promised to represent their voices in the chamber.[129] during a town hall in march, boebert appeared to defend the january 6 attackers on the capitol, saying, "we already see in washington, d.c. you can't petition your government. you're an insurrectionist if you do that!", later claiming that the remarks were made "in reference to the ongoing security measures in place around the capitol complex".[130] during the counting of the electoral college votes before the attack, boebert objected to accepting arizona's votes in a speech to the joint session of congress. she accused arizona of "unlawfully amending its voter registration laws by extending the registration periods", alleging widespread voter fraud, which echoed the false claims aired by donald trump, and accusing everyone who intended to accept the "results of this concentrated, coordinated, partisan effort by democrats" of having allied themselves with the extremist left.[131] in december 2021, boebert doubled down on these allegations, saying that hundreds of thousands of ballots were illegally mailed to voters, without providing evidence.[81] when the vote count resumed after the rioters had been removed from the capitol, the challenges to arizona's and pennsylvania's electoral votes proceeded to a vote while those against several other states were dropped. boebert voted against the certification of both states' electoral votes.[131][132][133] democratic politicians in colorado and the aurora sentinel colorado accused boebert of helping to incite violence at the u.s. capitol and called on her to resign.[134][135] while the capitol was being stormed, boebert posted information on twitter about the proceedings of the certification, including that the house chamber had been locked down and that pelosi had been evacuated.[136][137] she was accused of endangering members' safety and faced calls to resign, but refused, defending her actions because pelosi's evacuation was also publicly broadcast live on tv;[129][138][139] academic zac parker opined that it was still a potential security threat since c span did not focus on pelosi, and had it not been for boebert's tweet, the protesters might have not noticed it.[137] boebert's communications director resigned on january 16 in response to her behavior on january 6.[140] in june 2021, boebert was one of 21 house republicans to vote against a resolution to give the congressional gold medal to police officers who defended the u.s. capitol.[141] she later explained that she objected to giving an award to billy evans, who was included in the resolution and who died during an unrelated capitol attack in april that year.[142] boebert additionally rejects the term "insurrection" for the january 6 events and has called the house inquiry into the attack a "sham witch hunt".[81] she has equated the behavior of some of the rioters who participated in the black lives matter (blm) protests following the murder of george floyd to those who attacked the capitol.[143] she alleged in a letter to u.s. attorney general merrick garland that he was being too lenient toward those who were arrested during the 2020 blm riots, as compared to the capitol rioters.[144][a] she also entered a resolution seeking to recognize antifa as a domestic terrorist organization[148] and said blm would "burn down cities and destroy businesses".[149] boebert opposes the national popular vote interstate compact, which would elect the president by popular vote.[23] boebert supports eliminating the u.s. department of education.[40] she has said that one of her top legislative priorities is to eliminate critical race theory from schools, even though it is not part of the k 12 colorado academic standards.[150][151] during a press conference, she asserted that it was a lie, that it was racist,[152] and that it would lead to children hating each other.[153] boebert opposes sex education in schools.[154] boebert supported louisiana's order to display the ten commandments in public schools, as she commented in june 2024: "this is something we need all throughout our nation … because we need morals back in our nation."[155] boebert is a strong advocate of gun rights. during her primary campaign, she voiced opposition to colorado's recently enacted red flag law.[22][23] on january 1, 2021, in a letter co signed by more than 80 republicans, boebert asked speaker pelosi and house minority leader kevin mccarthy to uphold the 1967 law exempting members of congress from a capitol hill ban on firearms, which allowed them to keep arms in their offices.[156] after saying that she planned to carry a gun while working on capitol hill,[17][157] boebert published a viral video advertisement showing her placing a handgun in a hip holster and walking through the neighborhood, near federal buildings and through alleys. her spokesman later said that she had not been carrying a gun during the walk.[156] the video was made by the same consulting firm that produced the viral august 2020 campaign video for house candidate kimberly klacik.[158] on january 5, boebert refused a bag check after she set off the newly installed capitol hill metal detectors, and entered the capitol. she did the same on january 6, refusing to stop for a wand check after she set off the metal detector. boebert called the metal detectors "just another political stunt by speaker pelosi".[159][160] a new york times profile of boebert characterized her actions as "a made for twitter moment that delighted the far right." the article said that although she had only been in congress for a few days, she had "already arranged several episodes that showcased her brand of far right defiance as a conspiracy theorist" and that she "represents an incoming faction of the party for whom breaking the rules and gaining notoriety for doing it is exactly the point."[138] democrats, fearing the guns might do harm while in congress chambers and partly in response to boebert's conspicuous carry of a firearm, proposed legislation, which is being considered in congress as of february 2022, to ban guns from capitol grounds altogether.[161] in february 2023, after the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives mandated that gun owners register any firearms that use "stabilizing braces", boebert said the mandate violated the separation of powers. she added: "alcohol, tobacco and firearms. in western colorado, we call that a fun weekend. but d.c. bureaucrats have used this agency to infringe on the rights of the american people."[162] boebert sponsored h.r. 6202, the american tech workforce act of 2021, introduced by representative jim banks. the legislation would establish a wage floor for the high skill h 1b visa program, thereby significantly reducing employer dependence on the program. the bill would also eliminate the optional practical training program that allows foreign graduates to stay and work in the united states.[163][better source needed] boebert has embraced the qanon conspiracy theory.[164] during a march 15, 2021, town hall in montrose, colorado, advertised only to local republicans who were asked to not disclose it publicly, she was asked when hillary clinton and other former officials would be arrested, a recurring theme of qanon. she responded that she knew someone involved with documents declassified by trump during the closing days of his presidency and that the documents would reveal corruption that would trigger resignations that would allow republicans to retake the house and senate before 2022, echoing a theory promoted by the epoch times. boebert urged people to dismiss comments about the outlet's unreliability and said the information came from "very good sources".[165][166][167] boebert has also voiced support for the clinton body count conspiracy theory. after the june 2021 death of christopher sign, the reporter who broke the news of a 2016 meeting on the phoenix sky harbor tarmac between former president bill clinton and then attorney general loretta lynch, boebert tweeted: "why is it that so many who cross the clinton crime syndicate end up dead?"[168][169] in september 2021, boebert told attendees at a republican fundraiser that she and an aide were joined by democratic representative ilhan omar on a capitol elevator and that boebert then said to her aide, "it's the jihad squad ... she doesn't have a backpack, she wasn't dropping it and running so we're good".[170] also that month, boebert called omar "a full time propagandist for hamas" and an "honorary member of hamas".[170] during a november 18, 2021, speech on the house floor, boebert called omar "the jihad squad member from minnesota".[171] at a november 20 event, she repeated the elevator story, this time including a capitol police officer with "fret all over his face".[172][170] omar responded that the story was invented and that "anti muslim bigotry isn't funny and shouldn't be normalized". boebert later apologized "to anyone in the muslim community i offended with my comment about representative omar".[170][173] after boebert and omar spoke by phone, both said the call went badly, with boebert saying that she would put "america first, never sympathizing with terrorists. unfortunately, ilhan can't say the same thing."[174] the denver post apologized on boebert's behalf for her remarks, saying that it was embarrassing that a colorado representative engaged in such behavior.[175] four months later, boebert confronted a group of orthodox jews visiting the capitol and asked them whether they were on a reconnaissance mission, which left them confused.[176] she later said the remark was made in jest.[177] during her 2020 campaign, boebert pledged that she would not support any federal budget that resulted in additional debt[40] and that she would support a balanced budget amendment to the u.s. constitution.[178] she opposes any tax increases.[179] while expressing support for more defense expenditure, boebert was one of 75 house republicans to vote against the national defense authorization act of 2022,[180] saying the bill had a "woke agenda".[181] in may 2022, boebert was one of nine house members who voted against two bills to alleviate the 2022 shortage of baby formula caused by bacterial contamination. one of the bills, the access to baby formula act, makes it easier for low income families to continue buying formula with vouchers; the other allows the government to invoke the defense production act to speed up production. boebert said she voted against the bills because "the biden administration and democrats created the issue."[182][183] boebert has supported the energy industry.[30][75] during her campaign, she said she supported "all of the above energy, but the markets decide ... not the government".[184] she declared support for uranium extraction and the generation of nuclear power, touting it as the "cleanest form of energy".[185] in february 2021, boebert proposed a bill to ban executive moratoriums on oil and gas leases and permits on some federal lands.[75] she also proposed amendments to the build back better act that would abolish methane emission payments by fracking companies and others that would increase royalties for oil and gas extraction on federal lands and abolish fines and financial requirements for cleaning abandoned drilling infrastructure.[186] conversely, boebert opposes sustainable energy initiatives because she considers green energy unreliable and believes that decreasing the extraction of fossil fuels in her district will "regulate our communities into poverty".[187] she opposes the green new deal,[which?] claiming it would cost $93 trillion to implement and would bankrupt the country.[188][b] boebert also opposes the participation of the united states in the paris agreement, calling it "job killing", and introduced a bill the day after biden's inauguration seeking to block re entrance of the country to the agreement by forcing its ratification in the senate by a two thirds supermajority and prohibiting the use of federal funds for reaching the agreement's goals.[190] boebert believes that attempts at decarbonization should be made via forest management.[187] she has introduced a forest management bill, the active forest management, wildfire prevention and community protection act, which would attempt to prevent wildfires through several mitigation measures, such as removing trees killed by bark beetles, making it harder for groups to go to court to stop forest thinning, and requiring the united states forest service to harvest six billion board foot (14 million cubic meters) of lumber annually.[191][192] boebert has proposed legislation in the house anchoring the bureau of land management's headquarters in grand junction, colorado, which is in the 3rd district.[193] boebert was one of 14 house republicans, most of them members of the freedom caucus, to vote against a measure condemning the myanmar coup d'état that passed overwhelmingly.[194] she cited concern about a passage that urged social media platforms to prevent disinformation and violence, which she said was tantamount to making big tech the "arbiter of truth".[195] boebert was one of 49 house republicans to vote to repeal the authorization of military force against iraq.[196][197] she also voted against the bipartisan allies act, which would increase by 8,000 the number of special immigrant visas for afghan allies of the u.s. military during its invasion of afghanistan while also reducing some application requirements that caused long application backlogs; the bill passed the house, 407 16.[198] in august 2021, after the afghan government fell to the taliban, boebert tweeted, "the taliban are the only people building back better", reusing biden's "build back better" campaign slogan.[199][200] she opposes u.s. intervention in the russian invasion of ukraine.[201][202] boebert supports the construction of a mexico u.s. border wall and opposes amnesty for undocumented immigrants living in the us;[40] she introduced two bills to that effect: one that would codify trump's immigration policies into law and one that would annul executive orders and internal policies that enable or assist asylum and immigration procedures.[143] boebert said she intended to introduce a bill that would end financing of legal aid for immigrants.[150] she criticized what she called biden's failure to contain "a complete invasion at our southern border"[150] and democrats' preference for open borders that she said had enabled the democratic electoral takeover of california.[149] boebert has urged for even closer relations between israel and the united states, saying that their foundings were divinely inspired and that they are the "two nations [in the world] that have been created to glorify god".[6] in 2023, boebert was among 47 republicans to vote in favor of h.con.res. 21, which directed president joe biden to remove u.s. troops from syria within 180 days.[203][204] during her primary campaign, boebert argued for the repeal of the affordable care act, also known as obamacare,[205] and opposed the introduction of a single payer healthcare system, saying it would harm small businesses like hers because of the prohibitive cost.[206] after the election, she said she was undecided about whether it was best to keep or repeal obamacare, but wished that a more market based system would be adopted.[185] during her tenure in congress, she was one of two representatives (the other was marjorie taylor greene) to vote against the transplant act, which reauthorized the national marrow donor program through 2026, citing concern over the addition of the program to the national debt as it had not received a congressional budget office evaluation.[207] boebert opposes mitigation policies seeking to reduce covid 19's spread. she has called the vaccine mandates unconstitutional[81] and in particular, opposed them for the military.[181] she compared the federal government's covid 19 vaccination efforts to "biden [deploying] his needle nazis",[208][209] and accused anthony fauci, who told people to overcome their political opposition and get the covid 19 vaccine, of bullying.[210] boebert also alleged that there was a deliberate effort to introduce immigrants who would substitute the unvaccinated people.[211] in june 2021, boebert advised her constituents in mesa county, who were experiencing an uptick of delta variant cases at the time, that the "easiest way to make the delta variant go away is to turn off cnn [and] vote republican", but has since deleted the tweet amid public criticism.[212][213] she has also compared the virus to communism.[214] boebert is a vocal opponent of mandatory face mask wearing[215][216] and argues that masks should be optional.[217] she falsely claimed that, during the two months that followed the end of the texas mask mandate, the state did not record any covid 19 related deaths.[218] she introduced a bill that would ban all mask mandates on federal property and during travel in interstate commerce, attracting no support.[109] boebert was one of the people who voiced support for the freedom convoy 2022, a canadian trucker protest seeking to repeal all covid 19 vaccination mandates and covid 19 restrictions.[219] boebert received a $500 fine for violating the mask mandate on congress's premises.[220] in late february 2021, boebert and a dozen other republican house members skipped votes and enlisted others to vote for them, citing the ongoing covid 19 pandemic, while actually attending the conservative political action conference, which was held at the same time as their absences.[221] in response, the campaign for accountability, an ethics watchdog group, filed a complaint with the house committee on ethics and requested an investigation into boebert and the other lawmakers.[222] in june 2022, boebert introduced a bill to classify the opioid fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.[223] a congressional research service report released in march stated that "formally designating fentanyl as [a weapon of mass destruction] may not be necessary for additional executive branch action" but that congress could consider legislation to "address 'perceived shortcomings'."[224] boebert opposes the equality act, saying it promotes "supremacy of gays" and says transgender women take scholarships and sports opportunities away from cis women.[225][226] she opposes same sex marriage, writing on her campaign website that she opposes "efforts to redefine marriage as anything other than the union of one man and one woman".[227] she introduced a bill to ban federal funding of research and publications into transgender health care for minors, asserting that they are being "sexualized and used for horrific sexual 'research'" when being administered puberty blockers.[228] in 2022, she cosponsored two bills widely seen as anti lgbt legislation. the first, introduced by marjorie taylor greene, would criminalize providing sex reassignment surgery and other forms of transgender health care to minors; the second was the stop the sexualization of children act, introduced by mike johnson, which would prohibit federally funded institutions from promoting or instructing on lgbt issues or sexual orientation and is widely seen as a national version of florida parental rights in education act.[229][230] in 2025, boebert harassed a woman in the women's bathroom at the capital by trying to get her removed, making false accusations and assumptions that the woman was transgender congress member sarah mcbride.[231] boebert opposes comprehensive sex education, abortion, and federal funding of planned parenthood.[23] the church is supposed to direct the government. the government is not supposed to direct the church. i’m tired of this separation of church and state junk. it was not in the constitution, it was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like what they say it does. boebert promotes the ideals of christian nationalism.[232][233][234] in june 2022, she told a church audience that the church is supposed to direct the government, and that the separation of church and state is not in the constitution.[6][235] boebert's office asserted she was not expressing support of christian theocracy.[236] experts said her statement is contrary to the constitution's first amendment establishment clause, which states that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".[237][238][239] in late 2022, boebert told two audiences, "we are in the last of the last days", and that they would have a role in "ushering in the second coming of jesus".[240][241] boebert lived with her husband, jayson boebert, in silt, colorado.[242] they have four sons[23] and one grandson.[243] her mother "inspired me to be a mother when i was 18 years old".[154] jayson worked in the oil and gas industry prior to opening their restaurant, shooters grill, and continued working in that industry even after opening the restaurant.[16][244] jayson registered the company boebert consulting llc in 2012 and "provided drilling services as an on site drilling foreman" to terra energy since 2017.[245] in her 2021 filing with the house of representatives, boebert reported her husband's income as a consultant for terra energy at $460,000 in 2019 and $478,000 in 2020.[30] on may 11, 2023, boebert filed for divorce from her husband, citing "irreconcilable differences".[246][247][248] the divorce was finalized on october 10, 2023.[249] on april 3, 2024, boebert was hospitalized after feeling severe swelling in her left leg. a ct scan showed a blood clot, which was successfully removed in a surgery. she was also diagnosed with may thurner syndrome.[250] in 2015, boebert was detained at a music festival for shouting at a group of people arrested for underage drinking, yelling that the arrest was unconstitutional because they had not received miranda warnings. deputies reported she "encouraged people arrested for underage drinking to break free and repeatedly said she had 'friends at fox news' who would report on her subsequent 'illegal arrest'". she was cited for misdemeanor disorderly conduct and twice failed to appear in court on the charge. the charge was later dismissed because the mesa county district attorney's office believed there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction if the case went to trial.[251][252] in 2016, boebert was cited for careless driving and operating an unsafe vehicle. on february 13, 2017, she was arrested and booked in garfield county jail for failure to appear in court on these charges. she pleaded guilty to the unsafe vehicle charge, and the careless driving and failure to appear charges were dismissed.[253] on september 10, 2023, boebert and a male companion were removed by security staff from a performance of the musical beetlejuice in a theater in denver, colorado, after she caused a disturbance by vaping, singing, and recording the performance.[103][254][255] boebert initially denied having vaped as well as causing a disturbance, writing on social media that she pleaded "guilty to laughing and singing too loud!" after surveillance video footage of the incident was released, she apologized for "[falling] short of her values" and vaping. she said that "she had previously denied it only because she 'did not recall' having done so".[256][254][257] the video also showed boebert's companion fondling her breasts and boebert caressing his genitalia while they were in their seats.[256][257] months later, boebert described the incident as a "very private moment" that the media had broadcast.[258][259]

numbers, facts and trends shaping your world read our research on: full topic list read our research on: donald trump stunned the political world in 2016 when he became the first person without government or military experience ever to be elected president of the united states. his four year tenure in the white house revealed extraordinary fissures in american society but left little doubt that he is a figure unlike any other in the nation’s history. trump, the new york businessman and former reality tv show star, won the 2016 election after a campaign that defied norms and commanded public attention from the moment it began. his approach to governing was equally unconventional. other presidents tried to unify the nation after turning from the campaign trail to the white house. from his first days in washington to his last, trump seemed to revel in the political fight. he used his presidential megaphone to criticize a long list of perceived adversaries, from the news media to members of his own administration, elected officials in both political parties and foreign heads of state. the more than 26,000 tweets he sent as president provided an unvarnished, real time account of his thinking on a broad spectrum of issues and eventually proved so provocative that twitter permanently banned him from its platform. in his final days in office, trump became the first president ever to be impeached twice   the second time for inciting an insurrection at the u.s. capitol during the certification of the election he lost   and the nation’s first chief executive in more than 150 years to refuse to attend his successor’s inauguration. trump’s policy record included major changes at home and abroad. he achieved a string of long sought conservative victories domestically, including the biggest corporate tax cuts on record, the elimination of scores of environmental regulations and a reshaping of the federal judiciary. in the international arena, he imposed tough new immigration restrictions, withdrew from several multilateral agreements, forged closer ties with israel and launched a tit for tat trade dispute with china as part of a wider effort to address what he saw as glaring imbalances in america’s economic relationship with other countries. many questions about trump’s legacy and his role in the nation’s political future will take time to answer. but some takeaways from his presidency are already clear from pew research center’s studies in recent years. in this essay, we take a closer look at a few of the key societal shifts that accelerated   or emerged for the first time   during the tenure of the 45th president. related: how america changed during barack obama’s presidency this examination of how the united states changed during donald trump’s presidency is based on an analysis of public opinion survey data from pew research center, administrative data from government agencies, news reports and other sources. links to the original sources of data   including the field dates, sample sizes and methodologies of individual surveys by the center   are included wherever possible. unless otherwise noted, all references to republicans and democrats in this analysis include independents who lean to each party. trump’s status as a political outsider, his outspoken nature and his willingness to upend past customs and expectations of presidential behavior made him a constant focus of public attention, as well as a source of deep partisan divisions. even before he took office, trump divided republicans and democrats more than any incoming chief executive in the prior three decades.1 the gap only grew more pronounced after he became president. an average of 86% of republicans approved of trump’s handling of the job over the course of his tenure, compared with an average of just 6% of democrats   the widest partisan gap in approval for any president in the modern era of polling.2 trump’s overall approval rating never exceeded 50% and fell to a low of just 29% in his final weeks in office, shortly after a mob of his supporters attacked the capitol. republicans and democrats weren’t just divided over trump’s handling of the job. they also interpreted many aspects of his character and personality in fundamentally opposite ways. in a 2019 survey, at least three quarters of republicans said the president’s words sometimes or often made them feel hopeful, entertained, informed, happy and proud. even larger shares of democrats said his words sometimes or often made them feel concerned, exhausted, angry, insulted and confused. the strong reactions that trump provoked appeared in highly personal contexts, too. in a 2019 survey, 71% of democrats who were single and looking for a relationship said they would definitely or probably not consider being in a committed relationship with someone who had voted for trump in 2016. that far exceeded the 47% of single and looking republicans who said they would not consider being in a serious relationship with a hillary clinton voter. many americans opted not to talk about trump or politics at all. in 2019, almost half of u.s. adults (44%) said they wouldn’t feel comfortable talking about trump with someone they didn’t know well. a similar share (45%) said later that year that they had stopped talking politics with someone because of something that person had said. in addition to the intense divisions that emerged over trump personally, his tenure saw a further widening of the gulf between republicans and democrats over core political values and issues, including in areas that weren’t especially partisan before his arrival. in 1994, when pew research center began asking americans a series of 10 “values questions” on subjects including the role of government, environmental protection and national security, the average gap between republicans and democrats was 15 percentage points. by 2017, the first year of trump’s presidency, the average partisan gap on those same questions had more than doubled to 36 points, the result of a steady, decades long increase in polarization. on some issues, there were bigger changes in thinking among democrats than among republicans during trump’s presidency. that was especially the case on topics such as race and gender, which gained new attention amid the black lives matter and #metoo movements. in a 2020 survey that followed months of racial justice protests in the u.s., for instance, 70% of democrats said it is “a lot more difficult” to be a black person than to be a white person in the u.s. today, up from 53% who said the same thing just four years earlier. republican attitudes on the same question changed little during that span, with only a small share agreeing with the democratic view. on other issues, attitudes changed more among republicans than among democrats. one notable example related to views of higher education: between 2015 and 2017, the share of republicans who said colleges and universities were having a negative effect on the way things were going in the u.s. rose from 37% to 58%, even as around seven in ten democrats continued to say these institutions were having a positive effect. related: from #maga to #metoo: a look at u.s. public opinion in 2017 one of the few things that republicans and democrats could agree on during trump’s tenure is that they didn’t share the same set of facts. in a 2019 survey, around three quarters of americans (73%) said most republican and democratic voters disagreed not just over political plans and policies, but over “basic facts.” much of the disconnect between the parties involved the news media, which trump routinely disparaged as “fake news” and the “enemy of the people.” republicans, in particular, expressed widespread and growing distrust of the press. in a 2019 survey, republicans voiced more distrust than trust in 2o of the 30 specific news outlets they were asked about, even as democrats expressed more trust than distrust in 22 of those same outlets. republicans overwhelmingly turned to and trusted one outlet included in the study   fox news   even as democrats used and expressed trust in a wider range of sources. the study concluded that the two sides placed their trust in “two nearly inverse media environments.” some of the media organizations trump criticized most vocally saw the biggest increases in gop distrust over time. the share of republicans who said they distrusted cnn rose from 33% in a 2014 survey to 58% by 2019. the proportion of republicans who said they distrusted the washington post and the new york times rose 17 and 12 percentage points, respectively, during that span.3 in addition to their criticisms of specific news outlets, republicans also questioned the broader motives of the media. in surveys fielded over the course of 2018 and 2019, republicans were far less likely than democrats to say that journalists act in the best interests of the public, have high ethical standards, prevent political leaders from doing things they shouldn’t and deal fairly with all sides. trump’s staunchest gop supporters often had the most negative views: republicans who strongly approved of trump, for example, were much more likely than those who only somewhat approved or disapproved of him to say journalists have very low ethical standards. apart from the growing partisan polarization over the news media, trump’s time in office also saw the emergence of misinformation as a concerning new reality for many americans. half of u.s. adults said in 2019 that made up news and information was a very big problem in the country, exceeding the shares who said the same thing about racism, illegal immigration, terrorism and sexism. around two thirds said made up news and information had a big impact on public confidence in the government (68%), while half or more said it had a major effect on americans’ confidence in each other (54%) and political leaders’ ability to get work done (51%). misinformation played an important role in both the coronavirus pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. almost two thirds of u.s. adults (64%) said in april 2020 that they had seen at least some made up news and information about the pandemic, with around half (49%) saying this kind of misinformation had caused a great deal of confusion over the basic facts of the outbreak. in a survey in mid november 2020, six in ten adults said made up news and information had played a major role in the just concluded election. conspiracy theories were an especially salient form of misinformation during trump’s tenure, in many cases amplified by the president himself. for example, nearly half of americans (47%) said in september 2020 that they had heard or read a lot or a little about the collection of conspiracy theories known as qanon, up from 23% earlier in the year.4 most of those aware of qanon said trump seemed to support the theory’s promoters. trump frequently made disproven or questionable claims as president. news and fact checking organizations documented thousands of his false statements over four years, on subjects ranging from the coronavirus to the economy. perhaps none were more consequential than his repeated assertion of widespread fraud in the 2020 election he lost to democrat joe biden. even after courts around the country had rejected the claim and all 50 states had certified their results, trump continued to say he had won a “landslide” victory. the false claim gained widespread currency among his voters: in a january 2021 survey, three quarters of trump supporters incorrectly said he was definitely or probably the rightful winner of the election. throughout his tenure, donald trump questioned the legitimacy of democratic institutions, from the free press to the federal judiciary and the electoral process itself. in surveys conducted between 2016 and 2019, more than half of americans said trump had little or no respect for the nation’s democratic institutions and traditions, though these views, too, split sharply along partisan lines. the 2020 election brought concerns about democracy into much starker relief. even before the election, trump had cast doubt on the security of mail in voting and refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power in the event that he lost. when he did lose, he refused to publicly concede defeat, his campaign and allies filed dozens of unsuccessful lawsuits to challenge the results and trump personally pressured state government officials to retroactively tilt the outcome in his favor. the weeks of legal and political challenges culminated on jan. 6, 2021, when trump addressed a crowd of supporters at a rally outside the white house and again falsely claimed the election had been “stolen.” with congress meeting the same day to certify biden’s win, trump supporters stormed the capitol in an attack that left five people dead and forced lawmakers to be evacuated until order could be restored and the certification could be completed. the house of representatives impeached trump a week later on a charge of inciting the violence, with 10 republicans joining 222 democrats in support of the decision. most americans placed at least some blame on trump for the riot at the capitol, including 52% who said he bore a lot of responsibility for it. again, however, partisans’ views differed widely: 81% of democrats said trump bore a lot of responsibility, compared with just 18% of republicans. even as he repeatedly cast doubt on the democratic process, trump proved to be an enormously galvanizing figure at the polls. nearly 160 million americans voted in 2020, the highest estimated turnout rate among eligible voters in 120 years, despite widespread changes in voting procedures brought on by the pandemic. biden received more than 81 million votes and trump received more than 74 million, the highest and second highest totals in u.s. history. turnout in the 2018 midterm election, the first after trump took office, also set a modern day record. pew research center surveys catalogued the high stakes that voters perceived, particularly in the run up to the 2020 election. just before the election, around nine in ten trump and biden supporters said there would be “lasting harm” to the nation if the other candidate won, and around eight in ten in each group said they disagreed with the other side not just on political priorities, but on “core american values and goals.” earlier in the year, 83% of registered voters said it “really mattered” who won the election, the highest percentage for any presidential election in at least two decades. trump himself was a clear motivating factor for voters on both sides: 71% of trump supporters said before the election that their choice was more of a vote for the president than against biden, while 63% of biden supporters said their choice was more of a vote against trump than for his opponent. racial tensions were a constant undercurrent during trump’s presidency, often intensified by the public statements he made in response to high profile incidents. the death of george floyd, in particular, brought race to the surface in a way that few other recent events have. the videotaped killing of the unarmed, 46 year old black man by a white police officer in minneapolis was among several police killings that sparked national and international protests in 2020 and led to an outpouring of public support for the black lives matter movement, including from corporations, universities and other institutions. in a survey shortly after floyd’s death in may, two thirds of u.s. adults   including majorities across all major racial and ethnic groups   voiced support for the movement, and use of the #blacklivesmatter hashtag surged to a record high on twitter. attitudes began to change as the protests wore on and sometimes turned violent, drawing sharp condemnation from trump. by september, support for the black lives matter movement had slipped to 55%   largely due to decreases among white adults   and many americans questioned whether the nation’s renewed focus on race would lead to changes to address racial inequality or improve the lives of black people. race related tensions erupted into public view earlier in trump’s tenure, too. in 2017, white nationalists rallied in charlottesville, virginia, to protest the removal of a confederate statue amid a broader push to eliminate such memorials from public spaces across the country. the rally led to violent clashes in the city’s streets and the death of a 32 year old woman when a white nationalist deliberately drove a car into a crowd of people. tensions also arose in the national football league as some players protested racial injustices in the u.s. by kneeling during the national anthem. the display prompted a backlash among some who saw it as disrespectful to the american flag. in all of these controversies and others, trump weighed in from the white house, but typically not in a way that most americans saw as helpful. in a summer 2020 survey, for example, six in ten u.s. adults said trump had delivered the wrong message in response to the protests over floyd’s killing. that included around four in ten adults (39%) who said trump had delivered the completely wrong message. more broadly, americans viewed trump’s impact on race relations as far more negative than positive. in an early 2019 poll, 56% of adults said trump had made race relations worse since taking office, compared with only 15% who said he had made progress toward improving relations. in the same survey, around two thirds of adults (65%) said it had become more common for people in the u.s. to express racist or racially insensitive views since his election. the public also perceived trump as too close with white nationalist groups. in 2019, a majority of adults (56%) said he had done too little to distance himself from these groups, while 29% said he had done about the right amount and 7% said he had done too much. these opinions were nearly the same as in december 2016, before he took office. while americans overall gave trump much more negative than positive marks for his handling of race relations, there were consistent divisions along racial, ethnic and partisan lines. black, hispanic and asian adults were often more critical of trump’s impact on race relations than white adults, as were democrats when compared with republicans. for example, while an overwhelming majority of democrats (83%) said in 2019 that trump had done too little to distance himself from white nationalist groups, a majority of republicans (56%) said he had done about the right amount. white republicans, in particular, rejected the idea of widespread structural racism in the u.s. and saw too much emphasis on race. in september 2020, around eight in ten white republicans (79%) said the bigger problem was people seeing racial discrimination where it doesn’t exist, rather than people not seeing discrimination where it really does exist. the opinions of white democrats on the same question were nearly the reverse. every presidency is shaped by outside events, and trump’s will undoubtedly be remembered for the enormous toll the coronavirus pandemic took on the nation’s public health and economy. more than 400,000 americans died from covid 19 between the beginning of the pandemic and when trump left office, with fatality counts sometimes exceeding 4,000 people a day   a toll more severe than the overall toll of the terrorist attacks of sept. 11, 2001, or the bombing of pearl harbor on dec. 7, 1941. trump himself contracted the coronavirus in the home stretch of his campaign for reelection, as did dozens of white house and campaign staff and members of his family. the far reaching public health effects of the virus were reflected in a survey in november 2020, when more than half of u.s. adults (54%) said they personally knew someone who had been hospitalized or died due to covid 19. the shares were even higher among black (71%) and hispanic (61%) adults. at the same time, the pandemic had a disastrous effect on the economy. trump and barack obama together had presided over the longest economic expansion in american history, with the u.s. unemployment rate at a 50 year low of 3.5% as recently as february 2020. by april 2020, with businesses around the country closing their doors to prevent the spread of the virus, unemployment had soared to a post world war ii high of 14.8%. even after considerable employment gains later in the year, trump was the first modern president to leave the white house with fewer jobs in the u.s. than when he took office. the economic consequences of the virus, like its public health repercussions, hit some americans harder than others. many upper income workers were able to continue doing their jobs remotely during the outbreak, even as lower income workers suffered widespread job losses and pay cuts. the remarkable resiliency of u.s. stock markets was a rare bright spot during the downturn, but one that had its own implications for economic inequality: going into the outbreak, upper income adults were far more likely than lower income adults to be invested in the market. the pandemic clearly underscored and exacerbated america’s partisan divisions. democrats were consistently much more likely than republicans to see the virus as a major threat to public health, while republicans were far more likely than democrats to see it as exaggerated and overblown. the two sides disagreed on public health strategies ranging from mask wearing to contact tracing. the outbreak also had important consequences for america’s image in the world. international views of the u.s. had already plummeted after trump took office in 2017, but attitudes turned even more negative amid a widespread perception that the u.s. had mishandled the initial outbreak. the share of people with a favorable opinion of the u.s. fell in 2020 to record or near record lows in canada, france, germany, japan, the united kingdom and other countries. across all 13 nations surveyed, a median of just 15% of adults said the u.s. had done a good job responding to covid 19, well below the median share who said the same thing about their own country, the world health organization, the european union and china. at a much more personal level, many americans expected the coronavirus outbreak to have a lasting impact on them. in an august 2020 survey, 51% of u.s. adults said they expected their lives to remain changed in major ways even after the pandemic is over. the aftershocks of donald trump’s one of a kind presidency will take years to place into full historical context. it remains to be seen, for example, whether his disruptive brand of politics will be adopted by other candidates for office in the u.s., whether other politicians can activate the same coalition of voters he energized and whether his positions on free trade, immigration and other issues will be reflected in government policy in the years to come. some of the most pressing questions, particularly in the aftermath of the attack on the capitol and trump’s subsequent bipartisan impeachment, concern the future of the republican party. some republicans have moved away from trump, but many others have continued to fight on his behalf, including by voting to reject the electoral votes of two states won by biden. the gop’s direction could depend to a considerable degree on what trump does next. around two thirds of americans (68%) said in january 2021 that they would not like to see trump continue to be a major political figure in the years to come, but republicans were divided by ideology. more than half of self described moderate and liberal republicans (56%) said they preferred for him to exit the political stage, while 68% of conservatives said they wanted him to remain a national political figure for many years to come. for his part, joe biden has some advantages as he begins his tenure. democrats have majorities   albeit extraordinarily narrow ones   in both legislative chambers of congress. other recent periods of single party control in washington have resulted in the enactment of major legislation, such as the $1.5 trillion tax cut package that trump signed in 2017 or the health care overhaul that obama signed in 2010. biden begins his presidency with generally positive assessments from the american public about his cabinet appointments and the job he has done explaining his policies and plans for the future. early surveys show that he inspires broad confidence among people in three european countries that have long been important american allies: france, germany and the uk. still, the new administration faces obvious challenges on many fronts. the coronavirus pandemic will continue in the months ahead as the vast majority of americans remain unvaccinated. the economy is likely to struggle until the outbreak is under control. polarization in the u.s. is not likely to change dramatically, nor is the partisan gulf in views of the news media or the spread of misinformation in the age of social media. the global challenges of climate change and nuclear proliferation remain stark. the nation’s 46th president has vowed to unite the country as he moves forward with his policy agenda. few would question the formidable nature of the task. title photo: president donald trump and first lady melania trump board air force one for his last time as president on jan. 20, 2021. (pete marovich pool/getty images) 901 e st. nw, suite 300washington, dc 20004usa(+1) 202 419 4300 | main(+1) 202 857 8562 | fax(+1) 202 419 4372 | media inquiries about pew research center pew research center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. it does not take policy positions. the center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data driven research. pew research center is a subsidiary of the pew charitable trusts, its primary funder. © 2025 pew research center

thomas edmund dewey (march 24, 1902   march 16, 1971) was an american lawyer and politician who served as the 47th governor of new york from 1943 to 1954. he was the republican party's nominee for president of the united states in 1944 and 1948, losing former election to franklin d. roosevelt, and the latter election to harry s. truman in a major upset. the 288 combined electoral votes dewey received from both elections place him second behind william jennings bryan as the candidate with the most electoral votes who never acceded to the presidency. as a new york city prosecutor and district attorney in the 1930s and early 1940s, dewey was relentless in his effort to curb the power of the american mafia and of organized crime in general. most famously, he successfully prosecuted mafia boss charles "lucky" luciano on charges of forced prostitution in 1936. luciano was given a 30  to 50 year prison sentence. he also prosecuted and convicted waxey gordon, another prominent new york city gangster and bootlegger, on charges of tax evasion. dewey almost succeeded in apprehending mobster dutch schultz as well, but schultz was murdered in 1935, in a hit ordered by the commission. a progressive conservative,[1] dewey led the moderate faction of the republican party during the 1940s, and 1950s, in opposition to the more conservative ohio senator robert a. taft. dewey was an advocate for the professional and business community of the northeastern united states, which would later be called the eastern establishment. this group consisted of internationalists who were in favor of the united nations and the cold war fight against communism and the soviet union, and it supported most of the new deal social welfare reforms enacted during the administration of democrat franklin d. roosevelt. dewey served as the 47th governor of new york from 1943 to 1954. in 1944, he was the republican party's nominee for the presidency, but lost the election to incumbent franklin d. roosevelt in the closest of roosevelt's four presidential elections.[2] dewey won the republican presidential nomination again in 1948; defeating harold stassen on his left and robert a. taft on his right. however, he lost to president harry s. truman in one of the greatest upsets in presidential election history.[3] dewey played a large role in winning the republican presidential nomination for dwight d. eisenhower in 1952, helping eisenhower win the presidential election that year.[4] he also played a large part in the choice of richard nixon as the republican vice presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956.[5] he was the first major party nominee for president of the greatest generation, and the first to have been born in the 20th century. following his political retirement, dewey served from 1955 to 1971 as a corporate lawyer and senior partner in his law firm dewey ballantine in new york city. in march 1971, while on a golfing vacation in miami, florida, he died from a heart attack. following a public memorial ceremony at st. james' episcopal church in new york city, dewey was buried in the town cemetery of pawling, new york. dewey was born and raised in owosso, michigan, where his father, george martin dewey, owned, edited, and published the local newspaper, the owosso times.[6] his mother, annie (thomas), whom he called "mater", bequeathed her son "a healthy respect for common sense and the average man or woman who possessed it." she also left "a headstrong assertiveness that many took for conceit, a set of small town values never entirely erased by exposure to the sophisticated east, and a sense of proportion that moderated triumph and eased defeat."[7] one journalist noted that as a boy "he did show leadership and ambition above the average; by the time he was thirteen, he had a crew of nine other youngsters working for him" selling newspapers and magazines in owosso.[8] in his senior year in high school he served as the president of his class, and was the chief editor of the school yearbook.[9] his senior caption in the yearbook stated "first in the council hall to steer the state, and ever foremost in a tongue debate", and a biographer wrote that "the bent of his mind, from his earliest days, was towards debate."[8] he received his b.a. degree from the university of michigan in 1923, and his ll.b. degree from columbia law school in 1925.[10][11] while at the university of michigan dewey joined phi mu alpha sinfonia, a national fraternity for men of music, and was a member of the men's glee club. while growing up in owosso he was a member of the choir at christ episcopal church.[9] he was an excellent singer with a deep, baritone voice, and in 1923 he finished in third place in the national singing contest.[12] he briefly considered a career as a professional singer but decided against it after a temporary throat ailment convinced him that such a career would be risky. he then decided to pursue a career as a lawyer.[13] he also wrote for the michigan daily, the university's student newspaper.[14] on june 16, 1928, dewey married frances eileen hutt.[15] they met in chicago in 1923, when dewey took singing lessons during a summer course offered by percy rector stephens, for whom hutt worked as a secretary.[15] a native of sherman, texas who was raised in sherman and in sapulpa, oklahoma, she was valedictorian of her 1920 high school class.[15] hutt was a singer and stage actress; after their marriage she dropped her acting career.[16] they had two sons, thomas e. dewey jr. and john martin dewey. although dewey served as a prosecutor and district attorney in new york city for many years, his home from 1939 until his death was a large farm, called "dapplemere," located near the town of pawling some 65 miles (105 km) north of new york city.[17] according to biographer richard norton smith, dewey "loved dapplemere as [he did] no other place", and dewey was once quoted as saying that "i work like a horse five days and five nights a week for the privilege of getting to the country on the weekend."[18] in 1945, dewey told a reporter that "my farm is my roots ... the heart of this nation is the rural small town."[19] dapplemere was part of a tight knit rural community called quaker hill, which was known as a haven for the prominent and well to do. among dewey's neighbors on quaker hill were the famous reporter and radio broadcaster lowell thomas, the reverend norman vincent peale, and the legendary cbs news journalist edward r. murrow.[20] during his twelve years as governor, dewey also kept a new york city residence and office in suite 1527 of the roosevelt hotel.[21] dewey was an active, lifelong member of the episcopal church.[22] dewey was a lifelong republican, and in the 1920s and 1930s, he was a party worker in new york city, eventually rising to become chair of the new york young republican club in 1931.[23] when asked in 1946, why he was a republican, dewey replied, "i believe that the republican party is the best instrument for bringing sound government into the hands of competent men and by this means preserving our liberties ... but there is another reason why i am a republican. i was born one."[23] dewey first served as a federal prosecutor, then started a lucrative private practice on wall street; however, he left his practice for an appointment as special prosecutor to look into corruption in new york city with the official title of chief assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york.[24] it was in this role that he first achieved headlines in the early 1930s, when he prosecuted bootlegger waxey gordon.[25] dewey had used his excellent recall of details of crimes to trip up witnesses as a federal prosecutor; as a state prosecutor, he used telephone taps (which were perfectly legal at the time per olmstead v. united states of 1928) to gather evidence, with the ultimate goal of bringing down entire criminal organizations.[24] on that account, dewey successfully lobbied for an overhaul in new york's criminal procedure law, which at that time required separate trials for each count of an indictment.[24] dewey's thoroughness and attention to detail became legendary; for one case he and his staff sifted "through 100,000 telephone slips to convict a prohibition era bootlegger."[26] dewey became famous in 1935, when he was appointed special prosecutor in new york county (manhattan) by governor herbert h. lehman.[27] a "runaway grand jury" had publicly complained that william c. dodge, the district attorney, was not aggressively pursuing the mob and political corruption. lehman, to avoid charges of partisanship, asked four prominent republicans to serve as special prosecutor. all four refused and recommended dewey.[28] dewey moved ahead vigorously. he recruited a staff of over 60 assistants, investigators, process servers, stenographers, and clerks. new york mayor fiorello h. la guardia assigned a hand picked squad of 63 police officers to dewey's office. dewey's targets were organized racketeering: the large scale criminal enterprises, especially extortion, the "numbers racket" and prostitution. one writer stated that "dewey ... put on a very impressive show. all the paraphernalia, the hideouts and tapped telephones and so on, became famous. more than any other american of his generation except [charles] lindbergh, dewey became a creature of folklore and a national hero. what he appealed to most was the great american love of results. people were much more interested in his ends than in his means. another key to all this may be expressed in a single word: honesty. dewey was honest."[29] one of his biggest prizes was gangster dutch schultz, whom he had battled as both a federal and state prosecutor. schultz's first trial ended in a deadlock; prior to his second trial, schultz had the venue moved to malone, new york, then moved there and garnered the sympathy of the townspeople through charitable acts so that when it came time for his trial, the jury found him innocent, liking him too much to convict him.[24] dewey and la guardia threatened schultz with instant arrest and further charges. schultz now proposed to murder dewey. dewey would be killed while he made his daily morning call to his office from a pay phone near his home.[24] however, new york crime boss lucky luciano and the "mafia commission" decided that dewey's murder would provoke an all out crackdown. instead they had schultz killed.[24] schultz was shot to death in the restroom of a bar in newark.[30] dewey's legal team turned their attention to lucky luciano. assistant da eunice carter oversaw investigations into prostitution racketeering. she raided 80 houses of prostitution in the new york city area and arrested hundreds of prostitutes and "madams". carter had developed trust with many of these women, and through her coaching, many of the arrested prostitutes   some of whom told of being beaten and abused by mafia thugs   were willing to testify to avoid prison time.[31] three implicated luciano as controller of organized prostitution in the new york/new jersey area   one of the largest prostitution rings in american history.[24] carter's investigation was the first to link luciano to a crime. dewey prosecuted the case, and in the greatest victory of his legal career, he won the conviction of luciano for the prostitution racket, with a sentence of 30 to 50 years on june 18, 1936.[32][33][34] in january 1937, dewey successfully prosecuted tootsie herbert, the leader of new york's poultry racket, for embezzlement. following his conviction, new york's poultry "marketplace returned to normal, and new york consumers saved $5 million in 1938 alone."[35] that same month, dewey, his staff, and new york city police made a series of dramatic raids that led to the arrest of 65 of new york's leading operators in various rackets, including the bakery racket, numbers racket, and restaurant racket.[36] the new york times ran an editorial praising dewey for breaking up the "shadow government" of new york's racketeers, and the philadelphia inquirer wrote "if you don't think dewey is public hero no. 1, listen to the applause he gets every time he is shown in a newsreel."[37] in 1936, dewey received the hundred year association of new york's gold medal award "in recognition of outstanding contributions to the city of new york". in 1937, dewey was elected new york county district attorney (manhattan), defeating the democratic nominee after dodge decided not to run for re election.[38] dewey was such a popular candidate for district attorney that "election officials in brooklyn posted large signs at polling places reading 'dewey isn't running in this county'."[39] as district attorney, dewey successfully prosecuted and convicted richard whitney, former president of the new york stock exchange, for embezzlement. whitney was given a five year prison sentence.[40] dewey also successfully prosecuted tammany hall political boss james joseph hines on thirteen counts of racketeering. following the favorable national publicity he received after his conviction of hines, a may 1939 gallup poll showed dewey as the frontrunner for the 1940 republican presidential nomination, and gave him a lead of 58% to 42% over president franklin d. roosevelt in a potential 1940 presidential campaign.[41] in 1939, dewey also tried and convicted american nazi leader fritz julius kuhn for embezzlement, crippling kuhn's organization and limiting its ability to support nazi germany in world war ii. during his four years as district attorney, dewey and his staff compiled a 94 percent conviction rate of defendants brought to trial,[42] created new bureaus for fraud, rackets, and juvenile detention, and led an investigation into tenement houses with inadequate fire safety features that reduced "their number from 13,000 to 3,500" in a single year.[43] when he left the district attorney's office in 1942 to run for governor, dewey said that "it has been learned in high places that clean government can also be good politics...i don't like republican thieves any more than democratic ones."[44] by the late 1930s dewey's successful efforts against organized crime and especially his conviction of lucky luciano had turned him into a national celebrity. his nickname, the "gangbuster", was used for the popular 1930s gang busters radio series based on his fight against the mob. hollywood film studios made several movies inspired by his exploits; marked woman starred humphrey bogart as a dewey like da and bette davis as a "party girl" whose testimony helps convict the mob boss.[45] a popular story from the time, possibly apocryphal, featured a young girl who told her father that she wanted to sue god to stop a prolonged spell of rain. when her father replied "you can't sue god and win", the girl said "i can if dewey is my lawyer."[46] in 1984, journalists neal peirce and jerry hagstrom summarized dewey's governorship by saying, "for sheer administrative talent, it is difficult to think of a twentieth century governor who has excelled thomas e. dewey ... hundreds of thousands of new york youngsters owe dewey thanks for his leadership in creating a state university ... a vigorous health department program virtually eradicated tuberculosis in new york, highway building was pushed forward, and the state's mental hygiene program was thoroughly reorganized."[47] dewey also created a powerful political organization that allowed him to dominate new york state politics and influence national politics. in 1938 edwin jaeckle, the new york republican party chairman, selected dewey to run for governor of new york against the democratic incumbent, herbert h. lehman. dewey was only 36 years of age. he based his campaign on his record as a famous prosecutor of organized crime figures in new york city. although he was defeated, dewey's surprisingly strong showing against the popular lehman (he lost by only 1.4%) brought him national political attention and made him a front runner for the 1940 republican presidential nomination.[48] jaeckle was one of dewey's top advisors and mentors for the remainder of his political career. in 1942, dewey ran for governor again and won with a large plurality over democrat john j. bennett jr., the outgoing state attorney general. bennett was not endorsed by the american labor party, whose candidate, dean alfange, drew almost 10 percent of the ballots cast. the alp endorsed for re election incumbent lieutenant governor charles poletti, who lost narrowly to dewey's running mate thomas w. wallace. in 1946, dewey was re elected by the greatest margin in state history to that point, almost 700,000 votes.[49] in 1950, he was elected to a third term by 572,000 votes.[50] remembered as "an odd mix, a pay as you go liberal and a compassionate conservative"[51] and usually regarded as an honest and highly effective governor, dewey doubled state aid to education, increased salaries for state employees and still reduced the state's debt by over $100 million. he referred to his program as "pay as you go liberalism ... government can be progressive and solvent at the same time."[52] additionally he put through the ives quinn act of 1945, the first state law in the country that prohibited racial discrimination in employment. as governor, dewey signed legislation that created the state university of new york. shortly after becoming governor in 1943, dewey learned that some state workers and teachers were being paid only $900 a year, leading him to give "hefty raises, some as high as 150%" to state workers and teachers.[53] dewey played a leading role in securing support and funding for the new york state thruway, which was eventually named in his honor.[54] dewey also streamlined and consolidated many state agencies to make them more efficient.[55] during the second world war construction in new york was limited, which allowed dewey to create a $623 million budget surplus, which he placed into his "postwar reconstruction fund." the fund would eventually create 14,000 new beds in the state's mental health system, provide public housing for 30,000 families, allow for the reforestation of 34 million trees, create a water pollution program, provide slum clearance, and pay for a "model veterans' program."[53] his governorship was also "friendlier by far than his [democratic] predecessors to the private sector", as dewey created a state department of commerce to "lure new businesses and tourists to the empire state, ease the shift from wartime boom, and steer small businessmen, in particular, through the maze of federal regulation and restriction."[39] between 1945 and 1948, 135,000 new businesses were started in new york.[39] dewey supported the decision of the new york legislature to end state funding for child care centers, which were established during the war.[56] the child care centers allowed mothers to participate in wartime industries. the state was forced to provide funding for local communities that could not obtain money under the lanham act.[57] although working mothers, helped by various civic and social groups, fought to retain funding, federal support for child care facilities was considered temporary and ended on march 1, 1946.[58] new york state aid to child care ended on january 1, 1948.[57] when protesters asked dewey to keep the child care centers open, he called them "communists".[56] he strongly supported the death penalty. during his twelve years as governor, more than ninety people were electrocuted under new york authority. among these were several of the mob affiliated hitmen belonging to the murder for hire group murder, inc., which was headed up by major mob leaders louis "lepke" buchalter and albert anastasia. buchalter himself went to the chair in 1944. according to one study dewey was a fiscal conservative but believed that republicans should not attempt to repeal the new deal; rather, they should advance competing social welfare programs that emphasized individual freedom and economic incentives instead of the democrats' tendency towards centralization and collectivism.[59] a dewey biographer said of dewey that "no doubt he was a conservative", but "he was also realistic."[51] dewey sought the 1940 republican presidential nomination. he was considered the early favorite for the nomination, but his support ebbed in the late spring of 1940 as nazi germany invaded its neighbors, and americans feared being drawn into another european war. some republican leaders considered dewey to be too young (at 38, just three years above the minimum age required by the us constitution) and too inexperienced to lead the nation in wartime. furthermore, dewey's non interventionist stance became problematic when germany quickly conquered france and seemed poised to invade britain. as a result, at the 1940 republican national convention many delegates switched from dewey to wendell willkie, who was a decade older and supported aid to the allies fighting germany. dewey led on the first ballot, but was well below the vote total he needed to win. he steadily lost strength to willkie in succeeding ballots, and willkie was nominated on the convention's sixth ballot. willkie lost to franklin d. roosevelt in the general election.[60] dewey's foreign policy position evolved during the 1940s; by 1944 he was considered an internationalist and a supporter of projects such as the united nations. it was in 1940 that dewey first clashed with robert a. taft. taft who maintained his non interventionist views and economic conservatism to his death became dewey's great rival for control of the republican party in the 1940s and early 1950s. dewey became the leader of moderate republicans, who were based in the eastern states, while taft became the leader of conservative republicans who dominated most of the midwest.[61] dewey was the frontrunner for the 1944 republican nomination.[62] in april 1944 he won the key wisconsin primary, where he defeated wendell willkie and former minnesota governor harold stassen. willkie's poor showing in wisconsin forced him to quit the race and he died later that year.[63] at the 1944 republican convention, dewey's chief rivals stassen and ohio governor john w. bricker both withdrew and dewey was nominated almost unanimously. dewey then made bricker (who was supported by taft) his running mate. this made dewey the first presidential candidate to be born in the 20th century. as of 2021, he was also the youngest republican presidential nominee.[64] in the general election campaign, dewey crusaded against the alleged inefficiencies, corruption and communist influences in incumbent president roosevelt's new deal programs, but mostly avoided military and foreign policy debates. dewey had considered including the conspiracy theory that roosevelt knew about the attack on pearl harbor beforehand and allowed it to happen and to say: "... and instead of being re elected he should be impeached."[citation needed] the allegation would have suggested the then secret fact that the u.s. had broken the purple code still in use by the japanese military. dewey eventually yielded to army chief of staff george c. marshall's urging not to touch this topic.[65] marshall informed harry hopkins of his action in late october that year; hopkins then told the president. roosevelt reasoned that "dewey would not, for political purposes, give secret and vital information to the enemy".[66] during the campaign, in a first, roosevelt provided dewey with information on the war efforts, such as the breaking of japanese naval code.[67][68] this was the first time that an opposition presidential candidate was given briefings by the incumbent presidential administration.[68] dewey lost the election on november 7, 1944, to president roosevelt. he had polled 45.9% of the popular vote compared to roosevelt's 53.4%, a stronger showing against fdr than any previous republican opponent. in the electoral college, roosevelt defeated dewey by a margin of 432 to 99. dewey was the republican candidate again in the 1948 presidential election, with california governor earl warren on the bottom half of the ticket. dewey was almost unanimously projected to win against incumbent harry s. truman, who had taken over from fdr when he died in office in 1945. during the primaries, dewey was repeatedly urged to engage in red baiting, but he refused. in a debate before the oregon primary with harold stassen, dewey argued against outlawing the communist party of the united states of america, saying "you can't shoot an idea with a gun." he later told styles bridges, the republican national campaign manager, that he was not "going around looking under beds".[69] given truman's sinking popularity and the democratic party's three way split (the left winger henry a. wallace and the southern segregationist strom thurmond ran third party campaigns), dewey seemed unbeatable to the point that the republicans believed that all they had to do to win was to avoid making any major mistakes. following this advice, dewey carefully avoided risks and spoke in platitudes, avoiding controversial issues, and remained vague on what he planned to do as president, with speech after speech being nonpartisan and also filled with optimistic assertions or empty statements of the obvious, including the famous quote: "you know that your future is still ahead of you." an editorial in the louisville courier journal summed it up: no presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: agriculture is important. our rivers are full of fish. you cannot have freedom without liberty. our future lies ahead.[70] another reason dewey ran such a cautious, vague campaign came from his experience as a presidential candidate in 1944, where dewey felt that he had allowed roosevelt to draw him into a partisan, verbal "mudslinging" match, and he believed that this had cost him votes. dewey was accordingly convinced in 1948 to appear as non partisan as possible, and to emphasize the positive aspects of his campaign while ignoring his opponent: this strategy proved to be a total failure, as it allowed truman to repeatedly criticize and ridicule dewey, who never answered any of truman's criticisms.[71] although dewey was not as conservative as the republican controlled 80th congress, the association proved problematic, as truman tied dewey to the "do nothing" congress. near the end of the campaign, dewey considered adopting a more aggressive style and responding directly to truman's criticisms, going so far as to tell his aides one evening that he wanted to "tear to shreds" a speech draft and make it more critical of the democratic ticket.[72] however, nearly all his major advisors insisted that it would be a mistake to change tactics. dewey's wife frances strongly opposed her husband changing tactics, telling him, "if i have to stay up all night to see that you don't tear up that speech [draft], i will."[72] dewey relented and continued to ignore truman's attacks and to focus on positive generalities instead of specific issues.[73] the chicago daily tribune printed "dewey defeats truman" as its post election headline, issuing 150,000 copies[74] before the returns showed truman winning. dewey received 45.1% of the popular vote to truman's 49.6%.[75] in the electoral college, dewey won 16 states with 189 electoral votes, truman 28 states with 303 electoral votes, and thurmond four states (all in the south) with 39 electoral votes.[75] the key states in the election were illinois, california, and ohio, which together had a combined 78 electoral votes. truman won each of these three states by less than one percentage point; had dewey won all three states, he would have won the election in the electoral college, and if he had any two, this would have forced a contingent election in the house of representatives.[76] summarizing dewey's campaign, a biographer wrote that "dewey had swept the industrial northeast, pared democratic margins in the big cities by a third, run better than any republican since herbert hoover in the south, and still lost decisively."[77] after the election, dewey told publisher henry luce that "you can analyze figures from now to kingdom come, and all they will show is that we lost the farm vote which we had in 1944 and that lost us the election."[78] a biographer noted that dewey "rarely mentioned 1948 in the years thereafter. it was like a locked room in a musty mansion whose master never entered ... he seemed a bit bewildered at the unanimous front put up by his albany advisers [during the campaign], regretted not having taken a final poll when his own senses detected slippage, and couldn't resist a potshot at "that bastard truman" for having successfully exploited farmers' fears of a new depression."[79] pre election planning by dewey and his advisors for a potential presidential transition was much greater in 1948 than in any previous election cycle, and included selection by dewey of potential cabinet officers. though these efforts were ridiculed after dewey was defeated, pre election transition planning later became standard practice.[67] dewey did not run for president in 1952, but he played a key role in securing the republican nomination for general dwight d. eisenhower. taft was a candidate and, given his age, he freely admitted 1952 would be his last chance to win the presidency. once eisenhower became a candidate, dewey used his powerful political machine to win eisenhower the support of delegates in new york and elsewhere. the 1952 campaign culminated in a climactic moment in the fierce rivalry between dewey and taft for control of the republican party. at the republican convention, pro taft delegates and speakers verbally attacked dewey as the real power behind eisenhower, but dewey had the satisfaction of seeing eisenhower win the nomination and end taft's presidential hopes for the last time.[80] dewey played a major role in helping california senator richard nixon become eisenhower's running mate. when eisenhower won the presidency later that year, many of dewey's closest aides and advisors became leading figures in the eisenhower administration. among them were herbert brownell, who would become eisenhower's attorney general; james hagerty, who would become white house press secretary; and john foster dulles, who would become eisenhower's secretary of state. dewey's campaign to secure the nomination for eisenhower saw dewey at odds with his two running mates. 1948 vice presidential nominee warren was a candidate for the presidential nomination,[81] while 1944 running mate john w. bricker backed taft.[82] dewey's biographer richard norton smith wrote, "for fifteen years ... these two combatants waged political warfare. their dispute pitted east against midwest, city against countryside, internationalist against isolationist, pragmatic liberals against principled conservatives. each man thought himself the genuine spokesman of the future; each denounced the other as a political heretic." in a 1949 speech, dewey criticized taft and his followers by saying that "we have in our party some fine, high minded patriotic people who honestly oppose farm price supports, unemployment insurance, old age benefits, slum clearance, and other social programs... these people believe in a laissez faire society and look back wistfully to the miscalled 'good old days' of the nineteenth century... if such efforts to turn back the clock are actually pursued, you can bury the republican party as the deadest pigeon in the country." he added that people who opposed such social programs should "go out and try to get elected in a typical american community and see what happens to them. but they ought not to do it as republicans."[83] in the speech, dewey added that the republican party believed in social progress "under a flourishing, competitive system of private enterprise where every human right is expanded ... we are opposed to delivering the nation into the hands of any group who will have the power to tell the american people whether they may have food or fuel, shelter or jobs."[84] dewey believed in what he called "compassionate capitalism", and argued that "in the modern age, man's needs include as much economic security as is consistent with individual freedom."[85] when taft and his supporters criticized dewey's policies as liberal "me tooism", or "aping the new deal in a vain attempt to outbid roosevelt's heirs", dewey responded that he was following in the tradition of republicans such as abraham lincoln and theodore roosevelt, and that "it was conservative reforms like anti trust laws and federal regulation of railroads ... that retained the allegiance of the people for a capitalist system combining private incentive and public conscience."[85] his rivalry with taft notwithstanding, dewey nevertheless went surreptitiously to the hospital in 1953 to visit with taft when the latter was gravely ill. the two talked for half an hour, and afterward taft joked that "tom came around to see whether i am really out of the running."[86] in may 1953, governor dewey set up a nine member advisory board to help the state safety division's bureau of safety and accident prevention and appointed edward burton hughes (the deputy new york state superintendent of public works) as chairman.[87] the advisory board was formed to draft accident prevention policies and programs. dewey's third term as governor of new york expired at the end of 1954, after which he retired from public service and returned to his law practice, dewey ballantine, although he remained a power broker behind the scenes in the republican party. in 1956, when eisenhower mulled not running for a second term, he suggested dewey as his choice as successor, but party leaders made it plain that they would not entrust the nomination to dewey yet again, and ultimately eisenhower decided to run for re election. dewey also played a major role that year in convincing eisenhower to keep nixon as his running mate; eisenhower had considered dropping nixon from the republican ticket and picking someone he felt would be less partisan and controversial. however, dewey argued that dropping nixon from the ticket would only anger republican voters while winning eisenhower few votes from the democrats. dewey's arguments helped convince eisenhower to keep nixon on the ticket. in 1960, dewey would strongly support nixon's ultimately unsuccessful presidential campaign against democrat john f. kennedy.[88] although dewey publicly supported nelson rockefeller in all four of his campaigns for governor of new york, and backed rockefeller in his losing 1964 bid for the republican presidential nomination against arizona senator barry goldwater, he did privately express concern and disappointment with what he regarded as rockefeller's "spendthrift" methods as governor, and once told him "i like you nelson, but i don't think i can afford you."[89] in 1968, when both rockefeller and nixon were competing for the republican presidential nomination, dewey was publicly neutral, but "privately, according to close friends, he favored nixon."[90] by the 1960s, as the conservative wing assumed more and more power within the republican party, dewey removed himself further and further from party matters. when the republicans in 1964 gave the conservative senator goldwater their presidential nomination, dewey declined to even attend the republican convention in san francisco; it was the first republican convention he had missed since 1936. still, however, he did publicly support goldwater for president in the election.[91] although closely identified with the republican party for virtually his entire adult life, dewey was a close friend of democratic senator hubert h. humphrey, and dewey aided humphrey in being named as the democratic nominee for vice president in 1964, advising president lyndon johnson on ways to block efforts at the party convention by kennedy loyalists to stampede robert f. kennedy onto the ticket as johnson's running mate. in the mid 1960s, president johnson tried to convince dewey to accept positions on several government commissions, especially a national crime commission, which johnson wanted dewey to chair.[92] after nixon won the presidency in 1968, there were rumors that dewey would be offered a cabinet position, or a seat on the u.s. supreme court.[93] however, dewey declined all offers to return to government service, preferring instead to concentrate on his highly profitable law firm.[93] by the early 1960s, his share of the firm's profits had made him a millionaire, and his net worth at the time of his death was estimated at over $3 million (or over $23 million in 2023 dollars).[94][95] dewey was offered the position of chief justice of the united states twice, first by dwight d. eisenhower in 1953 and again by richard nixon in 1969.[93] he declined the offer both times.[96] two years after the 1948 campaign, harry s. truman offered dewey the position of united states ambassador to the united kingdom. however, he declined the offer.[97] dewey's wife frances died in july 1970, six years after being diagnosed with breast cancer.[98][99] later that year he began dating actress kitty carlisle, and there was talk of marriage.[100] on march 15, 1971, dewey traveled to miami, florida, for a brief golfing vacation with his friend dwayne andreas, and others. the next day, following a round of golf with baseball star carl yastrzemski, dewey failed to appear for his ride to miami international airport. he was found dead in his hotel room.[101] an autopsy determined that he had died suddenly from a heart attack.[102] following a public memorial service at saint james' episcopal church in new york city, which was attended by president nixon, former vice president hubert humphrey, new york governor nelson rockefeller, and other prominent politicians, dewey was buried next to his wife frances in the town cemetery of pawling, new york.[103] after his death, his farm of dapplemere was sold and renamed "dewey lane farm" in his honor.[104] dewey received varied reactions from the public and fellow politicians, with praise for his good intentions, honesty, administrative talents, and inspiring speeches, but most of them also criticized his ambition and his perceived stiffness in public. one of his biographers wrote that he had "a personality that attracted contempt and adulation in equal proportion."[46] dewey was a forceful and inspiring speaker, traveling the whole country during his presidential campaigns and attracting uncommonly huge crowds.[105] his friend and neighbor lowell thomas believed that dewey was "an authentic colossus" whose "appetite for excellence [tended] to frighten less obsessive types", and his 1948 running mate earl warren "professed little personal affection for dewey, but [believed] him a born executive who would make a great president."[46] the pollster george gallup once described dewey as "the ablest public figure of his lifetime... the most misunderstood man in recent american history."[46] on the other hand, president franklin d. roosevelt privately called dewey "the little man" and a "son of a bitch", and to robert taft and other conservative republicans dewey "became synonymous with ... new york newspapers, new york banks, new york arrogance   the very city taft's america loves to hate."[106] a taft supporter once referred to dewey as "that snooty little governor of new york."[106] herbert brownell, dewey's campaign manager in his 1944 and 1948 presidential campaigns, later recalled that dewey was "a tough man to herd...he'd see a local political leader who wasn't doing a very good job and he'd tell him so. well, he should have left that to his managers to do...he could tell another person what to do brilliantly, but he wouldn't do it himself. he'd give me the perfect formula for handling a difficult person, but then he'd get annoyed at something the guy said."[107] according to brownell, "perfectionism had its price, and dewey paid it...he didn't really like handshaking, and he wasn't good at it...he'd climbed up the [political] ladder the hard way. he worked harder, studied longer than anyone else. he could take a problem, break it down into component parts, assign it to talented people. he was a real fighter. as president he would have been boss, but the glad handing, small talk, personality side of politics, he just could not do."[107] when asked if dewey was happy in politics, brownell replied "i don't think he was ever happy. he got joy out of attainment. he was satisfied with many of his accomplishments. but as for happiness, in the usual sense of the word   he wasn't really geared to our political system."[108] dewey grew his mustache when he was dating frances, and because "she liked it, the mustache stayed, to delight cartoonists and dismay political advisers for 20 years."[109] during the 1944 election campaign, dewey suffered an unexpected blow when alice roosevelt longworth was reported as having mocked dewey as "the little man on the wedding cake",[a] alluding to his neat mustache and dapper dress. it was ridicule he could never shake. dewey alienated former republican president herbert hoover, who confided to a friend "dewey has no inner reservoir of knowledge on which to draw for his thinking," elaborating that "a man couldn't wear a mustache like that without having it affect his mind."[110] dewey had a tendency towards pomposity[111] and was considered stiff and unapproachable in public, with his aide ruth mccormick simms once describing him as "cold, cold as a february iceberg". she added that "he was brilliant and thoroughly honest."[112] during his governorship, one writer observed: "a blunt fact about mr. dewey should be faced: it is that many people do not like him. he is, unfortunately, one of the least seductive personalities in public life. that he has made an excellent record as governor is indisputable. even so, people resent what they call his vindictiveness, the 'metallic' nature of his efficiency, his cockiness (which actually conceals a nature basically shy), and his suspiciousness. people say... that he is as devoid of charm as a rivet or a lump of stone."[113] however, dewey's friends considered him a warm and friendly companion. journalist irwin ross noted that, "more than most politicians, [dewey] displayed an enormous gap between his private and his public manner. to friends and colleagues he was warm and gracious, considerate of others' views… he could tell a joke and was not dismayed by an off color story. in public, however, he tended to freeze up, either out of diffidence or too stern a sense of the dignity of office. the smiles would seem forced… the glad handing gesture awkward."[114] a magazine writer described the difference between dewey's private and public behavior by noting that, "till he gets to the door, he may be cracking jokes and laughing like a schoolboy. but the moment he enters a room he ceases to be tom dewey and becomes what he thinks the governor of new york ought to be."[115] leo w. o'brien, a reporter for united press international (upi) who was later elected to congress as a democrat, recalled dewey in an interview by saying that "i hated his guts when he first came to albany, and i loved him by the time he left. it was almost tragic   how he put on a pose that alienated people. behind a pretty thin veneer he was a wonderful guy."[116] john gunther wrote in 1947 that many supporters were fiercely loyal to dewey.[117] dewey's presidential campaigns were hampered by dewey's habit of not being "prematurely specific"[105] on controversial issues. president truman poked fun at dewey's vague campaign by joking that g.o.p. actually stood for "grand old platitudes."[118] dewey's frequent refusal to discuss specific issues and proposals in his campaigns was based partly on his belief in public opinion polls; one biographer claimed that he "had an almost religious belief in the revolutionary science of public opinion sampling."[119] he was the first presidential candidate to employ his own team of pollsters, and when a worried businessman told dewey in the 1948 presidential campaign that he was losing ground to truman and urged him to "talk specifics in his closing speeches", dewey and his aide paul lockwood displayed polling data that showed dewey still well ahead of truman, and dewey told the businessman "when you're leading, don't talk."[119] walter lippman regarded dewey as an opportunist, who "changes his views from hour to hour… always more concerned with taking the popular position than he is in dealing with the real issues."[120] the journalist john gunther wrote that "there are plenty of vain and ambitious and uncharming politicians. this would not be enough to cause dewey's lack of popularity. what counts more is that so many people think of him as opportunistic. dewey seldom goes out on a limb by taking a personal position which may be unpopular... every step is carefully calculated and prepared."[117] as governor, dewey had a reputation for ruthless treatment of new york legislators and political opponents. [dewey] cracked the whip ruthlessly on [republican] legislators who strayed from the party fold. assemblymen have found themselves under investigation by the state tax department after opposing the governor over an insurance regulation bill. others discover job rich construction projects, state buildings, even highways, directed to friendlier [legislators]... [he] forced the legislature his own party dominates to reform its comfortable ways of payroll padding. now legislative workers must verify in writing every two weeks what they have been doing to earn their salary; every state senator and assemblyman must verify that [they] are telling the truth. all this has occasioned more than grumbling. some assemblymen have quit in protest. others have been denied renomination by dewey's formidable political organization. reporters mutter among themselves about government by blackmail.[121] dewey received positive publicity for his reputation for honesty and integrity. the newspaper editor william allen white praised dewey as "an honest cop with the mind of an honest cop."[122] an october 1953 editorial in the oneonta star said that "we think the governor is ruthless in his actions, but we also think he will countenance nothing that smacks of trickery and dishonesty in public administration."[123] he insisted on having every candidate for a job paying $2,500 or more rigorously probed by state police. he was so concerned about the elected public official being motivated by the wealth his position could produce that he frequently said, "no man should be in public office who can't make more money in private life."[124] dewey accepted no anonymous campaign contributions and had every large contributor not known personally to him investigated "for motive."[125] when he signed autographs, he would date them so that no one could imply a closer relationship than actually existed.[125] a journalist noted in 1947 that dewey "has never made the slightest attempt to capitalize on his enormous fame, except politically. even when temporarily out of office, in the middle 1930s, he rigorously resisted any temptation to be vulgarized or exploited...he could easily have become a millionaire several times over by succumbing to various movie and radio offers. he would have had to do nothing except give permission for movies or radio serials to be built around his career and name. be it said to his honor, he never did so."[126] in 1964, the new york state legislature officially renamed the new york state thruway in honor of dewey. signs on interstate 95 between the end of the bruckner expressway (in the bronx) and the connecticut state line, as well as on the thruway mainline (interstate 87 between the bronx westchester line and albany, and interstate 90 between albany and the new york pennsylvania line) designate the name as governor thomas e. dewey thruway, though this official designation is rarely used in reference to these roads. dewey's official papers from his years in politics and public life were given to the university of rochester; they are housed in the university library and are available to historians and other writers. in 2005, the new york city bar association named an award after dewey. the thomas e. dewey medal, formerly sponsored by the law firm of dewey & leboeuf llp, is awarded annually to one outstanding assistant district attorney in each of new york city's five counties (new york, kings, queens, bronx, and richmond). the medal was first awarded on november 29, 2005. the thomas e. dewey medal is now sponsored by the law firm dewey pegno & kramarsky llp.[127] in may 2012, dewey & leboeuf (the successor firm to dewey ballantine) filed for bankruptcy. disney writer dana coty named donald duck's nephew dewey after thomas e. dewey. [128]
supported by the announcement by the head of the republicans was a historic break with his party’s policy as dismay spread over a snap election. by roger cohen and aurelien breeden reporting from paris the head of france’s conservative party on tuesday called for an alliance with the far right in upcoming snap elections, breaking a longstanding taboo and throwing his party into deep turmoil as the shock waves from president emmanuel macron’s decision to dissolve the lower house of parliament coursed through the country. no leader of any mainstream french political party has ever previously embraced a possible alliance with marine le pen’s national rally, or its predecessor, the national front. but across europe, barriers to what was long regarded as the extreme nationalist right have been falling as those parties have adjusted their positions and as a broader consensus has formed that large scale illegal immigration across a porous european union border must be curbed. the announcement, by éric ciotti, the head of the republicans, was a historic break with the party’s longstanding line and its ties to former president charles de gaulle. mr. ciotti’s call was immediately met with a chorus of angry disapproval from within his own ranks. uncertainty hung over france just weeks from the olympic games it will host. scattered demonstrations against the far right broke out in paris and elsewhere. political parties scrambled to make sense of mr. macron’s decision and get organized with just 19 days remaining before the first round of the election, the shortest campaign in the history of the fifth republic. the ratings agency moody’s issued a warning that the snap election “increases risks to financial consolidation” for a heavily indebted france. the elections for the national assembly, the lower and more powerful house of france’s parliament, are scheduled for june 30 and july 7. mr. macron called them last week after his party suffered a bruising defeat in european parliament elections, gaining just 14.6 percent of the vote nationwide, compared with about 31.4 percent for the national rally, led by ms. le pen’s protégé, jordan bardella. the republicans fared even worse, with only 7.25 percent. mr. bardella, 28, who became the new and widely popular face of french politics during the campaign for the european parliament elections, welcomed mr. ciotti’s announcement and described it as “putting the interests of the french people before those of our parties.”

 supported by the outcome was not a surprise but signals a treacherous road ahead for the country’s divided legislature. by aurelien breeden michel barnier vowed to slash spending and temporarily raise some taxes, but his plan must contend with three bitterly opposed political blocs and an aversion in france to working across party lines. by catherine porter and aurelien breeden the government still faces two challenges in the coming weeks: the risk of a no confidence vote and a tight budget deadline. by roger cohen and aurelien breeden after elections produced a deadlocked parliament, both left and right are claiming victory, while president emmanuel macron insists no one won. it’s a recipe for turmoil. by roger cohen president emmanuel macron’s sudden call for new parliamentary elections has created chaos on the right and fostered rare unity on the left.