Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said Sunday that discussion of impeaching President Biden puts Republicans’ majority in the House at risk in 2024 — by jeopardizing members who represent districts that President Biden won in 2020.
Mace’s concerns come as Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) raised the possibility of opening an impeachment inquiry into President Biden, as House Republicans ramp up their efforts to investigate the Biden family.
The rhetoric has come under scrutiny from some in the party, who view McCarthy’s recent efforts as an attempt to placate the conservative wing as he struggles to get consensus in his party on spending levels.
“Well, I do believe we are, at this point, an inquiry is different from an impeachment vote and is another tool in the toolbox,” Mace said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" with Shannon Bream, echoing the sentiment of McCarthy, who has tried to draw a clear distinction between “impeachment” and an “impeachment inquiry.”
“I will tell you, every time we walk the plank, we are putting moderate members, members [in Biden-won districts]. We are putting those seats at risk for 2024. We are putting the majority at risk. And it's not just impeachment that does that. Other issues, like abortion, et cetera, also put those members on the plank,” Mace continued.
Mace said it was still important to proceed with investigations of the Bidens, and that "whatever the evidence shows us, we ought to follow the facts, and we have to be better than [former Speaker] Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi really politicized the impeachment process.”
Pelosi served as Speaker of the House during the two impeachment trials of former President Trump.
Mace continued: “We do not want to do that here. We have to show overwhelming, undeniable evidence in order to move this thing forward. And if we can't, then we should not. But if we do, then we ought to use every tool in the toolbox to make sure the American people see it for what it is, and we can hold everyone accountable.”
The House Republicans who craft the conference’s government funding bills are showing signs of frustration as hard-line conservatives pressure leadership for further cuts to spending that some worry could be too aggressive.
Some of the 12 Appropriations subcommittee chairs — the so-called cardinals — told reporters that they are struggling to see where those additional cuts could come from, as September's shutdown deadline looms.
“I just don't see the wisdom in trying to further cut to strengthen our hand. I don't know how that strengthens our hand,” Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), a House Appropriations subcommittee chairman, said of conservatives’ push to further cut the already-scaled-back spending bills.
“I do think it puts some of our members in a very difficult spot, particularly those in tough districts, because they're going to be taking some votes that become problematic,” he added.
The House left Washington for a long summer recess Thursday after being forced to punt a bill to fund agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.
Conservatives are dug in on their demand for steeper spending cuts, to the chagrin of moderates who are wary of slashing funding even more. The chamber has passed just one appropriations bill, funding military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The internal divisions are gripping the party as time is running out: The House has just 12 days in September to move the remaining 11 appropriations measures and hash out their disagreements with the Senate, which is marking up its spending bills at higher levels, setting the scene for a hectic fall that could bring the U.S. to the brink of a shutdown.
Those dynamics are putting GOP appropriators in a bind, leaving them searching for ways to appease conservative requests without gutting their spending bills.
“We’ve done a lot of cuts, a lot of cuts,” House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Kay Granger (R-Texas) told The Hill this week. “And so if it’s cuts just for cut's sake, I don’t agree with it. But if it’s something that we can do without, that’s fine.”
‘Not a lot of wiggle room left’
Republican appropriators in the House announced earlier this year that they would mark up their bills for fiscal 2024 at fiscal 2022 levels, as leaders sought to placate conservatives who thought the debt ceiling deal struck by President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) earlier this year didn’t do enough to curb spending.
The Senate is crafting its bills more in line with the budget caps agreed to in the deal, but House Republicans are already fuming about a bipartisan deal in the upper chamber that would allow for more than $13 billion in additional emergency spending on top of those levels.
House GOP negotiators also said they would pursue clawing back more than $100 billion in old funding that was allocated for Democratic priorities without GOP support in the previous Congress.
While that move drew support from hard-line conservatives, the right flank was far from pleased when it heard appropriators planned to repurpose that old funding — known as rescissions — to plus-up the spending bills.
In a letter to McCarthy earlier this month, a group of hard-line conservatives called for all 12 appropriations bills to be in line with fiscal 2022 spending levels “without the use of reallocated rescissions to increase discretionary spending above that top-line.”
Otherwise, the 21 lawmakers threatened, they would vote against the measures. But that request could prove difficult for GOP appropriators to fulfill.
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), chairman of the panel that proposes funding for the Department of State and foreign operations, said that appropriators are already “dramatically reducing spending,” suggesting that there are not too many remaining areas to trim from.
“My bill is below the 2016 levels,” he said, later adding, “When you’re below the 2016 level — and we're still confronting China — I think there's not a lot of wiggle room left.”
“It’s a challenge, but I think we’ll get through it. I really do,” he added.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who heads the subcommittee that oversees funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior, scoffed at the idea of even steeper cuts to his bill.
“Then you just drop it on the floor and stomp on it. What else do you do with it?” he told reporters. “You can’t make logical cuts in there.”
Republicans appropriators are voicing optimism that the conference will be able to sort out its differences on spending, but some also hope their levels will stick — even though they include rescissions.
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.) — whose panel handles funding for the Department of Energy, which is proposing offsetting billions of dollars in spending with clawbacks — said it would be “extremely difficult” to craft his bill without the rescinded funds.
“And given our priorities in my bill, national defense with the nuclear weapons portfolio, nuclear cleanup, Army Corps including, all the community-directed fundings, I feel good about my bill, and I hope my numbers hold,” he said.
“Because it's gonna have to be in negotiations with the Senate and the White House as well,” he added.
Womack — whose subcommittee crafts funding for the IRS and the Treasury Department — said he doesn’t think “moving the goalposts on these numbers is helpful in strengthening our ability to negotiate with the Senate.”
August preparations for a busy September
Frustrations among appropriators are bubbling up as Congress inches closer to the fall, when lawmakers are facing a Sept. 30 deadline to approve funding or risk a government shutdown.
With time running out, some House lawmakers say conversations may continue over the long August recess to try to hash out remaining differences.
“We'll have to see,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said when asked about potential plans for talks between leaders and House Freedom Caucus members over the break. “I mean, we got a lot of work to do.”
“I think a lot of work [has] got to be done behind the scenes,” he said. “If not, you know, here — You gotta beg the question about whether we should be gone for six weeks. We should be getting our job done.”
Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) echoed that sentiment, saying “I would think so” when asked if lawmakers will have conversations over the break.
Adding to the August workload, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) suggested earlier this week that bicameral negotiations could take place over the weeks-long recess as lawmakers stare down the shutdown deadline.
Not all Republicans, however, are viewing a shutdown as a risk.
During a House Freedom Caucus press conference this week, Good said “we should not fear a government shutdown,” claiming that “most of what we do up here is bad anyway; most of what we do up here hurts the American people.”
But that perspective does not jive with the view of McCarthy, who declared Thursday: “I don’t want the government to shut down.”
Multiple Republicans are ultimately expecting Congress to eventually pass what's known as a continuing resolution (CR), or a measure that temporarily allows the government to be funded at the previous fiscal year’s levels, to prevent a lapse at the end of September.
But they also understand the task could be difficult in the GOP-led chamber, where Republicans aren’t happy about the idea of continuing funding at the current levels — which were last set when Democrats held control of Congress.
“I think there's a very good chance that we'll see a CR, but I know there's a lot of work to get a CR done,” Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), another appropriator, said Thursday, noting there are “a lot of members that don't want CRs that are tired of them.”
But Aderholt suggested a CR could notch sufficient GOP backing if there’s a larger plan in sight that the party can support.
“The Speaker’s been very good about having a plan,” he said, adding, “I think that's what he's good at, and I'm optimistic that he can come up with something.”
Two high-profile incidents in quick succession involving Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have put the issue of aging politicians front and center.
But the questions raised around mental capacity and fitness for office have no easy answers.
Proposals that might begin to address the issue, such as term limits or cognitive tests beyond a certain age, confront an instant Catch-22. In order to be enacted, they need the support of politicians who might be negatively impacted by them.
Meanwhile, the people around those politicians have generally no incentive to nudge them to change their minds.
“I think some of what drives these people to stay on forever is a personal power thing that they can’t let go of," progressive strategist Jonathan Tasini said. “The second thing that drives this, though, is the staff. I think what really gets ignored is how the staff cover for people who clearly can’t function, because they themselves don’t want to lose their power.”
This week’s incidents involved two of five current senators who are 80 or older.
First, McConnell appeared to freeze up, for unexplained reasons, while delivering remarks to reporters Wednesday.
The following day, Feinstein seemed confused during a committee roll-call vote. Feinstein started giving general remarks, when all that was required was that she cast her vote. “Just say ‘Aye,’” her colleague, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), could be heard telling Feinstein.
Feinstein, 90, is the oldest sitting senator. McConnell is 81.
There are specific concerns about both senators, separate and apart from the broader issue of elected officials seeking to remain in office in their ninth decade.
McConnell suffered a concussion earlier this year in a fall at a Washington hotel — an incident in which he also suffered a broken rib. The accident kept McConnell away from the Senate of almost six weeks while he recuperated.
In the wake of Wednesday’s incident, it has also been reported by multiple outlets that McConnell suffered two other falls this year — one in Helsinki, and one at Washington’s Ronald Reagan National Airport.
Medical professionals have speculated as to whether what happened Wednesday may have been a seizure or mini-stroke.
The majority leader himself has professed to be “fine.” His staff have said of the incident that he felt “lightheaded.”
The Feinstein incident was, in some ways, more worrisome, given that concerns have been raised about her cognitive abilities for some time.
In late 2020, she asked the same question twice in succession, apparently unaware she was repeating herself, in a hearing with then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
Last year, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that four senators, including three Democrats, had told its reporters about their worries regarding Feinstein. One congressional Democrat representing California anonymously described a meeting at which he or she had to reintroduce themselves to Feinstein repeatedly.
Feinstein, who is retiring at the next election, has defended her own capabilities. Her staff has said she was “preoccupied” during Thursday’s roll call vote.
Other allies have suggested there is an element of sexism in the apparent desire to push Feinstein out. They note examples of past male senators, including Sens. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), whose capacities were widely believed to be diminished late in life but who did not face the same public pressure to step down.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 83, was one of Feinstein’s most vigorous defenders in that regard. Pelosi announced she was stepping down as the leader of House Democrats last year, having spent 20 years atop her conference.
But the McConnell and Feinstein episodes are also important because of the way in which they illuminate a larger picture.
President Biden is 80 and prone to slips-ups, as when he recently twice referred to the war in "Iraq” when he clearly meant “Ukraine.”
Former President Trump is 77 and, while rarely hesitant in the Biden fashion, he often launches into bizarre asides during his long campaign speeches.
It’s not as if the issue of aging politicians is off-limits. GOP presidential contender Nikki Haley has proposed mandatory cognitive tests for office-holders 75 and older.
Her proposal was seen more as a shot across the bow of Biden and Trump specifically rather than an idea that had any real chance of being enacted. Haley, 51, talks often on the campaign trail about the need for “new generational leaders.”
Talk also bubbles up intermittently about term limits for senators and House members.
Term limits face the philosophical question of whether voters should be denied the chance to reelect who they wish for as long as they wish — presidency excepted. There is also the practical difficulty that politicians are not eager to vote to, in effect, abbreviate their own careers.
“The fact is, politicians — like pretty much everyone else — are living to older ages, and some people stay physically and mentally sharp and other people deteriorate somewhat,” said Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor emeritus who specialized in political communications.
“The question is, should it be up to the voters or up to the doctors to decide when someone should be out of office.”
There is also the question of how any restriction on age or mental abilities would be codified or enforced. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is 81, and even his most staunch ideological opponents don’t seriously question his mental capacity.
For the moment, it seems most likely that the issue of aging politicians will remain a conundrum without an obvious solution.
“It’s not that you reach 75 and you should be gone,” said Tasini.
“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito said Friday, referencing Congressional Democrats’ recent efforts to mandate stronger ethics rules. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
"I don’t know that any of my colleagues have spoken about it publicly ... But I think it is something we have all thought about," he told the Journal.
His remarks sparked pushback from a slew of House Democrats.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) argued Congress would always have regulation power over the high court.
"Dear Justice Alito: You’re on the Supreme Court in part because Congress expanded the Court to 9 Justices,” Lieu posted Friday on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. "Congress can impeach Justices and can in many cases strip the Court of jurisdiction."
"Congress has always regulated you and will continue to do so," he added. "You are not above the law."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) claimed the Supreme Court should be the "most scrutinized" because of its power.
“What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn’t apply to him," Ocasio-Cortez wrote. "Corruption and abuse of power must be stopped, no matter the source," she added. "In fact, the court should be *most* subject to scrutiny, bc it is unelected & life appointed."
“Alito’s next opinion piece in the WSJ is about to be ‘I am a little king, actually. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly say I’m not,’” she added in a separate post.
Both California Democratic Reps. Katie Porter and Adam Schiff also responded to the justice's remarks, calling his view "controversial."
“This view is more than controversial; it’s incorrect,” Porter said on X. “This is coming from a justice who tried to hide the fact that he accepted luxury vacations on private jets. As a government official, I welcome the American people holding me accountable—why doesn’t Justice Alito?”
Schiff, referring to the ProPublica report that revealed an undisclosed Alaskan fishing trip the justice accepted in 2008 that was paid for by a conservative donor, said Alito's view shows why an "enforceable code of ethics" is needed. The investigation — paired with another that revealed Justice Clarence Thomas received financial gifts without disclosing them — ultimately led to lawmakers' push for the ethics review.
“Let’s translate these statements from Justice Alito, real quick: What we do and how we do it, who pays for our trips and our vacations, or a family member’s tuition, is none of your damn business,” Schiff posted on X. “So buzz off. They need an enforceable code of ethics. Now.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the sponsor of a bill to reform Supreme Court ethics standards and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also shared on social media that the Journal author of the interview with Alito is the lawyer for Leonard Leo, a prominent conservative legal activist who reportedly organized the fishing trip to Alaska that Alito attended alongside Paul Singer, a hedge fund manager whose plane they took.
“The lawyer who ‘wrote’ this is also the lawyer blocking our investigation into Leonard Leo’s Supreme Court freebies,” Whitehouse tweeted. “Shows how small and shallow the pool of operatives is around this captured Court — same folks keep popping up wearing new hats.”
“This seems escalatory, and nudges even reluctant court watchers and skeptics of statutory reforms towards doing something,” Schatz said. “I mean, this is a fancy way of telling everyone to pound sand because he’s untouchable.”
Rep. John James (R-Mich.) criticized Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Friday for his response to Republican lawmakers who called him out on his state’s new Black history education standards Friday.
“@RonDeSantis, #1: slavery was not CTE!” James posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “Nothing about that 400 years of evil was a ‘net benefit’ to my ancestors. #2: there are only five black Republicans in Congress and you’re attacking two of them.”
Both Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) have criticized the new standards, which indicate that American slavery helped enslaved people develop “skills” that benefited them, in the past few days.
Scott rebuked the language during a campaign stop in Iowa on Thursday, claiming "there is no silver lining in slavery."
“Slavery was really about separating families, about mutilating humans and even raping their wives," he said. "It was just devastating."
DeSantis responded to the lawmakers by saying they were falling in line with Vice President Kamala Harris, who called the guidelines "propaganda."
“They dare to push propaganda to our children,” Harris said earlier this week in Jacksonville, Fla. “Adults know what slavery really involved. It involved rape. It involved torture. It involved taking a baby from their mother.”
James pleaded with DeSantis to change course.
“My brother in Christ… if you find yourself in a deep hole put the shovel down,” he wrote. “You are now so far from the Party of Lincoln that your Ed. board is re-writing history and you’re personally attacking conservatives like [Scott] and [Donalds] on the topic of slavery."
Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) said impeachment articles targeted at President Joe Biden and other administration officials would lead to “dead ends” during a TV appearance Friday.
Ivey, a House Judiciary Committee member, said Republicans’ efforts to impeach Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas “damaging” to their party. During his appearance on "The Hill" on NewsNation, Ivey said he sees “no case” against the current president and that Republicans are unclear in what they think his wrongdoing is.
“I think they’re heading in the wrong direction,” Ivey said.
Ivey, also said House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has given “way too much ground” to Freedom Caucus members. He said he thinks they “definitely” want "one or maybe all three" administration members impeached.
“I think the Speaker's struggling to give them enough to keep them on board, but without destroying the party as a whole in the upcoming elections,” Ivey said.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) had a friendly ribbing for Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) on Friday, sharing photos of the Capitol Rotunda ceiling after Van Orden yelled at Senate pages who were resting on the rotunda floor Wednesday night.
“TGIF after a rough week, Senate Pages? I got a great photo, how about you?” Roy said on X, formerly Twitter.
Van Orden found a group of Senate pages — 16- and 17-year-olds who run messages and mail for the Senate — on the floor of the Capitol Rotunda. Pages generally rest in the rotunda when the Senate works late — as it did Wednesday night on National Defense Authorization Act Amendments.
When he saw the scene, he let loose on the teenagers, reportedly calling them "jackasses" and "little s----."
“Wake the f‑‑‑ up you little s‑‑‑‑. … What the f‑‑‑ are you all doing? Get the f‑‑‑ out of here. You are defiling the space you [pieces of s‑‑‑],” Van Orden said, according to the account provided by a page.
Van Orden later said he would not apologize, and that the teens were disrespecting the Capitol and its history by lying on the floor.
The incident has brought Van Orden under fire from his Senate colleagues, who defended the pages. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) addressed the incident on the Senate floor Thursday.
“I was shocked when I heard about it, and I am further shocked at his refusal to apologize to these young people,” he said.
“I can’t speak for the House of Representatives, but I do not think that one member’s disrespect is shared by this body, by [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)] and myself.”
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters Friday that he would talk to Van Orden about the incident.
President Biden on Friday touted the strength of the economy, suggesting during a speech in Maine that Republicans would move to impeach him because of progress on inflation.
Biden made his first visit to Maine since taking office, where he spoke at Auburn Manufacturing Inc., a textile manufacturer. The president’s trip was intended to highlight positive economic numbers and reinforce the White House’s belief that Biden’s policies are responsible for easing inflation and growing consumer confidence.
“While there’s more work ahead, earlier this week The Washington Post suggested Republicans may have to find something else to criticize me for now that inflation is coming down,” Biden said. “Maybe they’ll decide to impeach me because it’s coming down. I don’t know. I love that one. Anyway, that’s another story.”
Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) earlier this week said he expects the House GOP’s investigations into the foreign business activities of Biden’s family to rise to the level of an impeachment inquiry. He later said House lawmakers would carry on with their investigations into the president and his family, as well as the president’s handling of the border.
Some House Republicans have been agitating for impeaching Biden for months, though many Republican senators have cautioned against moving forward with such a measure.
While in Maine, Biden signed an executive order to incentivize creating new inventions in the U.S. when those inventions are developed using taxpayer dollars. The order also aims to improve transparency to better track progress toward domestic manufacturing goals.
The White House has spent the past month pushing the message around “Bidenomics,” seeking to tie the president closely to an economy that has continued to show signs of strength.
The economy grew at a 2.4-percent rate in the second quarter in a surprisingly strong showing, according to data released this week.
In addition, the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index, a measure of inflation, rose 3 percent from June 2022 to June 2023, down from a 3.8 percent annual increase in May, the Commerce Department announced Friday.
Core PCE, which excludes more volatile food and energy costs, cooled from 4.6 percent year-over-year in May to 4.1 percent in June.
"I’m not here to declare victory on the economy. We have more work to do. We have a plan for turning things around," Biden said Friday. "Bidenomics is just another way of saying, ‘Restoring the American dream.’”
Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Friday said he plans to talk to Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) about his expletive-laced confrontation with teenage Senate pages early Thursday morning.
“I haven’t been able to speak to him yet. I’ll call him today. I don’t know the situation, I saw what was reported,” McCarthy told reporters Friday.
“That’s not the norm of Derrick Van Orden,” McCarthy said.
McCarthy said that he had spoken to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) about the incident with the pages, who assist Senate operations. The two congressional leaders had a pre-planned meeting Thursday afternoon to discuss government funding.
McCarthy said the whole incident might be a “misunderstanding.”
"I guess the interns have some ritual laying down, or something like that. I think it's a misunderstanding on all sides from what's going on,” McCarthy said.
A transcript written by a page minutes after the incident, and obtained by The Hill, recalled Van Orden calling a group of 16- and 17-year-old pages “jackasses” and “pieces of s‑‑‑” for lying in the Capitol rotunda early Thursday morning. The rotunda is a common spot for pages to relax when Senate business goes late.
Van Orden did not dispute the account of him cursing at Senate pages, telling The Hill that he thought the Capitol Rotunda should be “treated with a tremendous amount of respect for the dead” because it was used as a field hospital during the Civil War.
“If anyone had been laying a series of graves in Arlington National Cemetery, what do you think people would say?” Van Orden said.
“I am further shocked at his refusal to apologize to these young people,” Schumer said.
“I can’t speak for the House of Representatives, but I do not think that one member’s disrespect is shared by this body, by [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)] and myself.”
McConnell said he agreed with Schumer.
“Everybody on this side of the aisle feels exactly the same way,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.
Punchbowl News first reported that Van Orden had yelled at the Senate pages.
Senate Republicans are rallying behind Sen. Mitt Romney’s (R-Utah) call for Republican donors to refrain from giving money to long-shot presidential candidates once it becomes clear they can’t win the GOP nomination.
GOP lawmakers who are deeply skeptical of former President Trump’s chances of beating President Biden in next year’s general election are worried that long-shot candidates will stay in the race too long and siphon support away from more viable candidates.
They say the party needs to start winnowing the field earlier than it did in 2016 to help ensure the most electable nominee advances to the general election.
“I think that’s a pretty practical recommendation,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “I think to have a large field is probably not going to help us win the White House back.”
Cornyn told reporters in May that he didn’t think Trump could win the general election, adding “what’s the most important thing for me is that we have a candidate who can actually win.”
Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairwoman Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who represents the state that will host the first contest of the 2024 primary, said “if we want to win elections, we need to look toward the general election and making sure our candidates are strong and ready to go.”
“If people can start coalescing and getting the right candidate into place, that would be very helpful,” she said.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who has endorsed North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum’s (R) presidential bid, said he’s worried about fielding a competitive candidate in next year’s general election, reflecting the widespread view within the Senate GOP conference that Trump’s polarizing effect on voters is a potential political liability.
Asked if Trump would be the strongest candidate in the general election, Cramer said “as a primary voter, personally, I prefer picking somebody who I agree with and can win.”
“At the end of the day, there’s no point endorsing somebody who can’t win,” he said. “I wish we just move on to something normal and tap into the talent of 340 million Americans and see what else we can come up with.”
Romney argues that anti-Trump voters and donors waited too long in 2016 to coalesce behind a single alternative to Trump, splitting their support among several candidates and letting Trump cruise to the nomination.
He says next year fellow Republicans need to ramp up pressure on long-shot candidates to drop out if they fail to reach the front of the pack after the first primary contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
“Republican megadonors and influencers — large and small — are going to have to do something they didn’t do in 2016: get candidates they support to agree to withdraw if and when their paths to the nomination are effectively closed,” Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal Monday.
Romney told The Hill he targeted his op-ed at major Republican donors, who in the last competitive Republican presidential primary stuck with their favored candidates for too long, splitting up the support of GOP voters who didn’t initially favor Trump.
“A number of folks have sent me texts or emails saying, ‘Hey, well done, I agree with you,’” he said. “That was really aimed at large donors and hopefully they take that into stride.
“Donors feel the loyalty to the candidate and the candidates want to stay in. That’s the nature of a politician, which is, ‘I’m going to fight to the end. I’m not a quitter,’” he said.
Instead, Romney says donors need to intervene for the good of the party, telling long-shot White House hopefuls: “No, no. Put that aside. What’s the right thing for the country, and your party?”
Nonpartisan pollsters such as David Paleologos, the director of the political research center at Suffolk University, say the biggest challenge Republican rivals face in defeating Trump in next year’s primary is that they are splitting the anti-Trump vote a dozen ways.
Polls show Trump has a solid share of what Paleologos calls “tier one” voters who know with confidence which candidate they will back next year.
That means any candidate who would emerge as the leading alternative to Trump has to win over a large majority of “tier two” voters who are less certain about how they will vote in the primaries. The more candidates running, the tougher it would be for any one candidate to attract enough undecided voters to defeat Trump.
Trump is leading the rest of the Republican field by more than 30 percentage points in an average of recent national polls.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has trended steadily downward in the polls since March 30 as others including entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) have gained more support.
The field also includes Burgum, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), former Vice President Mike Pence, former Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R).
Romney says GOP donors need to start pushing weak candidates out of the race if they fail to gain traction by Feb. 26, a week before Super Tuesday, when 15 states will cast ballots for president.
The party nominating rules appear to favor Trump even more than 2016 because at least 17 states will allocate all of their delegates to the winner of its primary or caucus — giving a Trump a chance to rack up a huge lead in delegates even if he wins individual states with a plurality of the vote.
Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) thinks the Republican presidential primary field will start narrowing on its own as donor support begins to dry up for struggling candidates.
“I think by then the field’s going to naturally … narrow down. I think a lot of people are going to be out of money well before that date,” he said of the Feb. 26 target set by Romney. “In theory it would be nice if you could have some control about all that.”
But Thune cautioned “it’s hard to tell somebody they have to end their campaign.”
Thune said it was “a much bigger field” in 2016 and the “dynamics were different” because Republicans were running for an “open seat” after President Barack Obama’s two terms in office.
But he acknowledged that “a lot of the people who are in” the 2024 presidential primary “are all folks who are wanting to be the anti-Trump.”
“If they want somebody to be the anti-Trump, then they’re probably going to have get behind somebody, drop out of the race and get behind somebody who actually has a shot,” he said.
