Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in Elections

    Why Democrats Need Their Own Trump

    We are more than 1,200 days away from the 2028 presidential election, but the Democratic presidential primary is already well underway. The likely candidates are fund-raising, hosting campaign rallies, starting podcasts and staking out ideological lanes.Candidates will try to carve out distinct political identities, but one challenge unites them all: Their party is historically unpopular. The Democratic Party’s favorability rating is 22 percentage points underwater — 60 percent of respondents view it unfavorably, 38 favorably. Apart from the waning days of Joe Biden’s presidency, that is by far the lowest it’s been during the more than 30 years Pew Research has collected data.The presidential hopefuls are likely to divide into two camps, moderates and progressives. But these paths misunderstand Democrats’ predicament and will fail to win over a meaningful majority in the long term. If the next Democratic nominee wants to build a majority coalition — one that doesn’t rely on Republicans running poor-quality candidates to eke out presidential wins and that doesn’t write off the Senate as a lost cause — the candidate should attack the Democratic Party itself and offer positions that outflank it from both the right and the left.It may seem like an audacious gambit, but a successful candidate has provided them a blueprint: Donald Trump.To be clear, the blueprint I refer to is not the one Mr. Trump has used to violate democratic norms and destabilize American institutions, but rather the one for resetting how Americans view a party and its leaders.In January 2013, at the time of Barack Obama’s second inauguration, Republicans were deeply unpopular. Conservative thought leaders like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove advocated comprehensive immigration reform as a pathway back to a majority. By the summer, the base’s backlash to the idea was itself so comprehensive that many of them were forced to retreat.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    The Closing Arguments of the N.Y.C. Mayoral Candidates

    Ahead of the June 24 primary, The New York Times analyzed the closing campaign speeches of the four leading Democrats running for mayor.The leading candidates for New York City mayor, clockwise from top left: Former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo; Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani; Brad Lander, the city comptroller; and Adrienne Adams, the City Council speaker. Nicole Craine, Scott Heins and Dave Sanders for The New York Times; Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesWith the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City looming on Tuesday, the candidates are making their closing arguments to voters.The New York Times analyzed excerpts from recent speeches by the top four candidates in the polls — Andrew Cuomo, Zohran Mamdani, Brad Lander and Adrienne Adams — to highlight and explain their central campaign messages.Andrew M. CuomoAndrew Cuomo has won endorsements from some of the city’s most influential labor unions.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesMr. Cuomo, 67, is trying to make a comeback four years after resigning as New York’s governor amid a sexual harassment scandal. He denies wrongdoing and has run as a moderate who has the most experience and fortitude to stand up to President Trump.The setting: Union Square in Manhattan, one week before Primary Day, with labor leaders who endorsed him and hundreds of union members.The goal: Mr. Cuomo sought to portray himself as the candidate of working-class New Yorkers who are eager to reorient the Democratic Party nationally after its 2024 losses.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares179 Views

    in Elections

    G.O.P. Can’t Include Limits on Trump Lawsuits in Megabill, Senate Parliamentarian Rules

    The Senate parliamentarian rejected a measure in Republicans’ domestic policy bill that could limit lawsuits seeking to block presidential orders.A Senate official rejected on Sunday a measure in Republicans’ sweeping domestic policy bill that could limit lawsuits seeking to block President Trump’s executive actions.The measure would target the preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by federal judges on Mr. Trump’s directives. Those rulings have halted or delayed orders on a host of policies, including efforts to carry out mass firings of federal workers and to withhold funds from states that do not comply with demands on immigration enforcement.The G.O.P. proposal would require parties suing over federal policies to post a bond covering the government’s potential costs and damages from an injunction if the judge’s order were found later to have been wrongly granted.“Individual district judges — who don’t even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts — are single-handedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement,” Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in announcing the proposal in March.Republicans are pushing their bill to carry out President Trump’s agenda through Congress using special rules that shield legislation from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must only include proposals that directly change federal spending and not add to long-term deficits.The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, makes such judgments. She ruled that the measure did not meet the requirements, according to Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    Global Markets Dip as Traders Gauge Fallout From U.S. Strikes on Iran

    Any disruption to traffic in the Strait of Hormuz would have significant economic effects, especially for Asian nations dependent on oil from the Middle East.Stocks edged lower and oil prices climbed in Monday trading in Asia, reflecting investor concern over potential economic fallout from the U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend.Futures contracts for the S&P 500, indicating how the index might perform when markets open in New York, slipped by about 0.3 percent. The price of West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark for U.S. crude, gained roughly 3 percent. Gold, a traditional safe-haven asset, also rose.Markets in Asia, the first to open after the strikes in Iran, were down. Stocks in Taipei, Taiwan, fell more than 1 percent. Benchmark indexes in Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea also dipped.Traders were waiting for clearer indications of whether there would be an escalation in conflicts in the Middle East — particularly any moves by Iran to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.The Strait of Hormuz is a critical transit point for global oil supplies. Last year, about 20 million barrels of oil were shipped through the waterway each day, representing about 20 percent of the world’s total supply. Most of that oil was bound for Asia.Places like Japan and Taiwan rely on the Middle East for almost all of their crude oil imports, meaning that any disruption to traffic through the strait could inflict a large economic blow. China is the largest purchaser of Iranian oil.Oil prices, hovering around $76 a barrel, are expected to enter the $80 range, but if the risk of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz is seen as increasing, they will rise even further, said Takahide Kiuchi, executive economist at Nomura Research Institute. In that case, “the Japanese economy could be exposed to downside risks that exceed those of the Trump tariffs,” he said.Other analysts expect fallout from the U.S. strikes to be relatively short-lived.The oil market is better equipped to respond to shocks than it has been in the past because of spare capacity held by exporters, according to Daniel Hynes, a senior commodity strategist at ANZ Research. Geopolitical events involving producers can have a big impact on oil markets, but in recent years, prices have tended to quickly retreat as risks ease, Mr. Hynes said.Daniel Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said there could be more volatility in stock movements this week. But, he said, the market may view the Iran threat as “now gone.” In that case, he said, “the worst is now in the rearview mirror.”Joe Rennison More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    Small Protests Against the U.S. Attack in Iran Sprouted Up Over the Weekend

    The last-minute demonstrations drew hundreds of people in some cities, fewer in others. Many expressed displeasure with the Iranian leadership but were against any more U.S. involvement in another war.Protesters in more than a dozen U.S. cities demonstrated on Sunday against the Trump administration’s airstrikes on Iran.Some rallies attracted hundreds, while others drew dozens. The overall turnout was far less than last weekend’s “No Kings” protests against the president that were held in all 50 states. Many of Sunday’s demonstrations, held in cities including New York, Boston, Chicago, Washington and Los Angeles, were arranged late Saturday and had been described by organizers as “emergency mobilizations.”Demonstrators at several locations carried Iranian flags, and some held signs and placed banners across fences and buildings that read “No War in Iran!”U.S. Marines stand guard as a demonstrator protests in Los Angeles.David Swanson/ReutersOutside the gates of the White House in Washington, at least 200 demonstrators condemned the president, including some veterans. “He’s trying to become a king,” said Ron Carmichael, 78, who flew helicopters in the Vietnam War.In Chicago, more than 200 people attended a rally downtown. Ali Tarokh, a resident who said he immigrated from Iran 12 years ago after being imprisoned for political activities for two years, described the news of the airstrikes as “the worst thing that could have happened.”Although he opposes the Iranian leadership, Mr. Takokh said slow change was the only way to reform the government. “Regime change is kind of impossible over there,” he said, adding that President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel have only impeded any transition to a democratic society.Some protesters said that the escalating conflict with Iran would further the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza.In Los Angeles, Noor Abdel-Haq, a 26-year-old nurse, said she came out because of her personal ties to the tensions in the Middle East. Most of her family lives in Gaza or the West Bank, she said. “We don’t want more murder and destruction.”Ms. Abdel-Haq was among the scores of people who assembled in the Westwood neighborhood in a peaceful demonstration. Nearby, a small contingent of Marines and federal agents stood wearing tactical gear and carrying rifles.In 98-degree heat in Richmond, Va., Violeta Vega, 23, an in-home care worker and a leader of the Party for Socialism and Liberation in Richmond, led protesters at Abner Clay Park in chants that included “Money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation.”The crowd numbered in the dozens. After the rally, her voice raspy, Ms. Vega said the gathering was necessary.“I felt empowered knowing that this was a day of action around the country,” she said.Robert Chiarito More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Elections

    The 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century

    More than 500 influential directors, actors and other notable names in Hollywood and around the world voted on the best films released since Jan. 1, 2000. Here is how their ballots stacked up. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    Vote for Your 10 Best Movies of the Century

    <!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–>In the space below, please list up to 10 titles that you consider to be the best films released since Jan. 1, 2000. Each movie should be feature length and released commercially. If you need a starting point, we have compiled our critics’ favorites from the last 25 years on one handy […] More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    Judge Orders Abrego Garcia Released on Smuggling Charges Before Trial

    The order to release Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from criminal custody as he awaits trial was a rebuke to the Trump administration. But he is likely to remain in immigration custody.In a sharp rebuke to the Justice Department, a federal judge said on Sunday that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia should be freed from criminal custody as he awaits trial on smuggling charges after his wrongful deportation to El Salvador and return to the United States.In a scathing order, the judge, Barbara D. Holmes, ruled that Mr. Abrego Garcia was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. The decision undermined repeated claims by President Trump and some of his top aides who have described the Salvadoran immigrant as a violent gang member, even a terrorist.But the decision by Judge Holmes, filed in Federal District Court in Nashville, was likely to be a short-lived victory for Mr. Abrego Garcia and his defense team. The judge acknowledged that he would probably remain in the custody of immigration officials, as his charges of smuggling undocumented immigrants across the United States moved through the courts.Judge Holmes’s ruling was the first judicial evaluation of the charges filed against Mr. Abrego Garcia since he was suddenly brought back to U.S. soil last month after prosecutors indicted him in Nashville. The decision to get him out of Salvadoran custody came as the Justice Department was under mounting pressure in a separate civil case. The judge in that case has threatened to hold administration officials in contempt for their serial evasions and delays in complying with her order to free him from El Salvador.Federal prosecutors immediately asked Judge Holmes to put the decision to free Mr. Abrego Garcia on hold, even as his lawyers hailed it.“We are pleased by the court’s thoughtful analysis and its express recognition that Mr. Abrego Garcia is entitled both to due process and the presumption of innocence, both of which our government has worked quite hard to deny him,” Sean Hecker, one of the defense lawyers, said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More