Elections

Affective polarization — “a poisonous cocktail of othering, aversion and moralization” — has prompted an explosion of research as the threat to democratic norms and procedures mount.Intensely felt divisions over race, ethnicity and culture have become more deeply entrenched in the American political system, reflected in part in the election denialism found in roughly a third of the electorate and in state legislative initiatives giving politicians the power to overturn election results.Many researchers have begun to focus on this question: Is there a causal relationship between the intensification of hostility between Democrats and Republicans and the deterioration of support for democratic standards?“Growing affective polarization and negative partisanship,” Jennifer McCoy and Murat Somer, political scientists at Georgia State University and Koç University-Istanbul, write in a 2019 essay, “Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies,”contribute to a perception among citizens that the opposing party and their policies pose a threat to the nation or an individual’s way of life. Most dangerously for democracy, these perceptions of threat open the door to undemocratic behavior by an incumbent and his/her supporters to stay in power, or by opponents to remove the incumbent from power.What is affective polarization? In 2016, Lilliana Mason, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins, wrote that when a voter’s “partisan social identity” merges with his or her racial, religious, sexual and cultural identities, “these various identities work together to drive an emotional type of polarization that cannot be explained by parties or issues alone.”Mason argues that “threats to a party’s status tend to drive anger, while reassurances drive enthusiasm” so thata party loss generates very negative, particularly angry, emotional reactions. This anger is driven not simply by dissatisfaction with potential policy consequences, but by a much deeper, more primal psychological reaction to group threat. Partisans are angered by a party loss because it makes them, as individuals, feel like losers too.One optimistic proposal to reduce partisan animosity is to focus public attention on the commonality of Democratic and Republican voters in their shared identity as Americans. Matthew Levendusky, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, has written extensively on this subject, including in his 2018 paper “Americans, Not Partisans: Can Priming American National Identity Reduce Affective Polarization?” and in his soon-to-be-published book, “Our Common Bonds: Using What Americans Share to Help Bridge the Partisan Divide.”“I show,” Levendusky contends in his 2018 paper, “that when subjects’ sense of American national identity is heightened, they come to see members of the opposing party as fellow Americans rather than rival partisans. As a result, they like the opposing party more, thereby reducing affective polarization.”There are serious problems, however, with a depolarization strategy based on American identity, problems that go to the heart of the relentless power of issues of race, ethnicity and immigration­ to splinter the electorate.In their December 2022 paper, “ ‘American’ Is the Eye of the Beholder: American Identity, Racial Sorting, and Affective Polarization among White Americans,” Ryan Dawkins and Abigail Hanson write thatWhite Democrats and White Republicans have systematically different ideas about what attributes are essential to being a member of the national community. Second, the association between partisanship and these competing conceptions of American identity among White Americans has gotten stronger during the Trump era, largely because of Democrats adopting a more racially inclusive conception of American identity. Lastly, appeals to American identity only dampen out-partisan animosity when the demographic composition of the opposing party matches their racialized conception of American identity. When there is a mismatch between people’s racialized conception of American identity and the composition of the opposition party, American identity is associated with higher levels of partisan hostility.Dawkins and Hanson acknowledge that “national identity is perhaps the only superordinate identity that holds the promise of uniting partisans and closing the social distance between White Democrats and White Republicans,” but, they continue,If conceptions of national identity itself become the subject of the very sorting process that is driving affective polarization, then it can no longer serve as a unifying identity that binds the entire country together. In fact, frames that highlight the association of American identity to historic norms of whiteness can ultimately divide the country further, especially as the United States transitions into a majority-minority country. Indeed, continued demographic change will likely make the schism between White Democrats and White Republicans wider before things have any hope to improve.I asked Levendusky about the Dawkins-Hanson paper. He replied by email that he was now “convinced that there is no simple path from animosity (or affective polarization) to far downstream outcomes (albeit important ones)” — adding that “there’s a long way from ‘I dislike members of the other party’ to ‘I will vote for a candidate who broke democratic norms rather than a candidate from the other party’ and the process is likely complex and subtle.”In an August 2022 paper, “Does Affective Polarization Undermine Democratic Norms or Accountability? Maybe Not,” David E. Broockman, a political scientist at Berkeley, Joshua L. Kalla, a political scientist at Yale, and Sean J. Westwood, a political scientist at Dartmouth, pointedly reject the claim made by a number of scholars “that if citizens were less affectively polarized, they would be less likely to endorse norm violations, overlook copartisan politicians’ shortcomings, oppose compromise, adopt their party’s views, or misperceive economic conditions. A large, influential literature speculates as such.”Instead, Broockman, Kalla and Westwood contend, their own studies “find no evidence that these changes in affective polarization influence a broad range of political behaviors — only interpersonal attitudes. Our results suggest caution about the widespread assumption that reducing affective polarization would meaningfully bolster democratic norms or accountability.”Broockman and his co-authors measured the effect of reducing affective polarization on five domains: “electoral accountability, adopting one’s party’s policy positions, support for legislative bipartisanship, support for democratic norms, and perceptions of objective conditions.”“Our results,” they write, “run contrary to the literature’s widespread speculation: in these political domains, our estimates of the causal effects of reducing affective polarization are consistently null.”In an email, Westwood argued that the whole endeavor “to fix anti-democratic attitudes by changing levels of partisan animosity sounds promising, but it is like trying to heal a broken bone in a gangrenous leg when the real problem is the car accident that caused both injuries in the first place.”Westwood’s point is well-taken. In a country marked by battles over sex, race, religion, gender, regional disparities in economic growth, traditionalist-vs-postmaterialist values and, broadly, inequality, it is difficult to see how relatively short, survey based experiments could produce a significant, long-term dent in partisan hostility.Jan G. Voelkel, a sociologist at Stanford, and eight of his colleagues, report similar results in their October 2022 article “Interventions Reducing Affective Polarization Do Not Necessarily Improve Anti-democratic Attitudes.” “Scholars and practitioners alike,” they write, “have invested great effort in developing depolarization interventions that reduce affective polarization. Critically, however, it remains unclear whether these interventions reduce anti-democratic attitudes, or only change sentiments toward outpartisans.”Why?Because much prior work has focused on treating affective polarization itself, and assumed that these interventions would in turn improve downstream outcomes that pose consequential threats to democracy. Although this assumption may seem reasonable, there is little evidence evaluating its implications for the benefits of depolarization interventions.In “Megastudy Identifying Successful Interventions to Strengthen Americans’ Democratic Attitudes,” a separate analysis of 32,059 American voters “testing 25 interventions designed to reduce anti-democratic attitudes and partisan animosity,” however, Voelkel and many of his co-authors, Michael N. Stagnaro, James Chu, Sophia Pink, Joseph S. Mernyk, Chrystal Redekopp, Matthew Cashman, James N. Druckman, David G. Rand and Robb Willer significantly amended their earlier findings.In an email, Willer explained what was going on:One of the key findings of this new study is that we found some overlap between the interventions that reduced affective polarization and the interventions that reduced one specific anti-democratic attitude: support for undemocratic candidates. Specifically, we found that several of the interventions that were most effective in reducing American partisans’ dislike of rival partisans also made them more likely to say that they would not vote for a candidate from their party who engaged in one of several anti-democratic actions, such as not acknowledging the results of a lost election or removing polling stations from areas that benefit the rival party.Voelkel and his co-authors found that two interventions were the most effective.The first is known as the “Braley intervention” for Alia Braley, a political scientist at Berkeley and the lead author of “The Subversion Dilemma: Why Voters Who Cherish Democracy Participate in Democratic Backsliding.” In the Braley intervention, participants are “asked what people from the other party believe when it comes to actions that undermine how democracy works (e.g., using violence to block laws, reducing the number of polling stations to help the other party, or not accepting the results of elections if they lose).” They are then given “the correct answer” and “the answers make clear the other party does not support actions that undermine democracy.”The second “top-performing intervention” was to give participants “a video showing vivid imagery of societal instability and violence following democratic collapse in several countries, before concluding with imagery of the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol attack.”“To our knowledge,” Willer wrote in his email, “this is the first evidence that the same stimuli could both reduce affective polarization and improve some aspect of Americans’ democratic attitudes, and it suggests these two factors may be causally linked, more than prior work — including our own — would suggest.”Kalla disputed the conclusions Willer drew from the megastudy:The most successful interventions in the megastudy for reducing anti-democratic views were interventions that directly targeted those anti-democratic views. For example, Braley et al.’s successful intervention was able to reduce anti-democratic views by correcting misperceptions about the other party’s willingness to subvert democracy.This intervention, Kalla continued,was not about affective polarization. What this suggests is that for practitioners interested in reducing anti-democratic attitudes, they should use interventions that directly speak to and target those anti-democratic views. As our work finds and Voelkel et al. replicates, obliquely attempting to reduce anti-democratic views through the causal pathway of affective polarization does not appear to be a successful strategy.I sent Kalla’s critique to Willer, who replied:I agree with Josh’s point that the most effective interventions for reducing support for undemocratic practices and candidates were interventions that were pretty clearly crafted with the primary goal in mind of targeting democratic attitudes. And while we find some relationships here that suggest there is a path to reducing support for undemocratic candidates via reducing affective polarization, the larger point that most interventions reducing affective polarization do not affect anti-democratic attitudes still stands, and our evidence continues to contradict the widespread popular assumption that affective polarization and anti-democratic attitudes are closely linked. We continue to find evidence in this newest study against that idea.One scholar, Herbert P. Kitschelt, a political scientist at Duke, contended that too much of the debate over affective polarization and democratic backsliding has been restricted to the analysis of competing psychological pressures, when in fact the scope in much larger. “The United States,” Kitschelt wrote in an email,has experienced a “black swan” confluence, interaction and mutual reinforcement of general factors that affect all advanced knowledge societies with specific historical and institutional factors unique to the U.S. that have created a poisonous concoction threatening U.S. democracy more so than that of any other Western society. Taken together, these conditions have created the scenario in which affective polarization thrives.Like most of the developed world, the United States is undergoing three disruptive transformations compounded by three additional historical factors specific to the United States, Kitschelt suggests. These transformations, he wrote, are:“The postindustrial change of the occupational structure expanding higher education and the income and status educational dividend, together with a transformation of gender and family relations, dismantling the paternalist family and improving the bargaining power of women, making less educated people — and especially males — the more likely socio-economic and cultural losers of the process.”“The expansion of education goes together with a secularization of society that has undercut the ideological foundations of paternalism, but created fierce resistance in certain quarters.”“The sociocultural and economic divisions furthermore correlate with residential patterns in which the growing higher educated, younger, secular and more gender-egalitarian share of the population lives in metropolitan and suburban areas, while the declining, less educated, older, more religious and more paternalists share of the population lives in exurbia or the countryside.”The three factors unique to this country, in his view, are:“The legacy of enslavement and racial oppression in the United States in which — following W.E.B. DuBois — the white lower class of less skilled laborers derived a ‘quasi-wage’ satisfaction from racist subordination of the minority, the satisfaction of enjoying a higher rank in society than African Americans.”“The vibrancy of evangelical ‘born again’ Christianity, sharply separated from the old European moderate, cerebral mainline Protestantism. The former attracts support over-proportionally among less educated people, and strictly segregates churches by race, thereby making it possible to convert white Evangelical churches into platforms of white racism. They have become political transmission belts of right-wing populism in the United States, with 80 percent of those whites who consider themselves ‘born again’ voting for the Trump presidential candidacy.”“The institutional particularities of the U.S. voting system that tends to divide populations into two rival parties, the first-past-the-post electoral system for the U.S. legislature and the directly elected presidency. While received wisdom has claimed that it moderates divisions, under conditions of mutually reinforcing economic, social, and cultural divides, it is likely to have the opposite effect. The most important additional upshot of this system is the overrepresentation of the countryside (i.e. the areas where the social, economic, and cultural losers of knowledge society tend to be located) in the legislative process and presidential elections/Electoral College.”Kitschelt argues that in order to understand affective polarization it is necessary to go “beyond the myopic and US-centric narrow vision field of American political psychologists.” The incentives “for politicians to prime this polarization and stoke the divides, including fanning the flames of affective polarization, can be understood only against the backdrop of these underlying socio-economic and cultural legacies and processes.”Kitschelt is not alone in this view. He pointed to a 2020 book, “American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective,” by Noam Gidron, James Adams and Will Horne, political scientists at Harvard, the University of California-Davis and Georgia State University, in which they make a case thatAmericans’ dislike of partisan opponents has increased more rapidly than in most other Western publics. We show that affective polarization is more intense when unemployment and inequality are high, when political elites clash over cultural issues such as immigration and national identity and in countries with majoritarian electoral institutions.Writing just before the 2020 election, Gidron, Adams and Horne point out that theissue of cultural disagreements appears highly pertinent in light of the ongoing nationwide protests in support of racial justice and the Black Lives Matter movement which has sparked a wider cultural debate over questions relating to race, police funding and broader questions over interpretations of America’s history. In a July 4th speech delivered at Mt. Rushmore, President Trump starkly framed these types of “culture war” debates as a defining political and social divide in America, asserting “our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children.”The study of affective polarization sheds light on how vicious American politics has become, and on how this viciousness has enabled Trump and those Republicans who have followed his lead, while hurting Democrats whose policy and legislative initiatives have been obstructed as much as they have succeeded.Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at N.Y.U., addressed this point when he delivered the following remarks from his paper “Political Fragmentation in Democracies of the West” in 2021 at a legal colloquium in New York:There is little question that recent decades have seen a dramatic decline in the effectiveness of government, whether measured in the number of important bills Congress is able to enact, the proportion of all issues people identity as most important that Congress manages to address, or the number of enacted bills that update old policies enacted many decades earlier. Social scientists now write books with titles like Can America Govern Itself? Longitudinal data confirm the obvious, which is the more polarized Congress is, the less it enacts significant legislation; in the ten most polarized congressional terms, a bit more than 10.6 significant laws were enacted, while in the ten least polarized terms, that number goes up 60 percent, to around 16 significant enactments per term. The inability of democratic governments to deliver on the issues their populations care most about poses serious risks.What are the chances of reversing this trend?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

The president took credit for strong job growth and his legislative agenda that’s boosted investment in infrastructure and clean energy projects.“I will make no apologies.”Pool photo by Jacquelyn Martin-Pool/Getty Images.Biden picks his battles President Biden delivered a State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday night that was filled with dramatic moments, meant in part to jump start his 2024 re-election campaign.He also used the speech to press his economic priorities, from bolstering American manufacturing to extending his climate efforts. How far he advanced his causes, however, remains to be seen.Mr. Biden defended his record on the economy. He took credit for falling inflation and strong job growth, and listed promised benefits from his sweeping legislative agenda, including infrastructure, clean energy (even if he did acknowledge, “we’re still going to need oil and gas for a while”) and manufacturing laws that will pour trillions into the economy.He also urged Congress to back initiatives including raising a billionaires tax on the wealthy; expanding a measure in the Inflation Reduction Act that caps the cost of insulin at $35 a month; renewing the expanded child tax credit; and expanding Medicaid and affordable child care.He baited Republicans over social welfare programs. Mr. Biden accused some Republicans of threatening Social Security and Medicare, implying they wanted cuts in exchange for a deal to raise the debt ceiling. (That claim requires a bit of context.) Several lawmakers shouted in response; one, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, yelled “Liar!”Mr. Biden responded that he had somehow gotten unanimity on the issue. “We all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare is off the books now, right?” he said, leading a bipartisan round of applause for seniors.He kept up pressure on ripe political targets. Though Mr. Biden didn’t directly address the Chinese spy balloon incident, he pledged to make America more competitive and less reliant on China. “I will make no apologies that we are investing to make America strong,” he said. “Investing in American innovation — in industries that will define the future, and that China’s government is intent on dominating.”Mr. Biden also called out tech companies, demanding stricter limits on their collection of personal data, and oil giants, which he accused of raking in record profits from high energy prices instead of using their huge coffers to increase domestic production.How much cooperation Mr. Biden will get from Republicans and business is unclear. In Republicans’ rebuttal, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas accused him of perpetrating a culture war. Corporate America was more circumspect: Suzanne Clark, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, reiterated her group’s support for the infrastructure law, but urged Biden to focus on striking more trade agreements and pulling back from what she said was overregulation.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING The U.S. trade deficit balloons to $948 billion. The export-import gap jumped 12 percent in 2022, to a record, as Americans continued to spend more on imported goods than travel and entertainment. Trade data also showed growing deficits in goods with the likes of Mexico and South Korea, as manufacturers seek bases outside China.Microsoft announces A.I.-powered consumer internet tools. The tech giant promised versions of its Bing search engine and Edge browser that incorporate chatbots, drawing on a partnership with the ChatGPT creator OpenAI. Microsoft’s ambitions may be bigger: It’s reportedly planning to create software to let companies make their own ChatGPT-powered chatbots.Zoom plans to lay off 15 percent of its staff. The videoconferencing company acknowledged it had hired too many people during its pandemic boom, and needed to retrench as growth has slowed. Its C.E.O., Eric Yuan, said he plans to cut his salary for the coming fiscal year by roughly 98 percent and forgo a bonus.A former Coinbase employee pleads guilty to insider trading. Ishan Wahi, who was a product manager at the crypto exchange, had been accused of tipping his brother and a friend about tokens it planned to list, bringing about $1.5 million in illegal profit. He’s the first crypto insider to admit insider trading.Chobani’s founder urges U.S. companies to fund recovery efforts for the earthquake in Turkey and Syria. Hamdi Ulukaya, a Turkish immigrant, has partnered with the Turkish Philanthropy Funds to aid in recovery from the quake, which has a death toll above 11,000. He told DealBook that he has personally donated $2 million to the cause.Jay Powell sees a “bumpy” path ahead America’s red-hot labor market suggests that the world’s biggest economy may yet avoid recession. But this same dynamic has also thrust the Fed into a policy conundrum, with pressure for higher interest rates to tamp down inflation.In a question-and-answer session at the Economic Club of Washington on Tuesday, the Fed’s chair, Jay Powell, said he could see “the very early stages of disinflation,” but added that the easing in prices was likely to follow a “bumpy” path, particularly with hiring and wage growth proving strong.January’s jobs data surpassed the Fed’s forecasts. Mr. Powell said last Friday’s knockout nonfarm payroll report, which announced that employers added 517,000 new jobs last month, was “certainly strong — stronger than anyone I know expected.”Other data offered more encouraging signs for the U.S. economy. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow tracker forecasts that the U.S. will grow by 2.1 percent in the first quarter; it was predicting 0.7 percent a week ago. And even bearish economists are dialing down their gloomy expectations: “A potential recession in 2023 will likely be short and shallow,” Jeffrey Roach, the chief economist for LPL Financial, wrote to investors on Tuesday, while Goldman Sachs economists this week lowered their estimate of the likelihood of a U.S. recession to 25 percent.Investors were relieved that Mr. Powell gave no hint of a sudden shift in the Fed’s strategy. He reiterated that the central bank planned to keep raising borrowing costs to rein in consumer spending. That was enough to reassure investors that no big policy changes were coming soon: The S&P 500 rallied after his comments, snapping a two-day losing streak.A hedge fund catches meme fever Hudson Bay Capital Management has emerged as the mystery backer of Bed Bath & Beyond’s bold plan to cash in on its meme-stock cachet to raise $1 billion in emergency funds and avert bankruptcy.The hedge fund’s involvement in the deal highlights the meme-stock frenzy’s pull on big institutions. Shares in the struggling retailer, which has closed 400 stores in the past year as revenues slide, are up nearly 86 percent in the past month in extremely volatile trading that’s been largely influenced by day-traders betting on its survival. But the stock nearly halved on Tuesday, after the company announced it would sell a flood of new shares, which will dilute existing shareholders.Hudson Bay has underwritten the initial $225 million worth of shares that Bed Bath & Beyond is selling. It plans to underwrite another $800 million over time, if certain unspecified “conditions are met.” Hudson Bay also receives warrants to buy further stock at an advantageous price, which could prove lucrative if the retailer were to turn its business around.The deal with Hudson Bay came together within the past several weeks, two people familiar with the negotiations told DealBook. Late last month, JPMorgan Chase, which gave Bed Bath & Beyond a lifeline last summer by expanding its credit line, froze the retailer’s credit accounts after deeming the company in breach of the terms of its debt. As Bed Bath & Beyond raced to find cash to pay its debts, it had also been preparing for a bankruptcy — and possible liquidation — if the needed funds didn’t arrive.Whether this only buys Bed Bath & Beyond a temporary reprieve remains to be seen. “The fundamental story for Bed Bath & Beyond is so broken at this point,” said David Silverman, a retail analyst at Fitch Ratings. “I don’t know that a short-term cash infusion that could buy them a few months, a couple of quarters, is going to change their fate.” The Wedbush Securities analyst Seth Basham seconded that opinion, cutting the stock price target to zero.“U.S. hog farmers look at the pictures of those farms in China, and they just scratch their heads and say, ‘We would never dare do that.’” — Brett Stuart, founder of the research firm Global AgriTrends, is worried about disease risks from China’s high-density pig farms, which in some cases pack the animals into tower blocks.Adam Neumann opens up about his next act Since leaving WeWork, Adam Neumann has (largely) kept quiet about his future plans, including Flow, a venture that Andreessen Horowitz invested $350 million in last year. But he is finally revealing more about the start-up, via a talk he gave to an Andreessen Horowitz-organized conference in November.The main — if still vague — takeaway is that Flow owns and operates apartment buildings that aim to persuade tenants to stay longer by making them “feel” as if they’re owners rather than renters. (How is left unsaid.) Mr. Neumann used plumbing to illustrate the business advantages of this approach, according to Bloomberg:An important element of the business proposition is that renters who stay longer are more profitable, Neumann said. His theory is that people who feel a sense of ownership will stick around.The plunger factor would be an added benefit for Flow. “If you’re in an apartment building and you’re a renter and your toilet gets clogged, you call the super,” he said. “If you’re in your own apartment, and you bought it and you own it and your toilet gets clogged, you take the plunger.” That’s the difference, he said, “when feeling like you own something.”THE SPEED READ DealsApollo is reportedly in talks to buy a stake in CS First Boston, the investment bank that will be spun out of Credit Suisse. (WSJ)Carlyle is said to be in negotiations to buy Cotiviti, a health care tech company, from Veritas Capital for nearly $15 billion. (Bloomberg)Oaktree Capital and other hedge funds have snapped up Adani Group bonds in recent days, restoring investor confidence in the beleaguered Indian conglomerate. (Bloomberg)PolicyMarty Walsh, the U.S. labor secretary, reportedly will step down to lead the N.H.L. players’ union. (Daily Faceoff)Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, said he wants to make 16 the minimum age to be allowed on social media in the U.S. (NBC News)Russia’s government is said to be pressuring the central bank to loosen fiscal policy as it enters the second year of its invasion of Ukraine. (Bloomberg)Best of the restAmerican start-ups laid off over 3,000 workers last month, up 1,700 percent from a year ago. Relatedly, Washington now has more tech vacancies than Silicon Valley. (Insider, WSJ)“The Secret Saudi Plan to Buy the World Cup.” (Politico)Voice actors say they’re increasingly being asked to sign away the rights to their voices — so they can be duplicated by A.I. (Vice)How Nestlé’s bet on a breakthrough treatment for peanut allergies went south. (Bloomberg Businessweek)LeBron James now owns the N.B.A.’s scoring record. (NYT)We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to [email protected]. More

The Republican senator Mitt Romney appeared to confront congressman George Santos before Joe Biden was due to deliver his State of Union address on Tuesday. Though his remarks were not audible, Romney clearly told Santos that he ‘ought to be embarrassed’ several times. Later Romney told reporters that Santos did not ‘belong here [in Congress]’ and called him a ‘sick puppy’ 

‘You don’t belong here’: Romney and Santos in tense State of Union exchange
Dozens of George Santos’s constituents call for his resignation at US Capitol
George Santos accused of sexual harassment by congressional aide More

With the election of a Japanese American as leader of the county government, San Antonio now has politicians of Asian descent in its two top positions.SAN ANTONIO — Peter Sakai, a second-generation Japanese American, was serving as a family court judge in San Antonio, which is largely Hispanic, when he was reminded of how much he stood out.Mr. Sakai had just made a ruling that did not favor a mother appearing in his court, he recalled, when the woman reacted by blurting out an expletive in Spanish and then “Chino,” which translates as “Chinese” but is often used as a derogatory catchall term, aiming to lump all Asian nationalities as one.“No hable así en esta corte,” he recalled responding. “Yo quiero respeto. Y también no soy Chino. Soy Japonés.” — “Don’t talk like this in this court. I want respect. And also, I’m not Chinese. I’m Japanese.”Mr. Sakai, 68, whose father had been confined in one of the World War II-era Japanese American internment camps, feels he has earned that respect. Mr. Sakai, who grew up in South Texas, was sworn in last month as the county judge for Bexar County, a metropolitan area of about two million people that includes San Antonio, the nation’s seventh-largest city. He is the first Asian American to hold that title, the top position in the county government.As it happens, the person holding the other top position in San Antonio, Mayor Ron Nirenberg, 45, is also part Asian. One parent’s background includes Filipino, Malaysian and Indian ancestry and the other has roots in European Jewry. The two men make up an unlikely leadership team for an area that had never before elected a person of Asian descent to either position and where Asian Americans make up about 3 percent of the population.The mayor of San Antonio, Mr. Nirenberg, is in his third term and is planning to run for a fourth.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesBut many see less a sign of Asian American political success and influence and more an indication that voters may be less wedded to candidates’ ethnic identity as a way to make political decisions than in the past.Rosa Rosales, 78, a longtime activist in San Antonio, said that by the time Mr. Sakai decided to run for the county’s top spot he was “a household name already.”“It wasn’t a person that came out of nowhere,” Ms. Rosales said. “He is a person dedicated to the community, to the people, regardless of race, color or age.”The San Antonio region, long known as one of the leading centers of Mexican American culture in the United States, has historically elected white men like Nelson Wolff, who was county judge for two decades, and Latino leaders, many of whom went on to gain national attention, including the twin brothers Joaquin and Julián Castro, and Henry Cisneros, a former mayor of San Antonio.Asian American politicians have risen to power in communities with large Asian American populations, like San Francisco. But their presence in Texas politics has been less visible. Hispanic residents make up the largest ethnic group in Bexar County, at 60 percent, followed by white people, at nearly 27 percent.Both Mr. Sakai and Mr. Nirenberg won voters over with agendas that appealed to a large Democratic Latino base, like promising to lift people out of poverty and keep families together in a culture where it is not unusual for several generations to live under the same roof or close by. Mr. Sakai, who spent nearly three decades as a civil court judge, has made family and children’s issues a hallmark of his political career.Mr. Sakai, who spent nearly three decades as a civil court judge, has made family and children’s issues a hallmark of his political career.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesJoe Gonzales, the district attorney and the highest-ranking Latino in Bexar County government, said Mr. Sakai’s victory was a result of many years of shaking hands with the area’s movers and shakers, and of making himself familiar to the Latino majority. “He’s a well-known figure in this county,” Mr. Gonzales said.When it came time to cast her vote for county judge, Elsie Cuellar, 53, a retired banker, said the ethnicity of the candidates was not a concern. Ms. Cuellar said she was familiar with Mr. Sakai’s long tenure as a family judge. “For me it didn’t matter if the candidates were Mexican American or not,” she said. “It depended on what they were going to do.”Mr. Sakai presided over his first county commission meeting on Jan. 10. After it adjourned, he walked the halls of the county offices in downtown San Antonio. Cynthia Guerrero, 50, who works in the building shining shoes, waved to him.“Y como está su comadre?” — “How’s your child’s godmother?” he asked her.“Good, at church,” she replied in Spanish.Ms. Guerrero said she voted for Mr. Sakai over Latino candidates for the office because she liked what he said about family values as well as his plans to create social programs intended to lift people out of poverty. Nearly 18 percent of the region’s population lives in poverty.“His last name stood out, because there aren’t any other Sakais here,” Ms. Guerrero said. “I don’t care about race. He’s the best man for the job.”Mr. Sakai’s ancestral journey began in Japan, where his maternal grandparents left for America in the 1920s and found their way to the Rio Grande Valley. Sometime later, his paternal grandparents left Japan for the Imperial Valley in Southern California.Mr. Sakai, who grew up in South Texas, was sworn in as the Bexar County judge last month, the first Asian American to hold the position.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesThe Sakais, he learned, were sent to internment camps that were created during World War II and served as detainment locations for people of Japanese ancestry in the West, even those born in the United States.When Mr. Sakai was growing up, he recalled, his father told him that he enlisted in the U.S. Army once he turned 18 in order to leave the camps behind. “It helped me understand how precious our constitutional rights are, and how we can be influenced by obviously mass hysteria and racist hatred,” Mr. Sakai said.After the war, his father, Pete Yutaka Sakai, relocated to the Rio Grande Valley, where he met his mother, Rose Marie Kawahata. Mr. Sakai grew up in the mostly Mexican American community of the valley.“I got into a few fights when I was in high school,” he recalled. “It was tough being a minority among minorities.”Mr. Sakai left the border region to obtain a law degree from the University of Texas School of Law in 1979 and later settled in San Antonio, where he worked as an assistant district attorney and in private practice. He was named a family court judge in the mid-1990s and served as a judge in various courts for nearly 30 years.Like Mr. Sakai, Mr. Nirenberg and his wife, Erika Prosper, who is Mexican American, moved to San Antonio to start a new life. He ran first for a City Council seat, and went on to win three consecutive mayoral races. “We are raising a Latino son,” he said, adding that San Antonio’s Hispanic culture has “always been a strong component of how I govern.”San Antonio’s Hispanic culture has “always been a strong component of how I govern.” Mr. Nirenberg said.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesDuring the primary contest, Mr. Sakai garnered 41 percent of the vote, more than any of his three Latino opponents but not enough to win the Democratic nomination outright. In a runoff, he handily defeated Ina Minjarez, then a state representative, with nearly 60 percent of the vote.His race became a focal point of the campaign during the general election campaign, when his Republican opponent, Trish DeBerry, began referring to him as Dr. No, the name of the title villain in a 1960s James Bond movie, a stereotypically sinister character who was half Chinese and half German.During a candidates’ debate in the fall hosted by the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, Ms. DeBerry portrayed Mr. Sakai as a candidate who was opposed to finding a new place for the county jail and to building a baseball stadium downtown. “My opponent, Dr. No — he said nothing about these issues,” she said to audible gasps from the audience.In response to a request for comment, Ms. DeBerry said to refer to statements she made at the time. Last year, she refused to apologize after the Asian American Alliance of San Antonio, the Sakai campaign and others condemned her remarks. During a contentious debate aired on Texas Public Radio before the election, she insisted that she was not aware of the name’s racist history. That term, she said, is “used to describe someone who says no to everything.”Today, Mr. Sakai, who went on to defeat Ms. DeBerry by 21 points in the general election, describes the episode as “disappointing.”Mr. Sakai said he had learned to embrace the way he is described by many Latinos in his district. Adding the suffix “-ito” to the word Chino, as in Chinito, can give it a more affectionate quality, depending on how it is used, he has discovered.In fact, as the campaign wound down, there was one phrase his pollsters repeatedly heard: “Yo voto por el Chinito.”During his swearing-in ceremony, he incorporated a Chinese lion dance into the event. It was his way of sending a nod to his Asian voters, he said.“I personally think it was the hit of the show,” he said. More

President Biden delivered a plea to Republicans on Tuesday for unity in his second State of the Union address, but vowed not to back off his economic agenda and offered no far-reaching, new ideas in a speech filled with a familiar litany of exhortations from more than four decades in political life.Reading rapidly through his prepared remarks and occasionally sparring with his congressional adversaries in real time, Mr. Biden — at 80 the oldest president in history — used the biggest platform of his office to frame his argument for an expected re-election bid by portraying Republican policy proposals as out of step with most Americans even as he offered to work across the aisle.For Mr. Biden, the speech was a moment to demonstrate to his supporters that he still has the political skills to lead them to victory in 2024 even as polls show a large majority of Democrats want someone from a new generation (he would be 86 at the end of a second term). After a few stumbles at the beginning, the president turned energetic and combative, and even showed flashes of humor and effective off-the-cuff retorts to Republican hecklers in a setting not known for improvisation.His performance could help address doubts about his vigor as a 2024 campaigner.At key moments, Republicans heckled Mr. Biden with shouts of “liar” and angry shakes of their head. But if the goal was to rattle the president or demonstrate his frailty, it had the opposite effect. Mr. Biden snapped back at the Republican shouters with sharp retorts and even a sense of humor in some moments. When Republicans accused him of misstating their desire to cut Medicare and Social Security, the president turned the heckling against them, saying quickly that he was glad to see their “conversion” on the issue.For Mr. Biden’s supporters — some of whom have expressed doubts about whether he is up to another six years in office — the moment was an opportunity to imagine how the president will perform on the 2024 campaign trail. For the president’s campaign advisers, his agility on his feet was most likely a source of relief.He defined his rationale for a second term.In an hourlong speech, Mr. Biden repeatedly pledged that America needed to “finish the job,” a barely veiled argument that voters should give him a second term to do just that. Nearly a dozen times, he bragged about his administration’s accomplishments — on keeping drug prices low, increasing taxes on the wealthy, making child care and housing affordable, and more — but said he had more to do.After two years in office, the president’s assessment of the country’s progress was intended as a hinge to his next campaign, a way to set up the terms of debate, whether he faces former President Donald J. Trump again or another Republican contender.Biden’s State of the Union AddressChallenging the G.O.P.: In the first State of the Union speech of a new era of divided government, President Biden called on Republicans to work with him to “finish the job” of repairing the unsettled economy.State of Uncertainty: Mr. Biden used his speech to portray the United States as a country in recovery. But what he did not emphasize was that America also faces a lot of uncertainty in 2023.Foreign Policy: Mr. Biden spends his days confronting Russia and China. So it was especially striking that in his address, he chose to spend relatively little time on America’s global role.A Tense Exchange: Before the speech, Senator Mitt Romney admonished Representative George Santos, a fellow Republican, telling him he “shouldn’t have been there.”He scaled back his agenda for an era of divided government.Mr. Biden returned again and again to a familiar set of assertions that have become part of his presidential routine: a pledge to “restore the soul of the nation”; a promise to “build an economy from the bottom up and the middle out”; efforts to create “an economy where no one is left behind”; criticism of “big tech” and “big oil”; and references to advice for “Joey” from his father.But there were no major new initiatives in Mr. Biden’s address, a nod to the reality of divided government, with Republicans now controlling the House. That was a striking departure from the president’s previous appearances before a Democratic-controlled Congress, when he called for trillions of dollars in new spending to significantly reshape government programs on health care, child care, climate change, taxes, infrastructure and more.He did not back off from those priorities, some of which he managed to achieve, at least in part, over the past two years, and he renewed his call for others. But on Tuesday night, his focus was on less ambitious proposals aimed at stepping up efforts to cure cancer, improve mental health care, fight opioid addiction and help veterans.He emphasized threats to democracy at home and abroad.At the end of the speech, Mr. Biden returned to one of the biggest themes of his presidency — that the United States and the world stand at an “inflection point” in history, with democracy at stake at home and abroad. As he has before, the president linked “the Big Lie” about the 2020 election to the war in Ukraine, which threatens the sovereignty of a European nation for the first time in a generation.But unlike former President George W. Bush, who used his 2002 State of the Union address to declare an “axis of evil” on the eve of the Iraq war, Mr. Biden urged Americans to remain optimistic and hopeful as a way of inspiring supporters of democracy elsewhere. Declaring that “we are not bystanders to history,” the president said the United States must confront hate and extremism, referring to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.The president talked up the economy, with a big focus on blue-collar workers.Mr. Biden spent the first half of his speech describing what he said was the nation’s economic progress, including a record 12 million jobs created in the first two years of his presidency. He ran through the economic benefits — many of them just starting to come online — from bills he signed to invest in infrastructure, advanced manufacturing and low-emission sources of energy, along with reducing the cost of prescription drugs.But the president lingered in particular on the parts of his agenda that he says would help blue-collar workers, often in parts of the country that have been left behind in the changing global economy. He stressed spending that will create high-paying jobs that do not require a college degree — clear outreach to the wide swath of swing voters in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan who did not graduate from college.Aides had said Mr. Biden would acknowledge in his speech the continued economic pain Americans feel, particularly from rising prices, and he did to a degree. But he spent most of his energy trying to sell workers on the gains the economy has made on his watch and casting himself as a fighter for their interests.He baited Republicans on Social Security and Medicare.Mr. Biden has regularly hammered Republicans over some members’ plans to reduce future spending on Social Security and Medicare. He did it again in the speech, and this time, he baited some Republican lawmakers into agreeing with him on the issue.Mr. Biden started by caricaturing a plan from Senator Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, which would force Congress to reauthorize existing programs, including Social Security and Medicare, every five years. “Some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset,” he said.Republicans in the chamber loudly objected to the characterization. Mr. Biden shot back: “Anybody who doubts it contact my office. I’ll give you a copy.”The Republican boos and objections grew louder. Mr. Biden parried back and forth with the critics in the crowd. Then he declared victory. “So folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security, Medicare is off the books now, right? All right. We’ve got unanimity.”Biden made a forceful call for police accountability.Mr. Biden has always opposed the “defund the police” calls from some on the left of his party, but on Tuesday night he used his speech to condemn the lethal police beating of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols in Memphis and made an impassioned call for more police accountability.“Imagine if you lost that child at the hands of the law,” Mr. Biden said after pointing out that Mr. Nichols’s mother and stepfather, RowVaughn and Rodney Wells, were sitting in the first lady’s box, prompting a standing ovation. “Imagine having to worry whether your son or daughter will come home from walking down the street, playing in the park or just driving their car.”In an example of his instinct to reach for a middle ground, Mr. Biden, however, still struck a balance between pressing for change and expressing support for the police, whom he said were “good, decent, honorable people.” He called for supporting law enforcement with additional resources to increase training for officers.The president is limited in just how much he can reform state and local police departments. But he has faced increasing pressure from Democrats and supporters of overhauling the criminal justice system to push more forcefully for legislation advancing their goals.“Let’s commit ourselves to make the words of Tyre’s mom true,” Mr. Biden said. “Something good must come from this.” More

Eager to burnish his 2024 bona fides as some Republicans raise doubts about his third bid for the White House, former President Donald J. Trump stood Tuesday between two American flags — in his signature blue suit and red tie — and offered his own assessment of the nation.But even the first line was incorrect.“Here’s the real State of the Union,” Mr. Trump said.The real State of the Union was delivered earlier Tuesday by the sitting president, Joseph R. Biden Jr. For more than two years, Mr. Trump has repeated the lie that he won the 2020 election, falsely claiming that the election was stolen. His claims have been rebuked by numerous recounts, court rulings and assessments from his own administration.There was no other allusion to the last presidential race during Mr. Trump’s two-minute videotaped speech, which he released after Mr. Biden finished his address.Instead, Mr. Trump spent most of his video excoriating the Biden administration, while hitting on some of the same themes he had during two campaign events on Jan. 28, which were aimed at assuaging doubts about his 2024 campaign that have arisen in the establishment wing of the Republican Party.Former President Donald J. Trump introducing his South Carolina leadership team during a campaign event in Columbia, S.C., last month.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesMr. Trump, who has presided over three disappointing election cycles as the Republicans’ leader, held his first event at a New Hampshire state party gathering and then introduced his South Carolina leadership team in Columbia, S.C., in the statehouse hallway where lobbyists prowl during legislative sessions. Both were extraordinary settings for a politician known for upsetting the establishment and taking direct aim at longstanding public institutions.In his video on Tuesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Biden was responsible for millions of undocumented immigrants who “have stormed across our southern border” and for a decline in real wages for 21 consecutive months.Mr. Trump, who is facing a criminal investigation into his handling of classified government documents and a criminal referral to the Justice Department from the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, accused Mr. Biden of weaponizing the Justice Department. “And I’m a victim of it,” he added.“But the good news is we are going to reverse every single crisis, calamity and disaster that Joe Biden has created,” Mr. Trump said. “I am running for president to end the destruction of our country and to complete the unfinished business of making America great again.” More

Three Democratic victories flipped the House for the first time in a dozen years by a single seat in the battleground state.Democrats swept three special elections in solidly blue House districts in western Pennsylvania on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, putting the party in the majority by a single seat and breaking a Republican legislative monopoly that has recently focused on election restrictions and anti-abortion bills.All three races were in Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh and is the state’s No. 2 county by population, after Philadelphia.Control of the Pennsylvania House had been shrouded by uncertainty since the midterms in November, grinding legislative business to a halt while the parties clashed over ground rules and the timing of the special elections.Democrats had appeared to flip the chamber in the fall for the first time in a dozen years, but one lawmaker’s death and the election of two others to higher offices delayed the final outcome.The party’s majority — 102 seats to 101 seats — brings clarity to the last unresolved legislative races in a fiercely contested state.The Spread of Misinformation and FalsehoodsDeepfake Rules: In most of the world, the authorities can’t do much about deepfakes, as few laws exist to regulate the technology. China hopes to be the exception.Lessons for a New Generation: Finland is testing new ways to teach students about propaganda. Here’s what other countries can learn from its success.Covid Myths: Experts say the spread of coronavirus misinformation — particularly on far-right platforms like Gab — is likely to be a lasting legacy of the pandemic. And there are no easy solutionsA ‘War for Talent’: Seeing misinformation as a possibly expensive liability, several companies are angling to hire former Twitter employees with the expertise to keep it in check. In the 32nd District, Joe McAndrew, a former executive director of the Allegheny County Democratic Committee, defeated Clayton Walker, a Republican pastor. The seat had been held by Tony DeLuca, a Democrat who was the longest-serving member of the Pennsylvania House before his death in October from lymphoma. Still, Mr. DeLuca was overwhelmingly re-elected in the heavily Democratic district.In the 34th District, Abigail Salisbury, a Democratic lawyer, prevailed against Robert Pagane, a Republican security guard and former police officer. Ms. Salisbury will fill the seat of Summer Lee, a Democrat who in November became the first Black woman elected to Congress from Pennsylvania. Last year, Ms. Salisbury had previously lost to Ms. Lee in a Democratic primary for the legislature..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.In the 35th District, Matt Gergely, a Democrat who is the chief revenue officer of McKeesport, Pa., defeated Don Nevills, a Republican who operates a tattoo shop and ran unsuccessfully for the seat in November. Austin Davis, a Democrat who previously represented the district, was elected as lieutenant governor in the fall.The power shift dealt another blow to Republicans coming off the midterms, when the party failed to meet heightened expectations in Pennsylvania and nationally that were generated by economic turmoil and President Biden’s lackluster job approval ratings.In November, Pennsylvania voters consistently rejected Republicans in marquee races featuring candidates endorsed by former President Donald J. Trump, who espoused false claims about fraud in the 2020 election.Democrats flipped a U.S. Senate seat and held onto the governor’s office when Josh Shapiro, who was previously Pennsylvania’s attorney general, defeated Doug Mastriano, a Republican state senator and an election denier, in an open-seat race.After losing control of the House, Republicans will be unable to override a veto by the governor.In a potential end-run around the governor, G.O.P. lawmakers have resorted to trying to amend the state Constitution in order to pass a voter ID bill. The complex amendment process, which ultimately requires putting the question to voters, is the subject of pending litigation.But both chambers of the General Assembly need to pass the bill this session in order to place it on the ballot.First-time voters and those applying for absentee ballots are currently required to present identification in Pennsylvania, but Republicans want to expand the requirement to all voters in every election and have proposed issuing voter ID cards. Critics say the proposal would make it harder to vote and could be a privacy risk.Mr. Shapiro has not ruled out compromising with Republicans on some voting rules, but has said that he would not support any proposal that hinders voting.Republicans, now likely to be thwarted legislatively, have also sought to use the constitutional amendment process to place new restrictions on abortion in Pennsylvania. More

Cuando el presidente de Estados Unidos, Joe Biden, dé su discurso del Estado de la Unión el martes, tendrá mucho de qué ufanarse.Durante su presidencia se han creado una cantidad récord de trabajos y tiene la tasa de desempleo más baja en más de 50 años. Mientras que los planes de infraestructura de Donald Trump eran motivo de burla, Biden aprobó la mayor inyección de fondos federales en infraestructura en más de una década. Su Ley de Reducción de la Inflación hizo una inversión histórica en energía limpia; el director de la Agencia Internacional de la Energía la describió como la acción climática más importante desde el Acuerdo de París de 2015. (Y, por cierto, la inflación finalmente está bajando). Biden cohesionó a las naciones del mundo occidental para que apoyaran a Ucrania contra la invasión imperialista de Rusia y le puso fin a la larga e infructuosa guerra de Estados Unidos en Afganistán, aunque con una salida atroz e ignominiosa. Su gobierno impuso un tope a los precios de la insulina para las personas mayores, codificó a nivel federal el reconocimiento del matrimonio igualitario y derribó ese globo espía que nos asustó a todos. También, está en camino de nombrar más jueces federales que Trump.Biden también puede adjudicarse el éxito de que la influencia de Trump esté disminuyendo. Muchos especialistas resoplaron cuando Biden intentó presentar las elecciones de medio término como un referéndum de la amenaza a la democracia estadounidense que representa el movimiento MAGA. Los votantes, no. La derrota en 2022 de candidatos trumpistas como Kari Lake en Arizona y Herschel Walker en Georgia, incluso más que el fracaso electoral de Trump en 2020, convenció a muchos republicanos de que deben dejar atrás a quien fue alguna vez su héroe.En otras palabras, Biden ha sido un gran presidente. Ha cumplido una cantidad inusual de promesas de campaña. El presidente debería ser celebrado el martes. Pero no debería buscar la reelección.Se ha reporteado mucho que Biden planea usar el Estado de la Unión para plantear su reelección. Hay una división en el Partido Demócrata sobre si esa decisión es prudente para una persona de 80 años. Los funcionarios demócratas están en gran parte de acuerdo que sí, al menos de manera pública, pero la mayoría de los votantes demócratas no lo están. “Los demócratas dicen que ha hecho un buen trabajo, pero que es demasiado grande”, dijo Sarah Longwell, una estratega republicana anti-Trump que con regularidad organiza grupos de enfoque de votantes. “Al final de su segundo mandato estaría más cerca de los 90 años que de los 80”. Es posible que una encuesta del Washington Post/ABC News refleje esa dinámica: aunque el 78 por ciento de los encuestados demócratas e independientes de tendencia demócrata aprobaron el trabajo que Biden ha hecho como presidente, el 58 por ciento de ellos quiere un candidato diferente para el próximo año.Los argumentos para seguir con Biden no son menores. Además de su historial exitoso, tiene el beneficio de ya estar en el cargo. Organizar unas elecciones primarias es costoso, agotador y doloroso. Si Biden fuera tan solo unos años más joven, al Partido Demócrata no le convendría pasar por eso.Pero es difícil ignorar el costo de la edad de Biden, sin importar lo mucho que los demócratas electos lo intenten. De alguna manera, cuanto más simpatices con Biden, más difícil puede ser verlo trastabillar, una propensión que no solo puede explicarse por su tartamudeo. Longwell dijo que los demócratas en su grupo de enfoque mencionaron que contenían la respiración cada vez que el presidente habla. Y aunque Biden pudo hacer campaña de manera virtual en 2020, en 2024 es casi seguro que habrá otra vez un calendario de campaña agotador en el mundo real, que tendría que cumplir mientras también gobierna el país. Es una tarea hercúlea para un hombre de 60 años, y casi imposible para un octogenario.Si Biden se llegara a enfrentar a Trump, quien cumplirá 78 años el próximo año, la edad podría no importar. Es preocupante que, según la encuesta del Washington Post/ABC, Trump esté ligeramente por delante de Biden en una hipotética revancha, pero los aspectos negativos de Trump tienden acentuarse cuanto su presencia en el ojo público aumenta, y una campaña presidencial generará muchas oportunidades para recordarle a los estadounidenses de su singular malignidad. Pero como hay muchas encuestas que muestran que la popularidad de Trump está disminuyendo, y con la acaudalada red de Koch alineándose en su contra, hay muchas posibilidades de que el contendiente de Biden sea alguien mucho más joven, como Ron DeSantis, quien en 2024 tendrá 46 años. A menos que se produzca un cambio radical en el estado de ánimo del país, los candidatos se disputarán el liderazgo de un Estados Unidos profundamente descontento y desesperado por un cambio. Para los demócratas, el contraste visual, por sí mismo, podría ser devastador.A muchos demócratas les preocupa que si Biden se hace a un lado, la candidatura será para la vicepresidenta, Kamala Harris, quien tiene números deficientes en las encuestas. Pero los demócratas tienen varias alternativas, que incluyen a políticos que han ganado en estados pendulares importantes, como la gobernadora de Míchigan, Gretchen Whitmer, y el senador por Georgia Raphael Warnock. Biden dijo que quería ser un puente para la próxima generación de demócratas. Hay muchas opciones prometedoras que están calificadas para cruzarlo. Una elección primaria le dará al Partido Demócrata la oportunidad de encontrar al candidato adecuado para este momento.La última vez que escribí sobre Biden y su edad avanzada, el presidente no estaba en su mejor momento: la inflación estaba descontrolada y su agenda de Build Back Better permanecía estancada. Si en ese momento Biden hubiera anunciado que no buscaría la reelección, probablemente habría parecido la admisión de un fracaso. Ahora, su legado político parece más seguro. Lo consolidaría si tiene la sabiduría, pocas veces vista, de saber cuándo ha llegado el momento de anunciar una despedida, no un relanzamiento.Michelle Goldberg es columnista de Opinión desde 2017. Es autora de varios libros sobre política, religión y derechos de las mujeres, y formó parte de un equipo que ganó un Pulitzer al servicio público en 2018 por informar sobre acoso sexual en el trabajo. @michelleinbklyn More