Elections

Joe Biden, the oldest president in US history, joked about his age as he addressed the White House Correspondents’ Association annual dinner. The president earned a big laugh when he said: ‘They say I’m ancient; I say I’m wise. They say I’m over the hill; Don Lemon would say, “That’s a man in his prime”.’ The CNN host Don Lemon was fired last week after a series of missteps including remarks about the Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley. Biden also poked fun at the media, especially Fox Corp’s settlement of a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5m. ‘It’s great the cable news networks are here tonight. MSNBC, owned by NBC Universal. Fox News, owned by Dominion Voting Systems.’ For all the comedy, Biden also used his speech to issue forceful denunciations of attacks on press freedom and called for the release of the Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been imprisoned in Russia since March. More

El país sudamericano elige a su presidente entre un candidato del arraigado partido oficialista y dos contendientes de oposición, una figura anticorrupción y un alborotador de ultraderecha.Paraguay, el país sin salida al mar de 7 millones de habitantes en el centro de Sudamérica, elige presidente el domingo. La votación pondrá a prueba la fuerza del viraje latinoamericano a la izquierda de los últimos años.En la región, los contendientes de oposición han ganado 16 elecciones presidenciales organizadas libremente y seis de los siete países más grandes de la región han elegido líderes izquierdistas desde 2018.Ahora está por verse si la tendencia se sostiene en Paraguay, acaso el país más conservador a ultranza de Sudamérica, que enfrenta una pobreza profunda, una economía inestable y una corrupción muy arraigada.El conservador Partido Colorado busca mantener su control del país, que ha gobernado en los últimos 76 años excepto cinco, incluidas cuatro décadas de dictadura militar.El centro de Asunción. Paraguay ha estado lidiando con la pobreza, una economía en crisis y una corrupción profundamente arraigada.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York TimesPero, ahora, ese dominio parece estar en riesgo. El presidente en funciones del Colorado, Mario Abdo Benítez, no puede volver a postularse debido a los límites al mandato y las encuestas muestran que es uno de los líderes más impopulares de América Latino debido a su manejo de la pandemia. Por el Partido Colorado contiende un exministro de Hacienda de Paraguay.En enero, el gobierno de EE. UU. impuso sanciones económicas al líder del Partido Colorado, el expresidente Horacio Cartes, al acusarlo de llegar al poder con sobornos. Las sanciones han puesto en jaque la financiación del partido.Algunas encuestas recientes han mostrado que el candidato favorito de oposición —un conservador que se ubica a la izquierda del candidato del Partido Colorado— cuenta con una ventaja estrecha.Las elecciones, en las que se disputan cargos legislativos, regionales y locales, han despertado debates por las relaciones diplomáticas con China y Taiwán, motivado promesas de un penal construido especialmente para políticos corruptos y presenciado el impulso de último momento de un candidato de ultraderecha que ha prometido disolver el Congreso e instaurar un gobierno militar.Las urnas abren el domingo de las 7 a. m. a las 4 p. m., y se espera que los resultados se den a conocer a unas horas del cierre de las mesas de votación. Se requiere que un candidato consiga la mayoría simple para adjudicarse la elección.Esto es lo que hay que saber.¿Quiénes son los candidatos?El candidato del Colorado, Santiago Peña, de 44 años, es un exministro de Hacienda de Paraguay, otrora economista del Fondo Monetario Internacional en Washington y protegido de Cartes, el expresidente sancionado.Si bien el Partido Colorado a menudo se ha hecho de apoyo por sus políticas socialmente conservadoras, Peña se ha presentado como la nueva generación del partido, una más enfocada en la economía. Ha prometido crear 500.000 empleados, ofrecer jardín de infancia gratuito, bajar los precios de combustible y energía y poner más oficiales de policía en las calles.Santiago Peña, el candidato presidencial por el Partido Colorado, se ha presentado como la nueva generación del partido conservador, una más enfocada en la economía.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York TimesEn una entrevista dijo que financiaría esas promesas al ampliar la economía, y por ende los ingresos fiscales, al eliminar las trabas burocráticas.El principal candidato de la oposición, Efraín Alegre, de 60 años, es un abogado conservador y excongresista que lidera una amplia coalición de partidos políticos, que abarca desde la extrema izquierda a la derecha religiosa, que se han unido para desbancar a los colorados. El domingo será su tercer intento de llegar al cargo más alto del país. En 2018 se quedó a solo 96.000 votos —4 por ciento del total— de alcanzar la presidencia.Hijo de un conductor de ómnibus y una catequista del campo paraguayo, Alegre ha buscado presentarse como un hombre común y corriente y ha prometido renunciar a la residencia presidencial de ser electo.Ha sustentado su campaña en la promesa de erradicar a la “mafia” que, asegura, controló Paraguay. También ha prometido desterrar a los políticos corruptos a una nueva prisión en una región árida y remota en el norte del país y financiar medicamentos gratuitos con la recuperación del dinero malversado por los colorados que afirma, asciende a 2000 millones de dólares cada año.El principal candidato de la oposición, Efraín Alegre, ha construido su campaña en la promesa de erradicar la corrupción en el país.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York Times“No pasa solamente por hacer el cambio, pasa por recuperar lo robado y devolverlo al pueblo”, dijo en una entrevista el viernes.Si bien Peña y Alegre han liderado en las encuestas, en los sondeos recientes ha ganado impulso Paraguayo Cubas, de 61 años, excéntrico agitador anticorrupción.Cubas es un exsenador de ultraderecha que fue expulsado del Congreso luego de forcejear con otros legisladores y patear una patrulla de la policía. Antes había llegado a los titulares porque golpeó con su cinturón a un juez y luego defecó en su despacho. Ha llevado a cabo su campaña principalmente en las redes sociales, tildando al Congreso de una “cueva de ladrones” e insinuando que gobernaría como dictador.Los analistas dudan de que Cubas tenga forma de llegar a la presidencia. Más bien, dijeron, podría quitarle votos a Alegre y darle la victoria al Partido Colorado.¿Por qué tiene tanto peso un expresidente?Cartes, de 66 años, dejó la presidencia en 2018, pero sigue siendo posiblemente el hombre más poderoso de Paraguay. Además de liderar el Partido Colorado, tiene intereses en fábricas cigarreras, bancos, farmacias, canales de televisión, periódicos y un club de fútbol.En enero, el Departamento del Tesoro de EE. UU. prohibió que él y sus empresas participen en el sistema financiero estadounidense, al asegurar que cuenta con vínculos al grupo militante islamista libanés Hezbolá y ha repartido millones de dólares para asegurarse el control del gobierno. Cartes ha negado las acusaciones.Horacio Cartes, expresidente de Paraguay y líder del Partido Colorado, con Peña en un acto de campaña en Asunción.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York TimesLas sanciones económicas han dificultado que el Partido Colorado recaude fondos y plantean un dilema político para Peña.En una entrevista, Peña dijo que las acusaciones eran “responsabilidad personal” de Cartes y que no lo reflejaban a él o a su partido. “Soy mi propia persona”, dijo. Esta semana ambos aparecieron juntos en un escenario.Alegre se ha apalancado de las acusaciones contra Cartes, llamándolo el “Pablo Escobar paraguayo”.¿Qué otros temas se discuten?La delincuencia: Paraguay, que ha sido refugio histórico de narcotraficantes, ha sido remecido por una serie de asesinatos de alto perfil. En uno de los casos, un fiscal federal que investigaba a los carteles de la droga fue asesinado a tiros por sicarios a bordo de un jet ski mientras estaba de luna de miel en una playa colombiana con su esposa embarazada.La economía: Paraguay fue una de las naciones más golpeadas por la pandemia en América Latina y su economía se contrajo el año pasado. Una cuarta parte de la población vive en pobreza, muchas carreteras están sin pavimentar y en los hospitales escasean medicamentos básicos. Las tasas de impuestos son de las más bajas de la región.Familias a orillas del río Paraguay en Asunción. Una cuarta parte de la población vive en la pobreza.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York TimesTaiwán: Paraguay forma parte de un club que se reduce rápidamente conformado por 13 países, en su mayoría naciones insulares, que aún mantienen relaciones diplomáticas con Taiwán en lugar de con China. La amistad entre Paraguay y Taiwán —firmada por sus dictadores en 1957— sigue sólida. Taiwán financió el recinto congresal modernista de Paraguay y brindó su avión presidencial. Pero debido a esto los agricultores paraguayos enfrentan obstáculos al exportar granos de soya y carne. Alegre ha dicho que reevaluará la relación, lo que inquietaría a las autoridades en Washington. Peña ha prometido mantener el statu quo.La presa: Quienquiera que lleve la banda presidencial el 15 de agosto deberá encargarse de una negociación fundamental a causa de Itaipú, una presa hidroeléctrica colosal que se comparte con Brasil. Según lo previsto en un tratado de 1973, Paraguay vende la energía que le sobra a la presa a Brasil a precios mínimos. Pero el tratado prescribe en agosto, y abre la puerta a un acuerdo que podría ser transformacional para el país más pobre.¿Cómo va la contienda?Las encuestas muestran una contienda ajustada entre Peña y Alegre y cada uno va a la cabeza en algunos sondeos. (Históricamente, las encuestadoras paraguayas han sido imprecisas. En 2018, los sondeos sobreestimaron por mucho el apoyo del candidato del Colorado).AtlasIntel, una encuestadora brasileña dijo que según un sondeo reciente en línea entre 2320 paraguayos, Alegre lideraba con 34 por ciento, Peña contaba con 33 por ciento y Cubas 23 por ciento. El margen de error era de 2 puntos porcentuales. La mayor sorpresa del sondeo fue el nivel de sorpresa para Cubas.Un acto de campaña de Alegre en Capiatá. Según una reciente encuesta en línea, Alegre tiene una ligera ventaja.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York TimesEn entrevistas realizadas el viernes en Asunción, la capital, los paraguayos expresaron frustración con la corrupción y el rumbo del país, pero no había acuerdo en quién era la persona adecuada para cambiar la situación.Juana Salinas, de 74 años, esperaba un bus afuera de un mercado, con un bastón negro y una bolsa de basura llena de recipientes de comida en venta. Dijo que apoyaba a Peña porque siempre había votado por el Colorado, al igual que sus padres, ya fallecidos. “Siempre, porque no voy a deshonrar a mi padre y a mi madre”, dijo. “Mi padre es Colorado, mi madre es Colorado”.En el mercado, Cynthia Acosta, de 29, estaba embolsando granos de maíz seco que los clientes suelen usar para hacer chipa guasú, el pan de elote paraguayo. Dijo que planeaba votar por Alegre otra vez porque le gustaban sus planes de creación de empleo juvenil.“Hay muchas cosas que deben cambiar”, dijo. “No es una tarea fácil para ninguno”.Cynthia Acosta dijo que pensaba votar por Alegre una vez más, porque le gustaban sus planes para crear empleos para los jóvenes.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York Times More

The South American nation is deciding between a candidate from the entrenched conservative party and two opposition candidates —an anti-corruption crusader and a far-right firebrand.Paraguay, the landlocked nation of 7 million people in the center of South America, picks a new president on Sunday. The vote will test the strength of Latin America’s leftward shift in recent years.Opposition challengers have won the last 16 freely held presidential elections in Latin America, and six of the region’s seven largest countries have elected leftist leaders since 2018.Now it will be seen whether that trend can hold with Paraguay, perhaps South America’s most staunchly conservative nation, as it grapples with deep poverty, a sputtering economy and deeply rooted corruption.The conservative Colorado Party is seeking to retain its grip on the country, which it has controlled for all but five of the past 76 years, including four decades of military dictatorship.Downtown Asunción. Paraguay has been grappling with deep poverty, a sputtering economy and deeply rooted corruption.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga for The New York TimesBut that dominance now appears in jeopardy. The Colorado incumbent, President Mario Abdo Benítez, cannot run again because of term limits — and surveys show he is one of Latin America’s most unpopular leaders because of his handling of the pandemic. Representing the Colorado Party at the polls will be Paraguay’s former finance minister.In January, the U.S. government placed financial sanctions on the Colorado Party’s leader, the former president Horacio Cartes, accusing him of bribing his way to power. The sanctions have complicated the party’s financing.Some recent polls have shown that the leading opposition candidate — a conservative who is still to the left of the Colorado Party’s contender — holds a narrow lead.The election, which also covers congressional, regional and local seats, has featured debate over diplomatic relations with China and Taiwan, promises of a prison built specifically for corrupt politicians and late momentum for a far-right candidate who has pledged to dissolve Congress and enact military rule.Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern time on Sunday, with results expected within hours of polls closing. Candidates need a simple majority to be elected.Here’s what you need to know.Who are the candidates?The Colorado candidate, Santiago Peña, 44, is Paraguay’s former finance minister, a former International Monetary Fund economist in Washington and the protégé of Mr. Cartes, the sanctioned ex-president.While the Colorado Party has often built its support on socially conservative policies, Mr. Peña has pitched himself as the party’s new generation, one more focused on the economy. He has promised to create 500,000 jobs, offer free kindergarten, decrease fuel and energy prices, and get more police officers on the street.Santiago Peña, the presidential candidate for the conservative Colorado Party, has pitched himself as the party’s new generation, one more focused on the economy.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga for The New York TimesIn an interview, he has said he would pay for those promises by expanding the economy, and thus tax revenue, by eliminating red tape.The leading opposition candidate, Efraín Alegre, 60, is a conservative lawyer and former congressman who leads a broad coalition of dozens of political parties, from the far left to the religious right, that have joined together to oust the Colorados. Sunday is his third try for the nation’s highest office. In 2018, he came within just 96,000 votes — or 4 percent of the total — from the presidency.The son of a bus driver and a preacher from rural Paraguay, Mr. Alegre has sought to present himself as an Everyman, promising to eschew the presidential residence if elected.He has built his campaign on a pledge to root out the “mafia” that he said controlled Paraguay. He also has promised to banish corrupt politicians to a new prison in an arid, remote region in the north and to pay for free medication by recouping what he said was $2 billion embezzled by the Colorados each year.The leading opposition candidate, Efraín Alegre, has built his campaign on a pledge to root out corruption in the country.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga for The New York Times“It’s not only about bringing change, it’s about recovering what was stolen and returning it to the people,” he said in an interview on Friday.While Mr. Peña and Mr. Alegre have led the polls, Paraguayo Cubas, 61, an eccentric anti-corruption firebrand, has gained momentum in recent surveys.Mr. Cubas is a far-right former senator who was expelled from Congress after physically grappling with other lawmakers and kicking a police car. He had previously attracted headlines for whipping a judge with his belt and then defecating in the judge’s office. He has run his campaign mainly on social media, branding Congress as a “cave of bandits” and suggesting he would rule as a dictator.Analysts are skeptical that Mr. Cubas has a path to the presidency. Instead, they said, he could take votes from Mr. Alegre and hand the Colorado Party victory.Why is a former president such an important figure?Mr. Cartes, 66, left the presidency in 2018 but is still perhaps Paraguay’s most powerful man. In addition to running the Colorado Party, he has financial interests in cigarette factories, banks, pharmacies, TV channels, newspapers and a soccer club.In January, the U.S. Treasury Department barred him and his companies from the U.S. financial system, claiming he had ties to the Lebanese Islamist militant group Hezbollah and had doled out millions of dollars to cement his control over government. Mr. Cartes has denied the allegations.Horacio Cartes, the former president of Paraguay and leader of the Colorado party, with Mr. Peña at a campaign event in Asunción.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga for The New York TimesThe financial sanctions made it more difficult for the Colorado Party to raise money and posed a political dilemma for Mr. Peña.In an interview, Mr. Peña said the allegations were Mr. Cartes’s “personal responsibility” and not reflective of the party or him. “I’m my own person,” he said. The two men still appeared onstage together this week.Mr. Alegre has seized on the allegations against Mr. Cartes, calling him the “Paraguayan Pablo Escobar.”What are the other issues?Crime: Paraguay, which has long been a haven for drug traffickers, has been shaken by a string of high-profile murders. In one case, a federal prosecutor investigating drug cartels was shot dead by jet-ski-riding assassins while on his honeymoon, next to his pregnant wife on a Colombian beach.The economy: Paraguay was one of the Latin American nations most devastated by the pandemic, and its economy shrank last year. A quarter of the population lives in poverty, many roads are still unpaved, and hospitals are short on basic medicines. Tax rates are among the lowest in the region.Families along the Paraguay River in Asunción. A quarter of the population lives in poverty.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga for The New York TimesTaiwan: Paraguay is part of a fast-shrinking club of 13 countries, mostly small island nations, that maintain relations with Taiwan rather than China. The Paraguay-Taiwan friendship — inked by their dictators in 1957 — remains strong. Taiwan paid for Paraguay’s modernist congressional building and provided its presidential jet. But Paraguay’s farmers face obstacles in exporting soybeans and beef to China as a result. Mr. Alegre has said he will re-examine the relationship, which would upset U.S. officials. Mr. Peña has pledged to keep the status quo.The dam: Whoever dons the presidential sash on Aug. 15 will also have to handle a pivotal negotiation over Itaipú, a colossal hydroelectric dam shared with Brazil. Per a 1973 treaty, Paraguay sells its spare energy from the dam to Brazil at rock-bottom prices. But the treaty elapses in August, opening the door to a transformational deal for the poorer country.What is the state of the race?Polls show a neck-and-neck race between Mr. Peña and Mr. Alegre, with each candidate leading some surveys. (Paraguayan pollsters have historically been inaccurate. In 2018, polls wildly overestimated the support for the Colorado candidate.)AtlasIntel, a Brazilian pollster, said that according to a recent online poll of 2,320 Paraguayans, Mr. Alegre led with 34 percent, Mr. Peña had 33 percent and Mr. Cubas had 23 percent. The margin of error was 2 percentage points. The poll’s biggest surprise was the level of support for Mr. Cubas.Supporters of Mr. Alegre at a campaign event in Capiatá. According to a recent online poll, Mr. Alegre has a slim lead.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga for The New York TimesIn interviews in the capital, Asunción, on Friday, Paraguayans said they were frustrated with corruption and the direction of the country, but they differed about who was the right person to change it.Juana Salinas, 74, was waiting for the bus outside a market, with a black cane and a trash bag full of food containers for sale. She said she supported Mr. Peña because she had always voted Colorado, like her deceased parents. “Always, because I’m not going to dishonor my father and mother,” she said. “My father is Colorado, my mother is Colorado.”Inside the market, Cynthia Acosta, 29, was bagging dried corn kernels that customers typically use to make chipa guasú, or Paraguayan cornbread. She said she planned to vote for Mr. Alegre once again, because she liked his plans to create jobs for young people.“There are a lot of things that need to change,” she said. “It’s not an easy job for anyone.”Cynthia Acosta said she planned to vote for Mr. Alegre once again, because she liked his plans to create jobs for young people.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga for The New York Times More

The NewsSouth Carolina Democrats elected Christale Spain, the former executive director of the state Democratic Party, as state party chair at their convention on Saturday. She ran with the backing of the party’s top brass, including Representative James E. Clyburn, and will be the first Black woman to lead the state party.Christale Spain, who was elected Saturday as chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, was backed by the party establishment.Sean Rayford for The New York TimesWhy It Matters: Clyburn and Old Guard Still RuleA longtime organizer in Palmetto State politics, Ms. Spain was widely considered the front-runner in the race, a usually sleepy contest that saw more candidates run than it has in more than 25 years. Her biggest competitor, Brandon Upson, the state Black caucus chair, painted her as an establishment candidate whose connections to the old guard would stymie the party’s progress in an all-important election year.Democrats who supported Mr. Upson were seeking to overhaul a state party they felt had long been dominated by Mr. Clyburn — who helped President Biden win the state primary in 2020 — ahead of South Carolina’s debut as the party’s first presidential primary state in 2024 and in the wake of a down cycle in the 2022 midterm elections.Still, it was Ms. Spain’s connections, paired with her campaign strategy — characterized by social media blasts and regular visits to county party meetings and cattle calls — that ultimately delivered her the victory. She won with the support of nearly 700 of the party’s roughly 1,000 state delegates in a standing vote. Before delegates for Mr. Upson could stand up to vote for him, he conceded to Ms. Spain in a short speech calling for party unity.What’s Next: Primary Prep and Party RepairAs the next chair, Ms. Spain will be responsible for preparing the state party for its moment in prime time: voting first in the 2024 Democratic presidential primary election. She will also have to rebuild a party in turmoil. Democrats lost several safe State House and Senate seats and had low voter turnout during the 2022 midterms, a year that was otherwise considered positive for the party nationally. Ms. Spain’s leadership will offer Palmetto State Democrats a chance to make up those losses and get ready for the national stage.In a news conference after her victory, Ms. Spain offered a message to the South Carolina voters waiting for more meaningful change from the Democratic Party.“Wait no longer,” she said, vowing to focus on year-round voter engagement efforts. “We know who our voters are. We’re going back after them and we’re going to turn them out, plus more.” More

In interviews, Black voters, organizers and elected officials pointed to what some saw as unkept promises — raising questions about the enthusiasm of Democrats’ most loyal voters.President Biden began his re-election campaign this week vowing to “finish the job” he started in 2021. No one wants him to do that more than Black voters.Long the most loyal Democratic constituency, Black voters resurrected Mr. Biden’s struggling presidential campaign in South Carolina and sent him to the White House with his party in control of the Senate after two runoff victories in Georgia. In return, they hoped the administration would go beyond past presidents in trying to improve their communities — and they listened closely to his promises to do so.Yet some of Black voters’ biggest policy priorities — stronger federal protections against restrictive voting laws, student loan debt relief and criminal justice and police accountability measures — have failed or stalled, some because of Republican opposition and some because Democrats have declined to bypass the Senate’s filibuster rules. Those disappointments, highlighted in interviews with more than three dozen Black voters, organizers and elected officials in recent weeks, leave open the question of just how enthusiastic Democrats’ most important group of voters will be in 2024.The interviews point to an emerging split between Black elected officials — who are nearly uniform in praising Mr. Biden and predicting robust Black turnout for him next year — and voters, who are less sure.“Folks are just tired of being tired,” said Travis Williams, a Democratic organizer in Dorchester County, S.C. “They’re just sick and tired of being tired and disappointed whenever our issues are never addressed.”Marvin Dutton, 38, an entrepreneur who moved to Atlanta in 2020 from Philadelphia, suggested that Mr. Biden needed to be “a little bit more sincere,” rather than “pandering to us when it’s time to vote.”Marvin Dutton, an Atlanta-based entrepreneur, criticized Mr. Biden for “pandering to us when it’s time to vote.”Piera Moore for The New York TimesMr. Biden’s re-election bid and his renewed pledge to achieve his first-term policy goals have forced some reflection and frustration among Black voters in battleground states. Many believe that the big promises he made to Black communities have fallen flat.Democrats can feel confident that if Mr. Biden is his party’s nominee, as expected, a vast majority of Black voters will choose him over a Republican. But the question for the party is whether Democratic voters will bring the same level of energy that led to Mr. Biden’s 2020 victory.In his campaign announcement, Mr. Biden made no secret of the importance of Black voters to his re-election. The Biden allies with the most airtime in his three-minute video, aside from his wife, were Vice President Kamala Harris, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton.“I have not found a lack of enthusiasm,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, who was Mr. Biden’s most important Black surrogate in 2020. “I just haven’t found it. And people keep saying it. But it’s not there.”On Friday, Mr. Clyburn’s annual fish fry, which brings together candidates and hundreds of South Carolina Democrats, offered an early look at that enthusiasm. The state party is preparing to hold its presidential primary first in the nominating process — a move Mr. Biden and Democrats said was made to give Black voters more influence.Mr. Biden’s allies maintain that his administration has delivered for Black voters but that he has failed to trumpet some of his progress. Since taking office, he has provided billions of dollars for historically Black colleges and universities, and he has appointed more Black judges, including Justice Jackson, to the federal bench than any other president. Black unemployment is at a record low. The economy, a top concern for Black voters, has recovered from its pandemic doldrums, though inflation, which spiked last summer, remains higher on a sustained basis than it has been for decades.“The president and vice president have made issues Black Americans care most about a priority and are running to finish the job,” said Kevin Munoz, a spokesman for Mr. Biden’s campaign. “The campaign will work hard to earn every vote and expand on its winning 2020 coalition.”But there is evidence of a drop-off in Black voter engagement during the 2022 midterm election, although the results were broadly seen as heartening for Mr. Biden and his party, despite Republicans winning the House.The share of Black voters in the electorate dropped by 1 percent nationally from 2018 to 2022, the biggest drop of any racial group measured, while the share of white, college-educated voters increased, according to data from HIT Strategies, a Democratic polling firm.Representative Jim Clyburn, who helped President Biden win the state primary in 2020, addressed South Carolina Democrats gathered for his annual fish fry event during the state part convention weekend. Travis Dove for The New York TimesIt does not take much of a decrease in Black voters to alter the outcome of elections in the most competitive states. In 2020, Mr. Biden won Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin, each by fewer than 35,000 votes.The number of ballots cast for Democratic Senate candidates by voters in Milwaukee — home to a large majority of Wisconsin’s Black population — dropped by 18 percent from 2018 to 2022, while the statewide turnout remained the same, according to Wisconsin voter data. Had Milwaukee delivered the same margin for Democrats in 2022 that it did in 2018, Mandela Barnes, a Democrat, would have defeated Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican.The city’s mayor, Cavalier Johnson, attributed the difference in part to Republican efforts in Wisconsin to make voting harder — particularly after Mr. Biden’s narrow victory there in 2020.Mr. Johnson cited an array of Mr. Biden’s accomplishments for Black voters: He appointed the first Black woman, Justice Jackson, to the Supreme Court. He has emphasized the creation of manufacturing jobs, which were once the heartbeat of Milwaukee but have been moved overseas. And, Mr. Johnson added, Black voters credit Mr. Biden for trying to make voting laws less restrictive, even if his efforts failed.“They know that Joe Biden stood in the breach and stood up for them and fought to build the economy that’s beneficial for people of color, namely African Americans, and also fought against some of the hate and discrimination against people of color and African Americans,” Mr. Johnson said.Some Black voters said in interviews that their frustrations with the pace of change promised by Mr. Biden in 2020 had led them to question whether they would support him again, or perhaps sit out the next election.Jennifer Roberts, 35, is a lifelong Democrat and was one of the Black Georgians who helped elect Mr. Biden and Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff. She was confident in 2020 that Ms. Harris, the first woman of color to become vice president, would use her background to advance policies related to women of color, and “was praying for them to win.”Three years later, Ms. Roberts’s view of Mr. Biden’s promises has changed. Her mother moved in with her because of rising rent costs in Metro Atlanta. Inflation has put an added strain on the tow-truck business she and her husband own.Jennifer Roberts, a Democrat in Atlanta who voted for Mr. Biden in 2020, said she believed Mr. Trump’s economic policies could provide the “tangible help” she was looking for.Piera Moore for The New York TimesMs. Roberts now says she would support former President Donald J. Trump if he were the Republican nominee next year. What she wants, and has not yet received, is “tangible help” — and she believes Mr. Trump’s economic policies could possibly provide it.“I understand he’s tried,” she said of Mr. Biden. “When you don’t address the things directly, when they don’t go according to what you said publicly they were going to, you can’t just kind of sweep it under the rug.”In Philadelphia, Lamont Wilson, 45, an information technology manager, voted for Mr. Biden in 2020 but said he was not inspired by any 2024 candidates so far. He said Mr. Biden had “done a lot of good” but had not fulfilled his expectations.Mr. Wilson said he hoped Mr. Biden would “hold firm” on his promise to eliminate student debt — the president announced a $400 billion plan to forgive up to $20,000 of debt for certain people, though the Supreme Court may block it. Black college graduates carry an average of $25,000 more in student loan debt than white college graduates, according to the Education Department.“Get rid of that debt and give people a chance,” Mr. Wilson said.Nocola Hemphill, an activist and state party delegate in Winnsboro, S.C., said she had also heard grumblings from Black voters about Mr. Biden. But she saw this as a form of accountability, not evidence of a deeper problem.“Everyone is not happy with the administration,” she said. “And it’s not that we don’t want to see Biden run. We just want to make sure that he’s going to deliver on his promises.”Younger, first-time Black voters such as Evan Spann, 19, a freshman at Morehouse College in Atlanta, are also hoping Mr. Biden will deliver. Mr. Spann said he wanted to hear concrete plans from Mr. Biden for his second term.Evan Spann, 19, a student at Morehouse College in Atlanta, wants to hear concrete plans from the president. Lynsey Weatherspoon for The New York Times“I think what he needs to do is directly say what he’s going to do,” Mr. Spann said. “And then I think he needs to really show up and talk to us about it.”Mr. Biden’s proponents say that while some Black voters may be frustrated with the party, Democrats remain a safer choice than Republicans, who have opposed the legislation protecting voting rights and cutting student loan debt that Black lawmakers and voters have championed. In several G.O.P.-controlled state legislatures, lawmakers have sought to cut Black history lessons from school curriculums, outlaw books by Black authors and have drawn congressional maps that curb Black voting power.Democrats plan to underline the G.O.P.’s record on these issues.“Black voters understand all that,” Mr. Clyburn said. “And we’re going to spend a lot of time this year and next reminding them of who is doing this.” At the same time, Democrats must win over voters who are reluctant to support the party again.“It’s a difficult conversation to go back into those communities and explain why we didn’t get criminal justice reform,” said Kevin Harris, a former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus. “It’s a difficult conversation to go into those communities and talk about why we didn’t get the protections that we need with voting rights.”He continued: “That’s a hard conversation to have. But you still go have it.”Jon Hurdle More

For the quarter-century-plus that the Fox News Channel has been coming into America’s living rooms, it has operated according to a cardinal tenet: No one at the cable network is bigger than Fox News itself. It’s a lesson Glenn Beck, Megyn Kelly and Bill O’Reilly all learned the hard way after they left Fox and saw their fame and influence (if not their fortunes) evaporate. Once the biggest names in cable news, they now spend their days wandering in the wilderness of podcasts and third-tier streaming platforms. Even Roger Ailes, Fox News’s original architect and the man who devised — and then ruthlessly enforced — the no-one-bigger-than rule, discovered that he was expendable when Rupert Murdoch pushed him out as Fox’s chairman and chief executive in 2016 amid sexual harassment allegations. Mr. Ailes soon disappeared to a mansion in Florida and, less than a year later, died in exile from the media world he’d once commanded.When Fox News abruptly fired Tucker Carlson, the network’s most popular prime-time host and the most powerful person in conservative media, many savvy press critics predicted the same fate for him: professional oblivion. Mr. Carlson had himself once replaced Ms. Kelly, and later Mr. O’Reilly, and each time he climbed to a new, better slot in the Fox News lineup he garnered bigger and bigger ratings. Now, according to the conventional wisdom, some new up-and-comer would inherit Mr. Carlson’s audience and replace him as the king (or queen) of conservative media. “The ‘talent’ at the Fox News Channel has never been the star,” Politico’s Jack Shafer wrote earlier this week. “Fox itself, which convenes the audience, is the star.”But there’s good reason to believe Mr. Carlson will be the exception that proves the rule. For one thing, unlike previous stars who have left Fox News, Mr. Carlson departed when he was still at the height of his power, making his firing all the more sudden and shocking. Three days before his sacking, he gave the keynote address at the Heritage Foundation’s 50th anniversary gala. Two weeks before that, he browbeat Texas’ Republican governor to issue a pardon to a man who had been convicted of murdering a Black Lives Matter protester in Austin.More important, at Fox, he exercised power in ways that were new and unique for a cable star. He was a sophisticated political operator as much as he was a talented television host — to an astonishingly unsettling degree, as he continued to thrive while making racist and sexist comments and earning the praise of neo-Nazis. Like Donald Trump — to say nothing of other Republican politicians and conservative media figures — he gave voice to an anger, sense of grievance and conspiratorial mind-set that resonated with many Americans, particularly those on the far right. Unlike Mr. Trump — not to mention his motley crew of cheerleaders and imitators — Mr. Carlson developed and articulated a coherent political ideology that could prove more lasting, and influential, than any cult of personality. Mr. Carlson has left Fox News. But his dark and outsize influence on the conservative movement — and on American politics — is hardly over.Tucker Carlson merchandise at the Heritage Foundation’s Leadership Summit on Friday, April 21. Mr. Carlson is leaving Fox at the height of his power. Leigh Vogel for The New York TimesWhen Mr. Carlson met with Mr. Ailes in 2009 to discuss a job at Fox News, Mr. Carlson’s career was at a nadir. He’d been let go from both CNN and MSNBC. He’d developed a game show pilot for CBS that wasn’t picked up. His stint on ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars” lasted just one episode. His finances were so stretched that he’d decided to sell his suburban New Jersey mansion out from under his wife and four children.“You’re a loser and you screwed up your whole life,” Mr. Ailes told Mr. Carlson, according to an account of the conversation Mr. Carlson later gave to his friend, the former Dick Cheney adviser Neil Patel. “But you have talent. And the only thing you have going for you is that I like hiring talented people who have screwed things up for themselves and learned a lesson, because once I do, you’re gonna work your ass off for me.”Mr. Carlson didn’t disappoint. Relegated to weekend morning show anchor duties, he threw himself into the job, participating in cooking segments with guests like Billy Ray Cyrus, competing against (and losing to) his female co-anchor in a Spartan Race and even subjecting himself to a dunk tank. He did it all with a smile, but, for a man who once hosted two prime-time cable news shows, as well as a highbrow talk show on the Public Broadcasting System, it had to have been humiliating. When his wife, Susie, sent an email in 2014 inviting some of Mr. Carlson’s Washington friends up to New York to celebrate his 45th birthday, she told guests they might “throw eggs at the FOX studio window!” (Since Hunter Biden was a friend of Mr. Carlson’s at the time and on the invite list, the email was later discovered on Mr. Biden’s laptop.)During his time as a host on “Fox and Friends,” Mr. Carlson’s contrarian streak curdled into resentment against “the elites” who took the country into Iraq, triggered the 2008 financial crisis and refused to give him a television role commensurate with his talents.Noam Galai/Getty ImagesMr. Carlson’s big break at Fox News arrived in 2016 in the form of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Although it’s hard to imagine now, Fox initially seemed intent on torpedoing Mr. Trump’s candidacy. So antagonistic were its hosts and commentators toward Mr. Trump in the early days of the 2016 race that it became a challenge for Fox to produce compelling television about the man who was dominating the G.O.P. field. No one — or at least no one Fox’s producers deemed camera-ready — seemed willing to make a sensible case for him.Enter Mr. Carlson. He’d nursed a soft spot for Mr. Trump ever since the early 2000s, when he made a throwaway joke on CNN about Mr. Trump’s hair and Mr. Trump responded with a blunt voice mail. “It’s true you have better hair than I do,” Mr. Carlson recalled Mr. Trump telling his answering machine. But, Mr. Trump said, with a vulgar boast, he had sex with more women. Mr. Carlson, who’d never met or spoken to Mr. Trump, was amused. More than a decade later, when Mr. Trump ran for president, he became intrigued. And it was that early openness to Mr. Trump’s candidacy that facilitated Mr. Carlson’s rise at Fox.Mr. Carlson had two motivations for not joining in the chorus denouncing Mr. Trump. One was ruthlessly strategic. Through the conservative website he launched with Mr. Patel in 2010, The Daily Caller, Mr. Carlson could see what got clicks: sensational articles about the twin scourges of illegal immigration and Black-on-white crime, plus slide shows of busty supermodels. The Caller’s web traffic metrics served as an early warning system for Mr. Carlson about where the conservative base was headed, and how a populist candidate who explicitly ran on nativism, white grievance and sexism might have a lane in a Republican primary.Mr. Carlson’s openness to Mr. Trump also had something to do with his own ideological journey. He started his career as a writer at The Weekly Standard, as a standard issue Reagan conservative, albeit one with a contrarian streak. The Iraq War, which he initially supported despite harboring doubts, hardened his heterodox views. Then, as his professional struggles mounted, his contrarianism curdled into resentment against “the elites” who took the country into Iraq, triggered the 2008 financial crisis and refused to give Mr. Carlson a television role commensurate with his talents. He paired his staple rep ties and Rolex with this new populist streak — and assumed the role of class traitor.That meant that in 2016, when most of his fellow conservative pundits still believed the G.O.P. needed to broaden its tent and so dismissed Mr. Trump out of hand, Mr. Carlson was able to recognize the potential appeal of the businessman turned reality-TV star turned populist politician. He was willing to say as much on air, which meant that Mr. Carlson began getting more and choicer opportunities at Fox to make the case that Mr. Trump should be taken seriously. Then, shortly after Mr. Trump’s election in November, as a reward of sorts for his prescience, Mr. Murdoch gave Mr. Carlson his own evening show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” By then, of course, Fox News was fully on board the Trump Train. Which is what made Mr. Carlson’s next move so interesting: He took a step off.At one point during Mr. Trump’s four years in the White House, “Tucker Carlson Tonight” became the highest-rated show in the history of cable news, drawing over four million viewers on some evenings. But it was not a down-the-line, pro-Trump show. Each night, Mr. Carlson articulated a populist-nationalist ideology best described as Trumpism without Mr. Trump. He borrowed from (and sometimes, on his Fox Nation streaming show, even invited on air) “new right” intellectuals like the blogger Curtis Yarvin and the Claremont Institute fellow Michael Anton, smuggling their fringe ideas — about how the United States would work better as a monarchy, for instance — into the conservative mainstream. Indeed, Mr. Carlson himself often offered views that were more inflammatory and more extreme than the president’s — complaining that immigrants make America “poorer and dirtier and more divided,” for instance, and proclaiming that white supremacy was “a hoax.” A blog post on the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer celebrated: “Tucker Carlson is basically ‘Daily Stormer: The Show.’ Other than the language used, he is covering all our talking points.”Mr. Carlson has already folded his firing into the apocalyptic worldview he’s so successfully promulgated these last few years.Max Oden/Sipa, via Associated PressAnd when Mr. Trump wasn’t willing to go as far as Mr. Carlson, Mr. Carlson wasn’t afraid to call Mr. Trump out. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder in the summer of 2020, he lambasted Mr. Trump for not cracking down harder on Black Lives Matter protesters in Washington and elsewhere. “If you can’t keep a Fox News correspondent from getting attacked directly across from your house, how can you protect my family?” Mr. Carlson said on his show. “How are you going to protect the country? How hard are you trying?” He was positioning himself, in opposition to Mr. Trump, as the vanguard of the American right. As Christopher Rufo, the ubiquitous conservative culture warrior whose own rise to prominence began with an appearance on Mr. Carlson’s show, once explained: “Tucker frames the narrative for conservative politics. Tucker doesn’t react to the news; he creates the news.”Mr. Carlson’s criticism of Mr. Trump and the wary distance he kept from him — sometimes even refusing to take his calls — made him that much more intriguing to the president. “Tucker was the hot girl that didn’t want to sleep with him,” says one former Trump White House official. “I think Trump was fascinated by this idea that ‘Everybody else is calling me. Why aren’t you calling me?’” Alyssa Farah Griffin, who served as Mr. Trump’s White House communications director, recalls the president frequently fretting about getting on Mr. Carlson’s bad side. “He’d say, ‘Tucker’s crushing us, our base is going to leave us,’” Ms. Farah Griffin says. It was an acknowledgment from Mr. Trump that Mr. Carlson had become bigger than Fox.That certainly seemed to be the view inside the cable network. When Mr. Ailes ran Fox News, the pecking order was clear. If a host or reporter stepped out of line, Mr. Ailes would simply yank that person off the air, instructing producers to “show ’em the red light.” Mr. Carlson’s ascension at Fox occurred after Mr. Ailes’s departure from the network. The executive team that replaced him — the Fox News chief executive Suzanne Scott and Rupert Murdoch’s son Lachlan, who’s the chief executive of the Fox Corporation — did not enforce as much discipline. Mr. Carlson repeatedly seemed to step over lines at Fox — endorsing the racist “great replacement theory,” circulating false conspiracy theories about Covid and Jan. 6, and attacking other Fox hosts on-air — only to have Fox execs then move the line. If Mr. Ailes was always goading disgruntled hosts to quit, telling them they would be nothing without Fox, Mr. Carlson seemed to be daring his bosses to fire him.After Mr. Trump went kicking and screaming from the White House (as well as from Twitter and Facebook), Mr. Carlson, still ensconced on Fox News and with unfettered access to social media, emerged as the far right’s standard-bearer in America’s culture wars, coming to occupy the same mental real estate — among both conservatives and liberals — that Mr. Trump once did. He was no longer just a cable host but a movement leader — working to bring the G.O.P. in line with his own views. On his show, he boosted ideological comrades like J.D. Vance, who shared Mr. Carlson’s skepticism about U.S. support of Ukraine in its war with Russia, gifting Mr. Vance hours of free airtime in the run-up to the Republican primary for the 2022 Ohio Senate race. Off-air, he personally lobbied Mr. Trump to give Mr. Vance his endorsement. At one point Mr. Carlson spent nearly two hours on FaceTime with Mr. Trump, while Mr. Trump golfed in Florida, making the case that Mr. Vance believed what Mr. Trump believed and that, were Mr. Trump to run for president again, he needed someone like Mr. Vance in the Senate. According to a person familiar with the call, Mr. Trump ended it by telling Mr. Carlson, “You’ll be happy.” A few weeks later, Mr. Trump endorsed Mr. Vance, propelling him to the Republican nomination and, eventually, the Senate — one of the few 2022 bright spots for Republicans.As Mr. Carlson turned his attention toward the 2024 presidential race, his relationship with Mr. Trump, once again, became complicated. On the one hand, he was dead-set opposed to Nikki Haley, for whom he’d developed an intense personal dislike during an ill-fated hunting weekend about 10 years ago. (After Ms. Haley eventually launched her presidential candidacy in February, Mr. Carlson told his viewers, “Nikki Haley believes in collective racial guilt,” before going on to say, “She believes identity politics is our future. ‘Vote for me because I’m a woman,’ she says. That’s her pitch.”) On the other hand, Mr. Carlson, like many at Fox News — including Mr. Murdoch, who, in the wake of Jan. 6, told a former executive that Fox was seeking “to make Trump a nonperson” — appeared to be leaning toward the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, as a less erratic, more electable alternative to Mr. Trump. (In 2020, Mr. Carlson moved from Washington, D.C., to the small resort town of Boca Grande, Fla.)Sensing this, Mr. Trump tried to win back Mr. Carlson, but Mr. Carlson refused a sit-down. Finally, last July, Donald Trump Jr., with whom Mr. Carlson has become close, traveled to Mr. Carlson’s summer residence in rural Maine. There, according to people familiar with the visit, Mr. Trump Jr. pressed Mr. Carlson to meet with his father. A few weeks later, Mr. Carlson showed up at Mr. Trump’s Bedminster resort in New Jersey on the same weekend it was hosting the Saudi-backed LIV Golf tour. The result was pictures of Mr. Carlson yukking it up with Mr. Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene in the tournament’s V.I.P. section.By keeping his distance from Mr. Trump, Mr. Carlson only made himself more intriguing to the former president.Doug Mills/The New York TimesAnd the two have grown closer since. Although Mr. Trump was reportedly upset when text messages from Mr. Carlson calling Mr. Trump “a demonic force” and claiming “I hate him passionately” were released in March as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation suit against Fox, the two patched things up in a phone call. And in April, “Tucker Carlson Tonight” devoted a whole hour to Mr. Carlson’s one-on-one softball interview with Mr. Trump — one of Mr. Trump’s longest appearances on the cable network since he was in the White House.Less than two weeks later, Fox fired Mr. Carlson. The reasons for his sacking remain unclear. It may have had to do with offensive comments he had made about Fox executives in texts uncovered in the Dominion suit. Or it could have been because of another lawsuit, from Abby Grossberg, a former head of booking on his show, accusing him and the network of creating a hostile work environment. Or it might have had something to do with a potential lawsuit from Ray Epps, a Jan. 6 protester from Arizona who was at the center of Mr. Carlson’s false conspiracy theory about the day. Or perhaps, as some reporting from Semafor suggests, the 92-year-old Mr. Murdoch has simply become erratic in his decision-making.Whatever the reason, Mr. Carlson now finds himself with no shortage of options. He could go to work for Newsmax or One America News Network, two upstart right-wing networks that have been trying to outflank Fox. (By Wednesday, two days after Mr. Carlson’s firing, Fox News’s ratings in the 8 p.m. hour had plummeted by roughly half, to their lowest levels in more than 20 years. Meanwhile, Newsmax’s audience in that time slot rose more than 300 percent over the previous week.) He might strike out on his own and form a media company to stream his show online. (“The world is Tucker’s oyster,” says one person who spoke with Mr. Carlson this week. “Many billionaires and others with deep pockets would be eager to fund a new venture.”)Ratings at Fox News during Mr. Carlson’s former time slot have plummetedTotal weeknight viewership at 8 p.m.

Source: AdweekBy The New York TimesAnd there’s always the chance that he could run for office. That’s a prospect that Mr. Carlson has long pooh-poohed. “I have zero ambition, not just politically but in life,” he demurred last summer when he was asked about any White House ambitions. But one of his friends recalls a family member discussing the possibility of Mr. Carlson running for president as far back as 2012.On Wednesday night just after 8 o’clock — the time when, until his firing two days earlier, he’d usually be launching into his opening monologue on Fox News — Mr. Carlson reappeared with a short, somewhat cryptic video on Twitter. He talked about “how unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are” and complained that both political parties and their donors “actively collude” to shut down discussion of the truly important issues: “war, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, natural resources.” America has become a “one-party state,” where the “people in charge” know that the old “orthodoxies” won’t last, he said, but it doesn’t have to stay that way. “True things prevail. Where can you still find Americans saying true things? There aren’t many places left but there are some, and that’s enough,” he continued. “As long as you can hear the words, there is hope. See you soon.” In under two hours, the video racked up 11 million views.It was vintage Mr. Carlson, and it showed how he had already incorporated his firing into the apocalyptic worldview he’s so successfully promulgated these last few years. Fox News was now part of “the elite consensus” Mr. Carlson seeks to overturn. And in this moment of unraveling, when hostility toward and distrust of institutions and elites is at an all-time high, it’s not hard to imagine a good segment of Americans following along with this logic. In their minds, Fox will now join Wall Street and big tech, globalists and the deep state, the Republican establishment and the woke as something that must be opposed. And in a world in which an increasing number of Americans are already fracturing into their own realities, Mr. Carlson will stand, for many of them, as the one person who’s independent and courageous and powerful enough to tell them the truth. Just as Mr. Murdoch and Fox failed to make Mr. Trump a nonperson, they likely won’t be able to make Mr. Carlson one, either.

article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1), article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label {
text-transform: uppercase;
font-size: 1rem;
font-weight: 600;
line-height: 1.5rem;
letter-spacing: 0.05em;

}

h1:first-letter {
margin-left: 0;
}

article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1):after, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label:after {
content: “Guest Essay”;
display: block;
color: white;
}

article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1) a:link, article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1) a:visited, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label {
color: #D0021B;
}

@media screen and (min-width: 1024px){

article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before,
article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before{
content: “”;
width: 8.75rem;
border: 1px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.25);
unicode-bidi: normal;
display: block;
margin: -8px auto 35px;
}

article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(2),
article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) > div > div:nth-of-type(2) p {
font-weight: 100;
-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;
letter-spacing: 0.25px;
margin-top: 10px;
}

}

@media screen and (max-width: 1024px){
article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > div:nth-of-type(2) h1,
article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1{
margin-bottom: 5px;
}
article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:nth-of-type(1) a:link, article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:nth-of-type(1) a:visited {
color: #D0021B;
letter-spacing: 0.07em;
font-size: 1rem;
}

article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > p:nth-of-type(1):after, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) p.adjacency-label:after{
color: #111;
}
}
Jason Zengerle (@zengerle) is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and a New America national fellow. His forthcoming book about Tucker Carlson and conservative media is “Hated by All the Right People.”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

When it had a Democratic majority last year, the North Carolina Supreme Court voided the state’s legislative and congressional maps as illegal gerrymanders. Now the court has a Republican majority, and says the opposite.Last year, Democratic justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that maps of the state’s legislative and congressional districts drawn to give Republicans lopsided majorities were illegal gerrymanders. On Friday, the same court led by a newly elected Republican majority looked at the same facts, reversed itself and said it had no authority to act.The practical effect is to enable the Republican-controlled General Assembly to scrap the court-ordered State House, Senate and congressional district boundaries that were used in elections last November, and draw new maps skewed in Republicans’ favor for elections in 2024. The 5-to-2 ruling fell along party lines, reflecting the takeover of the court by Republican justices in partisan elections last November.The decision has major implications not just for the state legislature, where the G.O.P. is barely clinging to the supermajority status that makes its decisions veto-proof, but for the U.S. House, where a new North Carolina map could add at least three Republican seats in 2024 to what is now a razor-thin Republican majority. Overturning such a recent ruling by the court was a highly unusual move, particularly on a pivotal constitutional issue in which none of the facts had changed.The North Carolina case mirrors a national trend in which states that elect their judges — Ohio, Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and others — have seen races for their high court seats turned into multimillion-dollar political battles, and their justices’ rulings viewed through a deeply partisan lens.Such political jockeying once was limited mostly to confirmation fights over seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. But as the nation’s partisan divide has deepened, and the federal courts have offloaded questions about issues like abortion and affirmative action to the states, choosing who will decide state legal battles has increasingly become an openly political fight.The new Republican majority of justices said the North Carolina Supreme Court had no authority to strike down partisan maps that the General Assembly had drawn.“Our constitution expressly assigns the redistricting authority to the General Assembly subject to explicit limitations in the text,” Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote for the majority. “Were this court to create such a limitation, there is no judicially discoverable or manageable standard for adjudicating such claims.”Justice Newby said that Democrats who led the previous court had claimed to have developed a standard for deciding when a political map was overly partisan, but that it was “riddled with policy choices” and overstepped the State Constitution’s grant of redistricting powers to the legislature.Legal scholars said the ruling also seemed likely to derail a potentially momentous case now before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the same maps. In that case, Moore v. Harper, leaders of the Republican-run legislature have argued that the U.S. Constitution gives state lawmakers the sole authority to set rules for state elections and political maps, and that state courts have no role in overseeing them.Now that the North Carolina Supreme Court has sided with the legislature and thrown out its predecessor’s ruling, there appears to be no dispute for the federal justices to decide, the scholars said.The ruling drew a furious dissent from one of the elected Democratic justices, Anita S. Earls, who said that it was pervaded by “lawlessness.” She accused the majority of making specious legal arguments, and at times using misleading statistics, to make a false case that partisan gerrymandering was beyond its jurisdiction.“The majority ignores the uncontested truths about the intentions behind partisan gerrymandering and erects an unconvincing facade that only parrots democratic values in an attempt to defend its decision, ” she wrote. “These efforts to downplay the practice do not erase its consequences and the public will not be gaslighted.”Some legal experts said the ruling underscored a trend in state courts that elect their justices, in which decisions in politically charged cases increasingly align with the ideological views of whichever party holds the majority on the court, sometimes regardless of legal precedent.“If you think the earlier State Supreme Court was wrong, we have mechanisms to change that, like a constitutional amendment,” Joshua A. Douglas, a scholar on state constitutions at the University of Kentucky College of Law, said in an interview. “But changing judges shouldn’t cause such a sea change in the rule of law, because if that’s the case, precedent has no value any longer, and judges really are politicians.”The state court also handed down two more rulings in politically charged cases, overturning decisions that favored voting-rights advocates and their Democratic supporters.In the first, the justices reconsidered and reversed a ruling by the previous court, again along party lines, that a voter ID law passed by the Republican majority in the legislature violated the equal protection clause in the State Constitution.In the second, the justices said a lower court “misapplied the law and overlooked facts crucial to its ruling” when it struck down a state law denying voting rights to people who had completed prison sentences on felony charges but were not yet released from parole, probation or other court restrictions.The lower court had said that the state law was rooted in an earlier law written to deny voting rights to African Americans, a conclusion that the Supreme Court justices said was mistaken.The new ruling undid a decision that had restored voting rights to more than 55,000 North Carolinians who had completed prison sentences. Those rights are now revoked, lawyers said, although the status of former felons who had already registered or voted under the previous ruling appeared unclear.The ruling on Friday in the gerrymander case, now known as Harper v. Hall, came after partisan elections for two Supreme Court seats in November shifted the seven-member court’s political balance to 5-to-2 Republican, from 4-to-3 Democratic.The Democratic-controlled court ruled along party lines in February 2022 that both the state legislative maps and the congressional district maps approved by the Republican legislature violated the State Constitution’s guarantees of free speech, free elections, free assembly and equal protection.A lower court later redrew the congressional map to be used in the November elections, but a dispute over the State Senate map, which G.O.P. leaders had redrawn, bubbled back to the State Supreme Court last winter. In one of its last acts, the Democratic majority on the court threw out the G.O.P.’s State Senate map, ordering that it be redrawn again. The court then reaffirmed its earlier order in a lengthy opinion.Ordinarily, that might have ended the matter. But after the new Republican majority was elected to the court, G.O.P. legislative leaders demanded that the justices rehear not just the argument over the redrawn Senate map, but the entire case.The ruling on Friday came after a brief re-argument of the gerrymander case in mid-March.North Carolina voters are almost evenly split between the two major parties; Donald J. Trump carried the state in 2020 with 49.9 percent of the vote. But the original map of congressional districts approved by the G.O.P. legislature in 2021, and later ruled to be a partisan gerrymander, would probably have given Republicans at least 10 of the state’s 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.Using a congressional map drawn last year by a court-appointed special master, the November election delivered seven congressional seats to each party. With the decision on Friday, the G.O.P. legislature is likely to approve a new map along the lines of its first one, giving state Republicans — and the slender Republican majority in the U.S. House — the opportunity to capture at least three more seats. More

The Justice Department has been gathering evidence about whether the former president and his allies solicited donations with claims of election fraud they knew to be false.As they investigate former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, federal prosecutors have also been drilling down on whether Mr. Trump and a range of political aides knew that he had lost the race but still raised money off claims that they were fighting widespread fraud in the vote results, according to three people familiar with the matter.Led by the special counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors are trying to determine whether Mr. Trump and his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes as they raised as much as $250 million through a political action committee by saying they needed the money to fight to reverse election fraud even though they had been told repeatedly that there was no evidence to back up those fraud claims.The prosecutors are looking at the inner workings of the committee, Save America PAC, and at the Trump campaign’s efforts to prove its baseless case that Mr. Trump had been cheated out of victory.In the past several months, prosecutors have issued multiple batches of subpoenas in a wide-ranging effort to understand Save America, which was set up shortly after the election as Mr. Trump’s main fund-raising entity. An initial round of subpoenas, which started going out before Mr. Trump declared his candidacy in the 2024 race and Mr. Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in November, focused on various Republican officials and vendors that had received payments from Save America.But more recently, investigators have homed in on the activities of a joint fund-raising committee made up of staff members from the 2020 Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, among others. Some of the subpoenas have sought documents from around Election Day 2020 up the present.Prosecutors have been heavily focused on details of the campaign’s finances, spending and fund-raising, such as who was approving email solicitations that were blasted out to lists of possible small donors and what they knew about the truth of the fraud claims, according to the people familiar with their work. All three areas overlap, and could inform prosecutors’ thinking about whether to proceed with charges in an investigation in which witnesses are still being interviewed.The possibility that the fund-raising efforts might have been criminally fraudulent was first raised last year by the House select committee investigating Mr. Trump’s efforts to retain power.But the Justice Department, with its ability to bring criminal charges, has been able to prompt more extensive cooperation from a number of witnesses. And prosecutors have developed more information than the House committee did, having targeted communications between Trump campaign aides and other Republican officials to determine if a barrage of fund-raising solicitations sent out after the election were knowingly misleading, according to the three people familiar with the matter.The fund-raising efforts are just one focus of Mr. Smith’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempts to reverse his loss at the polls.Led by the special counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors are trying to determine whether Mr. Trump and his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes.Peter Dejong/Associated PressProsecutors have also been examining the plan to assemble alternate slates of pro-Trump electors from swing states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr., and the broader push by Mr. Trump to block or delay congressional certification of Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory on Jan. 6, 2021, leading to the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.On Thursday, former Vice President Mike Pence, a key witness to Mr. Trump’s efforts, testified for hours to the grand jury gathering evidence in the investigation.Prosecutors have been looking at the nexus between research the Trump campaign commissioned almost immediately after the election to try to prove widespread fraud, public statements that he and his allies made at the time, the fund-raising efforts and the establishment of Save America.The Washington Post reported earlier on the efforts by the campaign to fund research into claims of fraud and the new round of subpoenas.Mr. Trump’s team may argue that the fund-raising represented political speech with solicitations that were generally vague, and that subjecting it to a criminal process could raise First Amendment issues and create a slippery slope for future candidates. Political fund-raising materials often engage in bombast or exaggeration.Republicans may also argue that Democrats have been loose in claims they have used in fund-raising solicitations. And the Trump campaign may argue that it did in fact use the funds to try to investigate fraud.Jason Miller, an adviser to Mr. Trump who worked on the 2020 campaign, said that the “Deep State is ramping up their attacks on President Trump” as his poll numbers have increased. “The ‘political police’ have been pushing their witch hunt since President Trump came down the escalator, and they’ve been proven wrong every single time,” he added.Officials with the Republican National Committee declined to comment.Immediately after the election, an adviser to the Trump campaign reached out to Ken Block, the owner of a Rhode Island-based firm, Simpatico Software Systems, to have him evaluate specific allegations of fraud.Jason Miller, a former top Trump aide, appearing on a screen last year during a hearing of the House committee investigating the Capitol riot. Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Block ended up researching multiple claims of possible fraud that Mr. Trump’s aides brought to him. He never produced a final report. But each time he investigated a claim, he said in an interview, he found there was nothing to it.Mr. Block said he had disproved “everything that came in and found no substantive fraud sufficient to overturn an election result.” He said he was isolated from what was taking place within the campaign, as Mr. Trump railed at aides about staying in office and continued to insist he had won an election that he was repeatedly told he had lost.“I was kept very walled off from all of the insanity,” said Mr. Block, whose firm was paid $735,000, records show. He received a subpoena for documents, but declined in the interview to discuss anything related to the grand jury.Days after starting to work with Mr. Block and Simpatico, the Trump campaign hired a second firm, the Berkeley Research Group. The federal grand jury has received evidence that Berkeley was hired at the suggestion of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, who was overseeing the political operation.The grand jury has been asking questions related to whether Mr. Trump was briefed on findings by Berkeley suggesting there had been no widespread fraud.The company ultimately submitted a report indicating there had been no fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election, and was paid roughly $600,000 for its work. The company was hired through a law firm that has long represented Mr. Trump in his personal capacity, Kasowitz Benson Torres, although lawyers there were not involved in pursuing Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims, according to a person briefed on the matter.A deputy counsel for Berkeley Research Group said the company has a “no comment” policy and declined to discuss the matter further.During the House Jan. 6 committee’s proceedings last year, several people close to Mr. Trump testified that they had informed him that there had been no fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the voting.Within two weeks of the election, the Trump campaign’s own communications staff drafted an internal report debunking many aspects of a conspiracy theory that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems had been hacked and used to flip votes away from Mr. Trump. That report was written before pro-Trump lawyers like Sidney Powell and Rudolph W. Giuliani promoted the false Dominion story at news conferences and on television.As part of its investigation into the Trump campaign’s postelection fund-raising, the Jan. 6 panel subpoenaed records from Salesforce.com, a vendor that helped the campaign and the Republican National Committee send emails to potential donors. The R.N.C. fought back, filing a lawsuit to quash the subpoena, and the House committee ultimately withdrew it.In the latest round of subpoenas, federal prosecutors have sought documents related to Salesforce in addition to other vendors, according to a person briefed on the matter. More