Elections

European leaders would be delighted to have “an easier Turkey,” while Russia could lose an important economic and diplomatic partnership should the Turkish leader lose power in Sunday’s elections.Sunday’s presidential election in Turkey is being watched carefully in Western capitals, NATO headquarters and the Kremlin, with Turkey’s longtime mediating role in the complex and often vexing relations between the parties riding on the outcome.With President Recep Tayyip Erdogan slightly trailing his challenger, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, in recent polls, the prospect that the Turkish leader could lose the election is concentrating diplomatic minds.Officially, people on the Western side won’t talk about their preferences, to avoid being accused of interfering in Turkey’s domestic politics. But it is an open secret that European leaders, not to speak of the Biden administration, would be delighted if Mr. Erdogan were to lose.As Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister, said on Friday, “We all want an easier Turkey,” a strategically important member of NATO that has, under Mr. Erdogan, become an increasingly troublesome partner for the European Union, which has largely abandoned the idea of Turkish membership.Russia, too, has much riding on the election’s outcome. Under Mr. Erdogan, Turkey has become Russia’s indispensable trading partner and at times a diplomatic intermediary, a relationship that has assumed an even greater importance for the Kremlin since the invasion of Ukraine.Throughout his 20 years in power, Mr. Erdogan has pursued a nonaligned foreign policy that has frequently frustrated his putative Western allies and provided a welcome diplomatic opening for Moscow — perhaps never more so than after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Mr. Erdogan with then-Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2016. It is an open secret that European leaders and the Biden administration would be delighted if the Turkish leader were to lose Sunday’s election.Kayhan Ozer/Turkish Presidential Press ServiceBy refusing to enforce Western sanctions on Moscow, Mr. Erdogan has helped undermine efforts to isolate the Kremlin and starve it of funds to underwrite the war. At the same time, the stumbling Turkish economy has feasted recently on heavily discounted Russian oil, helping Mr. Erdogan in his quest for a third, five-year term. Mr. Erdogan has further irritated his allies by blocking Sweden’s bid for membership in NATO, insisting that Stockholm first turn over scores of Kurdish refugees in the country, especially from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which both Ankara and Washington consider a terrorist organization.More broadly, for the European Union and Washington there is the strong feeling that Turkey under Mr. Erdogan has moved farther away from European values and norms like the rule of law and freedom of the press.Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s prime minister, said in an interview that NATO and the European Union viewed the election differently. It is a defense alliance, she said, and “Turkey is one of the allies that has great military capacities” to help NATO in a key part of the world. “So I don’t think anything changes in terms of NATO in this regard whoever wins the elections.”For NATO, of course, the hope is that a change of leadership in Turkey will end the standoff over approval of Sweden’s membership in the military alliance, ideally before a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July.In Washington, Mr. Erdogan’s drift toward authoritarianism, his ties to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and his disputes with NATO have exasperated officials — and even led some members of Congress to suggest that Turkey should be banished from the NATO alliance.While the United States, the European Union and, to a lesser extent, NATO stand to gain from an opposition victory, Mr. Putin almost certainly will be seen as the loser if Mr. Erdogan is ousted.Not only has Mr. Erdogan refused to join Western sanctions against Russia and provided a market for its oil and gas, Turkey has also become a source for Moscow of much-needed imports and a crucial link to the global economy amid tightening Western sanctions. The Kremlin also sees in Mr. Erdogan’s often confrontational nationalist rhetoric the potential to disrupt the NATO alliance.For its part, Turkey has benefited not only from cheap Russian energy, but also from Russian investment and revenues from Russian tourism, which have risen since the start of the war. Russia is building Turkey’s first nuclear power plant and, since war began, has announced plans to make the country a hub for its natural gas trade.A campaign poster for Mr. Erdogan in Kayseri, Turkey.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesThe two long-serving leaders also share an authoritarian streak and confrontational rhetoric toward the West, emphasizing historical grievances against other world powers. Mr. Erdogan’s relationship with Mr. Putin has allowed him to play the role of statesman as a mediator for Moscow’s war on Ukraine, most recently by brokering a deal to allow the export of Ukrainian grain.But Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan’s partnership has always been based on mutual self-interest rather than ideological affinity, and the two countries compete for influence in the Caucasus and Middle East. Most notably, the two leaders back different factions in the armed conflicts in Syria and Libya. Relations grew tense after Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet in 2015.Mr. Erdogan has stopped short of offering Mr. Putin direct support in the war in Ukraine, and his government has angered Moscow by allowing the sale of Turkish armed drones to Kyiv.In another worrying sign for the Kremlin, Mr. Kilicdaroglu, the opposition leader, accused Russia this past week of interfering in the country’s election by spreading “conspiracies, deep fakes and tapes that were exposed in this country yesterday.”That was a reference to an alleged sex tape that surfaced on Thursday, prompting a minor presidential candidate to leave the race.“Get your hands off the Turkish state,” he wrote in Turkish and Russian, though adding: “We are still in favor of cooperation and friendship.”Mr. Kilicdaroglu has promised to maintain economic ties to Russia if he wins the presidency, but it remains unclear whether he would maintain Mr. Erdogan’s delicate balancing act in Ukraine.As an indication of the sensitivity of the situation, when the United States ambassador to Turkey, Jeff Flake, met with Mr. Kilicdaroglu last month, he drew Mr. Erdogan’s ire. Saying that he would no longer meet with Mr. Flake, the Turkish president added, “We need to teach the United States a lesson in this election,” Turkish news media outlets reported.Europe’s leaders, while silently rooting for an Erdogan defeat, are growing concerned about the potential for post-election turmoil, especially if Mr. Erdogan loses narrowly or the election goes to a second-round runoff in two weeks.“It is a watershed election,” Mr. Bildt said. “But democracy is at stake. And my second concern is that we get a result” that means a division of powers — a powerful presidency under Mr. Erdogan and a Turkish Parliament controlled by an unstable opposition coalition.“The risk of constitutional stalemate is quite high,” Mr. Bildt said.Michael Crowley contributed reporting from Washington. More

Representative George Santos of New York was indicted this week by federal prosecutors on 13 felony counts largely tied to financial fraud. Almost immediately after his election in November, The New York Times began scrutinizing his background. Mr. Santos has misled, exaggerated to or lied to voters about much of his life, including his education; […] More

Donald J. Trump rode border security to the presidency in 2016. Republicans hope the issue will be at the center of the debate again.Border security, the issue that largely defined Donald J. Trump’s victorious 2016 campaign, is back on the national agenda, a potential boost for Mr. Trump — and, for President Biden, a headache with no simple remedy in either policy or politics.The termination of a pandemic-era program that allowed officials to swiftly expel migrants was expected to draw an additional 7,000 unauthorized people a day, adding to already record levels of migrants, from Latin America and elsewhere, driven north by poverty and violence and by perceptions of a more welcoming border under Mr. Biden.At a televised town hall this week, Mr. Trump predicted that Friday would be a “day of infamy” as the policy known as Title 42 that he first put in place came to an end. He used the same fear-mongering rhetoric of his earlier campaigns to describe migrants in broad and inaccurate strokes as “released from prisons” and “mental institutions.”The Biden administration announced policies beginning in February to blunt the surge, and so far there have not been signs of disorder since the policy expired. But Mr. Trump — along with Republican officials and conservative media — in recent days have escalated their yearslong attacks over border security, claiming that Mr. Biden has ignored a burgeoning crisis.Then President Donald Trump tours progress in the construction of the southern border wall near Alamo, Texas, a city in the Rio Grande Valley near the U.S-Mexican border in January 2021.Doug Mills/The New York TimesFox News employed a countdown clock to observe the end of Title 42, while broadcasting overhead video from a “Fox flight team” of thousands of migrants in a tent camp that a correspondent said were “waiting until Title 42 drops to cross over illegally.”Nikki Haley, a former South Carolina governor and 2024 presidential candidate, told the far-right outlet Newsmax that what she saw on a border visit was “unbelievable,” citing cartels trafficking people and fentanyl, the lethal opioid that has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and has become a primary theme of Republican attacks on Mr. Biden’s policies.“Along with inflation, an out-of-control border is one of the administration’s greatest vulnerabilities,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. “If you watch Fox News, there are few other issues that are as important for the federal government to address.” The lifting of Title 42, he added, was an issue “gift-wrapped with a beautiful bow” for Mr. Trump.White House and Biden campaign officials largely scoffed at this analysis, citing past efforts by Republicans and conservative media to turn caravans of migrants heading toward the border into election-year crises. For the most part, Mr. Biden himself has avoided focusing attention on the border, with polls showing that immigration motivates far more Republican voters than Democrats.Still, there is a broad recognition even among Mr. Biden’s allies that perceptions of chaos at the southern border are a political liability — though strategists are optimistic that by the time 2024 ballots are cast voters will have moved on to other topics.The expected migrant surge is “coming at a good time because it’s not coming in June or May of ’24,” said Matt Barreto, who conducts polling for Mr. Biden’s White House. “The election is not happening in June of ’23. So you’re going to see an extremely well-managed process with the resources we have.”But while there is potential for the administration to spin the handling of the situation as a show of competence, Mr. Biden’s record will be scrutinized. On his first day in office, he proposed an immigration package that offered a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented residents, protected so-called Dreamers and added technology to help secure the southern border. The bill, faced with solid Republican opposition, went nowhere. As a candidate, Mr. Biden had promised not to separate families at the border, as Mr. Trump did in 2018 — and which the former president suggested this week he would reinstate if elected in 2024. Mr. Biden’s more humane message and policies, along with the waning of the Covid-19 pandemic, have led to a rise in the number of people trying to enter the country unlawfully, contributing to a large increase in border apprehensions. Now, with the end of Title 42, the administration has introduced stricter asylum rules to turn back those crossing without permission and sent 1,500 active-duty troops to support the Border Patrol. And while pressure along the border built earlier this week — on some days more than 11,000 people crossed the southern border unlawfully and were taken into custody — according to internal agency data obtained by The New York Times, that number dropped somewhat to fewer than 10,000 people on Thursday.But even some Democrats aligned with Mr. Biden have criticized him for not doing more to control the border and for failing to highlight his policies more forcefully. “All of us who work in Democratic politics have been dreading this moment for two years,” said Lanae Erickson, who runs the public opinion and social policy division at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank. “It is very evident that Republicans still have an upper hand on immigration and people don’t think that Democrats particularly care about securing the border.”Progressives seem to agree. “They should have undone Title 42 on the first day in office. They didn’t,” said Chris Newman, the legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Los Angeles. “Now they have to do what they should have done in the first day of office, and they’re doing it poorly.”Polls show broad dissatisfaction with the president’s handling of immigration. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll earlier this year, just 28 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Biden’s handling of the southern border. In a Fox News poll in April of registered voters, 66 percent of white voters without a college degree said that the White House was not tough enough on unlawful immigration. A majority of Hispanic voters, 55 percent, also said the president was not tough enough. “Biden won the 2020 election not just because he got big shifts among white college voters, but he stopped the bleeding among white working class voters,’’ said Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “What happens with those voters now that he’s going into 2024 with approval ratings in the low 40s, and then you add to that an emerging immigration problem — a problem these voters very much think matters?”Other polling is more favorable to the administration. In Mr. Barreto’s recent surveys, conducted in seven battleground states for Immigration Hub, a pro-immigration group, there was broad support for Mr. Biden’s policies, including reversing Trump-era child separation and developing pathways to citizenship for Dreamers. Democrats point to recent electoral history as a counter to predictions that new scenes of disruption on the border will exact a political price. Republicans and their allies in the media have turned the prospect of caravans of migrants approaching the nation’s southern border into biennial programming designed to motivate a conservative base. But Democrats won convincing victories in 2018, Mr. Biden won the presidency in 2020 and the party over-performed expectations in last year’s midterm elections.Migrants are seen at the McAllen-Hidalgo International Bridge as U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents take down their information in Hidalgo, Texas on Thursday.Verónica G. Cárdenas for The New York TimesPart of the problem for Democrats is that their border policies tend to be more nuanced than Republicans’ blunt calls to get tough, such as Mr. Trump’s continued focus on building a wall. The Republican approach fires up the party’s base, while Democrats have focused more energy on issues like abortion rights and the economy, which can motivate theirs. Mr. Biden is also cross-pressured in his own party, with centrist Democrats calling for tougher measures and progressives warning of the dangers faced by expelled migrants and insisting on due process rights for asylum seekers. “The majority of the American people are with us on this,” said Maria Cardona, a longtime party strategist for the Democrats. “It would be easier to explain if they actually explain it, which is we are for strong border security and humane pathways to legalization.”Jon Seaton, a Republican strategist who works in Arizona, said that the latest surge of migrants was severely straining government services in parts of the border state and that the issue could play a role in tipping Arizona away from Mr. Biden in 2024, after he defeated Mr. Trump there by the slimmest of margins. Arizona’s large bloc of independent voters view immigration through a lens that is less ideological and more about government competency, Mr. Seaton said. “These images are not just on Fox News, they’re on local news, they’re fairly pervasive,” he said of scenes of people crossing the border and filling the streets of U.S. border cities. “When they see things like what’s happening, it’s really a potential problem for President Biden and his re-election, and for Democrats up and down the ticket.”Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting. More

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has tilted the political playing field in his favor over the past two decades, concentrating power in his own hands. Still, he faces a stiff challenge in Sunday’s election.ISTANBUL, Turkey — As President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey approaches the toughest election of his career on Sunday, he has marshaled many of the resources of the state to tilt the playing field to his advantage.Mr. Erdogan, who has come to increasingly dominate the country over the past two decades, tapped the Treasury for populist spending programs and has raised the minimum wage three times in the last year and a half. His challenger barely appears on the state broadcaster while Mr. Erdogan’s speeches are aired in full. And this weekend’s vote will be overseen by an election board that, during recent votes, have made questionable calls that benefited the president.And yet, Mr. Erdogan could still lose.Recent polls show him trailing the main challenger, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, in a tight race that could go to a runoff later this month. But Mr. Erdogan’s grip on the country could also contribute to his undoing, if voters drop him because of his strongman ways and persistently high inflation that has left Turks feeling poorer.“The elections are not fair, but nonetheless they are free, and that is why there is always the prospect of political change in Turkey,” said Sinan Ulgen, director of the Istanbul-based EDAM research group. “The prospect exists, and is now palpable.”Mr. Erdogan has eroded democratic institutions, stocking the judiciary with loyalists and limiting free expression. His main challenger, Mr. Kilicdaroglu, has vowed to restore democracy if he wins.The close race speaks to Turkey’s complicated character. Political scientists say it is neither a full democracy nor a full-blown autocracy, but rather a mix of the two in which the leader has outsized power but where elections can still bring about change.Turkey has never tipped into full-on autocracy because electoral politics retain a hallowed place in the national identity, one revered by Mr. Erdogan himself. He and his governing Justice and Development Party have regularly trounced their opponents at the ballot box over the years with no indications of foul play, granting Mr. Erdogan a mandate.Turkey’s political ambiguity is also reflected in its global position.During Mr. Erdogan’s tenure, much of Turkish foreign policy has become personally associated with him as he has proved to be a necessary, but problematic — and at times puzzling — partner of the West. He condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and sent aid to the Ukrainian government while not only refusing to join Western sanctions on Russia, but also expanding trade ties with, and drawing closer to, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.He has sparred with the United States over Syria policy and disparages Washington in his speeches. He heads a NATO member state but has hampered the alliance’s expansion, delaying Finland’s ability to join and still refusing to accept Sweden.Election posters and flags hang from buildings next to a mosque in Kayseri, Turkey, last month. Predominantly Muslim Turkey is a staunchly secular state.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesAll of that, at times, has left Western leaders wondering whose side he is really on.A change of leadership in Turkey would resonate around the world, given the country’s unique position as a predominantly Muslim society with a staunchly secular state and a vast network of economic and diplomatic ties spanning Asia, Africa, Europe and the Middle East.Mr. Kilicdaroglu has promised that if he wins, he will improve relations with the West and make Turkish foreign policy less personal. But what exactly that would look like is hard to predict: He represents a coalition of six political parties with widely divergent ideologies and his record provides few clues. Before entering politics, he was a civil servant who ran Turkey’s social security administration.After Mr. Erdogan rose to the national stage as prime minister in 2003, he was widely seen as a new model of Islamist democrat, one pro-business and interested in strong ties with the West. During his first decade, Turkey’s economy boomed, lifting millions into the middle class.But more recently — after facing mass street protests against his governing style, becoming president in 2014 and surviving a failed coup attempt in 2016 — he purged his foes from the state bureaucracy, limited civil liberties and centralized power in his hands.People attend a campaign rally for the main challenger of Mr. Erdogan, opposition candidate Kemal Kilicdaroglu, in Istanbul on Saturday.Khalil Hamra/Associated PressMr. Erdogan retains a fervent following, particularly among working class, rural and more religious voters, who love his rhetoric about standing up for Turkey against an array of domestic and foreign enemies. He has pushed back against Turkey’s state secularism, expanding Islamic education and changing regulations to allow women in government jobs to wear head scarves.The political opposition says that his consolidation of power has gone too far and portrays Sunday’s vote as a make-it-or-break-it moment for Turkish democracy that could inspire other states struggling with aspiring autocrats.Mr. Erdogan’s advantages are clear, starting with the perks citizens can receive through links to his political party, including state jobs, social support or local services like new roads, analysts said.The president’s use of power for electoral gain has raised questions about how fair these elections really are.“It is more like a hybrid regime, where you have multiparty elections but where the opposition does not enjoy the same opportunities as the government to put their ideas and policies through to voters,” said Ersin Kalaycioglu, a professor of political science at Sabanci University in Istanbul.Mr. Erdogan has extended his sway over the news media. Major news networks are owned by businessmen close to Mr. Erdogan while outlets that criticize his policies are often hounded with fines and lawsuits.A recent analysis of the state-funded broadcaster TRT found that in April, Mr. Kilicdaroglu received only 32 minutes of airtime. Mr. Erdogan got 32 hours.“TRT acts like a public relations firm assigned to run the election campaign of the ruling party and its presidential candidate,” Ilhan Tasci, an opposition party member at the state broadcasting regulator, said in a statement when releasing the data.Shoppers pass election posters at a market in Kayseri, Turkey, in April. Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesOverseeing Sunday’s vote is the Supreme Election Council, a panel of judges. For decades, it was widely regarded as independent and trustworthy, but two recent decisions marred its reputation in the eyes of opposition supporters.In 2017, while the votes were being counted in a referendum on changing Turkey from a parliamentary to a presidential system, the board decided to override the electoral law and include ballots that lacked an official stamp proving their authenticity. The referendum passed by a slim margin, allowing Mr. Erdogan, the president at the time, to greatly expand his powers.In 2019, after an opposition candidate beat Mr. Erdogan’s candidate in the mayor’s race for Istanbul, Turkey’s largest city, the council voided the results, citing irregularities, and called for a redo. The same opposition candidate won that, too, by an even larger margin.Those decisions raised questions about the election board’s willingness to rule against Mr. Erdogan’s preferred outcome, said Hasan Sinar, an associate professor of criminal law at Altinbas University in Istanbul.“On paper, they are neutral,” he said. “But when the government stays in power so long, no one in that position can be neutral anymore.” Any doubt about the electoral board’s neutrality was detrimental to Turkey’s democracy, he added. “This is never supposed to be poisoned by doubt,” he said.In recent weeks, Mr. Erdogan has used his bully pulpit to bludgeon the opposition, warning that the country would suffer under their leadership and accusing them of conspiring with terrorists. Mr. Erdogan’s interior minister, Suleyman Soylu, who oversees the security forces, has gone further, sowing doubts about the results before the vote even begins.Political posters adorn the streets in the city of Kayseri last month.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesThe election amounted to “a political coup attempt by the West,” Mr. Soylu said last month during a campaign stop. “It is a coup attempt formed by bringing together all of the preparations to purge Turkey.”A few days later, Mr. Soylu said that Mr. Kilicdaroglu’s party was “always open to cheating.”Despite the problems, Turks remain hopeful that Sunday’s poll will express the people’s will. This week, after Mr. Soylu requested that the election board share detailed data about polling places and voter registrations so his ministry could set up its own system to tabulate the vote, the election board pushed back, saying that only it was empowered to count votes.Others noted Mr. Erdogan’s long commitment to electoral politics, hoping that meant he would accept his own loss if it happened.“Turkey has a long tradition of multiparty democracy and a very strong attachment to the integrity of the vote,” said Mr. Ulgen, the director of EDAM. If a clean vote is held, it would probably be respected, even by Mr. Erdogan, he added.But trouble could arise if the results are very close, causing the candidates to contest them or question the process.If the spread is very thin, Mr. Ulgen said, “all options are on the table.”Gulsin Harman More

More from our inbox:Fans of Netflix DVDs Offer Sad FarewellsFacing Up to the Spiraling U.S. DebtIf the G.O.P. Wants to Win, It Needs to Pick Candidates Who Can Sarah Blesener for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Elite School Admits to Failure After Suicide of a Bullied Student” (front page, May 1), about the Lawrenceville School’s reckoning with the suicide of a student last year:Reading the article about Jack Reid’s suicide brought back unpleasant memories, as I attended the Lawrenceville School between 1968 and 1971.I was a shy, timid and closeted — even to myself — gay man. Although I received a great education, and went on to have a successful career as a judge, my three years at Lawrenceville were some of my worst.During my first year, I was called a homophobic slur in Spanish by a housemate, and another housemate wanted to fight me for no particular reason, probably because I was perceived as weak. The assistant housemaster sensed my unhappiness and asked me if I was OK, and, unfortunately, I answered that I was.To deal with my unhappiness and loneliness, I would calm myself by shaking my legs and arms before I went to sleep, in addition to gleefully marking a big “X” on my calendar after I completed another day of extreme misery.In fairness to Lawrenceville, I never disclosed my unhappiness. My heart goes out to the Reid family.I commend Lawrenceville for the steps the school is taking, albeit possibly to avoid litigation.David L. PiperMinneapolisTo the Editor:The story about Jack Reid’s suicide hit home. In the 1960s I was a ninth-grade transfer student. This particular boy spotted me as an easy target in civics class, relentlessly teasing, taunting and humiliating me, five days a week. Students laughed at me, calling me names throughout the halls.The look of shame in the eyes of the teacher was transparent, yet he never said or did anything in my defense. I was already afraid and insecure. Those daily taunts and humiliation destroyed the little self-worth I had.Twice I attempted suicide. My mother was beside herself. She pulled me out of that school and enrolled me in a private Catholic school. I somehow made it through those years only because of my mother’s love and concern rather than anything the school ever did.Bravo to the Lawrenceville School for publicly stating, “We acknowledge that more should have been done to protect Jack.” It’s long overdue for schools to finally step up and take responsibility rather than turning a continual blind eye.Marge KellerChicagoFans of Netflix DVDs Offer Sad Farewells Illustration by The New York Times. Images by Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Here’s Looking at You, DVD.com,” by Pamela Paul (column, April 28):Thanks to Ms. Paul for her eloquent, bittersweet ode to DVD.com. This year marked my 15th year as a Netflix subscriber, and while my queue is a fraction of hers (I have a thing with lists — no more than 10 on there at once), my recent mandate for managing my movies has been to include only those that are not available on any streaming service. (“Altered States” was a recent rental for me, too; maybe Ms. Paul and I had the same disc!)I will treasure these last few months of deliveries. Farewell, red envelopes, but luckily I can fill the void with a combination of fond memories and frequent trips to the New York Public Library DVD stacks (and pray to the lords of corporate do-gooding that Netflix donates its DVD inventory to libraries).Kevin ParksNew YorkTo the Editor:One point Pamela Paul didn’t mention is the superior image and sound quality of DVDs, especially Blu-ray. The colors are much richer, the blacks are blacker and the audio is much fuller. Filmmakers put incredible effort into the look and sound of their art.Luckily I live a few blocks from one of San Francisco’s last video rental stores, Video Wave of Noe Valley. Not only does Colin Hutton, the proprietor, carry hundreds of titles unavailable via the internet, but he also has an encyclopedic knowledge of the films.Whenever I want to watch a movie in which the cinematography and audio design are critical, I walk down the street to pick up a shiny disc.Michael FasmanSan FranciscoThe writer is a filmmaker.To the Editor:I loved this piece. It echoed my feelings and experiences with DVD.com. But there is another layer no one seems to be talking about.I live in a rural area of western North Carolina. I have no cellular service at my house, and my internet connection is via a very slow satellite service and has a data cap. Both the slowness of the connection and the low data cap prevent us from being able to stream anything but fairly short YouTube videos. And those eat up our data allotment pretty quickly. Forget trying to stream an HD movie.As Pamela Paul indicated, we won’t purchase a DVD that we would only watch once.I’m sure we aren’t the only family in America in this situation. So what are we to do? It’s depressing and frustrating.Kimberly Baldwin WhitmireFranklin, N.C.Facing Up to the Spiraling U.S. DebtSenate Republicans hold a news conference outside the Capitol to urge passage of legislation to raise the debt limit and cut federal spending.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Cowardice of the Deficit Scolds,” by Paul Krugman (column, May 9):It is time to face up to massive U.S. debt that both Presidents Trump and Biden helped accelerate.Many years ago, Mr. Krugman and others accused President George W. Bush and me of trying to privatize Social Security. The rhetoric poisoned the well for Social Security reform, which even Mr. Biden was suggesting was then needed. Reforms would have greatly improved today’s U.S. financial position.The “scolds” I know believe that long-term deficit reduction requires lower expenditures and higher revenues. Having managed four government agencies, I would add better management by political appointees and Congress to proactively address the challenges.We have to raise the debt ceiling, but we need to stop the U.S. debt doubling over the next 10 years. That is not “extortion” or “blackmail.” It is acting to safeguard America’s future.James B. LockhartGreenwich, Conn.The writer is a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He was director of the Federal Housing Financial Agency and the Office of the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, principal deputy commissioner of Social Security and director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.If the G.O.P. Wants to Win, It Needs to Pick Candidates Who CanRon DeSantis has cast himself as more electable than Donald J. Trump, but for years Republican primary voters have cast ballots with their hearts, opting for hard-liners who lose in general elections.Scott Eisen/Getty Images; Christopher Lee for The New York TimesTo the Editor:“DeSantis’s Electability Pitch Wobbles, Despite G.O.P. Losses Under Trump” (news article, April 23) describes the angst many Republicans feel about the electability of their candidates and the fact that they are losing many elections they feel were winnable.The answer to their problem should be very evident: The majority of Americans favor sensible gun control, including the banning of assault rifles. The majority of Americans favor women’s reproductive rights. The majority of Americans deplore the vicious tone of American politics that prevails today. The majority of Americans do not believe the idiotic conspiracy theories that abound.Yet the Republican Party continues to run candidates who cater to the morally and financially bankrupt National Rifle Association, who seek to eliminate completely a woman’s right to choose, who sow chaos with their nasty political rhetoric and who continue to push the completely ridiculous lie that Donald Trump won in 2020.If the Republican Party ever wants to regain its status as a mainstream, serious participant in governance, it needs to jettison these fringe types it continues to trot out as candidates.Bill GottdenkerMountainside, N.J. More

The former president’s current and potential rivals have failed to gain traction as the party seems to rally around him in the face of criticism.Just a few months ago, the Republican presidential primary seemed as if it might include a frank and vigorous debate about the leadership and limitations of Donald J. Trump.But any appetite for criticism of Mr. Trump among Republicans has nearly evaporated in a very short time. Voters rallied around him after his criminal indictment in March on charges related to hush money for a porn star, and potential rivals have faltered, with few willing to take direct aim at the former president and front-runner for the nomination.In a live town hall on CNN on Wednesday, the cheers for every falsehood and insult that Mr. Trump uttered under tough questioning by a moderator showed there was little to no daylight between Mr. Trump and the Republican base. A quirky effort to disrupt the love-in by Chris Christie — a potential rival who bought Facebook ads to supply audience members with skeptical questions such as “Why are you afraid of debating?” — went nowhere.In surveys and focus groups, a fair share of Republican voters say that they would prefer a less polarizing, more electable nominee. But a near taboo against criticizing Mr. Trump has made it hard for rivals, apart from Mr. Christie and one or two others near the bottom of polls, to stand out.In what looks like a rerun of the 2016 Republican primary, almost none of Mr. Trump’s competitors have openly gone after him, despite his glaring vulnerabilities. Instead, they are hoping — now as then — that he will somehow self-destruct, leaving them to inherit his voters.After a jury found Mr. Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation of the writer E. Jean Carroll on Tuesday, Mike Pence, the former vice president, who is weighing a 2024 campaign, declined to criticize Mr. Trump. In an interview with NBC News, Mr. Pence said it was “just one more story focusing on my former running mate that I know is a great fascination to members of the national media, but I just don’t think it’s where the American people are focused.”Other 2024 candidates either defended Mr. Trump, such as the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, or played down the verdict, including Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor. Ms. Haley, who announced her candidacy in February, even defended Mr. Trump this week for threatening to skip Republican primary debates. “With the numbers he has now, why would he go get on a debate stage and risk that?” she said.Only two 2024 hopefuls found the verdict in the Carroll case to be disqualifying for a would-be president: Mr. Christie and Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas governor. Mr. Hutchinson criticized Mr. Trump’s “contempt for the rule of law.”Several months ago, polling had suggested Mr. Trump could be a potentially weak candidate, with only 25 to 35 percent support from Republican voters in high-quality surveys. The Republican National Committee promised an autopsy of the 2022 midterms that was expected to address Mr. Trump’s role in the party’s surprising losses.But today, the lane in the Republican primary for a candidate who is openly critical of Mr. Trump seems to be closing.Mr. Hutchinson’s long-shot campaign has failed to gain notice. Mr. Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, who has promised a decision this month on whether he will run, also has yet to generate much interest. Even the occasionally critical Mr. Pence, who mildly suggested Mr. Trump would be “accountable” to history for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, is struggling for affirmation from the Republican base.And the R.N.C. autopsy of the midterms? A draft reportedly did not mention Mr. Trump at all.Mr. Trump in Waco, Texas, in March.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesDavid Kochel, a Republican strategist who advised Jeb Bush when he ran against Mr. Trump in 2016, said there was no opportunity for a candidate openly critical of Mr. Trump in the 2024 primary.“Voters have seen Trump as the most attacked president of their lifetimes, and they have an allergic reaction to one of their own doing it,” Mr. Kochel said. “He’s built up these incredible antibodies, in part stemming from how the base perceives he has been treated.”A CBS News poll released this month found that among likely Republican primary voters, only an insignificant handful, 7 percent, wanted a candidate who “criticizes Trump.”The three candidates whom voters are the least open to considering, the survey found, are those who have criticized Mr. Trump to varying degrees: Mr. Christie, Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Pence.David Carney, a Republican strategist in New Hampshire, said he had expected the race to be more competitive by now, but a turning point occurred in March with Mr. Trump’s indictment in New York.“It fell into the president’s narrative of the past five years,” Mr. Carney said, referring to Mr. Trump’s portrayal of himself as a victim of a criminal justice system out to get him. Mr. Carney described what he called a “boomerang” effect on Republican primary polls. “They’re beating up your guy — there’s a rallying around the flag.”Mr. Trump’s rivals could still see a surge in support between now and next year’s first primary contests, but for the time being he is dominating all challengers. A polling average shows him with a 30-point lead over his closest rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has yet to formally announce his run. All other candidates, declared and potential, are distant afterthoughts in the race, for now.The former president is insulated from criticism, strategists said, because of the intense and dug-in partisanship of the Republican base, and because many of those voters get information only from right-wing sources, which have minimized the Jan. 6 attack and obscured Mr. Trump’s 2020 loss.“They barely have access to the truth,” said Sarah Longwell, an anti-Trump Republican strategist. Ms. Longwell, who hosts a podcast about Republican voters called “The Focus Group,” said a sizable share of primary voters wanted to move on from Mr. Trump.Supporters in Mar-a-Lago showed support for Mr. Trump when he returned to Florida after turning himself over to Manhattan Criminal Court.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesBut according to polling, a majority of Republican voters don’t believe Mr. Trump really lost in 2020. “Every politician on their team, everyone they know and all the media they consume — all tells them that the election was stolen,” Ms. Longwell said.Mr. Christie, the most sharply critical 2024 hopeful of Mr. Trump, recently attacked the former president, calling him “a child” for denying the 2020 election results and cowardly for suggesting he might duck Republican debates.But when Mr. Christie tested the electoral waters during visits to New Hampshire the past two months, including at the same college where Mr. Trump’s town hall took place on Wednesday, his crowds seemed tilted toward independents and even Democrats, including those who knew him as the house conservative on ABC News.One element that may factor in Mr. Christie’s calculus: The New Hampshire primary next year could favor an anti-Trump Republican because of an influx of independent voters. Because Democrats chose South Carolina as their first nominating state — and because President Biden may not appear on the New Hampshire ballot or campaign in the state — up to 100,000 independents are expected to cast ballots in the Republican race, where they could tilt the results.“Independents are open to voting for a Republican candidate,” said Matt Mowers, who served as Mr. Christie’s New Hampshire state director in 2016, “but they aren’t open to voting for a crazy Republican.” More

Liberal voters have intensified their scrutiny of the Thai monarchy in recent years. Conservatives have responded with a campaign to defend the institution at all costs.When Thais go to the polls on Sunday, they will be voting in a closely fought election that is seen, in part, as a referendum on whether it is illegal to criticize the Thai monarchy.Thailand has one of the world’s strictest laws against defaming or insulting the king and other members of the royal family. Once considered taboo, the topic of the monarchy was brought to the forefront after tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets and called for checks on the institution’s power in 2020.The protests represented two sides of an impassioned struggle to determine the role of the crown in modern Thailand. The election could determine whether the Southeast Asian nation of 72 million will revive its once-vibrant democracy or slide further toward authoritarian rule, with royalists firmly in power.On one side of the debate are conservative political parties whose standard-bearer is Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the general who has governed Thailand for nine years after seizing power in a coup. He and his supporters argue that amending the law could lead to abolishing the monarchy altogether, and have vowed to defend the royal family.On the other side is the progressive Move Forward Party, which is polling in second place and argues that the law needs to be amended because it is being used as a political weapon. Several young people who participated in the 2020 protests are now running as candidates with the Move Forward Party.Anti-government protesters flashing a three-fingered salute, a sign of resistance, at a demonstration in Bangkok in 2020.Adam Dean for The New York Times“Perhaps one of the deepest fault lines in Thai society is about the monarchy,” said Sunai Phasuk, a senior researcher on Thailand for Human Rights Watch.Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the youngest daughter of the ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the front-runner for prime minister, is treading carefully. Her father, a populist billionaire, is one of the most divisive political figures in Thailand. He lives in self-exile after being ousted in a coup in 2006 and can only return to Thailand with the king’s permission.Royalists have consistently accused Mr. Thaksin of wanting to overthrow the monarchy, a charge that he denies. Ms. Paetongtarn has said her party, Pheu Thai, would not abolish the law protecting the monarchy from criticism, but that the issue of reform must be openly discussed in Parliament.King Maha Vajiralongkorn greeting his supporters in Bangkok during a ceremony in remembrance of his father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej.Adam Dean for The New York TimesOpinion polls show that the party of Mr. Prayuth, United Thai Nation, is trailing in third place behind Pheu Thai, which has topped the polls. In recent weeks, there has also been a surge in support for the Move Forward Party, which is polling a close No. 2.Move Forward is the largest party pushing to amend the law, irking conservatives who have accused it of undermining the monarchy. The party wants to cut the jail terms of violators of the law and designate the Bureau of the Royal Household as the only agency allowed to file lawsuits. (Any Thai citizen is able to file complaints under the current version of the law.)Conservative politicians have threatened to disband Move Forward. The party’s previous iteration, the Future Forward Party, was dissolved in 2020 by the Constitutional Court. In a sign of how sensitive the topic of reform has become, Move Forward has attempted to moderate its position, saying reform would not take precedence in its campaign.For decades, the monarchy and the military have had a symbiotic relationship, with the army frequently reminding the public that it is the true guardian of the Thai crown. Thais are taught from a young age that they have to love the king and that any criticism of the monarchy is strictly forbidden.But today, many Thais no longer stand at attention when the royal anthem is played in public spaces such as movie theaters. Royalist Marketplace, a Facebook group set up to satirize the monarchy, had more than 1 million members before Facebook blocked access to it in 2020, citing a Thai government request.The law criminalizing criticism of the monarchy carries a minimum sentence of three years if violated — the only law in Thailand that imposes a minimum jail term — and a maximum sentence of up to 15 years. After the 2020 protests, the authorities charged at least 223 people, including 17 minors, for violating the law, known as Article 112.In the area around the Grand Palace in Bangkok, posters of the king and queen are ubiquitous.Adam Dean for The New York TimesTantawan “Tawan” Tuatulanon, a 21-year-old law student, was accused of violating the rule in 2022 after she and her friends conducted a poll asking whether the royal motorcade was an inconvenience to Bangkok residents.In recent weeks, she has been pressing political parties on whether they would amend the law — which she is in favor of abolishing — after the election. On Wednesday, Ms. Tantawan was arrested after she called for the release of a 15-year-old charged with violating the rule.“I feel we don’t need any law that specially protects anybody or any family,” said Ms. Tantawan, who mounted a hunger strike earlier this year in protest against the government. “He is a person like us, not a god or a demigod.”King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun, who ascended the throne in 2016, is not as beloved as his father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who reigned for 70 years. While King Bhumibol was revered in Thailand, his son used to spend most of his time in Germany, though he has been seen more often in public since the 2020 protests.In the wake of the protests, Mr. Prayuth instructed all government officials to “use every single law” to prosecute anyone who criticized the monarchy. Royalists stepped up their campaign against people they accused of insulting the crown, filing more complaints and attacking anti-monarchy activists.In 2021, Warong Dechgitvigrom, a former doctor, founded Thailand’s first far-right party, Thai Pakdee, in response to what he called the “Three Fingers Mob,” referring to the three-finger salute adopted by young Thais as a symbol of resistance during the 2020 protests.A supporter holds up a poster of King Bhumibol Adulyadej during a rally for Thai Pakdee, a right-wing party that is centered on defending the monarchy against criticism.Jorge Silva/ReutersHe now says the current law protecting the monarchy does not go far enough, as it is limited to shielding four key members of the royal family. Former Thai kings, princes, princesses and the word “monarchy” itself should also be protected, he said.Although Mr. Warong’s views are considered extreme, he says he has collected about 6,000 to 7,000 signatures for his proposal, and that he is confident he can gather the 10,000 signatures needed for the House of Representatives to consider passing the bill.Mr. Warong says people need to understand that the Thai monarchy is unique. He recalled France’s former monarchy as one characterized by the oppression of its people. “But ours is like father and children,” he said. “We have good feelings together, there are no bad feelings.”Those views are at odds with how many young people feel about the king. During the 2020 demonstrations, protesters questioned the wealth of the royal family, which is one of the richest in the world.Protesters in 2020 at a pro-democracy rally in front of the Siam Commercial Bank, demanding that the king return royal assets to the people and reform the monarchy.Adam Dean for The New York TimesKasit Piromya, a former foreign minister, said it would be challenging for Mr. Warong and his party to lead a successful campaign backing the constitutional monarchy because many young people “don’t see what is in it for them.”“If you cannot speak this in the open, then it gives more room and ammunition to the students, to the Thaksin supporters to say, ‘We are more democratic,’” Mr. Kasit said, referring to calls to reform the monarchy.Arnond Sakworawich, an assistant professor of statistics at the National Institute of Development Administration, said that preserving Article 112 was necessary because the king and the royal family do not defend themselves against criticism.“It’s a different culture, because in Thailand, people believe that the king is their parent, and parents never hurt their children,” said Mr. Arnond, who is known for his royalist views. “So there must be some people to protect the king.”In their zeal to defend the monarchy, many royalists may ultimately end up hurting the institution more than they protect it.Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee, the head of the department of government at Chulalongkorn University, said it was “very precarious and risky” for parties such as Thai Pakdee to use the monarchy as a campaigning platform.“Even though the monarchy is above politics, it’s now drawn into the divide,” she said. “It will polarize the voters and parties into two camps, inevitably.”Young protesters flash the three-fingered, anti-government salute at a pro-democracy rally at Democracy Monument in Bangkok.Adam Dean for The New York TimesRyn Jirenuwat More

Should polling change or stay the same? It doesn’t seem a hard call.Old methods just aren’t enough anymore. Joshua Bright for The New York TimesIt’s been nearly a decade since I first attended the annual conference of pollsters, known as AAPOR.Back then, it was a very different place. It was dominated by traditional pollsters who knew change was inevitable but who appeared uncomfortable with the sacrifices required to accommodate new people, methods and ideas.At the time, that gathering reminded me of the Republican Party, which was then grappling with how to deal with demographic change and Hispanic voters in the wake of Barack Obama’s re-election. There are obvious differences, but the AAPOR crowd’s talk about reaching out to new groups and ideas was animated by similar senses of threat that the Republicans were facing then — the concern posed by long-term trends, the status threat from newcomers, and the sense that traditional values would be threatened by accommodating new ideas.But if Donald J. Trump showed that Republicans didn’t have to support immigration reform to win, he most certainly showed pollsters they would have to innovate. A decade and two historically significant poor cycles later, AAPOR is a very different place. The old guard is still around, but presentation after presentation employs methods that would have been scorned a decade ago. This year’s Innovators Award went to someone who referred to AAPOR as an association of “Buggy-Whip Manufacturers” back in 2014, the year I first attended.The innovative turn in the polling community is very real, including in public political polling. Today, virtually no pollsters are using the methods they did a decade ago. The ABC/Post poll is perhaps the only major exception, with its live-interview, random-digit-dialing telephone surveys. But to this point, innovation and change hasn’t been enough to solve the problems facing the industry. It has been enough only to keep it afloat, if still struggling to keep its head above water.Heading into 2024, pollsters still don’t know if they can successfully reach Trump voters. They still struggle with rising costs. And they really did lose something they had a decade ago: the belief that a well-designed survey would yield a representative sample. Today, a well-designed survey isn’t enough: The most theoretically sound surveys tended to produce the worst results of 2020.To this point, innovation in polling has occurred on two parallel tracks: one to find new ways of sampling voters in an era of low response rates; another intended to improve unrepresentative samples through statistical adjustments. If there’s an underlying theory of the Times/Siena poll, it’s to try to get the best of both worlds: high-quality sampling with sophisticated statistical adjustment. There are surprisingly few public polls that can make a similar case: There’s bad sampling with fancy statistical modeling, and there’s some good sampling with simple demographic adjustment, but not much of both.Because of the pandemic, it has been a few years since I’ve attended AAPOR in person. But from my vantage point, this was the first time that these two parallel tracks looked as if they were getting closer to merging. They haven’t merged — the old guard remains reluctant to make some of the sacrifices needed to improve its methods of adjustment; costs will prevent the upstarts from matching the old guard’s expensive sampling. But they’re getting closer, as researchers on either track realize their own efforts are insufficient and dabble a bit more in the ideas of the other side.One early theme, for instance, was a recognition that even the most sophisticated survey designs still struggle to reach less engaged voters, who tend to be less educated and perhaps likelier to back Mr. Trump as well. This problem may never be perfectly addressed, and so it benefits from both the best of traditional and nontraditional methods.For our part, I promise we’ll have more on our Wisconsin experiment — which had parallel telephone and high-incentive mail surveys ahead of the 2022 election — in the weeks ahead. In the last week or so, we received the final data necessary to begin this analysis, and I’ve started to dig in over the last two days. It’s early in the analysis, but there’s some interesting stuff. Stay tuned. More