Aurelia Butler

In states like Arizona and Nevada, some voters split their tickets, supporting abortion rights measures while also backing Donald Trump.Democrats headed into the election hoping that abortion rights initiatives would drive support for Kamala Harris in states where the measures appeared on the ballot, including two presidential swing states, Arizona and Nevada.But while the ballot measures, broadly put, performed well on Tuesday, succeeding in seven out of 10 states, Ms. Harris and other Democrats underperformed them across the map.In both Arizona and Nevada, more than 60 percent of voters approved measures to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions, though more votes remained to be counted on Thursday. But Donald J. Trump appeared on track to win both states, according to New York Times estimates. Abortion rights initiatives also passed in Missouri and Montana, two states Mr. Trump won easily.Even as a growing share of women said abortion access was central to their vote, pre-election polling suggested that it wasn’t voters’ top concern overall. Fifteen percent of likely voters in an October national New York Times/Siena College poll said abortion was the most important issue in their vote for president, but roughly twice as many listed the economy, or inflation.The voters who cited abortion as their top concern favored Ms. Harris, 88 percent to 11 percent, and the voters who prioritized economic issues favored Mr. Trump, 72 percent to 24 percent.In states where the ballot measures passed but Mr. Trump won or was leading, voters had, in effect, split their tickets, supporting abortion rights in their states while also backing a candidate who took credit for overturning Roe v. Wade, which had established a nationwide right to abortion. Ms. Harris had made protecting abortion rights a central theme of her campaign.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

Hemos entrado en una nueva era política. Durante los últimos 40 años, más o menos, hemos vivido en la era de la información. Quienes pertenecemos a la clase educada decidimos, con cierta justificación, que la economía posindustrial sería construida por gente como nosotros, así que adaptamos las políticas sociales para satisfacer nuestras necesidades.Nuestra política educativa impulsó a muchos hacia el camino que nosotros seguíamos: universidades de cuatro años para que estuvieran calificados para los “trabajos del futuro”. Mientras tanto, la formación profesional languidecía. Adoptamos una política de libre comercio que llevó empleos industriales a países de bajo costo para que pudiéramos concentrar nuestras energías en empresas de la economía del conocimiento dirigidas por personas con títulos universitarios avanzados. El sector financiero y de consultoría creció como la espuma, mientras que el empleo manufacturero se marchitaba.Se consideró que la geografía no era importante: si el capital y la mano de obra altamente calificada querían concentrarse en Austin, San Francisco y Washington, en realidad no importaba lo que ocurriera con todas las demás comunidades que quedaron olvidadas. Las políticas migratorias facilitaron que personas con un alto nivel educativo tuviesen acceso a mano de obra con salarios bajos, mientras que los trabajadores menos calificados se enfrentaban a una nueva competencia. Viramos hacia tecnologías verdes favorecidas por quienes trabajan en píxeles, y desfavorecimos a quienes trabajan en la industria manufacturera y el transporte, cuyo sustento depende de los combustibles fósiles.Ese gran sonido de piezas en movimiento que has oído era la redistribución del respeto. Quienes ascendían en la escala académica eran aclamados, mientras que quienes no lo hacían se volvían invisibles. La situación era especialmente difícil para los hombres jóvenes. En la secundaria, dos tercios de los alumnos del 10 por ciento superior en las clases son chicas, mientras que aproximadamente dos tercios de los alumnos del decil inferior son chicos. Las escuelas no están preparadas para el éxito masculino; eso tiene consecuencias personales de por vida, y ahora también a nivel nacional.La sociedad funcionó como un vasto sistema de segregación, elevando a quienes estaban mejor dotados académicamente por encima de todos los demás. En poco tiempo, la brecha de los diplomas se convirtió en el abismo más importante de la vida estadounidense. Los graduados de secundaria mueren nueve años antes que las personas con estudios universitarios. Mueren seis veces más por sobredosis de opiáceos. Se casan menos, se divorcian más y tienen más probabilidades de tener un hijo fuera del matrimonio. Tienen más probabilidades de tener obesidad. Según un estudio reciente del American Enterprise Institute, el 24 por ciento de quienes han terminado como mucho la preparatoria no tienen amigos cercanos. Tienen menos probabilidades que los graduados universitarios de visitar espacios públicos o unirse a grupos comunitarios y ligas deportivas. No hablan en la jerga adecuada de justicia social ni mantienen el tipo de creencias sofisticadasi que son marcadores de virtud pública.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

Keir Starmer has rented out his home in north London since moving to Downing Street, according to newly published official records.For rent: a four-bedroom home within easy reach of the shops, restaurants and bars of fashionable north London. It might be a good idea to look after the place, however. The owner is Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer.After winning the general election in July, Mr. Starmer moved with his family into perhaps the nation’s most famous address, 10 Downing Street, freeing up the house in which he had lived for about two decades.According to official records released this week, his home has now been leased, as has a south London house owned by Rachel Reeves, the chancellor of the Exchequer, who has also moved into her official residence, 11 Downing Street.They are not the first senior British politicians presented with the dilemma of what to do with their properties when coming into power. Both the prime minister and the chancellor are given the use of a London home as well as a palatial country house for weekends.In 1997, when Labour’s Tony Blair was elected prime minister, he was advised against staying in his north London house for security reasons. But he was also warned against renting it out because of potential political embarrassment.That was because of a scandal that arose several years earlier when a previous chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, unknowingly rented his west London apartment to a tenant who, tabloid newspapers gleefully discovered, worked as a sex therapist under the name “Miss Whiplash.”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

For most of the millions of travelers who make the trek each year, there is no reason to go to Santa Fe except to go to Santa Fe. Just about everything that needs doing can and should be done somewhere else, someplace easier to get to than this tiny city 7,000 feet in the air, whose airport terminal is a fraction of the size of a typical American grocery store. But this town of 90,000 residents strives to ensure that its singularity is reason enough.Which makes it remarkable that Santa Fe’s most distinctive motif is left inscrutable to outsiders. A towering ghoul points down from a mural on one of the city’s busiest streets with no context. At a local confectionery, a scowling white figure in a cummerbund is rendered in chocolate — why? Even if you clock that the big-eared goblin tattooed on the biceps of a local electrician is the same creature depicted (being consumed by flames) on the cab of a municipal fire truck, you will encounter nowhere an explanation of who or what this monster is — unless you happen to be in Santa Fe on the one evening a year when locals construct a building-size version of this thing and set it on fire.The explanation is a touch nonsensical: This is Zozobra, a beast who lives in the mountains nearby. The people of Santa Fe invite him into town every year on the pretext of a party in his honor. He arrives at the party dressed in formal attire, thrusts the town into darkness and takes away “the hopes and dreams of Santa Fe’s children,” whom he also kidnaps. The townspeople try and fail to subdue him with torches. But then the Fire Spirit, summoned by an atmosphere of cooperation among the town’s citizens, appears and, flying high off the good vibes, battles Zozobra until he is consumed by fire.Zozobra sightings around Santa Fe.Thomas Prior for The New York TimesIf you are fortunate enough to be around on the exactly right night in late summer — the Friday before Labor Day — you may find yourself surrounded by, and even join in with, the screaming citizens of Santa Fe as they string up this enormous, writhing pale-faced humanoid on a pole on a hill overlooking their homes and burn him while he moans until dead.“Burn him!” demand the children onstage. “BUUUURN HIIIIIM!” roar the adults from the crowd, a portion of whom are inebriated. Unseen, a local judge howls into a microphone, providing the voice of a gargantuan puppet being cooked alive. It is possible that, one century ago, the forebears of the current population discovered the violent secret to happiness in their high, dry town — and that it is annual, ritualized killing by flames. Just in case that’s right — in fact, proceeding on an assumption that it is — the local citizenry have recommitted the monstrous puppet’s murder every year for 100 years straight, so far. The aim is to incinerate their gloom.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

La semana pasada, en su mitin de clausura en la Elipse, Kamala Harris despreció a Donald Trump como un caso atípico que no representaba a Estados Unidos. “Eso no es lo que somos”, declaró.De hecho, resulta que eso es exactamente lo que somos. Al menos la mayoría de nosotros.La suposición de que Trump representaba una anomalía que por fin sería relegada al montón de cenizas de la historia fue arrastrada el martes por la noche por una corriente republicana que barrió con los estados disputados y con la comprensión de Estados Unidos alimentada durante mucho tiempo por su élite dirigente de ambos partidos.La clase política ya no puede desechar a Trump como una interrupción temporal de la larga marcha del progreso, un caso fortuito que de algún modo se coló en la Casa Blanca con una estrafalaria y única victoria en el Colegio Electoral hace ocho años. Con este regreso ganador para recuperar la presidencia, Trump se ha establecido como una fuerza transformadora que está rehaciendo Estados Unidos a su imagen y semejanza.El desencanto populista con la dirección de la nación y el resentimiento contra las élites demostraron ser más profundos y más hondos de lo que muchos en ambos partidos habían reconocido. La campaña de Trump, impulsada por testosterona, aprovechó la resistencia a elegir a la primera mujer presidenta.Y aunque decenas de millones de electores siguieron votando contra Trump, este volvió a aprovechar la sensación de muchos otros de que estaban perdiendo el país que conocían, asediado económica, cultural y demográficamente.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

Diplomats and leaders from around the world are gathering for annual climate negotiations. Here’s what they’re all about and what Donald Trump’s victory means for the meeting.United Nations climate talks are starting in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Monday.The meeting will come just days after the election victory of Donald J. Trump, who has dismissed global warming as a hoax, and at the end of what will probably be the hottest year in recorded history. Extreme weather, much of it made more intense by climate change, is wreaking havoc around the globe.Against that backdrop, diplomats and heads of state from nearly 200 countries are gathering to try to chart a path forward. Here’s a concise guide to the meeting.What to know:What is COP29?When is COP29?Where is COP29?What is the main goal?Who will attend?How will the U.S. election result affect COP29?How will wars affect COP29?What is COP29?It’s an annual gathering of the 197 countries that have agreed to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Those countries, the parties to the convention, come together every year and try to update their plans to address climate change.COP stands for Conference of the Parties. This is the 29th such gathering.In recent years, COP has grown from a relatively insular meeting of diplomats and policy experts into an enormous event that attracts tens of thousands of attendees, including business executives, the leaders of nonprofit groups and activists.When is COP29?The event is scheduled to take place from Nov. 11 to Nov. 22, but the gatherings have a history of going into overtime as negotiators scramble to secure final agreements.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

President-elect Donald J. Trump has already sealed a comfortable majority in the Electoral College. But he is also on course to do something he didn’t do in his first successful campaign for the White House: win the popular vote.The latest count suggests Mr. Trump will win more votes nationally in Tuesday’s election than his defeated rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, making him the first Republican to prevail in the popular vote in 20 years.Though votes were still being counted in some states, as of Thursday morning Mr. Trump had received more than 72.6 million votes, against around 68 million for Ms. Harris, a gap of around 4.6 million votes.The last Republican presidential candidate to win more votes than his opponent was former President George W. Bush in 2004, when he won re-election against John F. Kerry. The last Republican before him to do so was George H.W. Bush, the sitting vice president who defeated Michael Dukakis in 1988.The tally is a further measure of the scale of Mr. Trump’s win and another blow to Democrats. The consensus among pollsters before Election Day was that while Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris would run neck and neck in the Electoral College votes that decide the presidency, Ms. Harris would likely gain more votes overall.The assumption was partly based on recent elections. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore, but prevailed in the Electoral College. In the 2016 election, Mr. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, but some Democrats took comfort in the fact that she had gained nearly three million more votes nationally than he did. More

The president-elect says that tariff is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” You may be hearing it a lot.President-elect Donald J. Trump has professed a belief in the power of tariffs for decades. Now, as he prepares to take office, they are a central part of his economic plan.Mr. Trump argues that steep tariffs on foreign goods will help benefit U.S. manufacturing and create jobs. His proposals would raise tariffs to a level not seen in generations. Many economists have warned of potentially harmful consequences from such a move, including higher costs for American households and businesses, and globally destabilizing trade wars.Here are five crucial things to know about Mr. Trump’s sweeping trade plans.Mr. Trump has floated several hefty tariff plans.While campaigning for the White House, Mr. Trump offered up a running list of tariffs. He talked about a “universal” tariff of 10 to 20 percent on most foreign products. He has proposed tariffs of 60 percent or more on Chinese goods. And he has suggested removing permanent normal trading relations with China, which would result in an immediate increase in tariffs on Chinese imports.Mr. Trump has also promoted the idea of a “reciprocal” tariff, in which the United States would match the tariff rates that other countries put on American goods. He has suggested using tariff revenue to replace income taxes. And he has threatened tariffs of 100, 200 or even 1,000 percent on Mexico, saying the country should do more to stop flows of migrants and shipments of Chinese cars.The Biden administration has also raised tariffs on goods from China, but Mr. Trump’s plans are much larger — affecting trillions of dollars of products, rather than tens of billions.Mr. Trump says foreign companies pay the tariffs. That’s usually wrong.A tariff is a tax that is put on a product when it crosses a border. For instance, a company that brings its product into the United States — the importer — actually pays the tariff to the U.S. government.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