Elections

A district court judge ruled last month that the 14th Amendment barred insurrectionists from every office except the nation’s highest. “How is that not absurd?” one justice asked of that notion.The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the question of whether former President Donald J. Trump is barred from holding office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies people who engaged in insurrection against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it.Several of the seven justices appeared skeptical of arguments made by a lawyer for Mr. Trump, including the core one that a district court judge relied on in a ruling last month ordering Mr. Trump to be included on the Colorado primary ballot: that Section 3 did not apply to the presidency. The Colorado Supreme Court is hearing an appeal of that ruling as part of a lawsuit brought by Republican and independent voters in the state who, in seeking to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot, have contended the opposite.“How is that not absurd?” Justice Richard L. Gabriel asked of the notion that the lawmakers who wrote Section 3 in the wake of the Civil War had intended to disqualify insurrectionists from every office except the nation’s highest.Section 3 lists a number of positions an insurrectionist is disqualified from holding but not explicitly the presidency, so challenges to Mr. Trump’s eligibility rely on the argument that the presidency is included in the phrases “officer of the United States” and “any office, civil or military, under the United States.” It also does not specify who gets to decide whether someone is an insurrectionist: election officials and courts, as the petitioners argue, or Congress itself, as Mr. Trump’s team argues.Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Scott Gessler, suggested on Wednesday that the lawmakers had trusted the Electoral College to prevent an insurrectionist from becoming president, and that they had known the Northern states held enough electoral power after the Civil War to prevent a Confederate leader from winning a national election anyway.Justice Gabriel did not seem satisfied, and neither did colleagues who jumped in with follow-up questions. Justice Monica M. Márquez asked why lawmakers would have chosen the “indirect” route of blocking someone only through the Electoral College. And Justice Melissa Hart asked whether Mr. Gessler’s interpretation of Section 3 would have allowed Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy, to become president.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?  More

The move is the latest of several that undercut prospects of free elections next year, despite commitments made to the Biden administration in return for sanctions relief.Venezuela’s top prosecutor accused several top opposition figures of treason and ordered their arrest on Wednesday, the latest blow to prospects for credible elections that the government has agreed to hold next year in exchange for the lifting of crippling U.S. economic sanctions.The attorney general, Tarek William Saab, said that opponents of the leftist government had accepted money from ExxonMobil to sabotage President Nicolás Maduro’s recent referendum on annexing a large, oil-rich region in Guyana. The oil company could not immediately be reached for comment.Mr. Saab did not say what, specifically, the accused had done to thwart the referendum, but he said they would be charged with treason, conspiracy, money laundering and criminal association. He announced arrest warrants for 15 people, some of them prominent opposition members, including people who live abroad and two U.S. citizens.The Biden administration has tried to coax Venezuela into holding elections, relaxing some of the damaging American sanctions. In October, the government reached an agreement with the opposition on steps toward a vote, and it agreed last week that candidates who have been barred from running for office could appeal that penalty to the country’s top tribunal.But Mr. Maduro’s government has also repeatedly undercut the opposition’s ability to mount a meaningful challenge.More than 2.4 million Venezuelans voted in October in an opposition primary election for president, held without official government support. Since then, the government has questioned the primary’s legitimacy, has taken legal aim at its organizers and has barred the winner of the primary, María Corina Machado, from running for office for 15 years, claiming that she did not complete her declaration of assets and income when she was a legislator. Three of those Mr. Saab accused on Wednesday are members of Ms. Machado’s political party who live in Venezuela.Since Mr. Maduro took power in 2013, after the death of Hugo Chávez, the combination of growing oppression, rampant corruption and sanctions has made life much harder for ordinary Venezuelans, and millions have left the country. Under Mr. Maduro, international observers have called the country’s elections illegitimate.With the allegations of treason, President Biden must decide whether to continue betting that sanctions relief will persuade Mr. Maduro to allow a real vote, said Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow for Venezuela at the Atlantic Council.“I think Maduro is really forcing Biden’s hand here,” he said. “It’s become clear that he can’t win a free and fair election, so he needs Washington to snap back the sanctions to justify a crackdown that allows the regime to revert to the status quo.”On Sunday, Venezuela held a referendum, backed by Mr. Maduro, on whether to annex the Essequibo region in Guyana. Mr. Maduro has cast the issue as a fight with ExxonMobil, the American oil company that has a deal with the Guyanese government. His critics say the vote was no more than a bid to divert attention from his political troubles by stoking nationalist fervor.Jorge Rodriguez, president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, with a map on Wednesday showing Essequibo as part of Venezuela.Pedro Rances Mattey/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe government reported a vote of more than 95 percent in favor. Though political analysts, social media users and New York Times journalists reported sparse turnout, the government claimed that it was heavy, with 10.5 million ballots cast.“With the inflated vote numbers, they’ve just become a mockery,” said Christopher Sabatini, a senior research fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, an international affairs research group in London. “Things really do seem to be falling apart.”The Essequibo region, with immense mineral and oil wealth but few people, is almost as large as Florida, taking up nearly three-quarters of the total area administered by Guyana. Venezuela and Britain both claimed it in the 19th century, and the dispute has continued since Guyana gained independence from Britain in 1966. The question is under consideration by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.At the same time that Mr. Saab was giving his news conference, Ms. Machado, a center-right former lawmaker, was holding one of her own at her party’s headquarters in Caracas, saying that the referendum had damaged the electoral authority’s credibility.As news of the charges and arrest orders spread on social media and through the room where Ms. Machado was speaking, her assistant pulled her campaign chief off the stage and whispered in her ear. Afterward, another party leader took the stage to say they were waiting for formal notice from the attorney general.The three party members who were charged left the headquarters without giving statements. They are the international relations coordinator, Pedro Urruchurtu; the political coordinator, Henry Alviarez, and the communications coordinator, Claudia Macero.The Americans accused by Mr. Saab are Damian Merlo, a consultant who has advised the authoritarian president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele; and Savoi Jandon Wright. Mr. Saab gave no information about Mr. Wright, except that he was already imprisoned in Venezuela. More

The six Republicans charged on Wednesday included the state party’s chairman and vice chairman as well as the chairman of the Republican Party in Clark County.A Nevada grand jury indicted top leaders of the state’s Republican Party on charges of forging and submitting fraudulent documents in the fake elector scheme to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, the state’s attorney general announced on Wednesday.The six Republicans charged, who claimed to be electors for Donald J. Trump, included the chairman of the state party, Michael J. McDonald. Also included are Jim Hindle, the state party’s vice chairman; Jim DeGraffenreid, a national committeeman; Jesse Law, the chairman of the Republican Party in Clark County, home to Las Vegas; and Shawn Meehan and Eileen Rice, executive board members of the Republican Party in Douglas County.“When the efforts to undermine faith in our democracy began after the 2020 election, I made it clear that I would do everything in my power to defend the institutions of our nation and our state,” Aaron D. Ford, Nevada’s attorney general and a Democrat, said in a statement. “We cannot allow attacks on democracy to go unchallenged. Today’s indictments are the product of a long and thorough investigation, and as we pursue this prosecution, I am confident that our judicial system will see justice done.”The charges are the latest in a nationwide effort by officials to prosecute those who falsely portrayed themselves as state electors in an effort to overturn Mr. Trump’s defeat in 2020. Michigan’s attorney general charged 16 Republicans in July for a similar effort in the state.The plan involved creating false slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump in seven swing states that were won by Mr. Biden in an effort to overturn the election.Kenneth Chesebro, a key player in the fake elector scheme, is listed as a witness in the Nevada indictments. Mr. Chesebro had earlier pleaded guilty in a criminal racketeering indictment in Georgia that accused him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Mr. Chesebro had also agreed to cooperate with state prosecutors in that case.The six Republicans were each charged in similar four-page indictments with one count of forging certificates designating Nevada’s electoral votes for Mr. Trump, even though Mr. Biden won the state in 2020. They were also each charged with one count of knowingly submitting these fake certificates to state and federal officials.If convicted, the false electors face a combined maximum of nine years in prison and $15,000 in fines. More

Six Republicans who cast fake electoral votes for Donald Trump in Nevada in 2020 were charged with two felonies each by the state’s attorney general on Wednesday.The Democratic attorney general, Aaron Ford, announced the charges, saying a grand jury had decided to charge the six fake electors with “offering a false instrument for filing” and “uttering a forged instrument” for sending documents claiming to be the state’s electors.Fake electors in Georgia and Michigan have already been charged, while others of the seven states with similar schemes are still investigating the issue. A separate civil lawsuit in Wisconsin over the fake electors settled this week, with the Republicans who claimed Trump won the state acknowledging Biden’s victory and agreeing not to serve as electors next year.“When the efforts to undermine faith in our democracy began after the 2020 election, I made it clear that I would do everything in my power to defend the institutions of our nation and our state,” Ford said in a statement. “We cannot allow attacks on democracy to go unchallenged. Today’s indictments are the product of a long and thorough investigation, and as we pursue this prosecution, I am confident that our judicial system will see justice done.”Ford had previously said the state’s laws didn’t address a situation like this. The state legislature passed a bill to make it a felony to be a fake elector, but the governor vetoed the bill.The six Nevadans charged are Michael McDonald, Jesse Law, Jim DeGraffenreid, Durward James Hindle III, Shawn Meehan and Eileen Rice.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe filing a false instrument charge is a category C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, while the uttering a false instrument charge is a category D felony, with potential for up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine. More

A race in Rainier, Wash., was determined by a single vote, avoiding a tie and coin toss. One of the candidates did not cast a ballot.A local election in Washington State could have come down to a coin toss.Instead, one of the candidates, Ryan Roth, won by a single vote — his own. His opponent, Damion Green, didn’t vote.The two were competing for a seat on the City Council in Rainier, a community of approximately 2,400 people about 16 miles southeast of the state capital, Olympia.Mr. Roth, a landfill manager and father of four, ran a campaign. He canvassed voters, handed out yard signs and marched in the town’s parade in August. Mr. Green, an auto body technician whose household includes six children, chose not to campaign, trusting that voters would remember his stances from a previous run.After clearing a primary election, the two candidates met at a public forum with sitting City Council members. They both talked about a need for economic growth while maintaining Rainier’s small-town feel. Mr. Roth, 33, mailed in his ballot a few days before the Nov. 7 election. Mr. Green didn’t make it to the polls.In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Green, 40, said that he wished he had voted but not for himself.“I ran for other people, not for me,” he said, adding that at the public forum before the Nov. 7 vote, he learned that he and Mr. Roth held similar views.“Two middle-class dudes trying to do the same thing for our community, so it was a win-win for Rainier,” Mr. Green said.For several days after the election, the vote results appeared to be a tie. Finally, Mr. Roth inched ahead by one ballot. It took election officials nearly a month to certify the win after a mandatory hand recount last week.The race for Rainier City Council was part of Thurston County elections, which included a countywide proposition to raise sales taxes to give law enforcement funding a boost. The proposition passed.Voting in the council race was so close that the county was required by law to conduct a hand recount. Ultimately, Mr. Roth won with 247 votes to Mr. Green’s 246. State law prescribes that had it been a tie, a winner would be “publicly decided by lot.”In the last instance of a tie, Thurston County favored a coin toss — which Mr. Green said could have ended his bid for the council seat with the same outcome.“I feel bad for the people who did vote for me,” he added.In an interview, Mr. Roth said the process showed him that every vote counts. “A lot of people don’t think that it does, but it does,” he said. More

The predictive power of horse-race polling a year from the presidential election is weak at best. The Biden campaign can take some comfort in that. But what recent surveys do reveal is that the coalition that put Joe Biden in the White House in the first place is nowhere near as strong as it was four years ago.These danger signs include fraying support among core constituencies, including young voters, Black voters and Hispanic voters, and the decline, if not the erasure, of traditional Democratic advantages in representing the interests of the middle class and speaking for the average voter.Any of these on their own might not be cause for alarm, but taken together they present a dangerous situation for Biden.From Nov. 5 through Nov. 11, Democracy Corps, a Democratic advisory group founded by Stan Greenberg and James Carville, surveyed 2,500 voters in presidential and Senate battleground states as well as competitive House districts.In an email, Greenberg summarized the results: “This is grim.” The study, he said, found that collectively, voters in the Democratic base of “Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, LGBTQ+ community, Gen Z, millennials, unmarried and college women give Trump higher approval ratings than Biden.”On 32 subjects ranging from abortion to China, the Democracy Corps survey asked voters to choose which would be better, “Biden and the Democrats” or “Trump and the Republicans.”Biden and the Democrats led on six: women’s rights (ahead by 17 points), climate change (15 points), addressing racial inequality (10 points), health care (3 points), the president will not be an autocrat (plus 2) and protecting Democracy (plus 1). There was a tie on making democracy more secure.Donald Trump and the Republicans held leads on the remaining subjects, including being for working people (a 7-point advantage), standing up to elites (8 points), being able to get things done for the American people (12 points), feeling safe (12 points) and keeping wages and salaries up with the cost of living (17 points).In the case of issues that traditionally favor Republicans, Trump and his allies held commanding leads: patriotism (11 points), crime (17 points), immigration (20 points) and border security (22 points).Particularly worrisome for Democrats, who plan to demonize Trump as a threat to democracy, are the advantages Trump and Republicans have on opposing extremism (3 points), getting beyond the chaos (6 points) and protecting the Constitution (8 points).There is some evidence in both the Democracy Corp survey and in other polls that concerns specific to Biden — including his age and the surge in prices during his presidency — are driving the perception of Democratic weakness rather than discontent with the party itself.The survey found, for example, that Democratic candidates in House battleground districts are running even with their Republican opponents among all voters, and two points ahead among voters who say they are likely to cast ballots on Election Day.Along similar lines, a November 2023 NBC News poll found Trump leading Biden by two points, 46-44, but when voters were asked to choose between Trump and an unnamed Democratic candidate, the generic Democrat won 46-40.In a reflection of both Biden’s and Trump’s high unfavorability ratings, NBC reported that when voters were asked to choose between Biden and an unnamed generic Republican, the “Republican candidate” led Biden 48-37.Other nonpartisan polls describe similar Democratic weaknesses. A September Morning Consult survey found, for example, that “voters are now more likely to see the Republican Party as capable of governing, tackling big issues and keeping the country safe compared with the Democratic Party” and that “by a 9-point margin, voters also see the Democratic Party as more ideologically extreme than the G.O.P.”In the main, according to Morning Consult, these weaknesses result from declining confidence within Democratic ranks in their own party, rather than strong support for Trump and the Republican Party: “The trends against the Democratic Party are largely driven by worsening perceptions among its own voter base, which suggests that the party will have to rely more than ever on negative partisanship to keep control of the White House.”Morning Consult posed the same set of questions to voters about the political parties in 2020 and again this year in order to track shifting voter attitudes.Asked, for example which party is more “capable of governing,” 48 percent of voters in 2020 said the Democrats and 42 percent said the Republicans. This year, 47 percent said the Republicans and 44 percent said the Democrats.Similar shifts occurred on the question of which party will “keep the nation safe” and which party can “tackle the big issues.”In what amounts to a body blow to Biden and his Democratic allies, Republicans are now virtually tied with Democrats on a matter that has been a mainstay of Democratic support since the formation of the New Deal coalition during the Great Depression. A September 2023 NBC News survey “found that 34 percent of voters believe Republicans are better at looking out for the middle class, while 36 percent say the same of Democrats. The 2-point margin in favor of Democrats is the lowest it has been in the history of the poll.”“Democrats have held over 30 years as high as a 29-point advantage as being the party better able to deal with and handle issues of concern to the middle class, ” Bill McInturff, a partner in the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, which joined with the Democratic firm Hart Research to conduct the NBC poll, told me.Neil Newhouse, who is also a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, emailed me to say that the opinion trends among Black and Hispanic voters “are figures G.O.P.’ers could only dream about a few years ago.”Although many of those with whom I discussed the data voiced deep concern over Biden’s prospects, let me cite a couple of experts who are more optimistic.Simon Rosenberg, a veteran Democratic operative and former president of the New Democratic Network, emailed me a series of bullet points:The last four presidential elections have gone 51 percent-46 percent Democratic, best run for Dems since F.D.R.’s elections. Only 1 R — George W. Bush 2004 — has broken 48 percent since the 1992 election, and Dems have won more votes in seven of last eight presidential elections. If there is a party with a coalition problem, it is them, not us.Our performance since Dobbs remains remarkable, and important. In 2022 we gained in AZ, CO, GA, MI, MN, NH, PA over 2020, getting to 59 percent in CO, 57 percent in PA, 55 percent in MI, 54 percent in NH in that “red wave” year. This year we’ve won and outperformed across the country in every kind of election, essentially leaving this a blue wave year.We got to 56 percent in the WI SCOTUS race, 57 percent in Ohio, flipped Colorado Springs and Jacksonville, flipped the VA House, Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear grew his margin, we won mayoralties and school board races across the United States. Elections are about winning and losing, and we keep winning and they keep losing.In a recent post on his Substack, “Why I Am Optimistic About 2024,” Rosenberg elaborated:Opposition and fear of MAGA is the dominant force in U.S. politics today, and that is a big problem for super-MAGA Trump in 2024. Fear and opposition to MAGA has been propelling our electoral wins since 2018, and will almost certainly do so again next year.Alex Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, expressed similar optimism concerning Biden’s chances: “Once Democrats come to terms with the fact that Biden will be the nominee (and, more importantly, that Trump will in all likelihood be the G.O.P. nominee), a lot of the internal malaise expressed in current polls should dissipate.”When Biden begins campaigning in earnest, Theodoridis wrote,He will likely still come across as relatively competent and steady. And, while Trump always looms over G.O.P. politics, we will certainly see more coverage of him as G.O.P. nominee to remind less engaged Democrats and the few true independents that he is a deeply flawed figure who has and would again pose a real threat to our Republic.When voters finally make up their minds, Theodoridis predicted, “The anti-MAGA, pro-democracy, pro-reproductive-rights message that has boosted turnout and served Democratic candidates well the last two Novembers will likely do so again.”Jim Kessler, a senior vice president of Third Way, a Democratic think tank, is nowhere near as confident in Democratic prospects as Rosenberg and Theodoridis are. In an email, Kessler observed that polls at this time need to be taken with a grain of salt — remarking that in 1991, George H.W. Bush appeared to be the prohibitive favorite to win a second term and that in 2011, Mitt Romney was well ahead of President Barack Obama.In addition, Kessler wrote, in the past month,The price of gasoline has fallen 20 cents to a national average of $3.24 a gallon. Headline and core inflation have begun their final descent toward benign, historic levels. Interest rates have fallen about 40 basis points in the past several months. The so-called “misery index” (inflation + unemployment rate) could very well be at a level that is incumbent friendly.That said, Kessler continued, there are clear danger signs:Biden won in 2020 because he was perceived as having a more positive brand than the Democratic Party. That brand advantage over the Democratic Party is now gone. Exhibits A and B are crime and immigration. In 2020, Biden was perceived as tougher on crime and the border than the typical Democrat.In one primary debate, Kessler pointed out,Biden was the only candidate onstage not to raise his hand on a question that essentially could be interpreted as wanting open borders. He also loudly and repeatedly voiced his opposition to “defund the police” and never ran away from the 1994 crime bill that he authored in the Senate.That, in Kessler’s view, “is not the Joe Biden voters are hearing today. Voters actually hear almost nothing from the administration on crime or the border, and this allows the opposition to define them on an issue of great salience.”Biden, Kessler argued, has a credible record on tougher border enforcement and cracking down on crime, but he and other members of the administration don’t promote itbecause these are issues on which our active, progressive base is split. But if you are silent on these issues, it is like an admission of guilt to voters. They believe you do not care or are dismissive of their very real concerns. That means Biden must accept some griping from the left to get this story out to the vast middle.Will Marshall, president and founder of the center-left Public Policy Institute think tank, responded to my query with an emailed question: “Trump is Kryptonite for American democracy, so why isn’t President Biden leading him by 15 points?”Marshall’s answer:Biden’s basic problem is that the Democratic Party keeps shrinking, leaving it with a drastically slender margin of error. It’s losing working class voters — whites — by enormous, 30-point margins — but nonwhites without college degrees are slipping away too.The ascendance of largely white, college-educated liberals within party ranks, in Marshall’s view, haspushed Democrats far to the dogmatic left, even as their base grows smaller. Young progressives have identified the party with stances on immigration, crime, gender, climate change and Palestinian resistance that are so far from mainstream sentiment that they can even eclipse MAGA extremism.“Democrats,” Marshall wrote, in a line of argument similar to Kessler’s,have been aiming at the wrong target and have less than a year to adjust their sights. That means putting high prices and living costs front and center, embracing cultural pragmatism, confronting left-wing radicalism on the border, public safety and Israel and embracing a post-populist economics that speaks to working Americans’ aspirations for growth and upward mobility rather than their presumed sense of economic victimhood.Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, contended that the view of Biden and the Democratic Party as elitist and weak on the very values that were Democratic strengths in the past lacks foundation in practice. Instead, the adverse portrait of the Democrats represents a major success on the part of right-wing media — and a complicit mainstream media — in creating a false picture of the party.In a forthcoming paper, “Bridging the Blue Divide: The Democrats’ New Metro Coalition and the Unexpected Prominence of Redistribution,” Hacker said he and three colleagues found thatDemocrats have not changed their orientation nearly as much as critics of the party argue. In particular, the party has not shifted its emphasis from economic to social/identity issues, nor has it moderated its economic positions overall. Instead, it has placed a high priority on an ambitious economic program that involves a wider range of policy aims and instruments than in the past (including industrial policy and pro-labor initiatives as well as social and health policies and public investments) as well as levels of public spending that dwarf those contemplated by party elites in at least a half century.Why then, Hacker asked, is “the Democratic Party widely perceived to have abandoned pocketbook politics in favor of identity politics?”His answer:Conservative media have relentlessly focused on this critique and there’s strong evidence that media framing shapes how voters view the parties. Indeed, the role of the media in shaping the negative current climate — including more mainstream sources — should not be neglected. The obsessions of right-wing media with the “wokeness” of the Democratic Party seeps into the broader media coverage, and mainstream sources focus on criticisms of the Democrats, in part to uphold their nonpartisan ideal.Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, warned that there are major consequences that could result from the weakness of Biden’s support. In an email, Enos wrote:There is no doubt that Democrats and — given that the likely Republican nominee is a would-be authoritarian — Americans more generally should be alarmed by Biden’s poll numbers. He is saddled with the need to dig economic perceptions out of a deep inflationary hole, an unsteady international world and the view that his party went too far to the left on social issues.If the election were held today, Enos argued, “Biden would likely lose.”During the campaign, “Biden’s numbers will improve,” Enos wrote, but Biden faces a large number of idealistic young voters who maynever come back to him because they believe that he has abandoned the core values that animated their support in the first place. Faced with the reality of surging immigration across the southern border, Biden has largely failed to liberalize his administration’s approach to immigration — in fact, he has left much of the Trump era policies in place. To many young voters, who were first attracted to Biden’s social progressivism, such moves may feel like a betrayal. Additionally, Biden has seemed to greenlight Israel’s campaign of violence against civilians in Gaza. Especially for young voters of color, this seems like a betrayal and could cost Biden crucial states such as Michigan.Jonathan Weiler, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, stands somewhere between Rosenberg and Marshall.“There’s no gainsaying Biden’s poor polling numbers at the present,” Weiler wrote by email:However unhinged Trump appears increasingly to be, for now that’s an abstraction for many voters. In the meantime, what they see in ways that feel up close and personal are signs of an unsettled and unsettling world impinging on their day to day lives, including inflation, higher crime and a big increase in migrants across our southern border and into cities around the United States.On the plus side for Biden, Weiler wrote, “the data show clearly that inflation is trending substantially downward.” In addition,Violent crime has returned to prepandemic levels. Americans always think crime is going up, no matter what the data say. But if the actual drop in crime results in people thinking about it less, that could also lessen people’s sense of a chaotic and unsettled reality.Rogers Smith, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, made the case that Biden’s age and his visible infirmities interfere with his ability to reassure the electorate:The biggest factor that is neglected in many polls is the widespread belief that Biden is simply too old and insufficiently vigorous to remain president for four more years. This belief is reinforced by the reality that Biden does not inspire confidence in his vigor or energy in most of his public presentations. The problem is particularly acute among young voters but goes throughout the electorate, Democrats and Republicans alike. It means that voters don’t give much weight to Biden’s arguments on the issues.Democrats are trapped, Smith maintained:None will challenge Biden; he must choose to step aside. If he did so, he would feel compelled to support Kamala Harris. But most Democrats, and probably Biden himself, rightly believe that she would do even worse than he is doing.The one ace in the hole for Democrats is Donald Trump himself. As the center of attention in the elections of 2018, 2020 and even 2022, Trump was the key to Democratic victory. Trump is doing all he can to become the focus in 2024, but the question remains whether the Democrats, with Biden at the top of the ticket, can successfully demonize him again.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

The House speaker, Mike Johnson, said he would blur the faces of the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6 before releasing new footage to the public, in order to shield the rioters from justice.In a Tuesday press conference Johnson, who was personally involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, said: “We have to blur some faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DoJ.”Johnson’s office later acknowledged that the justice department already has the surveillance film.Some Republicans claim the events of that day were mischaracterized. Two years ago, the Georgia Republican congressman Andrew Clyde said protesters entering the Capitol had “walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures”.“If you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit,” he added.More than 1,200 defendants have been charged in connection with the January 6 attempt to interrupt the certification of the election, according to a tally by NBC News.More than 400 have been sentenced to periods of incarceration and an additional 1,000 January 6 participants have been identified but not arrested.Johnson said he planned to release the first tranche of security footage, around 90 hours, to the public because he wants people to do their own research into the Capitol attack.“We want the American people to draw their own conclusions,” Johnson said. “I don’t think partisan elected officials in Washington should present a narrative and expect that it should be seen as the ultimate truth.”Raj Shah, former deputy White House press secretary in the Trump administration and currently Johnson’s deputy chief of staff for communications, said in a statement shared online: “Faces are to be blurred from public viewing room footage to prevent all forms of retaliation against private citizens from any non-governmental actors. The Department of Justice already has access to raw footage from January 6, 2021.”Earlier this month, Johnson said that releasing the film, which totals 44,000 hours, was part of a pledge he had made to far-right members of his party when he was campaigning for his current job.“This decision will provide millions of Americans, criminal defendants, public interest organizations and the media an ability to see for themselves what happened that day, rather than having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials,” he said in a statement.Johnson’s comments come as Colorado’s highest court will hear arguments on Wednesday on whether Trump provoked and participated in the January 6 insurrection – as the January 6 committee found – and if that act requires his removal from the ballot.The case, the first of several to reach court, will look at if the former president can be disqualified under a section of the 14th amendment that states that anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath of office to support the Constitution is forbidden from holding any public office.A lower court in Colorado previously found that Trump could remain on the ballot because the insurrection clause does not apply to the office of the president.Colorado’s secretary of state, Jena Griswold, has said that ruling was “pretty surprising”. Griswold, a Democrat, told Politico: “The court’s decision to say the presidency is excluded from section 3 of the 14th Amendment is the really surprising part. Under that decision, Donald Trump is above the law when it comes to insurrection.” More

Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate, held in Tuscaloosa, Ala., will feature just four candidates — Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie — sparring over everything from abortion to Israel to former President Donald Trump. When we asked Times Opinion columnists and contributors what they would ask the candidates if they were moderating the debate, they came back to us with questions designed to test them on guns and crime, foreign wars and health care — exposing where the field stands on, say, military aid for Ukraine or a draconian state abortion ban. But above all, what they wanted to see was the moderators needling the candidates into taking a strong stance on the former president. Here were the responses:Maureen DowdGov. Haley, you have your first ad up about “moral clarity” and “chaos.” But you don’t mention Donald Trump. Why not?Should Donald Trump be prohibited from running for president because of Jan. 6 and all these federal charges?Kenny Holston for The New York TimesFrank BruniIf you’re elected president, would you consider pardoning Donald Trump if he’s convicted by a jury of one or more of the 91 felony counts he faces?Jamelle BouieThe Republican Party has lost the majority of the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections. Despite this, it has held the presidency for a total of 12 years because of the Electoral College. If you are the nominee in 2024 and you win the majority of the popular vote but lose the Electoral College, would you concede to Joe Biden?Ross DouthatGov. Haley, please name one United States military intervention in the last 30 years that you believe was a mistake, and explain why.Gov. DeSantis, while running for president in 2016, Donald Trump promised to replace Obamacare with some form of universal health care. Do you support repealing Obamacare with a measure that guarantees health insurance to all Americans? If not, why? If so, what would that measure be?Gov. Haley and Gov. DeSantis, if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, is there anything he could do between now and November 2024 that would make you refuse to support him against Joe Biden? If so, please specify.For all the candidates: The Western world is aging rapidly. The Republican Party currently stands for serious restrictions on immigration. Is there any public policy that your hypothetical administration would pursue that would encourage Americans to have more kids?Erin Schaff/The New York TimesNicholas KristofGuns are the leading cause of death for children in America today. And the states with the highest firearms mortality rates are mostly Republican states. Why is that, and what specific steps can we take to reduce gun deaths in America?President Reagan was known for standing up relentlessly to Moscow. Yet if Republicans continue to block President Biden’s requests for aid to Ukraine, isn’t Russia the big winner? Has the G.O.P. come full circle from confronting Russian aggression to becoming its best hope?Michelle CottleGov. Haley, immigration policy continues to be sacrificed on the altar of political gamesmanship. Border security is important, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. As president, how would you jump-start a push for bipartisan, comprehensive reform?Mr. Ramaswamy, what would it take for you to drop out of this race and spare Americans your troll-y nonsense? A column in The Daily Caller? Your own Fox News show? The promise of a midlevel cabinet post?Gov. DeSantis, why has your candidacy been sagging? What do you plan to do to turn it around?Gov. Christie, the base seems to hate you. How do you respond to people who worry that you staying in the race any longer is helping Donald Trump by preventing non-Trump voters from consolidating behind a challenger whose campaign is getting more traction?Oleg Petrasyuk/EPA, via ShutterstockPamela PaulA question for all: Confidence in the military, while still relatively high compared with confidence in other institutions, is the lowest it’s been in over 25 years, at the same time that the military is struggling to bring in recruits. What would you do to restore trust in the military and recruit more people to volunteer for the armed services?Thomas FriedmanGov. DeSantis, if you were in Congress today, would you vote with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to continue military and economic aid for Ukraine and sustain Kyiv in its war with Russia for the next year, or with the House isolationists against any further aid? If it is the latter, how would you react if Vladimir Putin publicly thanked you?Gov. Haley, the late Henry Kissinger became famous for his diplomacy, with President Nixon, for peeling China away from the Soviet Union back in the 1970s. If you were president today, would you consider attempting such a move with Xi Jinping’s China, or do you think we should confront Russia and China at the same time? How would that make America more secure?Gov. Haley, as possibly America’s first Indian American president, do you think we should get tougher with President Narendra Modi to limit his curtailments of Indian democracy, or are you OK with what he’s doing?Jose Luis Gonzalez/ReutersEzra KleinGov. DeSantis and Gov. Haley, in 2021, your states — Florida and South Carolina — had higher homicide rates per capita than New York and California. That was also true in 2020, and 2019, and 2018, and 2017, and 2016 and 2015. Why is that?Michelle GoldbergTwenty women are suing Texas after being denied abortions, including in cases of severely dangerous or nonviable pregnancies. Should Texas amend its abortion ban to create a health exemption?Mikala Compton/Austin American-Statesman, via Associated PressCharles BlowGov. DeSantis, you made your crusade against what you called “wokeness” a centerpiece of your governorship and a springboard for your presidential bid. You even wrote a book in which anti-wokeness was a central theme. But over the summer, polling showed that Republican voters were unlikely to be swayed by a narrow focus on rooting out left-wing ideology in schools, media, culture and business — and you didn’t mention the word “woke” in any of the first three debates. Did you overestimate the currency anti-wokeness would have with the Republican primary electorate, and do you regret such a laserlike focus on a single cultural topic?Tressie McMillan CottomOur constitutional right of “free speech” has become a partisan issue. This is having a chilling effect on research, education and public workers. How do you define “free speech”? What role should the president and Congress play in shaping the way that free speech intersects with public institutions?The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More