Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Dan Osborn to Seek Pete Ricketts’s Nebraska Senate Seat, Stressing Class Issues

      by

      A steamfitter and former union leader, running as an independent but with Democratic support, will take on the Republican incumbent, a billionaire’s son.Dan Osborn, a steamfitter and former labor leader from Nebraska who ran a surprisingly close campaign for a Senate seat as an independent last year, announced Tuesday that he would run for the Senate again in 2026.Mr. Osborn said in an interview that he would aim to draw a sharp contrast between his working-class background and the profile of Senator Pete Ricketts, the Republican incumbent, who is an heir to billions his father made in the financial services industry.“It’s the C.E.O. from Omaha versus the guy from the shop floor from Omaha, so that’s going be the fundamental difference,” Mr. Osborn said.Mr. Osborn, 50, faces a steep climb against Mr. Ricketts. Republicans have won every House and Senate seat in Nebraska since 2014, when Brad Ashford, a Democrat who had previously been a Republican, won a single term in the House.Mr. Ricketts, 60, who has spent tens of millions of dollars on Nebraska campaigns for himself and other Republicans, is not likely to be surprised by Mr. Osborn, as was Senator Deb Fischer last year, when Mr. Osborn, running a populist campaign, outperformed Vice President Kamala Harris in the state by 13 percentage points. Ms. Fisher defeated Mr. Osborn by 6.6 percentage points.In a campaign announcement video, Mr. Osborn disparages Mr. Ricketts as someone who inherited billions from his father, calls him Wall Street Pete and accuses him of turning his back on Nebraska’s working people. “Bye, Pete,” Mr. Osborn says.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Prominent Investor Is Criticized Over Mamdani Comments

      by

      A partner at Sequoia, the venture capital giant drew criticism for calling the Democratic mayoral candidate for New York an “Islamist.” Shaun Maguire of Sequoia Capital is in the hot seat.Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images For 137 Ventures/FoA battle over a venture capitalist’s Mamdani postsZohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, has drawn heated opposition from many business elites for his policy positions, including higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy.But comments by a leading figure at Sequoia, the venture capital giant, calling Mamdani an “Islamist” have drawn backlash — and put the institution at odds with some of the founders it has backed.TL;DR: Shaun Maguire, a partner at Sequoia and a prominent Silicon Valley conservative, referred on social media last week to the news that Mamdani had checked boxes in his application to Columbia in 2009 indicating his ethnicity as “Asian” and “Black or African American.” (His parents are of Indian origin and he was born in Uganda, and he told The Times that he had sought to represent his complex background, and had noted his Ugandan origins in the application.)Maguire wrote on X that the news showed that Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything” and added, “It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda.”Entrepreneurs and others have censured Maguire’s comments. An online petition went up over this weekend calling the investor’s posts “a deliberate, inflammatory attack that promotes dangerous anti-Muslim stereotypes and stokes division.”It had more than 700 signatories as of Tuesday. Among them was a founder of a company that have been backed by Sequoia; others received investment from entities that have since been spun off from the firm. One, Hisham Al-Falih of Lean Technologies, told Bloomberg that Maguire’s post was “not only a sweeping and harmful generalization of Muslims, but part of a broader pattern of Islamophobic rhetoric that has no place in our industry.” More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Gender Gap That Ate the Democrats

      by

      Much of the analysis of the 2024 election focused on Democratic losses among working-class minorities, especially Hispanic and Black voters. But the dominant theme of the contest was, in fact, the broader shift of men of all races and ethnicities to the Republican Party.If men had supported Kamala Harris at the same level as women did, Harris would have won the popular vote and possibly the Electoral College. Donald Trump beat her by 2.28 million votes, in an election that saw the male vote for the Democratic presidential nominee fall by 3.54 million from 2020 to 2024 and the female vote fall by just over 844,000.The Democratic Party lost ground in the 2024 election among almost all demographic groups — white people, Black people, Latinos, the young, rural and exurban voters — but all the defections had one thing in common: Democratic losses were significantly greater among men than among women.These developments are well documented in two extensive election analyses by organizations that offer some of the best demographic studies of voting patterns: “What Happened in 2024” by Catalist, a liberal voter-study firm, and “Behind Trump’s 2024 Victory, a More Racially and Ethnically Diverse Voter Coalition” by Pew Research.Catalist found that in 2024 Harris, the second woman to run for president as the Democratic nominee, received just 1 percent less support than Joe Biden did in 2020 from white women, while Harris’s backing from white men fell by four percentage points. Among Black voters, Harris saw a one-point drop among women and an eight-point decline among Black men; among Latinos, Harris lost seven points among women, 12 points among men.Catalist summarized its findings on the differences between the partisan shifts of men and women:The partisan gender gap remains high and grew in 2024. Women have long been more likely to support Democrats than men do. The gender gap in partisan preferences increased in 2024: women continued to support Harris (55 percent support) at roughly the same levels that they supported Biden in 2020 (56 percent). But men moved toward Trump in 2024, from 48 percent support for Biden in 2020 to 42 percent support for Harris in 2024.The most severe declines in Democratic voting, according to Catalist, “were concentrated among the younger cohorts of voters, particularly young men. For instance, support for Democrats from 2020 to 2024 among young Black men dropped from 85 percent to 75 percent and support among young Latino men dropped from 63 percent to 47 percent.”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

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      What Happened in Trade Talks Between Japan and the U.S.

      by

      Tokyo had expected smooth tariff negotiations but is experiencing whiplash, becoming a central target of President Trump’s trade frustrations.Earlier this year, Japan’s relationship with the United States seemed to be on solid footing.Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba met with President Trump at the White House in February and pledged to significantly boost investment in the United States. The two leaders talked about their “unwavering commitment” to what some U.S. diplomats have called the most important bilateral relationship in the world, bar none.Those ties appeared to count for something when the Trump administration announced so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of trading partners on April 2. Sure, the 24 percent rate handed to Japan from the top buyer of its goods was a blow. But Japan was the first major trade partner invited to Washington to negotiate those tariffs away.Now, Japan is dealing with diplomatic whiplash.On Monday, Mr. Trump delayed until Aug. 1 tariffs that were supposed to take effect on Wednesday for dozens of countries. Japan was among a subset of countries, along with a neighbor, South Korea, that received letters directing them to change what the White House called unfair trade policies.The announcement that Japan would be targeted with a new 25 percent tariff came after a week in which Mr. Trump repeatedly lashed out at the country, an ally, for its unwillingness to buy American cars and rice. He characterized Japan as “spoiled” and indicated that a trade deal was unlikely.On Tuesday, Mr. Ishiba said Japanese government officials had engaged in “earnest and sincere discussions” with counterparts in the United States. He called the U.S. announcement “deeply regrettable.”The international cargo terminal at the port in Tokyo.Kazuhiro Nogi/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWe 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

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Grip That Race and Identity Have on My Students

      by

      In the spring of 2023, in a cramped classroom in the Hudson Valley, I taught an undergraduate seminar on the courage to think about race in unconventional ways. It revolved around reading books by Frederick Douglass, James Weldon Johnson and Albert Murray. These minds had shaped and refined my thinking about the idea of America, the fundamentally mongrel populations that inhabit it, as well as the yet-to-be-perfected flesh-and-blood nation of the future we might one day bring forth in unison.Early in the semester, as I waxed exuberant about the unifying possibilities of the 2008 election, I was met by a conference table ringed with blank stares. For my clever and earnest students, I realized, the earth-shattering political achievements of the beleaguered but still unfolding present were nothing but the vaguest rumor of an abstract history.“Professor,” a diligent young woman from Queens who described herself as Latina and applied a no-nonsense activist lens and corresponding vocabulary to most engagements with the world, voiced what all her classmates must have been thinking. “I was 4 years old in 2008. I don’t know what you’re talking about!”Their experience of this country, and themselves, couldn’t have differed more from my own, or from many of the 19th- and 20th-century authors on our syllabus. I assigned these writers because they had so courageously laid the intellectual and moral framework that a figure like Barack Obama would one day harness.I am old enough now to appreciate that there can be only one politician in your lifetime who can truly move you to dream. I feel lucky to have had that experience through Mr. Obama. My students that semester — white, Latino and Asian teens and 20-somethings whose political views had been forged in relation to the reactionary populism of Donald Trump and through a certain skepticism of the American idea itself — had yet to encounter such an inspirational figure. Race pessimism, even a kind of mass learned helplessness, was instead the weather that enveloped them.When my friend Coleman Hughes guest-lectured on his case for colorblindness, several of them were visibly unnerved, suggesting that the idea itself was a form of anti-Blackness. Most maintained that one could no more “retire” from race, as Adrian Piper — another of the authors we wrestled with — aspired to do, than one could teleport up from the classroom.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

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Book Review: ‘2024,’ by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf

      by

      “2024,” a campaign book by three seasoned political journalists, immerses readers in the chaos and ironies of the race for the White House.2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac ArnsdorfIn “2024,” the latest 400-page dispatch from last year’s presidential contest, the authors, a trio of veteran journalists from different august papers — Josh Dawsey (The Wall Street Journal), Tyler Pager (The New York Times) and Isaac Arnsdorf (The Washington Post) — write that “there was a view popular among some political insiders that this election had been over before it was started.”The authors end up arguing that things were not so fated, but reading what they have to report, I couldn’t help feeling those political insiders had a point. In this account, Biden’s operation resembles its candidate: listless, semi-coherent, sleepwalking toward calamity. It exists for its own sake, impervious to outside input, pushed along by inertia alone. The Trump campaign — at least after his first indictment provides a burst of energy and purpose — appears driven, disciplined, capable of evaluating trade-offs and making tough decisions. Trump seems to want to win; Biden just wants to survive.Things do change when Kamala Harris enters the fray. She gives Trump a run for his money, but her campaign is held back from the start by the slow-moving disaster that made it necessary in the first place.“2024” is a well-paced, thorough and often (darkly) humorous account of the two-year campaign season that began when Donald Trump announced he was running for president again — at a Mar-a-Lago launch so disorganized and halfhearted, the authors write, that even sycophantic Trump allies admitted it was “a dud.”It is also perhaps the smelliest campaign book I can recall. Trump reflects on his future over fried shrimp and tartar sauce. A Biden aide picks at eggs and bacon in a lonely hotel restaurant. At a desultory Trump news conference in the summer of 2024, packages of sausage and gallons of milk are laid out as props to highlight rising food prices; flies circle the meat “spoiling in the August sun.”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

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      After Mamdani’s Win, Some Democrats Are Determined to Stop Him

      by

      Though Zohran Mamdani scored a resounding victory in New York City’s Democratic primary, some in his own party are strategizing about how to defeat him in November.The race for mayor in New York City took an unusual and turbulent turn on Monday as some Democrats lined up to suggest ways to defeat Zohran Mamdani, the one candidate officially running on their party’s line.Former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Eric Adams, two Democrats currently planning to run in the November election as independents, each called on the other to drop out.A third independent candidate, Jim Walden, was less specific in his similarly themed proposal last week. He suggested that a poll be taken in the fall to determine who among what he referred to as the four “free-market candidates” has the best chance of defeating Mr. Mamdani in a race that “pits capitalism against socialism.” Mr. Mamdani’s left-leaning platform and democratic socialist affiliation have alarmed some of the Democratic establishment.Whoever doesn’t win the poll, Mr. Walden said, should pledge to bow out and support the winner.Mr. Walden’s proposal was backed on Monday by Mr. Cuomo as well as former Gov. David A. Paterson, a Democrat who held a news conference to announce his support alongside the Republican billionaire John Catsimatidis and Sid Rosenberg, a radio host and supporter of President Trump.The underlying notion is that in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans six to one, the only way to defeat Mr. Mamdani is for his challengers — the three independents and Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate — to consolidate their support behind just one of them, and avoid splitting the vote in a five-way race.In some ways, the calls for unity among the independent candidates echo the push that left-leaning groups made during the primary, when they urged supporters to lock arms in an effort to defeat Mr. Cuomo.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

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Von der Leyen Faces No-Confidence Vote in Far-Right Challenge

      by

      Ahead of the vote on Thursday, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the commission, appeared before the European Parliament to defend herself against complaints about transparency.Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, is expected to face a no-confidence vote in the European Parliament this week. While the measure is likely to fail, it will be a symbolic challenge to the European Union’s top official at a time of high tension.Ms. von der Leyen appeared before Parliament on Monday for a debate to address the complaints against her ahead of the vote, which is scheduled for Thursday.The challenge originated from Europe’s far right: Gheorghe Piperea, a parliamentary newcomer from Romania who belongs to a political group that is often critical of the European Union, accused Ms. von der Leyen’s commission, the E.U.’s executive arm, of “failures to ensure transparency.”The complaint referred to a lawsuit filed by The New York Times over the commission’s denial of a request for records of text messages between Ms. von der Leyen and Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s chief executive, when she was trying to procure coronavirus vaccines.The General Court in Luxembourg sided with The Times, ruling in May that Ms. von der Leyen’s commission did not provide enough of an explanation in refusing the request for her text messages with the Pfizer executive.Mr. Piperea’s complaint also referred to the commission’s push to ramp up joint defense procurement and to carry out digital laws. He asserted in a filing that the commission’s behavior had been repeatedly opaque and “undermines trust.”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