Elections

Brazilian authorities granted the country’s elections chief broad power to order the takedown of online content in a bid to combat soaring misinformation ahead of this month’s election.RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazilian authorities, grappling with a torrent of online misinformation ahead of the country’s presidential election, granted the nation’s elections chief unilateral power to order tech companies to remove many online posts and videos — one of the most aggressive actions taken by any country to combat false information.Under the rules passed on Thursday, the elections chief can order the immediate removal of content that he believes has violated previous orders. Social networks must comply with the election chief’s takedown orders within two hours or face potential suspension of their services in Brazil.The move culminates an increasingly assertive strategy by election officials in Brazil to crack down on the misinformation that has flooded the country’s presidential race in recent days, including claims that candidates are Satanists, cannibals and pedophiles.But by allowing a single person to decide what can be said online in the run-up to the high-stakes election, which will be held on Oct. 30, Brazil has made itself a test case in a swelling debate over how far to go in fighting “fake news.”The decision drew outcry from supporters of right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, as well as concern from many internet-law and civil-rights experts, who said it represented a potentially dangerous, authoritarian expansion of power, one that could be abused to censor legitimate viewpoints and swing the presidential contest.The elections chief, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, is already at the center of a separate fight over the increasing authority of Brazil’s highest court. He has ordered investigations into Mr. Bolsonaro and jailed some of his supporters for what Mr. Moraes said were attacks on the nation’s democratic institutions.“It’s a risky move,” Carlos Affonso Souza, a professor at Rio de Janeiro State University, said of Thursday’s decision. “I think it could go too far depending on how he exercises these rights.”Still, the move was cheered by others in Brazil, including many on the left, who see it as a necessary tool to fight an avalanche of false claims from Mr. Bolsonaro’s supporters that has only accelerated in recent days.During Thursday’s vote on the rules, Mr. Moraes said complaints about misinformation had increased nearly 17-fold compared with past elections.“There has been proliferation of not only false news, but of the aggressiveness of this news, this hate speech, which we all know leads to nothing but an erosion of democracy,” he said. “This is precisely why we need a faster way.”Mr. Bolsonaro faces off on Oct. 30 against the leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a vote that is widely regarded as Brazil’s most important in decades.Under the new rules, which were passed unanimously by the seven federal judges who make up Brazil’s electoral court, the elections chief’s expanded powers are effective during election campaigns. The powers will lapse after the presidential vote, but will take effect again in future campaigns.The rules allow Mr. Moraes to order social networks to immediately take down content that he determines has violated previous decisions by the broader electoral court.The electoral court has already banned posts that call Mr. Bolsonaro a pedophile, a claim that accelerated in recent days after video emerged of the president saying “there was a spark” between him and two teenage girls. The court has also ordered the takedown of content that says Mr. da Silva is corrupt. Mr. da Silva served time in prison on corruption charges, which were later nullified.André Spigariol contributed reporting from Brasília. More

Many Americans believe there’s something not quite right about majority rule — something threatening, something dangerous. It just feels wrong.We might be comfortable with decision-making by majorities at our P.T.A. meetings or when deciding on the theme for the next vacation Bible school, but we’re uneasy with the prospect when it comes to our politics. And our political lexicon is stocked with phrases and aphorisms that highlight the danger of majoritarian systems and even rebuke the concept outright.There are the usual warnings about the “tyranny of the majority”; there is the quip, commonly misattributed to Benjamin Franklin, that democracy is “two wolves and a lamb, voting on what to have for lunch”; and there is the oft-heard assertion — and I’ll admit a personal bête noire — that the United States is a “republic, not a democracy” and that democracy would be the ruin of American liberty. We are taught to imagine ourselves as potentially being at the awful mercy of most of our fellow citizens.Our collective suspicion of majority rule rests on the legitimate observation that a majority can be as tyrannical as any despot. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy, where it is exercised in a monarchy or in a republic, I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.”Americans take for granted the idea that our counter-majoritarian Constitution — deliberately written to constrain majorities and keep them from acting outright — has, in fact, preserved the rights and liberties of the people against the tyranny of majority rule, and that any greater majoritarianism would threaten that freedom.Well, what if that’s not true? Yes, majorities acting through our representative institutions have been overbearing and yes, the Supreme Court has occasionally protected the rights of vulnerable minorities, as well as those of the people at large. But there have been just as many, if not more, examples of the reverse: of majorities safeguarding the rights of vulnerable minorities and of our counter-majoritarian institutions freeing assorted bullies and bosses to violate them.I’ve written about some of these episodes before (and I’m hardly the only person to have drawn attention to them): how the court gutted both the Reconstruction amendments to the Constitution and the laws written to secure the lives of Black Americans, free and freed, from discrimination, violence and exploitation.If allowed to stand in full, the Civil Rights Act of 1875 — passed by only the third U.S. Congress to have Black members, who were elected in some of the first truly free elections in the South — would have outlawed discrimination in public accommodations like railroads, steamboats, hotels and theaters and prohibited jury exclusion on the basis of race. But the court, in an 1883 opinion, decided that neither the 13th nor the 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals.The advent of Jim Crow, similarly, had less to do in the beginning with a nefarious majority of voters rushing to the polls to subjugate their Black neighbors than with a long campaign of violence meant to neutralize Black voters and intimidate their white allies. The men who pioneered Jim Crow in Mississippi, for example, were by no means a majority, nor did they represent one in a state where a large part of the public was Black. As the historian C. Vann Woodward summarized it in “The Strange Career of Jim Crow,” “In spite of the ultimate success of disfranchisement, the movement met with stout resistance and succeeded in some states by narrow margins or the use of fraud.”There was, however, a majority vote to protect the rights of voters in the South. But that vote — the vote to pass the 1890 Federal Elections Bill, which would have empowered the national government to supervise elections in the former Confederate states — failed to overcome a Senate filibuster.We cannot know how American history would have unfolded in the absence of our counter-majoritarian institutions. But the example of Reconstruction and its aftermath suggests that if majorities had been able to act, unimpeded, to protect the rights of Black Americans, it might have been a little less tragic than what we experienced instead.It is an insight we can apply to the present. It’s not the national majority that threatens the right to vote or the right to bodily autonomy or that wants to strip transgender Americans of their right to exist in civil society (on that last point, 64 percent of Americans, according to the Pew Research Center, support laws or policies that would “protect transgender people from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces”). If it were up to majorities of Americans — and if, more important, the American political system more easily allowed majorities to express their will — then Congress would have already strengthened the Voting Rights Act, codified abortion rights into law and protected the civil rights of L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. Even the legislative victories most Americans rightfully admire — like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — were possible only with a supermajority of lawmakers assembled in the wake of a presidential assassination.If it were up to the national majority, American democracy would most likely be in a stronger place, not the least because Donald Trump might not have become president. Our folk beliefs about American government notwithstanding, the much-vaunted guardrails and endlessly invoked norms of our political system have not secured our democracy as much as they’ve facilitated the efforts of those who would degrade and undermine it.Majority rule is not perfect but rule by a narrow, reactionary minority — what we face in the absence of serious political reform — is far worse. And much of our fear of majorities, the legacy of a founding generation that sought to restrain the power of ordinary people, is unfounded. It is not just that rule of the majority is, as Abraham Lincoln said, “the only true sovereign of a free people”; it is also the only sovereign that has reliably worked to protect those people from the deprivations of hierarchy and exploitation.If majoritarian democracy, even at its most shackled, is a better safeguard against tyranny and abuse than our minoritarian institutions, then imagine how we might fare if we let majoritarian democracy actually take root in this country. The liberty of would-be masters might suffer. The liberty of ordinary people, on the other hand, might flourish.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

According to the conventional rules of politics, Democrats should be on track for electoral disaster this November. Joe Biden’s approval rating is stuck around 42 percent, inflation is still sky-high and midterms usually swing against the incumbent president’s party — a recipe for the kind of political wipeouts we saw in 2018, 2010 and 1994.But that’s not what the polls show. Currently, Democrats are on track to hold the Senate and lose narrowly in the House, which raises all kinds of questions: Why are Republicans failing to capitalize on such a favorable set of circumstances? How did Democrats get themselves into this situation — and can they get out of it? And should we even trust the polls giving us this information in the first place?[You can listen to this episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]Matt Yglesias is a veteran journalist who writes the newsletter “Slow Boring” and co-hosts the podcast “Bad Takes.” And in recent years he’s become an outspoken critic of the Democratic Party’s political strategy: how Democrats communicate with the public, what they choose as their governing priorities and whom they ultimately listen to. In Yglesias’s view, Democrats have lost touch with the very voters they need to win close elections like this one, and should embrace a very different approach to politics if they want to defeat an increasingly anti-democratic G.O.P.We discuss why Yglesias thinks the 2022 polls are likely biased toward Democrats, how Republicans’ bizarre nominee choices are giving Democrats a fighting chance of winning the Senate, why Biden’s popular legislative agenda hasn’t translated into greater public support, the Biden administration’s “grab bag” approach to policymaking, why Yglesias thinks there’s been a “regime change” in how Democrats think about elections, how social media has transformed both parties’ political incentives, what the Democratic agenda should look like if the party retains both houses of Congress and more.You can listen to our whole conversation by following “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts. View a list of book recommendations from our guests here.(A full transcript of the episode is available here.)The New York Times“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Emefa Agawu, Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld and Rogé Karma. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Original music by Isaac Jones. Mixing by Jeff Geld, Sonia Herrero and Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski. More

LAS VEGAS — Ted Pappageorge, the head of Culinary Union Local 226, whipped up the crowd of canvassers into a frenzy on a recent Monday morning, earning him “sí, se puede!” chants. But before he sent the canvassers out to knock on doors for Cisco Aguilar, the Democratic candidate of secretary of state, he had a question.“Does anybody know what the secretary of state does in the state of Nevada?” Mr. Pappageorge asked. A few murmured “voting” and a half dozen raised their hands. The buzzing quieted, before Mr. Pappageorge offered his take: The office oversees the election and “makes sure it doesn’t get stolen by any of these MAGA extreme Republicans.” The cheering returned.Such is the plight of many Democratic candidates for secretary of state, an office that has long lived in political obscurity and rarely inspired great passions among voters. But in 2022, after secretaries of state helped thwart Donald J. Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat, races for the post have taken on new urgency. Facing off against Republican candidates who spread lies about the 2020 election, Democrats have poured tens of millions into the contests, casting them as battles for the future of American democracy.If only they could get voters to see it that way. Instead, voters remain focused on rising inflation, economic woes, education and other issues that are outside the purview of the official duties of a secretary of state. And while a vast majority of Americans view democracy as under threat, a striking few see it as a top issue, according to a recent New York Times/Siena College poll.Democrats are facing other challenges. Many of the candidates are relative unknowns, leaving their futures heavily dependent on what voters think of their party or the party’s high-profile candidates for Senate or governor.The Democrats’ positions — promoting early voting options, including mail voting and protecting poll workers — are not headline-making policies. But Republicans’ denials of the 2020 election, murky statements about upholding future results or pledges to restrict voting to a single day grab the attention of both supporters and detractors.Voting at the Doolittle Community Center in Las Vegas during the state primary in June. Secretaries of state oversee elections.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesSix of these election-denying candidates for secretary of state are on the ballot in November; one, Diego Morales in Indiana, appears positioned to win in the deeply red state, and several are locked in tight battles. That includes states like Arizona, Michigan and Nevada, presidential battlegrounds where a single election official’s refusal to certify the result could set off a constitutional crisis.As he campaigns, Mr. Aguilar, a 45-year-old lawyer, former board member of the Nevada Athletic Commission and onetime aide to Senator Harry Reid, has sought to tie voters’ top-tier issues to elections.“If I lose this race, your potential to have a say in your kid’s future education is on the line,” Mr. Aguilar said in an interview. “Because the way we change it is electing people that believe in public education.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.“That opportunity to vote goes away because my opponent wants to go back to a single day of voting,” he added. “Which in this town, in a 24/7 economy, somebody either works that shift or is working multiple jobs.”Mr. Aguilar’s opponent, Jim Marchant, is the organizer of the America First Secretary of State Coalition, a group of hard-right candidates who have called for eliminating mail voting, using only paper ballots, returning to a single day of voting and giving partisan poll watchers “unfettered access.” It’s a platform that has alarmed election experts and even left some Republicans worried that the group’s members could soon be in a position to overturn or tilt the scales of an election.Last week, Mr. Marchant seemed to indicate that was part of the plan.Jim Marchant, the Republican nominee for secretary of state, is the organizer of the America First Secretary of State Coalition, a group of candidates who say, falsely, that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald J. Trump.Bridget Bennett for The New York Times“I’ve been working since Nov. 4, 2020, to expose what happened. And what I found out is horrifying. And when I’m secretary of state of Nevada, we’re going to fix it,” Mr. Marchant said, referring to the 2020 election during a rally onstage with Mr. Trump. “And when my coalition of secretary of state candidates around the country get elected, we’re going to fix the whole country and President Trump is going to be president again in 2024.”It was secretaries of state — both Republican and Democratic — who played a central role in blocking Mr. Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election. Seeing those losses, key allies of Mr. Trump soon began lining up to run for the office. Mr. Marchant has said that a close ally of Mr. Trump approached him in the aftermath of that election and suggested he run. (Voter fraud is rare, and there was no evidence that fraud determined the 2020 election.).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.More than a dozen candidates joined the America First Coalition, with six advancing to secure Republican nominations, including Mark Finchem in Arizona, Kristina Karamo in Michigan and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania. (Mr. Mastriano is the candidate for governor in Pennsylvania, but the governor there appoints the secretary of state.)Though these officials’ authority varies by state, nearly all have significant oversight in the voting process — from registration to certification.In Nevada, the secretary of state could decide to invalidate all election machines, a plan Mr. Marchant has spoken favorably about, forcing a hand-counted vote that would be riddled with errors and would most likely take days to tabulate.The secretary also is required to be present for the canvassing of the votes by the justices of the state Supreme Court. And in Nevada, as in many states, the office is in charge of audits, as well as assisting in investigations into potential claims of voter fraud.Aside from these powers, secretaries of state have also served as an influential counter to false claims of fraud, misinformation and disinformation about American elections.“One of my biggest concerns with someone like Jim Marchant in that role is that they can use that platform to do exactly the opposite, and exacerbate or spread disinformation,” said Ben Berwick, a counsel at Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan organization focused on election issues.“The idea of putting these people in charge of our elections is nuts,” Mr. Berwick said. “Many of these candidates have said that they would not have certified the 2020 election, and there is good reason to believe they will use their power to try to manipulate the results if their preferred candidate doesn’t win in 2024.”Mr. Aguilar speaking at an Indigenous People’s Day event at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesMr. Marchant, his campaign manager, his press officer and the head of the state Republican Party did not respond to repeated requests for comment, made in person and in phone calls, text messages and emails.The Republican State Leadership Committee, which is the campaign arm of the Republican National Committee responsible for secretary of state races (as well as state legislatures and lieutenant governor races), is not spending money on Mr. Marchant’s bid or any of the other election-denying candidates. The committee said it was too badly outspent by Democrats.“We simply cannot match what Democrats are spending on these races and we need to prioritize protecting our incumbents,” said Andrew Romeo, a committee spokesman.Though the committee is contributing to multiple incumbent secretaries of state, the only incumbent receiving advertising support from it is Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia who rebuffed requests by Mr. Trump to help him overturn the 2020 election there. Mr. Raffensperger has been critical of those who continue to make false claims about the 2020 election.Indeed, Republicans are not even close to competing with Democrats and allied groups, such as iVote and End Citizens United, on TV ads, currently being outspent by a 57-to-1 margin, according to AdImpact, an ad-tracking firm. Democrats have spent more than $40.6 million on broadcast television ads since July in six battleground states. Republicans have spent just $700,000, with more than $500,000 of that coming from Raffensperger’s campaign.Mr. Marchant has run a nearly invisible campaign. His website and social media accounts have not listed an event in the state in months; the only records of his events have been at local Republican fund-raisers. His campaign reported raising just $89,000 in the third quarter, compared with $1.1 million for Mr. Aguilar.He has not been given a speaking slot at an event with either Republican candidate running for Senate or governor since the primary elections in July; and they have been loath to mention his name while campaigning.Yet polls show Mr. Marchant with a lead on Mr. Aguilar, a reality some political experts in the state say reflects the race’s low visibility and broader political trends, which show Republicans with an edge in Nevada.Mr. Aguilar has been campaigning wherever he can, including an interview this month with a Latino radio station in Las Vegas.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesMr. Aguilar, a first-time candidate, has been campaigning steadily, knocking doors and finding a space in events around the state wherever he can. This month, he attended an Indigenous people’s event at the base of the “Welcome to Las Vegas” sign, then shuttled over to a union hall before crossing the Las Vegas Strip for a small-business round table at the Four Seasons, where he dined with the president of the Nevada Chamber of Commerce.As he courts voters, Mr. Aguilar at times talks about his more memorable credentials. As a member of the Nevada Athletic Commission, he helped bring Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. to fight in Las Vegas in 2015. He’s close to the former tennis star Andre Agassi, a Las Vegas native, and worked as general counsel for the Andre Agassi Foundation for Education.But he spends most of his precious time talking to voters sounding almost like a civics teacher. “The secretary of state has an important role in our election process,” he told a crowd at another Indigenous people’s event at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “The secretary of state is the regulator of elections.” More

A comeback by Mr. Johnson is viewed as a very real possibility, delighting some Conservative Party lawmakers and repelling others.LONDON — It seemed at once incredible and inevitable.No sooner had Prime Minister Liz Truss of Britain announced her sudden resignation on Thursday afternoon than a familiar name surfaced as a candidate to succeed her: Boris Johnson, the prime minister she replaced a mere 45 days ago.Mr. Johnson, who is vacationing in the Caribbean, has said nothing publicly about a bid for his old job. But the prospect of Boris redux has riveted Conservative Party lawmakers and cabinet ministers — delighting some, repelling others, and dominating the conversation in a way that Mr. Johnson has for his entire political career.Nor is the idea of his return merely notional: Among those who are keeping tallies of the voting intentions of lawmakers, including some London news organizations, Mr. Johnson is only slightly behind his chief rival, Rishi Sunak. On Friday morning, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is currently the business secretary and served under Mr. Johnson, became the first cabinet minister to endorse his former boss.But the prospect of Mr. Johnson back in 10 Downing Street appalls many Conservatives, who cite the serial scandals that brought him down in July and argue that voters would never forgive the party for rehabilitating him. Embracing such a polarizing figure, they say, would splinter the Tory ranks, perhaps irrevocably.“Only a nation which was gripped by pessimistic despair and no longer believed that there could be a serious response to its unfolding tragedies would want to take refuge in the leadership of a clown,” Rory Stewart, who ran unsuccessfully against Mr. Johnson in 2019, wrote on Friday on Twitter.Rishi Sunak on Friday in London. Mr. Sunak lost to Liz Truss in the contest to replace Boris Johnson, but now he may get another shot at the job.Beresford Hodge/Press Association, via Associated PressAnd yet, as Mr. Johnson’s supporters never tire of pointing out, he delivered a landslide Conservative victory in the general election of 2019. After the calamitous tenure of Ms. Truss, in which she tried to engineer a radical economic agenda with the support of only a third of the Tories in Parliament, some say that mandate gives him — and him alone — the capacity to restore the party’s depleted electoral fortunes.More on the Situation in BritainA Rapid Downfall: Liz Truss is about to become the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. How did she get there?Lifelong Allowance: The departing prime minister is eligible for a taxpayer-funded annual payout for the rest of her life. Some say she shouldn’t be allowed to receive it.Staging a Comeback?: When Boris Johnson left his role as prime minister in September, he hinted he might return. He is now being mentioned as a successor to Ms. Truss.“One person was elected by the British public with a manifesto and a mandate until January ‘25,” Nadine Dorries, a former cabinet minister who is one of Mr. Johnson’s most outspoken backers, wrote on Thursday on Twitter.Under election rules laid out by the party on Thursday, candidates need 100 nominations from lawmakers to appear on the ballot next week. According to the informal tallies, neither Mr. Johnson nor Mr. Sunak is close yet, though in one spreadsheet, which includes unnamed supporters, Mr. Johnson is at 52.Setting a threshold of 100 nominations was intended to winnow the field to a handful of candidates and keep the race brief, thus avoiding the drawn-out, divisive campaign that was won by Ms. Truss. Given that there are only 357 Conservative lawmakers, there can be, at most, three names.There is a lively debate in political circles about whether Mr. Johnson can clear that hurdle, but with several more lawmakers coming out in his favor on Friday, it no longer seems implausible. Asked who was likely to be the next prime minister, a member of the government texted in reply, “Boris?”Andrew Gimson, who wrote a biography of Mr. Johnson, said, “I think he’s got a very good chance of coming back. He’s got real momentum.” For a demoralized party trailing in the polls, Mr. Gimson said, “It would be a much better story if Boris came back. There would be a sense of incredulity — the sheer spectacle of it.”If Mr. Johnson were to emerge from the ballot as one of two surviving candidates, the odds of his winning could rise considerably. The choice would then go to the party’s 160,000 or so members, among whom Mr. Johnson remains enduringly popular. Mr. Sunak, whose resignation as chancellor of the Exchequer in July helped set in motion Mr. Johnson’s downfall, is viewed with suspicion by many party members, even if he has solid support among the lawmakers.Parliament in London. Mr. Johnson is under investigation by a parliamentary committee over whether he misled the House of Commons about parties held in Downing Street that broke pandemic rules.Mary Turner for The New York TimesThat is why some political analysts expect the party’s elders to lean on the candidate with fewer votes to withdraw before that stage.There are other significant hurdles to Mr. Johnson’s return: He is under investigation by a parliamentary committee over whether he misled the House of Commons about parties held in Downing Street that broke pandemic rules. It could recommend Mr. Johnson’s expulsion or suspension from Parliament.For all of his charisma, it is also not clear that Mr. Johnson retains the same power to turn out voters that he did three years ago. The scandals that brought him down eroded his popularity with many Britons, and it was under his watch that the polls began to tilt heavily toward the opposition Labour Party.Finally, there is the question of whether Mr. Johnson is actually ready to return. In his farewell speech to Parliament, he signed off with, “Hasta la vista, baby,” Arnold Schwarzenegger’s famous line from the movie “Terminator 2.” He later compared himself to Cincinnatus, a fifth-century Roman politician who saved the state from an invasion, retired to his farm, then subsequently returned to Rome as leader.Still, as a highly visible former prime minister, Mr. Johnson is in line to take in millions of dollars on the after-dinner speaking circuit. He is expected to write another newspaper column, a gig that could bring him several hundred thousand pounds a year.Mr. Johnson could also receive a lucrative advance for his memoirs, though that is complicated by the fact that he already owes the Hachette Book Group a biography of Shakespeare. Publishing executives said that if he sold the memoir to Hachette, it could allow him to set aside the Shakespeare book.With two young children with his wife, Carrie, and several other children by his former wife, Marina, people who know Mr. Johnson say he is keen to make big money — something he cannot do as a serving prime minister, even if the job comes with housing and a comfortable salary of £164,080, or about $182,400. More

En la víspera de una segunda vuelta de elecciones primarias en junio, un candidato republicano a secretario de Estado de Carolina del Sur envió un mensaje a sus partidarios.“Para todos los del equipo que van a monitorear las urnas mañana, buena caza”, escribió Keith Blandford, un candidato que en Telegram, la aplicación de redes sociales, promovió la falacia de que se le robó la victoria a Donald Trump en las elecciones de 2020. “Ya saben lo que tienen que buscar. Ahora que el enemigo está a la defensiva, refuercen el ataque”.Al día siguiente, activistas se dispersaron por las casillas electorales en Charleston, Carolina del Sur, y exigieron inspeccionar el equipo de votación y tomar fotografías y video. Cuando los trabajadores electorales rechazaron sus peticiones, algunos regresaron con agentes de policía para denunciar sellos rotos o extraviados en las máquinas de votación, según correos electrónicos que fueron enviados por funcionarios locales a la comisión electoral estatal. No había ningún sello roto ni extraviado.Luego de que Blandford perdió, los activistas publicaron en línea una lista de más de 60 “anomalías” que observaron, suficientes para haber cambiado el resultado de la contienda, afirmaban. Se refirieron al operativo como un “programa piloto”.El episodio es uno de muchos que tienen a los funcionarios electorales en alerta ahora que inician las votaciones para las elecciones de mitad de mandato, la prueba más importante que ha enfrentado el sistema electoral estadounidense desde que las mentiras de Trump sobre los resultados de 2020 instigaron un ataque contra el proceso democrático.En los dos años transcurridos desde entonces, grupos de activistas de derecha se han aliado para difundir afirmaciones falsas sobre fraude electoral generalizado y mala praxis. Ahora, esos activistas se están inmiscuyendo en el conteo de votos, en un esfuerzo amplio y agresivo para monitorear la votación en busca de evidencia que confirme sus teorías. Muchos activistas han sido movilizados por las mismas personas que trataron de revocar la derrota de Trump en 2020.Sus tácticas en las elecciones primarias han hecho que los funcionarios se preparen para una nueva gama de disputas, como observadores y trabajadores electorales alborotadores, estrategias judiciales agresivas, impugnación de votantes y papeletas y patrullajes parapoliciales en busca de fraude.Muchos activistas electorales han sido movilizados por las mismas personas que intentaron revertir la derrota de Donald Trump en 2020.Tamir Kalifa para The New York TimesFuncionarios electorales, tanto republicanos como demócratas, concuerdan en que es poco probable que estas iniciativas generen un desorden generalizado. Afirman que están preparados para contar con precisión las decenas de millones de votos que esperan recibir en las próximas semanas. Pero situaciones como la de Carolina del Sur conllevan consecuencias, pues engendran desinformación y propagan dudas acerca de los resultados, sobre todo en las contiendas cerradas.“De cierto modo, es la manifestación de una profecía autorrealizada”, dijo Tammy Patrick, quien trabaja con funcionarios electorales como asesora principal en el Fondo para la Democracia. Los activistas que están preparados para detectar la falta de ética profesional son más propensos a exagerar los pequeños errores y causar disturbios “que no harán más que apuntalar sus denuncias”, explicó.Entrevistas con funcionarios electorales y activistas, análisis de documentos públicos y correos electrónicos de planificación obtenidos por The New York Times muestran que la amplia red de organizadores incluye a funcionarios del Partido Republicano, grupos conservadores populares y los elementos más conspirativos del movimiento de negación electoral.Al parecer, los grupos recurren a las tácticas que se utilizaron hace dos años: recopilar testimonios de funcionarios de casilla aliados del Partido Republicano, los empleados temporales que supervisan los centros de votación y observadores electorales, los voluntarios que monitorean las operaciones, con el fin de respaldar impugnaciones y rebatir resultados.“Ahora estamos 100 veces más preparados”, dijo en una entrevista Stephen K. Bannon, exasesor de Trump que participó en los intentos de anular la elección de 2020. Bannon es presentador de un pódcast que se ha convertido en una cámara de compensación para los activistas electorales de la derecha. “Vamos a adjudicar la victoria en cada batalla. Esa es la diferencia”.En julio, Bannon fue declarado culpable por desacato al Congreso por no cooperar con el comité de la Cámara de Representantes, responsable de investigar el ataque del 6 de enero de 2021. El lunes, los fiscales recomendaron una sentencia de seis meses en prisión, mientras que Bannon sostuvo que no debía pasar tiempo en la cárcel.Desde hace tiempo, tanto demócratas como republicanos han reclutado a observadores y trabajadores electorales para supervisar las votaciones y anticiparse a disputas. Pero este año, los funcionarios están contemplando la posibilidad de que esos esfuerzos puedan quedar en manos de activistas que difunden teorías fantásticas o desacreditadas.Los funcionarios vieron pruebas de estos nuevos operativos en las elecciones primarias. En Míchigan, un trabajador de casilla fue acusado de manipular una computadora de votación. En Texas, unos activistas siguieron a funcionarios electorales hasta sus oficinas y trataron de entrar en áreas restringidas. En Alabama, activistas intentaron insertar papeletas falsas en una máquina durante una prueba pública.En Kansas, los activistas financiaron un recuento de una medida electoral sobre el derecho al aborto que requería que el condado de Johnson contara a mano un cuarto de millón de votos, a pesar de que la medida fracasó por 18 puntos porcentuales. Fred Sherman, el jefe electoral del condado, dijo que algunos trabajadores involucrados parecían negar las elecciones. Dijo que tuvo que llamar a la policía para sacar a uno que violó la seguridad. El recuento transcurrió sin problemas, agregó, pero fue “aterrador”.Empleados que la semana pasada clasificaban las boletas enviadas por correo que fueron hechas recientemente.Rebecca Noble para The New York Times“Debemos tener en cuenta que es posible que existan personas que no tengan las mejores intenciones desde el punto de vista de la integridad electoral”, dijo Sherman.Los funcionarios electorales se han preparado durante meses para estos retos. Algunos han participado en ejercicios organizados por el FBI sobre cómo lidiar con amenazas, incluso agresiones físicas contra trabajadores electorales. Han ofrecido a su personal capacitación para la “reducción de hostilidades”. Algunos han cambiado sus oficinas, pues han añadido cercas y otras barreras.“Cuando la gente ve que todos trabajamos duro y con ética hacia la misma meta, ¿quién querría alterar eso?”, preguntó Stephen Richer, registrador del condado de Maricopa en Arizona.Los activistas afirman que están tratando de garantizar que todas las reglas sean acatadas y que solo los votantes que cumplen los requisitos tengan acceso al sufragio.“Tenemos a personas capacitadas que conocen la ley, por lo que pueden observar, documentar y reportar cuando las cosas no se realizan conforme dicta la ley”, dijo hace poco en el pódcast de Bannon Cleta Mitchell, organizadora de uno de los grupos nacionales que capacitan activistas y abogada que ayudó a Trump en sus impugnaciones vanas de 2020. Mitchell comentó que su red había capacitado a más de 20.000 personas para formar lo que ella describió como una “agencia de detectives ciudadanos”.Mitchell no respondió a las solicitudes para que ofreciera comentarios.En muchos lugares, los partidos políticos influyen de manera directa en el reclutamiento de trabajadores y observadores electorales. El Comité Nacional Republicano declaró que había desplegado a más de 56.000 trabajadores y vigilantes en las elecciones primarias y especiales este año y esperaba aumentar ese número en las elecciones generales. En varios estados bisagra, el comité también contrató lo que llamó funcionarios de “integridad electoral”.El Comité Nacional Demócrata considera sus esfuerzos como una “protección a los votantes” y ha contratado a 25 directores y 129 miembros de personal en todo el país. El comité no reveló la cifra total de trabajadores ni observadores electorales que reclutó.El pódcast de Stephen Bannon se ha convertido en un centro de intercambio de información sobre el activismo electoral.Kenny Holston para The New York TimesLos observadores veían cómo los votantes sufragaban en Rancho High School el día de las elecciones en Las Vegas en 2020.Bridget Bennett para The New York TimesTanto demócratas como republicanos han lanzado un bombardeo anticipado de litigios electorales: 96 demandas, según Democracy Docket, un grupo jurídico electoral de izquierda. El recuento está distribuido con bastante equilibrio entre ambos bandos.Es una situación que recuerda a lo que sucedió en 2020 porque muchas de las disputas se enfocan en la votación en ausencia: más de la mitad de las demandas interpuestas por grupos de afiliación republicana están relacionadas con las normas de voto por correspondencia, por ejemplo, cómo enmendar errores en una papeleta, según Democracy Docket.Algunos defensores del derecho al voto y grupos demócratas afirman que están alertas ante otra similitud con 2020, cuando Trump y sus aliados impidieron que se certificaran los resultados.“Existe la preocupación subyacente de que, en algunos de estos lugares donde los políticos certifican la elección, quizá no la certifiquen y se desate una crisis”, dijo Jonathan Greenbaum, abogado jefe de Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, un grupo jurídico apartidista por los derechos civiles.Algunas de las personas involucradas en las disputas de 2020 ahora son organizadores líderes.Patrick Byrne, exdirector ejecutivo de Overstock.com y activista que impulsa teorías de conspiración electoral, está reclutando personas a través de su grupo, Proyecto América. Michael Flynn, el primer asesor de seguridad nacional de Trump, es cofundador y asesora a esa organización. (Ambos hombres asistieron a una reunión de diciembre de 2020 en la Casa Blanca donde Flynn instó a Trump a apoderarse de las máquinas de votación).En Míchigan, un funcionario estatal del partido se identifica en los documentos como el director estatal de la estrategia de Proyecto América, llamada Operación Eagles Wings. Ese funcionario también se coordina con la Red de Integridad Electoral de Mitchell, que organiza llamadas estratégicas y capacitación, según los correos electrónicos obtenidos por el Times.En su pódcast War Room, Bannon le dice a su audiencia que los demócratas solo ganarán las elecciones si las roban. Él y sus aliados pueden impedir esto al “tomar el control del aparato electoral”, comentó en su programa este mes.Boletas por correspondencia recién impresas en PhoenixRebecca Noble para The New York TimesUn observador electoral voluntario en Wilkes-Barre, Pensilvania, en 2020Robert Nickelsberg para The New York TimesBannon ha estado dirigiendo a sus seguidores a sitios web que motivan una especie de vigilancia clandestina de las elecciones. The Gateway Pundit, un sitio web de derecha, insta a los activistas para que exijan que a los observadores se les permita supervisar mientras las papeletas se suben a los camiones en las oficinas postales e insistir en acercarse más al conteo de papeletas de lo permitido por las normas.Bannon también ha incitado a su audiencia a abordar a los partidos locales, que en algunos estados están a cargo de seleccionar a los trabajadores de casilla.En el condado de El Paso, Colorado, la directora local del Partido Republicano, que coincide con figuras influyentes del movimiento de negación electoral, le pidió al secretario del condado que depusiera a varios trabajadores electorales que habían servido desde hace años a quienes describió en un correo electrónico como “desleales” al partido. El secretario, Chuck Broerman, dijo que cumplió la petición muy a su pesar, ya que estaba obligado por la ley.Un partidario de Trump sostiene un cartel que pide elecciones justas afuera del Capitolio del estado de Arizona en Phoenix en 2020.Adriana Zehbrauskas para The New York Times“Los individuos que están desplazando han sido republicanos trabajadores y dedicados desde hace mucho”, dijo Broerman, quien también fue presidente del partido en el condado.En Carolina del Norte, un grupo de derecha dedicado a la “integridad electoral” dijo que capacitó a 1000 observadores electorales en el estado, con la ayuda de la red de Mitchell. Algunos fueron objeto de decenas de quejas durante las primarias.En el condado de Pasquotank, uno estaba “intimidando a los trabajadores electorales porque salió varias veces del recinto para ‘reportarse con su cuartel general’”, según las denuncias obtenidas por el Times.Para abordar las quejas, el estado redactó una propuesta de cambios que habrían facilitado la destitución de un observador electoral por mala conducta. La comisión de reglas controlada por los republicanos las rechazó después de un torrente de correos electrónicos y testimonios públicos de activistas locales.Mitchell fue una de las personas que intervino. Los cambios estaban tratando de frenar “el interés entusiasta” que los ciudadanos tenían en el proceso electoral, dijo.Alexandra Berzon es una reportera de investigación ganadora del Premio Pulitzer para la sección de Política, que se enfoca en los sistemas electorales y la votación. Antes fue reportera de investigación en The Wall Street Journal y cubrió la industria de las apuestas y la seguridad en el lugar de trabajo. @alexandraberzonNick Corasaniti cubre la política nacional. Fue uno de los principales reporteros que cubrieron la campaña presidencial de Donald Trump en 2016 y ha estado escribiendo sobre las campañas presidenciales, del Congreso, de gobernadores y alcaldías para el Times desde 2011. @NYTnickc • Facebook More

ZANESVILLE, Ohio — Tim Ryan is a “crazy, lying fraud.” That’s how J.D. Vance, the best-selling memoirist turned Republican Senate candidate from Ohio, opened his remarks at his September rally alongside Donald Trump in the middle of the congressional district Mr. Ryan has represented for two decades.Mr. Ryan seems like an unlikely object of such caustic rhetoric. A 49-year-old former college-football quarterback, he is the paragon of affability, a genial Everyman whose introductory campaign video is so innocuous that it might easily be mistaken for an insurance commercial. His great passion, outside of politics, is yoga and mindfulness practice.“We have to love each other, we have to care about each other, we have to see the best in each other, we have to forgive each other,” he declared when he won the Democratic Senate primary in May.He isn’t just preaching kindness and forgiveness. For years, he has warned his fellow Democrats that their embrace of free trade and globalization would cost them districts like the one he represents in the Mahoning River Valley — and lobbied them to prioritize domestic manufacturing, which, he argued, could repair some of the damage.His efforts went nowhere. Mr. Ryan failed in his bid to replace Nancy Pelosi as House minority leader in 2016. His presidential run in 2020 ended with barely a trace. And his opponent, Mr. Vance, was expected to coast to victory this year in a state that Mr. Trump carried twice by eight points.But things haven’t gone as predicted. Mr. Ryan is running close enough in the polls that a political action committee aligned with Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, has had to commit $28 million to keep the seat (now held by Rob Portman, who is retiring), and Mr. Vance has had to ratchet up his rhetorical attacks against this “weak, fake congressman.”After years of being overlooked, Tim Ryan is pointing his party toward a path to recovery in the Midwest. On the campaign trail, he has embraced a unifying tone that stands out from the crassness and divisiveness that Mr. Trump and his imitators have wrought. A significant number of what he calls the “exhausted majority” of voters have responded gratefully.And his core message — a demand for more aggressive government intervention to arrest regional decline — is not only resonating with voters but, crucially, breaking through with the Democratic leaders who presided over that decline for years. The Democrats have passed a burst of legislation that will pave the way for two new Intel chip plants in the Columbus exurbs, spur investment in new electric vehicle ventures in Mr. Ryan’s district, and benefit solar-panel factories around Toledo, giving him, at long last, concrete examples to cite of his party rebuilding the manufacturing base in which the region took such pride.In short, the party is doing much more of what Mr. Ryan has long said would save its political fortunes in the Midwest. The problem for him — and also for them — is that it may have come too late.Mr. Ryan is a genial Everyman who says, “We have to see the best in each other, we have to forgive each other.”Gaelen Morse for The New York TimesTim Ryan was not always so alone in Congress. Manufacturing regions of the Northeast and Midwest used to produce many other Democrats like him, often with white-ethnic Catholic, working-class backgrounds and strong ties to organized labor. (Mr. Ryan’s family is Irish and Italian, and both his grandfather and great-grandfather worked in the steel mills.) One particularly notorious example of the type was James Traficant, who represented the Mahoning Valley in highly eccentric fashion and served seven years in prison after a 2002 conviction on charges that included soliciting bribes and racketeering. That left his young former staff member — Tim Ryan — to win the seat at age 29.A few stalwarts remain: Marcy Kaptur, whose mother was a union organizer at a sparkplug plant, will likely hold her Toledo-area House seat after her MAGA opponent lied about his military record. And Sherrod Brown, whose upbringing in hard-hit Mansfield and generally disheveled affect has lent authenticity to his own progressive populism (never mind the fact that he’s a doctor’s son and has a Yale degree), has survived two Senate re-elections thanks to his personal appeal and weak opponents.But nearly all the rest have vanished. Many of them fell victim to the Democratic wipeout in 2010. Others succumbed to the extreme Republican gerrymandering that followed. But central to their disappearance was the economic decline of the communities they represented, which was on a scale that remains hard for many in more prosperous pockets of the country to grasp.In the first decade of this century, after Bill Clinton signed NAFTA in 1993 and ushered China into the World Trade Organization in 2000, so many manufacturing businesses closed in Ohio — about 3,500, nearly a fifth of the total — that its industrial electricity consumption fell by more than a quarter. Mr. Ryan’s district was among the most ravaged. By 2010, the population of Youngstown had fallen 60 percent from its 1930 peak and it ranked among the poorest cities in the country.For the Democrats representing these devastated areas, the fallout was enormous. “We were always supposed to be the party of working people, and so those rank-and-file union members kept getting crushed, and jobs kept leaving, and their unions and the Democrats weren’t able to do anything for them,” said Mr. Ryan, when I met with him in August, after an event he held at a substance abuse treatment program in Zanesville. Democratic candidates were also putting their attention elsewhere, on social issues, and voters noticed.Mr. Ryan is determined not to make the same mistake. “You want culture wars?” he asks in one TV ad, while throwing darts in a bar. “I’m not your guy. You want a fighter for Ohio? I’m all in.”In the 2000s, as Mr. Ryan saw his band of like-minded Democrats dwindle, he started looking for answers, and he found some of them at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a small advocacy group founded in 2007 to promote American manufacturing and agriculture.The group’s theory is fairly straightforward: The “free trade” that has been so ruinous to manufacturing regions like the Mahoning Valley has been anything but free, given all the various forms of support that other nations provide their own industries. The group has been lobbying members of both parties to consider explicit support for U.S. producers, whether in the form of tariffs or subsidies, even if it means brushing up against World Trade Organization rules.For years, the Coalition for a Prosperous America and its allies in Congress ran up against free-trade orthodoxy. But growing alarm over climate change, the breakdown of global supply chains during the pandemic and Russia’s war against Ukraine have brought a stunning turnaround. The Inflation Reduction Act includes many of the kinds of policies that Mr. Ryan and C.P.A. have championed, including refundable tax credits for solar-panel production, a 15 percent alternative minimum tax for corporations, and requirements that electric vehicles have North American-made parts to qualify for consumer tax credits. This month, the Biden administration announced major new tech-export controls aimed at China, with the U.S. trade representative, Katherine Tai, declaring that free trade “cannot come at the cost of further weakening our supply chains.”It’s a vindication for Mr. Ryan and his former House allies, such as Tom Perriello, who represented south-central Virginia between 2009 and 2011.Megan Jelinger for The New York Times“The elite echo chamber assumed away all the human costs” of globalization, said Mr. Perriello, instead of realizing industries needed to be helped to save middle-class jobs.Still, the shift has come only after tremendous economic losses for places like the Mahoning Valley and political losses for the Democrats. In the 2020 presidential election, Democrats lost white voters without college degrees by 26 percentage points nationwide, and their margins among working-class Black and Hispanic voters shrank, too. They lost Mahoning County, once a Democratic stronghold, for the first time since 1972.“For the most part, people lost jobs here and Washington wasn’t doing anything for them,” said David Betras, the former chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party. “And then Trump came along and he said, ‘Hey, they screwed you.’ People thought, ‘At least he sees me. He’s giving me water.’” It might be contaminated water, as Mr. Betras noted, “but at least it’s water.”Mr. Ryan’s attempt to point his party in a different direction in the Midwest is still running up against resistance, even as he has drawn close to Mr. Vance in the polls. The first ad released by Mr. Ryan’s campaign, in April, is Exhibit A.Wearing an untucked shirt, he delivers a barrage against the threat presented by China: “It is us versus China and instead of taking them on, Washington’s wasting our time on stupid fights … China is out-manufacturing us left and right … America can never be dependent on Communist China … It is time for us to fight back … We need to build things in Ohio by Ohio workers.”By the standards of the Ohio Senate race of 2022, it was pretty mild stuff. At an April rally with Mr. Trump, after completing his extreme pivot from Trump critic to acolyte, Mr. Vance lashed out at “corrupt scumbags who take their marching orders from the Communist Chinese.” But the Ryan ad nonetheless got opprobrium from Asian Americans, who said it risked fueling anti-Asian sentiment.Irene Lin, a Democratic strategist based in Ohio, found that remarkable. “It’s so weird that he runs an ad attacking China, and people say, ‘You sound like Trump.’ Tim’s been attacking China for decades! Trump co-opted it from us and we need to take it back, because Trump is a complete fraud on this.”Still, the episode underscored Mr. Ryan’s conundrum: how to match Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance when it comes to the decline of Ohio manufacturing without offending allies within the liberal Democratic coalition.When I asked Mr. Ryan in Zanesville how he would distinguish his own views from those of Mr. Vance, he insisted it would not be difficult. For one thing, he noted, Mr. Vance has attacked a core element of the industrial policy that Mr. Ryan sees as key to reviving Ohio: electric vehicle subsidies. At the Mahoning rallies, Mr. Vance denounced them as giveaways for the elites, which, as Mr. Ryan sees it, overlooks the hundreds of workers who now have jobs at the old Lordstown General Motors plant in the Mahoning Valley, building electric cars, trucks and tractors as part of a new venture led by the Taiwanese company Foxconn, and at a large battery plant across the street.“He’s worried about losing the internal-combustion auto jobs — dude, where’ve you been?” Mr. Ryan asked. “Those jobs are going. That factory was empty.”Mr. Ryan, left, at a debate with his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance. Mr. Ryan says his focus on economic issues will resonate with the “exhausted majority” of voters.Gaelen Morse for The New York TimesLess than two months after Mr. Ryan’s anti-culture war ad, the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs ruling on abortion, bolstering Democrats’ prospects with moderate voters of the sort who help decide elections in places like suburban Columbus — and making it harder for Mr. Ryan to avoid hot-button social issues. He calls the ruling “the largest governmental overreach into personal lives in my lifetime,” but his continued focus on economic issues shows that he believes that’s not enough to win an election. Recent polls suggest he may be right.Mr. Ryan was in the Columbus suburbs on the evening after we spoke in Zanesville, but he was there to discuss the China ad, not abortion. At an event hosted by local Asian American associations, a few women told Mr. Ryan how hurtful they had found the ad. He answered in a conciliatory tone, but did not apologize.The ad, he said, was directed at the Chinese government, not Asian or Asian American people, and the things in it needed saying. “I got nothing but love in my heart. I have no hate in my heart,” he said, but the United States needed to rise to meet China’s aggressive trade policies. In Youngstown, Chinese “steel would land on our shore so subsidized, that it was the same price as the raw material cost for an American company before they even turn the lights on. That is what they have been doing.”“That is not in your ad,” said one of the women. “You need to put those things in your ad.”“I just want to make a point,” Mr. Ryan said. “One is, I love you. Two is, I will always defend you and never let anyone try to hurt you, never. Not on my watch. But we have got to absolutely and decisively defeat China economically. And if we don’t do that, you’re going to have these countries dictating the rules of the road for the entire world and continuing to try to displace and weaken the United States.”Watching Mr. Ryan, I was struck by what a delicate balancing act he was trying to pull off. He was, on the one hand, the last of a breed, a son of steel country with two public college degrees (Bowling Green State University and the University of New Hampshire) in a party increasingly dominated by professionals with elite degrees.But he was trying to adapt to today’s liberal coalition, too, with his soft-edged rhetoric and, yes, the mindfulness stuff, which Mr. Vance has lampooned. (“You know Tim Ryan has not one but two books on yoga and meditation?” he said at the September rally with Mr. Trump.)There were other models on the ballot this fall for how Democrats might seek to win in the Midwest: Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan running for re-election on abortion rights, John Fetterman running for Senate in Pennsylvania on his unique brand of postindustrial authenticity, Mandela Barnes running for Senate in Wisconsin as an avatar of youthful diversity.But Mr. Ryan’s bid may have the most riding on it, because it is based on substantive disagreements within the party about how to rebuild the middle class and the middle of the country. For years, too many leading Democrats stood by as the wrenching transformation of the economy devastated communities, while accruing benefits to a small set of highly prosperous cities, mostly on the coasts, that became the party’s gravitational center. It was so easy to disregard far-off desolation — or to take only passing note of it, counting the dollar stores as one happened to traverse areas of decline — until Mr. Trump’s victory brought it to the fore.With its belated embrace of the industrial policy advocated by Mr. Ryan, the Democratic Party seems finally to be reckoning with this failure. It means grappling with regional decline, because not everyone can relocate to prosperous hubs, and even if they did, it wouldn’t necessarily help the Democrats in a political system that favors the geographic dispersal of party voters.It means recognizing the emotional power of made-in-America patriotism, which can serve to neuter the uglier aspects of the opposition’s anti-immigrant appeals. And it means transcending the culture-war incitements offered up by the likes of Mr. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.The approach may well fall short this time in Ohio, because Mr. Ryan’s party has let so much terrain slip out of its hands. But even so, it showed what might have been, all along, and might yet be again, if a region can begin to recover, and the resentment can begin to recede.Alec MacGillis (@AlecMacGillis) is a reporter for ProPublica, an editor at large for The Baltimore Banner, and the author, most recently, of “Fulfillment: America in the Shadow of Amazon.”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

A lot of you had ideas on how we might do a little better in reaching people for our surveys.Ryan CarlWe’re already in the field with our penultimate wave of New York Times/Siena polls — this time focused on four or five key House races — so let’s go to the mail and answer readers’ questions about our surveys.This week, our inbox was full of replies to our recent note on the grim reality of telephone polling: Less than 1 percent of dials yield a response. A lot of you had ideas on how we might do a little better.Maybe the most frequent suggestion was some version of this:I think some of us who no longer answer calls from unknown phone numbers might answer if the call identified itself as from a polling firm. — Deb MMy mom also suggested this last weekend. It would certainly make the poll cheaper. But as I told her, I think this might be a mistake. We want a representative sample. I don’t think the way we want to increase our response rates is by further attracting the kinds of politically engaged folks who would be excited to take a political poll. We already have many highly engaged voters as is.Another question came from someone who is no stranger to survey research:Why doesn’t The Times move to an online probability sample? — Cliff Zukin, a former president of the American Association for Public Opinion ResearchBefore I answer, I just want to flag a key word in this question: probability. A “probability sample” is one in which every person has a known probability of being selected for the survey. To take an example: If we randomly dial telephone numbers, everyone with a telephone number (basically everyone) has a chance of participating; thus, it’s a probability sample.Many online polls, however, are not probability samples — think Morning Consult or YouGov. These polls survey only people who previously signed up to participate in an online panel. It is very challenging to craft a representative survey with the idiosyncratic folks who decide to join an online panel after clicking on a random banner ad.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.An online probability sample, on the other hand, would have the rigor of a telephone poll. The most common way to pull it off is to mail people an invitation to participate in a poll online. In many cases, the respondents are recruited to join a longer-term panel, where the pollster can contact them over and over. A lot of firms now use these kinds of online probability samples: Pew Research, Associated Press/NORC, Ipsos/KnowledgePanel and now CNN with SSRS, to name just a few.If we stipulate for a moment that this would be cheaper — and it may not be, by the way — there’s an argument this could work for The Times in certain cases. But there’s one big limitation for us: It’s hard to conduct an online probability sample by state or district, and most of our polls are state or district polls.We couldn’t build a large enough panel in all the states (let alone districts) where we might want to conduct a survey. Without a panel that we can recontact on-demand, we’re stuck with a one-off mail-to-web poll in which we mail people letters inviting them to participate in an online poll. It can take a long time.The last CNN/SSRS mail-to-web poll, for instance, was fielded over the course of 32 days — from Sept. 3 to Oct. 5 — and released on Oct. 13. They probably wrapped up the questionnaire well before Sept. 3, given the need to print and mail questionnaires. I’m glad CNN is trying this, but personally the result felt stale to me.That said, I do think there’s room for something like this to be part of our portfolio. It might be useful far from an election. Or if the data is of especially high quality, perhaps it can be used to calibrate cheaper surveys.To that point, here’s an idea: cold, hard cash:By your own account you have to pay a substantial amount of money for one completed phone interview. Two hours of salary and miscellaneous expenses. Why not pay the interviewee for his or her time and trouble? For $20 or so, a reasonable number of people would talk to you. — Tom HillThat’s a good thought. In fact, it’s such a good thought that we’re trying this in a large mail-based study of a key battleground state, right now! More on this in a few weeks. More