Elections

When was the last time you listened to Donald Trump for longer than 30 seconds? Longer than a clip sailing by in a tweet or a TikTok or packaged on the evening news? Lovers and haters alike seem filled to the brim with information about this man, unable to take in any more or alter their view of him.If you haven’t lately, he talks about the 2020 election a lot, still, but in ways that are a little different from before.Onstage, sometimes he refers to it with a certain subversive lightness, like another thing he’s not supposed to repeat but does, like a punchline. “You speak up a little bit about the election — ‘He’s an insurrectionist,’” he said in Waterloo, Iowa, this month, to laughs.But sometimes the 2020 election as Mr. Trump describes it sounds like a crisis he cannot move beyond. “Had the election not … turned out the way it did — I’ll try to be nice,” he began in Iowa. “Had it not turned out the way it did — you know when I say that, I mean,” he said, then with more emphasis, “had the election not been rigged.”What if, what if. He was in an open-air warehouse on a windy, 51-degree Saturday and would return to the hypothetical again that day — had the election not been rigged, if the election hadn’t been rigged. The enthused crowd sat; eight Secret Service agents stood, flanking an elevated Mr. Trump and staring off into crisscrossing directions under an arched ceiling. The overall effect of the event — standing security detail, a big American flag against a cinder-block wall, “I Want It That Way” by the Backstreet Boys playing and at least eight people in T-shirts with the Trump mug shot on them — was like a concentrate of a Trump rally. We’ve been doing this so long as a country, he and we have become more abstract, operating in shorthand and fragments of the past.Onstage, he seamlessly moved between prepared text to talking about whatever was on his mind, then back in disorienting intimations, suggestions, asides and loops. “Household incomes rose by a record $6,000 a year under Trump, right? I love that mug shot. I love that beautiful woman right there with the mug shot,” he said at another event that afternoon, in a hotel convention center in Cedar Rapids.He’ll talk about how the day he stopped calling Hillary Clinton “crooked” was a good one for her, she celebrated that night, now he calls her beautiful, because she’s a great beauty — then with no variation or substantive transition beyond the word “but,” he goes back to prepared stuff about how the 30-year mortgage rate recently hit a 23-year high. A long riff about what prosecutors aren’t doing to the radical left, straight back into “but we delivered record increases in real family income.”Amid these digressions and jokes and tales about negotiations with foreign leaders, he’ll bring back a menacing clarity of voice so that each precise word about the indictments against him is all you can hear or think: “People realize that they’re fake and phony and they’re political.”As he used to say, he once had a nice life, which he gave up for this. But Mr. Trump said it the other night in West Palm Beach with the added dimension that “instead, I sit it in courtrooms.” He talks about how all the cases against him are connected and how they’re really after you, the voter, and he’s just standing in the way — though each time he said this in Iowa, his heart didn’t seem quite in it.He brings a lot more emotion to tracing everything going wrong in the world back to: What if they hadn’t rigged the election? Then, in the dream sequences that pepper Mr. Trump’s speeches, there would be no inflation, no war in Ukraine, no bad Afghanistan withdrawal. Forget what we’ll do now or what we should have done then.The broad themes Mr. Trump is working with right now are that Mr. Biden picked economic policies that are crazy and because the Afghanistan withdrawal was so bad, the world has fallen apart — but with 2020 always lurking nearby. “All these things wouldn’t have happened if the election weren’t rigged,” he said in Cedar Rapids. “If the election weren’t rigged, you wouldn’t have Ukraine, you wouldn’t have had any of it. It’s so sad what they’ve done. There’s plenty of evidence. It’s all there. You know it.” In Florida last week, he added one to the mix: Hamas would never have attacked Israel. “You’re in a different world,” he said in West Palm Beach, “and it’s getting worse.”Being assigned to one of the juries in these pending Trump cases would change someone’s life — a dividing line between the past and future. “Don’t use your real names with each other,” the judge told jurors at the beginning of E. Jean Carroll’s defamation trial. “My advice to you is not to identify yourselves, not now and not for a long time,” he told them on the last day.“When I would get in my car, I was like, ‘I just left that, and I have to just go do my job now?’” one member of the Fulton County special grand jury told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “I just know things that are hard to know.’”If people seem to be unable to take in more information about Mr. Trump and if the election is shaping up to be a familiar repeat, the year ahead will not be. He views the world as one of perception, to be worked over and over again until it bends. To serve as a juror in this random selected position of authority, tasked with assessing what happened, for it to be your responsibility to step outside yourself and whatever you think about Mr. Trump and make decisions about him and the law is a weight that only a few dozen people will know. The rest of us will be outside in the chaos of perception, trying to make sense of it.And he’ll be inside and outside, perhaps still revisiting the decisive moment of his defeat and linking it with anything that’s gone wrong. “We would have had a deal with Iran. We would have had no inflation. Russia would have never ever in a million years gone into Ukraine,” he said in Waterloo. His sense of what if, what if, can draw a listener back further, to think about how much “what if” still shapes politics.The entire Republican Party has, for nearly a decade now, operated on a dream sequence of the possibility of passive collapse. What if he just went away? When Joe Biden ran in 2020, his campaign looked to correct the decisive mistake of the past: Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016. That was not, Mr. Biden often suggested, who we were. The implicit promise was the restoration of morality and normality. What if the 2020 election could be a reset?It’s easy to follow all these dream sequences into another: What if Mr. Trump could just return to New York, had never run for president, were no longer talking in loops? What if the country didn’t have to live through a remix of the 2020 election or change people’s lives by putting them on juries or live in the unknown we have not yet really reckoned with of what it will be like to live through the trials of our former president?This election seems like the one before only on the surface. Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden and the rest of us keep getting older; everything and everyone seems a little fried. Eight years in, there’s nothing that weird about seeing people wearing T-shirts with his mug shot staring back at him while a Backstreet Boys song from 1999 plays, the entire Republican field sounding like echoes of Mr. Trump as he talks about Mrs. Clinton, moving in and out of the present and back in time sonically.Mr. Trump remembers what things used to be like. “A normal politician gets indicted, and we’ve seen it hundreds of times over the years,” he said in Iowa, though he’s done versions of this elsewhere, too.He described that guy’s approach after getting “the pink slip” and dropped his voice into a washed monotone. “‘Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to announce that I am going home to my family. I will fight, I will fight, fight, fight for the rest of my life.’”“Do you understand? This is standard,” he said. “With me, it’s different.”Katherine Miller is a staff writer and editor in Opinion.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, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

Javier Milei is leading the race to be Argentina’s next president. But he is dogged by his past broadsides against a fellow countryman: Pope Francis.Javier Milei, a far-right libertarian leading the polls in Argentina’s presidential election this month, has made a lot of contentious statements in recent years: Humans did not cause climate change; people should be able to sell their organs; his nation’s currency “is not even good as manure.”But, to many Argentines, he has done something far worse: attacked the pope.In 2020, Mr. Milei, a self-identifying Catholic, called Pope Francis an “imbecile” and “the representative of the Evil One on earth” because he defends “social justice.” Last year, Mr. Milei said the pope “always stands on the side of evil” because he supports taxes.And last month, in an interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Mr. Milei said the pope “has an affinity for murderous communists” and is violating the Ten Commandments.Those are bold words for a man trying to become president in Argentina, where nearly two out of three people identify as Catholic, where the state is officially Catholic and where the Argentine pope is, to many, a national hero.But Mr. Milei — a Rolling Stones cover band singer turned libertarian economist turned television pundit turned politician — is not your average presidential candidate.He has run with little party structure around him. He has vowed to decimate the government he is vying to lead. He promises deep cuts to social services. He wants to discard his nation’s currency.And instead of campaigning with a spouse and children, Mr. Milei has an immediate family that consists of his sister (who runs his campaign), his girlfriend (who gets paid to impersonate a political archrival) and his five Mastiff dogs (which are clones of his previous dog).The approach may be unorthodox, but it is working.In August, Mr. Milei won open primaries with 30 percent of the vote, ahead of candidates from the center-left party running the country and the establishment conservative party.Since then, he has continued to lead polls and analysts say he is likely to attract enough votes in the election on Sunday to either head to a runoff or win the presidency outright.But his past comments are still shadowing him.“He talked trash about the pope,” said Maria Vera, 47, an empanada seller in a large slum called Villa 21-24 in southern Buenos Aires. “If Milei doesn’t have respect for our holiest priest, I don’t know whom he’s going to have respect for.” She is not voting for him, she said.On a road leading to the slum, walls were covered with posters of the pope’s face and a clear message: “Milei hates him. The people love him. Which side are you on?”Posters near the Villa 21-24 slum in Buenos Aires read, “Milei hates him. The people love him. Which side are you on?”Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesThe Vatican has stayed quiet on the issue and did not respond to a request for comment. But in Argentina, church leaders are pushing back.Last month, some of Argentina’s top Catholic priests organized a mass in Villa 21-24 to atone for Mr. Milei’s “shameful insults” toward the pope. They erected an altar outside the church, and 30 priests stood and read a statement supporting Pope Francis, as parishioners filled the road.The leader of the church, the Rev. Lorenzo de Vedia, known widely as Padre Toto, said much of his flock continued to bring up Mr. Milei’s comments. “Even people who are not so involved in the daily life of the church are really offended,” all the more so, he said, now that Mr. Milei “has a chance to be president.”Mr. Milei’s campaign declined to make him available for an interview.His opponents have tried to seize on the controversy.Sergio Massa, Argentina’s finance minister, who is polling just behind Mr. Milei, used his one chance to question Mr. Milei during a debate this month to needle him about the pope. “You insulted the head of the church,” he said. “Please use these 45 seconds to ask for forgiveness to the most important Argentine in history.”Mr. Milei sought to dismiss his past comments, saying he made them before he entered politics, though several have come since he was elected to Congress in 2021. He also said he had apologized to the pope, though The Times could not find a record of that and his campaign could not provide specifics.“I have no problem apologizing if I am wrong,” Mr. Milei said to his opponent at the debate. “Stop taunting me and focus on lowering inflation.”The Rev. Lorenzo de Vedia at his church in the Villa 21-24 slum. He said his parishioners had been offended by Mr. Mille’s comments about the pope.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesSome people who were once close to Mr. Milei have criticized his comments about the pope.Eduardo Eurnekian, one of Argentina’s most prominent businessmen and Mr. Milei’s former boss when he was an economist, said in a radio interview that Mr. Milei’s comments were “totally out of line,” adding that “the pope is the pope, he has a huge responsibility, and we’ve been respecting his figure for over 2,000 years.”But plenty of other allies — and voters — are less troubled by his comments.In the tiny town of Chicoana in northern Argentina, Daniel Mamani, 64, has played the role of Jesus Christ in the town’s Easter celebration for more than a decade.While Mr. Milei’s comments about the pope made him uncomfortable, he said, he plans to vote for him because the country needs change. “He will have to pay for his debts, won’t he? That is, with the Lord above,” Mr. Mamani, an auto mechanic, said. “I’m interested in the part that is going to help Argentina’s well-being.”Daniel Mamaní, a mechanic, says he plans to vote for Mr. Milei despite the candidate’s views on the pope.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesLilia Lemoine, Mr. Milei’s friend and hair stylist running for Congress on his ticket, said that she and Mr. Milei had long spoken about what she described as the pope’s leftist positions.“I think exactly the same as he does,” she said of Mr. Milei. The pope “supports communism and gender ideology, and I don’t think that’s what Catholicism is.” She added, “Javier apologized for what he said, but I wouldn’t.”Ms. Lemoine said that Mr. Milei had also been moving away from the Catholic church in other ways. “Now he is studying kabbalah,” a form of Jewish mysticism, she said. “He became really close friends with a couple of rabbis.”In fact, after Mr. Milei won a seat in Argentina’s Congress in 2021, several Argentine news outlets quoted him as saying that he was considering converting to Judaism and aspired “to become the first Jewish president in the history of Argentina.” Mr. Milei’s campaign denied that he had ever said that.In August, in an interview with the Argentine newspaper La Nación, Mr. Milei said that, in many ways, he felt Jewish. “I don’t go to church, I go to temple,” he said. “I don’t talk to priests, I have a head rabbi and I study Torah. I am internationally recognized as a friend of Israel and a Torah scholar.” Last month, Mr. Milei said he went to Miami to spend Shabbat with friends and then flew to New York to meet with a rabbi.Still, Mr. Milei has continued to describe himself as a Catholic and has staked out positions more in line with Vatican policy than his opponents, including aiming to ban abortion, which was legalized in Argentina in 2020.Pope Francis was born as Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires in 1936. From 1998 to his election as pope in 2013, he was Argentina’s highest Catholic official, known for his work with the poor.Pope Francis, then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, on the subway in Buenos Aires in 2008. He is the first pope from the Americas.Pablo Leguizamon/Associated PressThe pope has clashed with politicians before. His staunch support for the Vatican’s positions on social issues, including abortion, same-sex marriage and adoptions by gay couples, also made him a sort of political rival to the former left-wing presidents of Argentina, Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.In 2010, when Mrs. Kirchner’s government supported legalizing same-sex marriage, Francis, who was not yet pope, described the law as “a maneuver by the devil.” Mrs. Kirchner fired back that the church’s stance was “medieval.”Mr. Milei’s criticism has been much harsher. He has called Pope Francis a “filthy leftist,” an “embarrassing communist,” a “piece of shit” and a “potato.” (The Spanish word for “pope” also means “potato.”)During his 10 years as the first pope from the Americas, Pope Francis has visited all of Argentina’s neighbors — but not Argentina. It has been widely speculated that he has avoided his home country to keep out of its polarizing politics.But Francis has said he plans to return home next year.Who might be welcoming him? President Milei.Natalie Alcoba More

The election, seen as one of the most significant in decades, was cast as a choice between the defense of Polish sovereignty and liberal values.Centrist and progressive forces appeared capable of forming a new government in Poland after securing more seats in a critical general election on Sunday, despite the governing nationalist party, Law and Justice, winning the most votes for a single party.Exit polls showing a strong second place finish by the main opposition group, Civic Coalition, and better than expected results for two smaller centrist and progressive parties suggested a dramatic upset that would frustrate the governing party’s hope of an unprecedented third consecutive term.A jubilant Donald Tusk, Civic Coalition’s leader, declared the projected results a resounding “win for democracy” that would end the rule of Law and Justice, known by its Polish acronym PiS, in power since 2015.“We did it! We really did!” Mr. Tusk, a former prime minister, told supporters Sunday night. “This is the end of this bad time! This is the end of PiS rule!”The election for a new Parliament, held after a vicious campaign in the highly polarized nation, was closely watched abroad, including in Russia and Ukraine, and viewed by many Poles as the most consequential vote since they rejected communism in the country’s first partly free election in 1989. Reflecting the high-stakes, nearly 73 percent of the electorate voted, the highest turnout in a Polish election since the end of communist rule.Both the governing Law and Justice and Civic Coalition cast the election as an existential moment of decision on Poland’s future as a stable democratic state.Voting on Sunday in Gdansk, Poland. The election in Poland, held after an often vicious campaign in the highly polarized nation, has been closely watched abroad.Mateusz Slodkowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIf early forecasts turn out to be correct when final official results are announced, probably on Tuesday, Civic Coalition and its potential partners won 248 seats in the 460-member legislature, compared with 200 won by Law and Justice.Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the governing party’s chairman and Poland’s de facto leader for the last eight years, also claimed victory, declaring the vote “a great success for our formation, our project for Poland.” But he acknowledged that his party would have trouble forming a government if the exit polls are correct.Konfederacja, a radical right-wing grouping that shares many of the nationalist views of Law and Justice, won only 6.2 percent of the vote, giving it 12 seats. Exit polls are generally reliable in Poland but some experts cautioned that the unusually high turnout could make them less accurate. Because of long queues at polling stations voting continued late into the night in some places.Exit polls released by Poland’s three main television channels indicated that Law and Justice had won the most votes overall — 36.8 percent — compared with 31.6 percent for Civic Coalition. Two smaller parties, Third Way, an alliance of centrists, and The Left reached the necessary threshold to enter the more powerful lower house of Parliament, the Sejm.Seats in the Sejm are apportioned under a complicated proportional system that makes it difficult to determine with precision the future balance of power until all of the votes have been counted and those of smaller parties that failed to reach the threshold (5 percent for parties and 8 percent for coalitions) are redistributed among the top finishers.Przemyslaw Adynowski, a Warsaw lawyer, said he had voted for Civic Coalition in what he described as “probably the most important election in 30 years.” A victory for Law and Justice, he added, would complete Poland’s “phase of transition from democracy to an authoritarian system” and put it at odds with its allies in NATO and the European Union, except for Hungary, a much smaller nation with little clout.Campaign posters last week in Gorno, Poland. The governing Law and Justice party and its main rival, Civic Coalition, cast the election as an existential moment of decision on Poland’s future as a stable democratic state.Wojtek Radwanski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesPiotr Buras, the head of the Warsaw office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, declared the election “a triumph of both democracy and liberalism” that “opens the way for a massive reorientation of Poland’s domestic and European policy.”The result was particularly striking given that Law and Justice enjoyed a big advantage thanks to its tight control of Poland’s public broadcasting system, a nationwide network of television and radio stations that is supposed to be neutral but mostly served as a propaganda bullhorn for the incumbent party.The playing field was further tilted in the governing party’s favor by the holding of a referendum alongside the parliamentary election. Voters were asked to answer four loaded questions about immigration and other issues that were clearly intended to cast the European Union, and by association the opposition, in a bad light.One asked: “Do you support the admission of thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa, in accordance with the forced relocation mechanism imposed by European bureaucracy?”The referendum short-circuited campaign finance restrictions, allowing Law and Justice to deploy state funds to promote supposedly neutral information about questions heavily slanted in its favor. Many voters, however, declined to answer referendum questions, viewing the exercise as a stunt by the governing party.Law and Justice hoped that the referendum would help revive an anti-migrant message that has for years been its electoral strong suit, but one that lost its edge in the final weeks of the campaign when some of its officials became embroiled in a visas-for-cash scandal. Evidence that a large number of Polish work visas, valid across the European Union, had been sold to African and Asian migrants led to the abrupt resignation of a deputy foreign minister and his removal from a list of candidates put forward by Law and Justice.Mr. Kaczysnki, the party’s chairman, warned that a vote for his opponents, led by Mr. Tusk, a former president of the European Council, the European Union’s main power center, would mean subordinating Poland’s national interests to those of Berlin and Brussels and the end of Poland as an independent democratic country.“They intend to eliminate democracy and any traces of the rule of law in Poland,” Mr. Kaczysnki said this month at a party convention.Mr. Tusk’s camp, for its part, presented Mr. Kaczynski as a mortal threat to liberal democracy and to Poland’s continued membership of the European Union, with which the departing Law and Justice government clashed repeatedly over the rule of law, the protection of minority rights and other issues.The election campaign was so vituperative and unsettling that many Poles, particularly opposition supporters, could not wait for it to be over.“It was awful, so brutal,” said Ewa Zabowska, a retired Health Ministry official, after casting her vote for the opposition at a Warsaw primary school. “It went on for too long. Nonstop lies for months.”What Ms. Zabowska viewed as lies, however, fans of Law and Justice accepted as alarming truths. “Tusk is an emissary of Germany — he will do exactly what Germany dictates,” Antoni Zdziaborski, a retired Warsaw tram driver, said after voting for the governing party.Anatol Magdziarz in Warsaw contributed reporting. More

El candidato de centroderecha enfocado en el empleo se impuso a la candidata de izquierda en unas elecciones decisivas centradas en la economía y el aumento de la violencia de las pandillas.Daniel Noboa, el heredero de un imperio de banano de 35 años, ganó la elección presidencial de Ecuador el domingo, en una campaña electoral en la que había mucho en juego y estuvo impulsada por la frustración del electorado de un país afectado por la violencia y una economía en crisis.Noboa, figura outsider de centroderecha, derrotó a Luisa González, la candidata de la izquierda elegida personalmente por el expresidente Rafael Correa, quien contendió con la promesa de regresar al país al periodo de prosperidad y bajas tasas de homicidios durante el gobierno correísta.Los resultados de la votación indican un deseo de cambio en un país de más de 17 millones de habitantes en la costa occidental de Sudamérica que ha experimentado un aumento en la violencia de grupos criminales internacionales y pandillas locales, que han transformado Ecuador en un actor clave en el tráfico mundial de las drogas, lo que ha llevado a decenas de miles de ecuatorianos a migrar hacia la frontera entre México y Estados Unidos.Como buena parte de América Latina, Ecuador ha sufrido un golpe económico importante por la pandemia del coronavirus, y muchas personas han batallado para ganar suficiente dinero para proveer para sus familias. Solo el 34 por ciento de los ecuatorianos tienen un empleo adecuado, según los datos del gobierno.Noboa, lleva el 52,29 por ciento de los votos, mientras que González lleva el 47,71 por ciento, con más del 93 por ciento de los votos escrutados el domingo en la tarde, de acuerdo con las cifras oficiales.González aceptó su derrota en un discurso y agradeció a sus seguidores.“A los que no votaron por nosotros, pues nuestras felicitaciones, porque ha ganado aquel candidato que eligieron y, como ecuatorianos, también abrazarlos”, dijo. “Y, por supuesto, al candidato, ahora presidente electo, Daniel Noboa, nuestras felicitaciones profundas porque es democracia. Nosotros jamás hemos llamado a incendiar una ciudad ni jamás salimos gritando fraude”.Ecuador había sido un país pacífico en comparación con sus vecinos, en especial Colombia, que por décadas estuvo afectada por la violencia de grupos armados guerrilleros, unidades paramilitares y carteles de las drogas.Ese panorama cambió en los años recientes, cuando Colombia forjó un acuerdo de paz con el grupo guerrillero, de corte izquierdista, más grande del país, y Ecuador comenzó a estar dominado por la red cada vez más poderosa del narcotráfico, que incluye a cárteles mexicanos y pandillas albanesas. A través de los puertos de la costa del Pacífico, Ecuador se ha convertido en un importante punto de transbordo de la cocaína que se contrabandea a Europa.Oficiales de la policía inspeccionan productos del mar destinados a exportación en el puerto de Guayaquil, Ecuador. El país se ha convertido en un importante punto de transbordo de cocaína que se contrabandea a Europa.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesCon regularidad, las noticias presentan decapitaciones, atentados con coches bomba, asesinatos de policías, jóvenes colgados de puentes y niños asesinados a tiros frente a sus casas o escuelas.Cuando Noboa tome juramento, tendrá un mandato presidencial hasta mayo de 2025. En ese tiempo, será obligado a lidiar con los grupos internacionales que han unido fuerzas con las pandillas de las prisiones en una competencia brutal por el lucrativo mercado de las drogas.Y con poca experiencia en cargos del gobierno y una Asamblea Nacional fragmentada, los analistas aseguran que será un desafío.Es posible que le tome mucho tiempo lograr formar una coalición de gobierno, y probablemente esta será ideológicamente incoherente e impredecible, dijo Will Freeman, investigador de Estudios Latinoamericanos en el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores, un instituto de investigación estadounidense.Noboa ha intentado superar la polarización entre la izquierda y la derecha durante su campaña electoral. Sin embargo, su elección de compañera de fórmula, Verónica Abad, desconcertó a muchos analistas. Abad es una coach de negocios de derecha que se ha pronunciado en contra del aborto, el feminismo y los derechos de la comunidad LGBTQ, y que ha expresado apoyo por Donald Trump y Jair Bolsonaro, el expresidente de extrema derecha de Brasil.“Si eso es un indicio”, dijo Freeman, “creo que este gobierno va a ser un verdadero revoltijo”.Noboa ha prometido detener la violencia, aunque ni él ni González hicieron de la seguridad un tema central de sus campañas.Ambos candidatos han mencionado que brindarán más fondos a la policía y emplearán al ejército para resguardar los puertos, que se usan para el narcotráfico, y las prisiones, que están bajo el control de pandillas violentas.Soldados patrullando las calles de Durán, una ciudad en la costa del Pacífico de Ecuador dominada por grupos locales vinculados al narcotráfico.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesNoboa ha propuesto utilizar la tecnología, como drones y sistemas de rastreo satelital, para detener al narcotráfico; sugirió buques prisión como una forma de aislar a los reos más violentos.Pero los analistas comentan que los dos candidatos han fallado al no priorizar el combate al crimen que ha desestabilizado a Ecuador y lo ha convertido en uno de los países más violentos de América Latina.El presidente saliente, Guillermo Lasso, convocó a elecciones anticipadas en mayo al enfrentarse a un proceso de destitución por acusaciones de malversación de fondos. Lasso también se ha hecho cada vez más impopular entre los votantes enfadados por la incapacidad del gobierno para hacer frente a la espiral de violencia.El asesinato en agosto de un candidato presidencial, Fernando Villavicencio, conmocionó a una nación que acudió a las urnas durante la que ha sido quizás la temporada electoral más violenta en su historia.Además de Villavicencio —quien se expresó abiertamente sobre supuestos vínculos entre el crimen organizado y el gobierno— otros cinco políticos han sido asesinados este año. A principios de este mes, siete hombres acusados de asesinar a Villavicencio fueron hallados muertos en prisión. Estos sucesos solo han agudizado el deseo de cambio de los ecuatorianos.La probable victoria de Noboa desafía la reciente tendencia de las victorias de la izquierda en otros países de la región, como Colombia, Chile, Brasil y Bolivia, pero se alinea con una incipiente demanda de figuras al margen de la política tradicional en las próximas elecciones argentinas.González, de 45 años, fue la candidata elegida por Correa, quien dirigió el país de 2007 a 2017. Su estrecha relación con él contribuyó a elevar su perfil político, pero también la perjudicó entre algunos votantes.Luisa González, quien aspiraba a ser la primera mujer elegida a la presidencia, llegando a votar el domingo.Ariel Ochoa/Associated PressEn cambio, Noboa, educado en Harvard, proviene de una de las familias más ricas de América Latina, conocida por la mayoría de los ecuatorianos por su imperio bananero, que cuenta con una de las marcas de fruta más conocidas del mundo, Bonita Banana.Pero los vastos activos de la familia Noboa son variados e incluyen fertilizantes, plásticos, cartón y el complejo de almacenamiento de contenedores más grande del país.El padre de Noboa se postuló cinco veces a la presidencia sin éxito, pero la carrera política del joven Noboa apenas se remonta a 2021, cuando fue elegido para la Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador.Noboa se ha calificado a sí mismo como el “presidente del empleo”, hasta el punto de incluir una planilla de solicitud laboral en su sitio web, y ha prometido atraer la inversión y el comercio internacional y reducir los impuestos.A pesar de su pedigrí familiar, Noboa ha tratado de diferenciarse, señalando que tiene su propio negocio y que su riqueza personal está valorada en menos de un millón de dólares.Daniel Noboa, candidato de centroderecha, ha tenido una ventaja constante en diversas encuestas desde agosto, aunque esta se ha reducido ligeramente en los últimos días.Gerardo Menoscal/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSu padre, que perdió contra Correa en 2006, se refirió con frecuencia a su oponente de izquierda como un “diablo comunista”. Pero su hijo ha evitado atacar directamente al “correísmo”, y la victoria del joven Noboa demuestra que los votantes están hartos de las divisiones políticas tradicionales.Pablo Pérez, de 29 años, ingeniero de datos en la ciudad portuaria de Guayaquil, dijo que votó por Noboa porque “más que todo, él es una persona nueva, que trae cosas nuevas”.“La otra candidata, en cambio”, dijo Pérez, “representa un gobierno que ya tuvimos en el país y que aunque tuvo sus cosas buenas, tuvo, sobre todo, cosas malas”.También se sintió atraído por las propuestas en cuanto a seguridad de Noboa.“Necesitamos que la seguridad mejore inmediatamente, porque no podemos salir a la calle así como estamos”, dijo. “Todos los negocios están cerrados. Hay una sensación de miedo”.Nelson Ramiro Obando, de 60 años, un trabajador jubilado en Quito, dijo que votó por Noboa por su juventud, su experiencia empresarial y su actuación en uno de los debates, en el que pareció “mucho más preparado”.“Estamos en riesgo todos los días los ciudadanos”, dijo Obando. “El señor Noboa no va a poder hacer mucho —es apenas un año y medio— pero con que solucione un poco la inseguridad que vivimos, yo estaría más que agradecido”.Genevieve Glatsky More

The state party enacted new rules that the Florida governor and his rivals say are designed to help former President Donald J. Trump.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida plans to participate in the Nevada Republican Party caucuses, his campaign said on Sunday, taking part in a system that he and his rivals have said was designed to benefit former President Donald J. Trump.Mr. DeSantis’s team had not said previously whether he would take part in the party’s Feb. 8 caucuses in the state, which Republican political officials structured to supersede the state’s primary election.“Ron DeSantis is committed to earning every single delegate available as he works to earn the Republican nomination for president, and Nevada is no exception,” said Andrew Romeo, the communications director for the DeSantis campaign.In a swipe at the state party, he added: “It is disappointing that the Nevada Republican Party changed the rules against the will of the people just to benefit one candidate. However, Ron DeSantis will fight to overcome these tactics.”A statement from the party’s press office about Mr. DeSantis’s concerns said that caucuses are almost exclusively how Nevada Republicans have selected their nominee for decades.“We are aware that the Never Back Down super PAC that is supporting Governor Desantis had concerns with rule changes,” the statement said. “However, his campaign never took action to influence these rules. All official campaigns were invited to the meeting where these common sense, RNC-supported rules changes were voted on, and passed by overwhelming majority.”Officials in Nevada had made a bipartisan move to put a primary in place instead of caucuses, trying to increase participation. But Republican Party officials refused to accept that, and decided to go ahead with caucuses of their own.The decision to deliver all of the state’s delegates through its caucuses instead of through its primary has been widely seen as helping Mr. Trump — he continues to have a strong hold on the party’s most animated voters, who typically turn out for such contests.It was influenced by Michael McDonald, the state party chairman and a Trump ally, who was a fake elector for Mr. Trump in the state when the former president tried to subvert the results of the 2020 election.Taking part in the primary — which will be held two days earlier on Feb. 6 — instead of the caucuses would mean a candidate would be passing up the chance to accrue delegates, which are necessary in order to be nominated at the Republican National Convention.The rules were also changed to bar super PACs from sending speakers or literature to caucus sites, after Mr. Trump’s team warned state parties about possible legal challenges to allowing the outside groups to have a role. Mr. DeSantis’s campaign has relied heavily on his super PAC, Never Back Down, so the rule also puts him at a disadvantage.Mr. Trump’s team has worked aggressively with allies to change rules in various states to be more beneficial to him in apportioning delegates.Though the caucuses are still months away, the decisions by the Nevada Republican Party have already caused some consternation for the rest of the field. Mr. DeSantis’s team had held off on committing to the caucuses, while former Vice President Mike Pence decided to skip the caucuses in favor of the primary.Mr. DeSantis’s team is trying to demonstrate that it still plans to fight on various fronts, even with Mr. Trump well ahead in public opinion polls of Republican primary voters. The goal, campaign officials said, is to make the Trump team fight as hard as possible for every delegate, and to stave off a sense of inevitability that Mr. Trump has projected for months.To that end, Mr. DeSantis qualified for the Virgin Islands caucuses and will headline a virtual event there tomorrow. He was the first of the candidates to qualify there for the caucuses, to be held on Feb. 8, 2024, party officials there said. He has also filed for the primaries in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Virginia, and his team is working to file full slates in states like Tennessee. More

The two Republican candidates appeared to diverge on attitudes toward civilians in the Gaza Strip who are bracing for an invasion by Israel.The deepening humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip is driving a wedge between Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, two of the leading Republican presidential candidates, who deviated sharply on Sunday over whether the United States should help Palestinian refugees from the region ahead of an expected Israeli invasion.In an appearance on the CBS morning show “Face the Nation,” Mr. DeSantis, the Florida governor, doubled down on remarks he had made one day earlier in Iowa, espousing a hard-line opposition toward helping civilians who have been thrust into the middle of the conflict.“They teach kids to hate Jews,” he said. “The textbooks do not have Israel even on the map. They prepare very young kids to commit terrorist attacks. So I think it’s a toxic culture.”Ms. Haley, the former United Nations ambassador under President Donald J. Trump, pushed back against that view during a CNN interview on Sunday with Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”“America has always been sympathetic to the fact that you can separate civilians from terrorists,” she said after being shown a clip of Mr. DeSantis’s initial comments on Saturday.Nearly one million people are grappling with shortages of food, clean water and shelter in Gaza, which is bracing for a land invasion by Israel in retaliation for the Oct. 7 attacks and the taking of hostages by Hamas, an Iran-backed militant group.Mr. DeSantis argued on Sunday that it would be detrimental to the United States to “import” large numbers of refugees and would fuel antisemitism, echoing comments he made about people in Gaza the day before that drew scrutiny.At a campaign event on Saturday, Mr. DeSantis said, “If you look at how they behave, not all of them are Hamas, but they are all antisemitic. None of them believe in Israel’s right to exist.”He added: “The Arab states should be taking them. If you have refugees, you don’t fly people in and take them into the United States of America.”When the CBS anchor Margaret Brennan pointed out to Mr. DeSantis that Arabs are Semites and replayed his remarks, he stood by his words.Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor at the First in the Nation Leadersip Summit in Nashua, New Hampshire on Friday.John Tully for The New York TimesGovernor Ron DeSantis of Florida at the First in the Nation Leadership Summit in Nashua, New Hampshire on Friday.John Tully for The New York Times“There was a lot of celebrating of those attacks in the Gaza Strip by a lot of those folks who were not Hamas,” he said.Ms. Brennan suggested that it was a remote possibility that refugees from Gaza could resettle in the United States, saying that they could not even evacuate from their immediate area. Still, Republicans have used the broader conflict to frame their postures on military action and humanitarian aid.In the House, Representatives Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin and Andy Ogles of Tennessee, both Republicans, have announced that they plan to introduce a bill they say would block the Biden administration from issuing visas to Palestinian passport holders.Mr. DeSantis, who served in the Navy’s Judge Advocate General Corps in Iraq, was also asked whether he would advise the Israeli military to stop their attacks on the infrastructure that provides water and electricity to Gaza.“I don’t think they’re under an obligation to be providing water and these utilities while the hostages are being held,” he said.Ms. Haley struck a more sympathetic chord earlier on Sunday, saying that large percentages of Palestinians and Iranians did not support the violence being perpetrated against one another.“There are so many of these people who want to be free from this terrorist rule,” she said.While the Republican candidates have expressed solidarity with Israel in the wake of the Hamas attacks, they have also clashed with each other over who is most loyal to Israel, America’s closest Middle East ally, and what the role of the United States should be in conflicts overseas.Ms. Haley on Sunday continued to condemn Mr. Trump, her former boss and the Republican front-runner, for referring to Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group, as “very smart” while criticizing Israel’s prime minister and Israeli intelligence. She accused Mr. Trump of emboldening U.S. adversaries and drawing attention to himself.“You don’t go and compliment any of them because what that does is that makes America look weak,” she said on CNN, adding: “This isn’t about Trump. It’s not about him.”A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.Ms. Haley also leveled fresh criticism toward President Biden, saying that he should never have agreed to free up $6 billion in frozen oil revenue money for Iran for humanitarian purposes as part of a hostage release deal that was announced in August.Facing blowback over the money’s release, the Biden administration and Qatar agreed last week to deny Iran access to the funds, which White House officials had said had not been spent.“You empowered Iran to go and strengthen Hamas, strengthen Hezbollah, strengthen the Houthis to spread their terrorist activity,” Ms. Haley said.The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.Haley Johnson More

The president’s re-election campaign announced a substantial quarterly fund-raising haul, but it’s far short of what Donald J. Trump raised in the same quarter of his 2020 re-election campaign.President Biden’s re-election campaign announced on Sunday it had raised a combined $71.3 million alongside the Democratic National Committee and a joint fund-raising committee during the three-month period that ended in September, a haul that eclipses what his Republican rivals have amassed but falls short of where President Donald J. Trump was at this point four years ago.The campaign said the three fund-raising vehicles had a combined $90.5 million in cash on hand. It did not disclose how the cash was divided between the three fund-raising vehicles.“It was a spectacular quarter,” said Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Hollywood mogul whom Mr. Biden named a co-chairman of his campaign, said in an interview Saturday. “It certainly exceeded our own expectations around it significantly. The fact that we’re sitting with $91 million in the bank today is really an extraordinary advantage.”But Mr. Biden’s fund-raising haul is well short of the $125 million Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee raised during the same period of his 2020 re-election campaign. And it is just a touch more than the $70.1 million President Obama and the D.N.C. raised at this point in his 2012 campaign — at a time when individual contribution limits were far lower than they are today.Mr. Katzenberg, in the interview, dismissed comparisons to such campaigns as “comparing apples to submarines.”Comparisons with Mr. Obama’s fund-raising efforts for the 2012 campaign are indeed imprecise, because a 2014 Supreme Court decision and other legal changes now allow candidates and parties to form joint fund-raising committees that can accept single donations of nearly $1 million. In 2012, Mr. Obama and the D.N.C. could collect only $30,500 per person.More revealing details about the Biden campaign’s financial status will emerge when the committees file quarterly reports required by the Federal Election Commission. Those are due by the end of Sunday; a campaign official said the reports would become public late Sunday evening.Among the most significant details in the campaign’s fund-raising report will be the amount of cash it has accumulated from donors who gave less than $200.These so-called small donors are vital to presidential efforts because they can be recruited to give again and again over the course of a long campaign. During the three-month fund-raising period that ended in June, $10.2 million of contributions to the Biden effort, or about 21 percent, came from small donors, an amount smaller in percentage and in real dollars than the Trump and Obama campaigns in the comparable time periods.While the Biden campaign has not disclosed how much of its haul came from small donors, an official, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the campaign, did reveal that 49 percent of its $71.3 million came from donors who gave through the internet or mail programs. The campaign had expected that about 36 to 37 percent of third-quarter fund-raising would come online or through the mail.Mr. Biden’s fund-raising total far outpaces what his Republican rivals have reported for the third quarter.Mr. Trump’s campaign reported it raised $45.5 million, with $37.5 million in cash on hand. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida raised $15 million. Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, raised $11 million. Aides to Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina revealed to Republican donors this week that his campaign began October with $11.6 million in cash on hand, more than either Mr. DeSantis or Ms. Haley.The Biden campaign trumpeted an array of fund-raising figures that officials said proved that there was indeed enthusiasm for their candidate, even as polls show that Mr. Biden is unpopular and suggest that he has not engendered enthusiasm within his own party.The campaign said that it attracted 240,000 donors who had contributed to the campaign in 2020 and that 97 percent of contributions were less than $200. A contest for a chance to meet both Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama raised “nearly $2.5 million,” according to the campaign, while the sales of mugs with a picture of Mr. Biden’s face with the “Dark Brandon” meme brought in “close to $2 million” in August and September. More

The victory by Mr. Landry, the state’s attorney general, secures Republican control of Louisiana after eight years of divided government.Jeff Landry, the Louisiana attorney general and a hard-line conservative, trounced a crowded field of candidates on Saturday to become the state’s next governor, cementing Republican control of Louisiana after eight years of divided government. Mr. Landry, a brash conservative who repeatedly fought Democratic policies in court as Louisiana’s top lawyer, will replace Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat limited to two terms. In Saturday’s “jungle primary,” which pits candidates of any political affiliation against one other, Mr. Landry stunned many political watchers by winning more than 50 percent of the vote and eliminating the need for a runoff. His victory guarantees a far-right government for Louisiana — a state where Republicans have controlled the Legislature for a decade but had faced resistance from Mr. Edwards, who vetoed several bills, including ones targeting L.G.B.T.Q. people. It comes at a moment when the state is confronting soaring insurance rates and dwindling population numbers. The wide field of more than a dozen candidates, which included Democrats, independents and rival Republicans, had set steep odds for Mr. Landry to win outright. Had no candidate secured a simple majority, the two top vote-getters would have faced off in a runoff election next month. But Mr. Landry won with 51.6 percent of the vote, followed by Shawn Wilson, a Democrat and the state’s former transportation secretary, who secured 25.9 percent of the vote. None of the other candidates — a group that included Stephen Waguespack, a top business lobbyist and aide to former Gov. Bobby Jindal; John Schroder, the state treasurer; and Sharon Hewitt, a state senator — reached double digits. Mr. Landry, a confrontational litigator and politician, had won over much of the Republican base by battling Mr. Edwards and the Biden administration in court over pandemic vaccine mandates, efforts to work with social media companies to limit the spread of misleading or false theories, and environmental regulations. He served as a sheriff’s deputy and two-term lawmaker in the House of Representatives as the Tea Party took hold in American government. But it was over the last eight years as attorney general where Mr. Landry flexed the power of a political office and his particular style of combative conservatism. During the coronavirus pandemic, he challenged vaccine and mask mandates on the local and national level for health care workers, students and federal workers, voicing skepticism even as the vaccines were proven to help stem the spread and toll of the virus. He has also helped lead lawsuits that resulted in a federal judge restricting the Biden administration from speaking with social media companies and saw the Supreme Court rein in the administration’s ability to reduce carbon emissions. And he has defended some of Louisiana’s more controversial decisions, including a congressional map that Black voters have challenged as a violation of a landmark civil rights law and its abortion law, one of the strictest in the nation. (At one point, Mr. Landry openly said that critics could leave the state.)During his campaign for governor, Mr. Landry vowed to address crime in the state, though critics observed that countering crime fell under the jurisdiction of the attorney general. He also pledged to stop the “woke agenda” in Louisiana schools and to support the rights of parents to make decisions for their children, a nod to a push he championed to restrict access to gender-affirming care for transgender children and literature deemed to be sexually explicit. More