Elections

Brazilians voting for president on Sunday will choose between two political titans in a contest seen as a major test for one of the world’s largest democracies.RIO DE JANEIRO — For the past decade, Brazil has lurched from one crisis to the next: environmental destruction, an economic recession, one president impeached, two presidents imprisoned and a pandemic that killed more people than anywhere else outside the United States.On Sunday, Brazilians will cast their ballots for their next president, hoping to push Latin America’s largest country toward a more stable and brighter future — by deciding between two men who are deeply tied to its tumultuous past.The election is widely regarded as the nation’s most important vote in decades, historians in Brazil say, in part because the health of one of the world’s biggest democracies may be at stake.The incumbent, President Jair Bolsonaro, is a far-right populist whose first term has stood out for its turmoil and his constant attacks on the electoral system. He has drawn outrage at home and concern abroad for policies that accelerated deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, for his embrace of unproven drugs over Covid-19 vaccines and for his harsh attacks on political rivals, judges, journalists and health professionals.The challenger, former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, is a left-wing firebrand who oversaw Brazil’s boom during the first decade of this century, but then went to prison on corruption charges. Those charges were later thrown out, and now, after leading in polls for months, the man simply known as “Lula” is poised to complete a stunning political resurrection.They are perhaps the two best-known, and most polarizing, figures in this nation of 217 million people, and for more than a year, they have been pitching voters on starkly different visions for the country, whose economy has been battered by the pandemic and global inflation.Mr. Bolsonaro, 67, wants to sell Brazil’s state-owned oil company, open the Amazon to more mining, loosen regulations on guns and usher in more conservative values. Mr. da Silva, 76, promises to raise taxes on the rich to expand services for the poor, including widening the social safety net, increasing the minimum wage, and feeding and housing more people.Supporters of Mr. Bolsonaro in Rio de Janiero. Mr. Bolsonaro has implied that the only way he believes he would lose the election is if it were stolen from him.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesMr. Bolsonaro’s campaign slogan is “God, family, homeland and liberty,” while Mr. da Silva has built his pitch around a pledge to ensure that all Brazilians can enjoy three meals a day, including, occasionally, a top cut of meat and a cold beer at a family barbecue.Yet, instead of their plans for the future, much of the race has revolved around each candidate’s past. Brazilians have lined up on either side based in large part on their opposition to one of the candidates, instead of their support for them.“The major word in this campaign is rejection,” said Thiago de Aragão, strategy director at Arko Advice, one of Brazil’s largest political consultancies. “This election is a demonstration of how voters in a polarized country unify themselves around what they hate instead of what they love.”The focus on Sunday — when a total of 11 presidential candidates will be on the ballot — will not just be on the vote tallies, but also on what will happen after the results are announced.Mr. Bolsonaro has been casting doubt on the security of Brazil’s electronic voting system for months, claiming without evidence that it is vulnerable to fraud and that Mr. da Silva’s supporters are planning to rig the vote. Mr. Bolsonaro has, in effect, said that the only way he would lose is if the election were stolen from him.Electoral Court inspectors packing up voting machines after testing them in São Paulo. In recent weeks, the military and election officials agreed to a change in how they test the machines, which Mr. Bolsonaro has claimed are unreliable.Victor Moriyama for The New York Times“We have three alternatives for me: Prison, death or victory,” he told supporters at enormous rallies last year. “Tell the bastards I’ll never be arrested.”Earlier this year, the military began challenging the election system alongside Mr. Bolsonaro, raising concerns that the armed forces could back the president if he refuses to concede.But in recent weeks, the military and election officials agreed on a change to tests of the voting machines, and military leaders say they are now satisfied with the system’s security. The military would not support any efforts by Mr. Bolsonaro to challenge the results, according to two senior military officials who spoke anonymously because of rules against military officials discussing politics. Some senior generals have also recently tried to persuade Mr. Bolsonaro to concede if he loses, according to one of the officials.Mr. Bolsonaro, however, still does not seem satisfied. On Wednesday, his political party released a two-page document claiming, without evidence, that some government employees and contractors had the “absolute power to manipulate election results without leaving a trace.” Election officials fired back that the claims “are false and dishonest” and “a clear attempt to hinder and disrupt” the election.Mr. Bolsonaro wants to open the Amazon to more mining and says he wants to usher in more conservative values.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesOn Thursday, at the final debate before Sunday’s vote, Mr. Bolsonaro was asked directly by another candidate if he would accept the election results. He did not answer. Instead, he insulted the candidate, saying she was only challenging him because he fired her friends from government jobs. (She then asked if he was vaccinated for Covid-19 — his government deemed his vaccine status to be classified — and he responded similarly.)Mr. da Silva has held a commanding lead in the polls since last year. If no candidate exceeds 50 percent of the vote on Sunday, the top two finishers will compete in a runoff on Oct. 30. It had appeared that Mr. Bolsonaro and Mr. da Silva would end up in another showdown then, but a recent surge in Mr. da Silva’s poll numbers suggests that he could win outright on Sunday.A victory for Mr. da Silva would continue a leftward shift in Latin America, with six of the region’s seven largest nations electing leftist leaders since 2018. It also would be a major blow to the global movement of right-wing populism that has spread in the last decade. Former President Donald J. Trump is a key ally of Mr. Bolsonaro and has endorsed the Brazilian president.A campaign rally for Mr. da Silva in Rio de Janiero. If he does not win next week’s election outright, there will be a runoff on Oct. 30.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesPolls suggest that if Mr. da Silva wins the presidency in Sunday’s first round it would only be by a slim margin, creating an opening for Mr. Bolsonaro and his supporters to argue that voter fraud accounted for the results.Political leaders and analysts believe that Brazil’s democratic institutions are prepared to withstand any effort by Mr. Bolsonaro to dispute the election’s results, but the nation is bracing for violence. Seventy-five percent of Mr. Bolsonaro’s supporters told Brazil’s most prominent pollster in July that they had “little” or no support for the voting systems.“The only thing that can take victory from Bolsonaro is fraud,” said Luiz Sartorelli, 54, a software salesman in São Paulo. He listed several conspiracy theories about past fraud as proof. “If you want peace, sometimes you need to prepare for war.”The election could also have major global environmental consequences. Sixty percent of the Amazon lies within Brazil, and the health of the rainforest is critical to stemming global warming and preserving biodiversity.Mr. Bolsonaro has drawn outrage at home and concern abroad for policies that accelerated deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesMr. Bolsonaro has loosened regulations on logging and mining in the Amazon, and slashed federal funds and staffing for the agencies that enforce laws intended to protect Indigenous populations and the environment.In his campaign, he has promised to strictly enforce environmental regulations. At the same time, he has cast doubt on statistics that show soaring deforestation and has said that Brazil must be able to take advantage of its natural resources.Mr. da Silva has pledged to end all illegal mining and deforestation in the Amazon, and said that he would encourage farmers and ranchers to use unoccupied land that has already been deforested.With a steady lead in the polls, Mr. da Silva has run an exceedingly risk-averse campaign. He has declined many interview requests and, last week, he skipped a debate.Mr. da Silva has promised to raise taxes on the rich to expand services for the poor.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesBut he did show up at Thursday’s debate, where Mr. Bolsonaro immediately started swinging. He called Mr. da Silva a “liar, ex-convict and traitor.” He claimed the left wanted to sexualize children and legalize drugs. And he tried to connect Mr. da Silva to a 20-year-old unsolved murder. “The future of the nation is at stake,” he told voters.Mr. da Silva said the president was lying. “You have a 10-year-old daughter watching this,” he said. “Be responsible.”André Spigariol and Flávia Milhorance contributed reporting. More

Tudor Dixon, the party’s nominee for governor, has ground to make up in her race against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. She is hoping the former president can rally their party’s base.CLARKSTON, Mich. — As she runs to lead a narrowly divided swing state, Tudor Dixon is pursuing a hazardous strategy in the Michigan governor’s race: embracing Donald J. Trump, and at times emulating his no-holds-barred political style.She hit the campaign trail recently with the former president’s son Donald Trump Jr. and Kellyanne Conway, the onetime Trump White House adviser — and, in Trumpian fashion, made headlines for mocking her Democratic opponent, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, over a 2020 kidnapping plot hatched against her by right-wing militia members.In other appearances, Ms. Dixon called for a ban on transgender girls playing in girl’s and women’s sports. And on a recent afternoon at an athletic club in an affluent suburb northwest of Detroit, where a life-size cutout of Mr. Trump stood by the doors, she promoted his so-called America First business policies.“‘America First’ — Michigan First — will bring Michigan back together,” she said.The governor’s race between Ms. Dixon and Ms. Whitmer carries high stakes for abortion rights, schools and the future of elections. It is historic — the first time two women have ever gone head-to-head for the position in the state.The contest also serves as a test of whether Ms. Dixon and other Republican candidates can win their general elections by harnessing the grass-roots energy of Trump supporters that propelled them to the top of crowded and chaotic primaries. That approach — which entails a close association with Mr. Trump’s election denialism and other political baggage — worries some Michigan Republicans who believe Ms. Dixon is failing to win over the kinds of suburban and independent voters who are crucial in tight races.But it might be the only option she has. Early voting began on Thursday, and with time running out, Ms. Dixon is short on cash, well behind in polls, still working to shore up support among her Republican base and being pummeled by Democrats on the television airwaves.“Uphill, on icy roads,” said Dennis Darnoi, a longtime Republican strategist in Michigan, describing her path to victory. “It is a challenge, with a month left, for her to make up the kind of ground that she is going to need.”Ms. Dixon has struggled to compete financially with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat. Emily Elconin for The New York TimesMs. Dixon, who is set to appear alongside Mr. Trump at a rally on Saturday in Macomb County, has appeared unfazed, arguing that her recent fund-raising numbers have been high and that her message will ultimately resonate with voters more than Ms. Whitmer’s.Asked about the challenges ahead for the campaign and Democrats’ large spending numbers, Sara Broadwater, Ms. Dixon’s communications director, took shots at pollsters, saying they failed to predict Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Sensing a Shift: As November approaches, there are a few signs that the political winds may have begun to blow in a different direction — one that might help Republicans over the final stretch.Focusing on Crime: Across the country, Republicans are attacking Democrats as soft on crime to rally midterm voters. Pennsylvania’s Senate contest offers an especially pointed example of this strategy.Arizona Senate Race: Blake Masters, a Republican, appears to be struggling to win over independent voters, who make up about a third of the state’s electorate.Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Doug Mastriano, the Trump-backed G.O.P. nominee, is being heavily outspent and trails badly in polling. National Republicans are showing little desire to help him.“As Tudor said the other day in response to a similar question, ‘Isn’t it sad that the Democrats have to spend so much money?’” Ms. Broadwater said. “Gretchen Whitmer remains highly vulnerable as pro-Dixon forces begin to fire back and her campaign gains momentum.”Not all Republicans who closely aligned themselves with Mr. Trump have struggled to pivot from the primary election to the general. In Arizona, the Republican nominee for governor, Kari Lake, has taken a similar approach, and has narrowed her race to a dead heat — but unlike Ms. Dixon, she is not facing an incumbent governor like Ms. Whitmer.Other candidates backed by Mr. Trump, like Blake Masters in Arizona’s Senate race and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania’s contest for governor, have fallen behind their Democratic opponents as they have struggled to raise money. Another Republican Senate hopeful, J.D. Vance, is facing a closer-than-expected race in Ohio.Mr. Trump has maintained a keen interest in Michigan. He eked out a victory in the state in 2016 by fewer than 11,000 votes before losing to Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2020 by more than 154,000 votes.Days before the Republican primary in early August, Mr. Trump endorsed Ms. Dixon, a conservative media personality backed by Michigan’s powerful DeVos family.Ms. Dixon, 45, a breast cancer survivor, worked as a steel industry executive until 2017, when she helped create Lumen Student News, a company that produces conservative TV news and history lessons for middle and high school students.In a December 2021 radio interview, she said she aimed to restore students’ faith in the country and combat what she described as “indoctrination” in schools. After helping found Lumen, Ms. Dixon went on to host a news show, “America’s Voice Live,” on weekday afternoons.Ms. Dixon, a former conservative media personality, is allied with Michigan’s powerful DeVos family. Emily Elconin for The New York TimesA cutout of Mr. Trump was on display at a town-hall event where Ms. Dixon spoke on Thursday in Clarkston, Mich. Emily Elconin for The New York TimesOn the stump, Ms. Dixon says she became a vocal critic of Ms. Whitmer’s coronavirus restrictions as she witnessed their negative impact on Michigan’s economy. The safety measures “took a deeply personal turn,” Ms. Dixon’s website states, after her grandmother died in a Norton Shores nursing home that prohibited visits during the pandemic.Ms. Dixon, who has the delivery of someone comfortable in front of an audience, has generated criticism for spreading unfounded claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election and for some of her stances on L.G.B.T.Q. issues, including calling for “severe criminal penalties for adults who involve children in drag shows.”On her website, she calls for a ban to prevent school employees from talking to children in kindergarten through third grade “about sex and gender theory secretly behind their parents’ backs‍.” And she has said that abortion should be allowed only if it is necessary to save the life of a mother, not in cases of rape or incest.Ms. Dixon’s stance on abortion in particular — in a state where voters tend to favor abortion rights and in November will weigh a ballot measure to enshrine the right to abortion in the state Constitution — is a big reason that some Republicans are worried about her chances. They also fear that underperformance at the top of the ballot could cause the G.O.P. to lose control of the State Legislature.Michigan’s Republican Party has been in a state of turmoil for months.The party’s primary was defined by fierce infighting between its establishment and Trump factions. Its two front-runners for governor were disqualified for turning in petitions with thousands of forged signatures. Another candidate was charged with four misdemeanors related to the Capitol riot.Ms. Dixon managed to rally her fractious party behind her in the race’s final weeks. But even after winning the primary, she remained a relatively little-known political outsider. It did not help that at the G.O.P. state convention later in August, Republicans officially endorsed two preachers of 2020 election falsehoods for top state offices: Matthew DePerno for attorney general and Kristina Karamo for secretary of state.The bruising battles, as well as the lack of financial networks and campaign experience among leading Republican candidates, have made for what Richard Czuba, an independent pollster in Lansing, Mich., called “the worst ticket I have seen from any party in the last 40 years.”“It is great to run as an outsider, especially when you run against an incumbent,” Mr. Czuba said. “But there are two sides of that outsider coin. On the one hand, you can run as the outsider against the establishment. On the flip side, you don’t know how to do this — and that is what is showing.”Ms. Dixon and her running mate, former State Representative Shane Hernandez, after officially securing their nomination at the Republican convention in late August.Emily Elconin for The New York TimesAs the general election began, Democrats rushed to define Ms. Dixon before she had a chance to define herself. As Ms. Whitmer had kept $14 million in her war chest by late August, after accounting for debts and expenditures, Ms. Dixon’s end balance was $523,000, according to the state’s latest available campaign finance reports. Democratic groups have poured more than $41 million into television ads since the August primary, according to the firm AdImpact, which analyzes campaign ad spending. Republican groups, by contrast, have invested about $5.5 million.State party leaders and national Republicans this week pushed back against any notion that the race was out of reach and that Ms. Dixon had been left to fend for herself. This past week, the Michigan Republican Party began its largest ad push against Ms. Whitmer, seeking to paint her as “soft on crime.” Chris Gustafson, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association, said it might also jump in with more ads soon.“In Michigan historically, we have seen candidates in big races be down in the polls only to come back to win,” Mr. Gustafson said. “We feel Tudor is a strong candidate with a good message. She is within striking distance.”At Ms. Dixon’s event at the athletic club in Oakland County, a panel including former Trump administration officials sat against the tall glass walls of a serene, sunlit indoor pool, as they blasted Mr. Biden’s economic policies and painted a harrowing picture of crime-filled American cities and unchecked immigration at the southwestern border.In a short speech, Ms. Dixon slammed what she characterized as a “radical sex and gender theory” permeating schools and denounced Ms. Whitmer for providing tax incentives to bring a Chinese company to Michigan, rather than an American one.But mostly, she displayed a rare dose of moderation, critiquing Mr. Whitmer’s pandemic restrictions and economic policies, rising crime in the state’s cities, and schools that Ms. Dixon argued had failed to adequately teach students to read and write. They were the kinds of remarks that some establishment and moderate Republicans might be hoping for — and they also seemed to appease the people in the room.Susan Savich, 64, and her 24-year-old son, Jonathan, asked to take photos with Ms. Dixon on her way out. They were opposed to schools teaching children anything but basic skills and traditional beliefs, they said, and Mr. Savich liked that Ms. Dixon was “education first.”They were also relieved to hear that Mr. Trump was coming to the state. “Ms. Dixon is going up against a lot,” Mr. Savich said. More

HOUSTON — Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas and his Democratic challenger, Beto O’Rourke, faced off Friday evening in the first and only debate in the race for Texas governor, a confrontation filled with sharp disagreements and back-and-forth accusations of lying. Sitting at tables in a university performance hall with no audience, the two candidates staked out their vastly different positions on the biggest issues in the state, including gun violence, immigration, crime and abortion. But if the debate was the marquee event of a campaign for the Texas governor’s mansion that is likely to cost more than $100 million, it did not seem to deliver a key moment that would significantly propel or hobble either candidate. That outcome appeared likely to benefit Mr. Abbott, who has been leading in the polls and has commanded a larger campaign war chest going into the final stretch.The hectic pace of the exchanges — strictly limited by the moderators to 30 or 60 seconds — devolved at times into rhetorical finger-pointing between the two politicians over whose beliefs, diametrically opposed, were more outside the mainstream.“Beto’s position is the most extreme,” Mr. Abbott said, suggesting that his Democratic rival supported allowing abortions at any point in a pregnancy.“It’s completely a lie,” Mr. O’Rourke responded. “I never said that, and no one thinks that in the state of Texas.” He added: “He’s saying this because he signed the most extreme abortion ban in America. No exception for rape, no exception for incest.”For weeks, the two candidates have clashed repeatedly on the airwaves, but they had yet to spar in person. Mr. O’Rourke tried to confront Mr. Abbott during a news conference in Uvalde after the massacre at an elementary school there in May, accusing him of doing nothing to prevent such violence, before Mr. O’Rourke was escorted out. Mr. Abbott did not respond at the time.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Sensing a Shift: As November approaches, there are a few signs that the political winds may have begun to blow in a different direction — one that might help Republicans over the final stretch.Focusing on Crime: Across the country, Republicans are attacking Democrats as soft on crime to rally midterm voters. Pennsylvania’s Senate contest offers an especially pointed example of this strategy.Arizona Senate Race: Blake Masters, a Republican, appears to be struggling to win over independent voters, who make up about a third of the state’s electorate.Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Doug Mastriano, the Trump-backed G.O.P. nominee, is being heavily outspent and trails badly in polling. National Republicans are showing little desire to help him.On Friday, Mr. Abbott similarly tried to ignore Mr. O’Rourke’s attacks as much as possible, rarely looking at his opponent as he spoke or listened.Mr. O’Rourke went after Mr. Abbott from the start, blaming the governor’s “hateful rhetoric” for the killing of an undocumented migrant in West Texas this week and saying that the governor had “lost the right to serve this state” because of the police failures in the response to the Uvalde shooting.Mr. Abbott repeatedly accused his challenger of misrepresenting facts. “He just makes this stuff up,” he said.Mr. O’Rourke, a polished debater, appeared more at ease with the fast format of the debate. Mr. Abbott at times seemed to rush to make his points, and struggled with a question about whether he believed that emergency contraception was the “alternative” for someone who became pregnant from rape or incest in Texas, given that abortion is banned even in those cases.“An alternative, obviously, is to do what we can to assist and aid the victim,” Mr. Abbott said. “They’re going to know that the state, through our Alternatives to Abortion program, provides living assistance, baby supplies, all kinds of things that can help them.”It appeared clear that Mr. O’Rourke was the strongest challenger Mr. Abbott has had in his political career, stretching back into the 1990s. Mr. Abbott has never faced a primary opponent of note, and in his previous runs for governor, he easily swept aside Democratic opposition.The hourlong debate was held in the border city of Edinburg, far from the large population centers of this increasingly urbanizing state but deep in the heart of Hispanic South Texas, where Mr. Abbott and Republicans have increasingly made inroads. The location also put a spotlight on a topic that has been among the most effective issues for Mr. Abbott: the record numbers of unauthorized migrants continuing to arrive at the southern border.The candidates, both in red ties, debated from a sitting position; Mr. Abbott has used a wheelchair since he was 26, when an oak tree fell on him while he was jogging, paralyzing him below the waist.The candidates received no time for introductory comments and gave 30-second closing remarks, a format that played to Mr. Abbott’s strengths as a direct, often terse speaker, and limited Mr. O’Rourke’s tendency to build long rhetorical flourishes. And the timing, on a Friday evening when many Texans are more consumed with high school football, appeared likely to reduce the number of people watching live.Chris Evans, a spokesman for Mr. O’Rourke, said before the debate that the Abbott campaign had proposed the terms and would not accept any changes. “They declined to have voters in the audience,” he said. An Abbott spokesman, Mark Miner, said that Mr. O’Rourke was in “no position to run the state if he can’t even comprehend simple debate rules.” Democrats in Texas have pinned their hopes on Mr. O’Rourke before, but so far he has managed only to be victorious in defeat. In his name-making 2018 run for Senate, he came within three percentage points of unseating Senator Ted Cruz, a strong showing in Republican-dominated Texas, but still a losing one. Friday’s debate, just a few weeks before early voting begins in Texas, came at a crucial moment for both campaigns, especially Mr. O’Rourke’s. Over the summer, some polls had suggested a tightening race after the Uvalde killings and the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade. But more recent surveys show Mr. Abbott more firmly in control, with a lead of about seven percentage points.For Mr. O’Rourke, the former congressman from El Paso and a Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, the debate was a chance to recapture momentum and his most direct opportunity to prosecute his case against Mr. Abbott, a two-term incumbent who has led the state for eight years under unified Republican control of state government.For Mr. Abbott, it was a night to make it through unscathed. His campaign had prepared for weeks for the encounter, seeing Mr. O’Rourke as a skilled debater with significant experience from his run for president in 2020. The governor navigated tough questions, including one that in many ways launched Mr. O’Rourke into this race: the failure of the energy grid last February. Mr. Abbott stuck to his talking points — “the grid is more resilient and reliable than it’s ever been,” he said — and Mr. O’Rourke did not appear able to capitalize on the exchange.“It seemed pretty even, and a bit of a tie probably benefits Governor Abbott in this case,” said Álvaro J. Corral, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley in Edinburg. “I didn’t see a moment that indicated a change in that underlying dynamic.”As the campaign entered its final months, Mr. Abbott has pressed his fund-raising advantage — $45 million on hand as of the last filing in mid-July, versus $23 million for Mr. O’Rourke — and went statewide with television ads at least two weeks before Mr. O’Rourke did so. Now both campaigns are bombarding Texans with messages, often negative, on television and online.Before the debate, Mr. O’Rourke held a news conference in a playground in Edinburg with several parents and relatives from Uvalde whose children were shot and killed at Robb Elementary School. The families rode a bus together from Uvalde that morning to press for action on gun control; Mr. O’Rourke criticized Mr. Abbott for setting rules that would not allow the parents to watch from inside the hall.The massacre took up significant time early in the debate. Mr. O’Rourke, who during the 2019 campaign urged taking away AR-15-style rifles after a deadly mass shooting in El Paso, emphasized his moderated position, calling to raise the age to buy an AR-15 to 21 from 18.Mr. Abbott said that was unrealistic, citing recent court decisions striking down gun restrictions.“We want to end school shootings,” he said. “But we cannot do that by making false promises.”Reid J. Epstein More

Jair Bolsonaro ha puesto en duda la integridad de las elecciones del domingo y en los sondeos va por detrás de Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, quien estuvo en prisión por un escándalo de corrupción.Los brasileños irán a las urnas el domingo en una votación que ha polarizado al país y que se espera tenga como consecuencia un nuevo presidente. El elegido estará obligado a lidiar con una crisis económica, el aumento en la deforestación de la Amazonía y las dudas persistentes por la salud de la mayor democracia latinoamericana.La elección sucede en un momento clave para Brasil, en el que el aumento en los precios de alimento y combustible, así como una dolorosa desaceleración económica han dificultado la vida de muchos brasileños. En el país de 217 millones de habitantes, unas 33 millones de personas pasan hambre y la pobreza extrema ha aumentado, dando marcha atrás a décadas de avances sociales y económicos.También hay grandes preocupaciones ambientales y del clima. La deforestación en la Amazonía está en niveles que no se habían visto en 15 años y el titular de ultraderecha, Jair Bolsonaro, quien considera que la selva debe abrirse a la minería, la agricultura y la ganadería y quien ha debilitado las protecciones ambientales. La destrucción amazónica —y sus efectos en los esfuerzos para evitar una crisis climática— han convertido a Brasil en un paria mundial.¿Quiénes son los candidatos?La elección es un duelo entre Bolsonaro y Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, un expresidente de izquierda que gobernó de 2003 a 2010. Da Silva fue encarcelado en 2018 por cargos de corrupción, pero su condena fue posteriormente anulada después de que el Supremo Tribunal Federal dictaminara que el juez del caso era parcial.Los votantes buscan dilucidar cómo es que los dos principales candidatos planean abordar distintos desafíos y devolver a Brasil al camino del crecimiento.Otros nueve candidatos, entre ellos Ciro Gomes, un exgobernador y una senadora, Simone Tebet, también participan en la contienda, pero todos cuentan con menos del 10 por ciento de apoyo. El domingo, los brasileños también votarán para elegir gobernadores, senadores y representantes en las legislaturas estatales y federal.¿Qué propone Bolsonaro?Bolsonaro ha prometido a las familias necesitadas que les dará 113 dólares mensuales en efectivo, ampliando así una política temporal que se creó inicialmente para mitigar las penurias de la pandemia.La continuación del programa, que replanteó y remplazó un programa similar pero menos generoso implementado en el gobierno de Da Silva, se supone que es para “reducir la pobreza y contribuir al crecimiento económico sostenible”, según el plan oficial de Bolsonaro.El titular de extrema derecha también promete crear empleos a través de la eliminación de restricciones burocráticas, los recortes fiscales y la inversión en tecnología. En un gesto dirigido a los inversores, que lo apoyaron masivamente en 2018, Bolsonaro promete mantener su enfoque de libre mercado y mantener la deuda pública a raya. Bolsonaro ha gastado considerablemente en prestaciones sociales y apoyos para el combustible previo a las elecciones luego de impulsar la eliminación temporal de límites al gasto público.El presidente Jair Bolsonaro durante un mitin la semana pasada en São PauloVictor Moriyama para The New York TimesBolsonaro, haciendo eco de la retórica de línea dura que le ganó el apoyo de los ultraconservadores y votantes evangélicos hace cuatro años, también promete defender a “la familia” al oponerse al aborto legal y la educación en materia de género en las escuelas.Como defensor de la privatización, planea reducir “el papel del Estado en la economía” y vender las empresas estatales como Petrobras, la empresa de energía.Pero Bolsonaro también defiende la expansión a gran escala de la minería y la agricultura, si bien indica que el crecimiento debe considerar “la sustentabilidad económica, social y ambiental”.Promete combatir con mayor agresividad los crímenes ambientales, pero cuestiona los datos que muestran un aumento agudo de la deforestación durante su presidencia y sostiene que Brasil tiene derecho al “uso sustentable de sus recursos naturales”.Bolsonaro también ha dicho que ampliará las políticas de mano dura contra el crimen y promete extender aún más el acceso a las armas de fuego, una medida a la que atribuye la disminución los crímenes violentos en el país. “La legítima defensa es un derecho fundamental”, dice el candidato.¿En qué consiste la plataforma de Da Silva?Da Silva presidió una época dorada de crecimiento en sus dos periodos. En ese entonces, un auge de las materias primas convirtió a Brasil en una historia de éxito a nivel mundial. Promete devolver al país a esos días de gloria.El candidato de izquierda promete aumentar los impuestos a los ricos e impulsar el gasto público, “poniendo al pueblo en el presupuesto”. Sus planes incluyen una serie de programas sociales, como un vale mensual de 113 dólares que compite con el propuesto por Bolsonaro. Las familias pobres con niños recibirán otros 28 dólares mensuales por cada niño menor de 6 años.Da Silva también ha prometido ajustar el salario mínimo mensual de Brasil según la inflación y revivir un plan de vivienda para los pobres y al mismo tiempo garantizar la seguridad alimentaria para las personas que pasan hambre.El expresidente de izquierda Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva aventaja a Bolsonaro en las encuestas.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesComo exlíder sindical, Da Silva planea revitalizar el crecimiento y “crear trabajo y oportunidades de empleo” al gastar en infraestructura, un guiño a su estrategia anterior. Pero también planea invertir en una “economía verde”, al advertir que Brasil debe adoptar sistemas energéticos y alimentarios más sostenibles.En respuesta a las afirmaciones sin fundamento de Bolsonaro de un posible fraude con las máquinas de votación, Da Silva dice que va a “defender a la democracia” y el sistema electoral brasileño.Sobre la Amazonía, el candidato de izquierda ha insinuado que se enfrentará a los crímenes ambientales perpetrados por milicias, invasores de tierras, leñadores y otros. “Nuestro compromiso es luchar sin descanso contra la deforestación ilegal y promover la deforestación cero”, ha dicho.¿Cómo funciona el sistema electoral?Los brasileños emitirán su voto en máquinas electrónicas, un sistema que opera hace más de 20 años y que ha sido protagonista de las afirmaciones de Bolsonaro de que existe el riesgo de que se amañe la elección.En julio, llamó a los diplomáticos extranjeros al palacio presidencial para mostrar sus pruebas, que resultaron ser noticias de hace años sobre un hackeo que no puso en riesgo las máquinas de votación. También ha reclutado a los militares de Brasil en su batalla contra las autoridades electorales, lo que suscitó temores de que las fuerzas armadas pudieran apoyar cualquier esfuerzo de aferrarse al poder.El miércoles por la noche, el partido político de Bolsonaro emitió un documento que aseguraba, sin aportar pruebas, que un grupo de empleados de gobierno y contratistas tenían el “poder absoluto de manipular los resultados electorales sin dejar huella”.Inspectores del Tribunal Superior Electoral realizan las pruebas finales de las máquinas de votación electrónica en São Paulo.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesEse fue uno de los ataques más significativos contra el sistema electoral de Brasil hasta el momento. El partido dijo que había llegado a esa conclusión tras una auditoría del sistema electoral que había encargado en julio y que emitía ahora la información debido a que los funcionarios electorales no habían tomado medidas suficientes.La autoridad electoral de Brasil respondió de inmediato el miércoles. Las conclusiones del documento son “falsas y deshonestas y no tienen respaldo en la realidad” y constituyen “un intento claro de obstaculizar y trastornar el curso natural del proceso electoral”, indicó la agencia en un comunicado. El Tribunal Superior dijo que ahora investiga al partido del presidente por haber difundido el documento.Votar es obligatorio en Brasil y, en 2018, la participación en la primera ronda de las elecciones fue casi del 80 por ciento.El domingo, la autoridad electoral empezará a emitir resultados al cerrar las casillas a las 5 p.m., hora de Brasilia, y el conteo final se anuncia unas horas después.Si ningún candidato supera el 50 por ciento de los votos el domingo, se llevará a cabo una segunda vuelta el 30 de octubre. Una vez elegido, el nuevo presidente asumirá el poder el 1 de enero. More

On January 6, “Republican tempers were running so hot against Trump that forcing them to choose sides in the Senate that week could easily have resulted in his impeachment, conviction, and disqualification from any future run for the White House,” The Intercept reported, based on the forthcoming book “Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump.”It would have been a massive break if it happened. GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate had generally grinned and beared it through the four years Trump had been in the White House, even when he said or did things that went against their stated beliefs. But the up-close violence of the insurrection changed things, according to the book written by two reporters from The Washington Post and Politico. Had the House gone through with impeaching Trump that very evening, a vote to convict may have won the two-thirds majority in the Senate needed to succeed, removing Trump from office and barring him from running again.Reality was much more tepid. The Democrat-controlled House did vote to impeach Trump a week after January 6, and a month later, when he had already left the White House, the Republican-held Senate took a vote on whether to convict him. While 57 senators, including seven Republicans and all Democrats, voted to do so, that was 10 votes short of the supermajority needed, meaning Trump escaped punishment for the insurrection – at least for now.The newest supreme court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had a star-studded investiture ceremony today, featuring president Joe Biden, who appointed her to the bench, vice-president Kamala Harris, attorney general Merrick Garland and the rest of the supreme court.The event was ceremonial, since Jackson had already been sworn in by Harris. It feature brief remarks from chief justice John Roberts, who administered an oath to Jackson. While cameras were not allowed inside the court during the ceremony, the pair later strolled down its front steps, where Jackson was greeted by her husband: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson photo following U.S. Supreme Court investiture ceremony. #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/bAlmg6omgg— CSPAN (@cspan) September 30, 2022
Jackson is expected to join the court’s three-member liberal bloc, which often ends up in the minority in decisions written by the six-member conservative majority.The White House has strongly condemned Russian president Vladimir Putin’s annexation of four regions of Ukraine, saying the move is “phony” and illegal under international law.Here’s the full statement from president Joe Biden:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The United States condemns Russia’s fraudulent attempt today to annex sovereign Ukrainian territory. Russia is violating international law, trampling on the United Nations Charter, and showing its contempt for peaceful nations everywhere. Make no mistake: these actions have no legitimacy. The United States will always honor Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. We will continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to regain control of its territory by strengthening its hand militarily and diplomatically, including through the $1.1 billion in additional security assistance the United States announced this week. In response to Russia’s phony claims of annexation, the United States, together with our Allies and partners, are announcing new sanctions today. These sanctions will impose costs on individuals and entities — inside and outside of Russia — that provide political or economic support to illegal attempts to change the status of Ukrainian territory. We will rally the international community to both denounce these moves and to hold Russia accountable. We will continue to provide Ukraine with the equipment it needs to defend itself, undeterred by Russia’s brazen effort to redraw the borders of its neighbor. And I look forward to signing legislation from Congress that will provide an additional $12 billion to support Ukraine. I urge all members of the international community to reject Russia’s illegal attempts at annexation and to stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.Washington responded to the move with a fresh battery of sanctions targeting hundreds of people and companies. The Guardian’s live blog has the latest on Russia’s decision, and the ongoing war in Ukraine:Russia-Ukraine war live: Kyiv applies for Nato membership after Putin annexes Ukrainian regionsRead moreIf you paid even a slight amount of attention to American politics over the past two years or so, you probably heard one name come up repeatedly: Joe Manchin. The Democratic senator representing West Virginia has become a one-man chokepoint for much of the legislation proposed by his party, whose control of the Senate is so slim they can’t afford a single defection on bills that Republicans refused to support. One of the party’s most conservative senators, Manchin is known for his opposition to changing the filibuster to make it easier to pass legislation in the chamber – a stand on which he was joined by Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema – and for opposing several proposals to fight climate change, which earned him the ire of activists who said he was beholden to the fossil fuel industry.Democrats also control the House, but it is the even 50-50 split in the Senate that gives Manchin so much power. One might think he enjoys it, but NBC News reports today that is apparently not the case. “I’m just praying to God it’s not 50-50 again,” he told the network when they spoke to him in the run-up to the 8 November midterms, where voters could widen Democrats’ majority in the chamber, or return it to Republican control. “I’d like for Democrats to be 51-49. But whatever happens, I hope it’s not a 50-50.”Manchin didn’t open up much about why he felt this way, saying only, “It is what it is. You’ve got to do your job.”U-turn as Manchin agrees deal with Democrats on major tax and climate billRead moreSpeaking of the midterms, The Cook Political Report has a good summary of where things stand in the race for control of the House, which Republicans are generally seen as having a good chance of retaking:New @CookPolitical ratings (after #OH09 move): 212 seats at least Lean R, 193 at least Lean D and 30 Toss Ups. That means Rs only need to win 20% of Toss Ups to win control, Ds need to win 83% to hold the majority. pic.twitter.com/O85ruNfYxD— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) September 30, 2022
The aftershocks from the January 6 insurrection extend far beyond Trump.In Arizona, Mark Finchem, a Republican running for the post of secretary of state overseeing elections, was on the defensive last night when his Democratic opponent accused him in a debate of being an insurrectionist for attending the rally preceding the January 6 attack on the Capitol.“The last time I checked, being at a place where something’s happening is not illegal,’’ replied Finchem, The East Valley Tribune reports. Finchem attended Trump’s speech before the crowd attacked the building, but there’s no proof he entered the Capitol itself. The Tribune reports that Finchem had earlier said he “went to Washington to deliver a ‘book of evidence’ to federal lawmakers about claimed irregularities in the 2020 vote in Arizona – material that came out of a hearing in Phoenix involving attorney Rudy Giuliani and other Trump supporters.” He also posted a photo of the Capitol rioters, writing, this is “what happens when people feel they have been ignored, and Congress refuses to acknowledge rampant fraud.’’His Democratic opponent Adrian Fontes rejected Finchem’s explanation, saying, “What he did is engage in a violent insurrection and try to overturn the very Constitution that holds this nation together.”Arizona voters will decide the race in the 8 November midterm elections.A judge appointed by Donald Trump delivered a ruling in his favor yesterday amid the ongoing investigation of government secrets found at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Hugo Lowell reports:A federal judge ruled on Thursday that Donald Trump would not have to provide a sworn declaration that the FBI supposedly “planted” some of the highly-sensitive documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago resort, as he has suggested, until his lawyers have reviewed the seized materials.The order from US district court judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the special master case and is a Trump appointee, also pushed back several key interim deadlines that consequently extends the review’s final date of completion from the end of November to mid-December.Cannon’s ruling means Trump does not have to confirm under oath his insinuations that the FBI manufactured evidence – one of several assertions he has made, without evidence, in recent weeks that could be used against him should he be charged over illegal retention of government documents.Trump not required to provide sworn declaration that FBI ‘planted’ evidenceRead moreHere’s a revelation from “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America”, another forthcoming book on his presidency, about how Trump came up with his reason for keeping his tax returns secret. Martin Pengelly reports:According to a new book, Donald Trump came up with his famous excuse for not releasing his tax returns on the fly – literally, while riding his campaign plane during the 2016 Republican primary.Every American president or nominee since Richard Nixon had released his or her tax returns. Trump refused to do so.In her eagerly awaited book, Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, the New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman describes the scene on Trump’s plane just before Super Tuesday, 1 March 2016.Trump, she says, was discussing the issue with aides including Corey Lewandowski, then his campaign manager, and his press secretary, Hope Hicks. The aides, Haberman says, pointed out that as Trump was about to be confirmed as the favourite for the Republican nomination, the problem needed to be addressed.Trump made up audit excuse for not releasing tax returns on the fly, new book saysRead moreOn January 6, “Republican tempers were running so hot against Trump that forcing them to choose sides in the Senate that week could easily have resulted in his impeachment, conviction, and disqualification from any future run for the White House,” The Intercept reported, based on the forthcoming book “Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump.”It would have been a massive break if it happened. GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate had generally grinned and beared it through the four years Trump had been in the White House, even when he said or did things that went against their stated beliefs. But the up-close violence of the insurrection changed things, according to the book written by two reporters from The Washington Post and Politico. Had the House gone through with impeaching Trump that very evening, a vote to convict may have won the two-thirds majority in the Senate needed to succeed, removing Trump from office and barring him from running again.Reality was much more tepid. The Democrat-controlled House did vote to impeach Trump a week after January 6, and a month later, when he had already left the White House, the Republican-held Senate took a vote on whether to convict him. While 57 senators, including seven Republicans and all Democrats, voted to do so, that was 10 votes short of the supermajority needed, meaning Trump escaped punishment for the insurrection – at least for now.Good morning, US politics blog readers.Things could have gone very differently on January 6, a forthcoming book by journalists from Politico and the Washington Post reports. Enraged at Donald Trump’s apparent incitement of the mob that attacked the Capitol, a group of House Democrats moved to impeach him that very evening at a moment when enough Republicans in the Senate may have voted to convict and remove him from office.But according to a report in the Intercept, which obtained Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump before its release, House speaker Nancy Pelosi vetoed moving immediately against the then president, and the push to convict ultimately failed.The anecdote is the latest from the many books released since Trump left the White House exploring what went on behind closed doors during his presidency, but stands out for bringing to light a true turning point in American history, when one consequential course of action won out over another.Anyway, here’s what’s going on in politics today:
Nancy Pelosi will hold her weekly press conference at 11am eastern time today in the Capitol, and you can bet she’ll be asked to comment on the Intercept’s report.
Hurricane Ian is moving towards South Carolina after ravaging Florida. Follow the Guardian’s live blog for the latest on the storm.
President Joe Biden is attending the investiture ceremony for supreme court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at 10 am eastern time, then will make a White House speech about the response to Hurricane Ian at 11.30am. More

SÃO PAULO, Brazil — “If it’s God’s will, I will continue,” Jair Bolsonaro said in mid-September. “If it’s not, I’ll take off the presidential sash and I will retire.”It feels too good to be true. After all, Mr. Bolsonaro has spent much of the year casting doubt on the electoral process and seemingly preparing the ground to reject the results. The military, ominously, wants to conduct a parallel counting of the votes. Menace hangs in the air: 67 percent of Brazilians fear political violence, and some may not risk voting at all (a big deal in a country where voting is mandatory). Talk of a coup is everywhere.Amid this uncertainty, there’s one fact to cling to: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s leftist former president, leads in the polls, with 50 percent of intended votes to Mr. Bolsonaro’s 36 percent. Four years after he was expelled from the political scene, on corruption and money laundering charges later shown to be at best procedurally dubious and at worst politically motivated, Mr. da Silva is back to complete the job. On all available evidence, he is poised to win: if not outright on Sunday, by taking more than 50 percent, then on the election’s second round, on Oct. 30.We Brazilians are holding our breath. The next few weeks could end a dark period, overseen by one of the worst leaders in our history, or they could usher us even further into catastrophe and despair. It’s all a bit much to take in. I’ve personally decided to spend more time sleeping and cleaning the house — the drapes have never been so white (they were originally beige). Yet no matter how much I distract myself, nothing can relieve me from the apprehension that something may go terribly wrong.On the surface, things seem calm. An outsider walking through the streets would not get the impression that a presidential election is about to be held. Looking out the window, I notice that the Brazilian flags — which have come to represent support for Mr. Bolsonaro — have been removed from the neighboring facades. An ambiguous sign: It could be a pre-emptive response to defeat, or the calm before the storm. There’s not even much talk among friends and family concerning the election; the lines were drawn in 2018 and have not moved much since then.Yet for all the social polarization, there is still enormous support for democracy here: 75 percent of citizens think it is better than any other form of government. Right from the beginning, Mr. da Silva has been trying to exploit that common feeling and open up a broad front against Mr. Bolsonaro. He picked a former adversary from the center-right, Geraldo Alckmin, as his running mate; assiduously courted business leaders; and secured endorsements from prominent centrists. In this comradely atmosphere, supporters of the center-left candidate, Ciro Gomes, currently about 6 percent in polls, may even throw their votes behind the former president. If that happens, Mr. Bolsonaro will surely be beaten.That glorious prospect does little to dispel the anxiety enveloping the country. It’s physically impossible not to dwell on what might happen. The possibilities are terrifying: The polls might be wrong, and Mr. Bolsonaro could win. The polls might be right, and Mr. Bolsonaro could refuse to concede defeat, and even initiate a coup. Each day now seems to be the length of a day on Venus — around 5,832 hours — to go by the agitation of my Twitter feed.There’s simply too much at stake. For one, there’s the democratic process itself, which has been put through the wringer by Mr. Bolsonaro. For another, there’s the future of our judiciary. Just next year, there will be two vacant seats on the Supreme Court, out of a total of 11 seats. If in power, Mr. Bolsonaro would surely seize the chance to make pick hard-right justices as he did with his last two appointees. A Trump-style remaking of the judiciary could be coming down the line.Then there’s the environment. So far this year, more forest fires have been recorded in the Brazilian Amazon than in all of 2021, which was already catastrophic enough. Since the start of September, dense plumes of smoke have covered several Brazilian states. Under Mr. Bolsonaro’s administration, deforestation has increased, environmental agencies have been dismantled and Indigenous deaths have risen. Reversing these disastrous environmental policies could not be more urgent.What’s more, a new government could address the appalling fate of the 33 million people living in a state of food deprivation and hunger — to say nothing of the 62.9 million people (or 29 percent of the population) living below the poverty line. It could also draw down the number of firearms on our streets, which, under Mr. Bolsonaro’s watch, has reached the troublingly high figure of 1.9 million. And, at last, Brazilians might begin to heal from the trauma of 685,000 Covid-19 deaths.But before all that, there’s a necessary first step: pushing Jair Bolsonaro into retirement. Then we can begin to breathe again.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

SÃO PAULO, Brasil — “Se essa for a vontade de Deus, eu continuo”, disse Jair Bolsonaro em meados de setembro. “Se não for, a gente passa a faixa e eu vou me recolher.”Parece bom demais para ser verdade. Afinal, Bolsonaro passou boa parte do ano lançando dúvidas sobre o processo eleitoral e aparentemente preparando o terreno para rejeitar o resultado. Os militares, de forma alarmante, querem conduzir uma contagem paralela dos votos. A ameaça paira no ar: 67% dos brasileiros temem a violência política, e alguns até podem nem se arriscar a ir votar (uma questão importante em um país onde o voto é obrigatório). Rumores de golpe estão por toda parte.Em meio a essa incerteza, há um fato em que se agarrar: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, o ex-presidente brasileiro de esquerda, lidera as pesquisas, com 50% das intenções de votos válidos contra 36% para Bolsonaro. Quatro anos depois que ele foi afastado da cena política após acusações de corrupção e lavagem de dinheiro, acusações que posteriormente se revelaram, na melhor das hipóteses, procedimentalmente duvidosas e, na pior, politicamente motivadas, Lula está de volta para concluir o trabalho. A julgar pelas evidências disponíveis, ele está prestes a vencer: se não diretamente no domingo, obtendo mais de 50% dos votos válidos, então no segundo turno, no dia 30 de outubro.Nós, brasileiros, estamos prendendo a respiração. As próximas semanas podem encerrar um período tétrico, conduzido por um dos piores líderes da nossa história, ou podem nos afundar ainda mais na catástrofe e no desespero. Tudo isso me parece um pouco demais para absorver. Eu pessoalmente decidi passar mais tempo dormindo e limpando a casa — as cortinas nunca foram tão brancas. (E são originalmente beges.) E ainda assim, não importa o quanto eu tente me distrair, nada é capaz de atenuar o meu temor de que algo pode dar terrivelmente errado.Na superfície, as coisas parecem estar calmas. Um forasteiro andando pelas ruas não teria a impressão de que uma eleição presidencial está prestes a acontecer. Olhando pela janela, percebo que as bandeiras do Brasil — que acabaram por representar um apoio a Bolsonaro — foram retiradas das fachadas dos vizinhos. Um sinal ambíguo: pode ter sido uma reação preventiva à derrota ou a calmaria antes da tempestade. Não há muita conversa entre amigos e familiares sobre as eleições; as linhas foram demarcadas em 2018 e não se moveram muito desde então.E a despeito de toda a polarização social, ainda há um enorme apoio à democracia por aqui: 75% dos cidadãos acham que ela é melhor do que qualquer outra forma de governo. Desde o início, Lula tentou explorar esse sentimento comum e abrir uma frente ampla contra Bolsonaro. Ele escolheu um antigo adversário da centro-direita, Geraldo Alckmin, como seu vice-presidente; cortejou assiduamente empresários; e assegurou o apoio de centristas proeminentes. Nessa atmosfera amistosa, apoiadores do candidato de centro-esquerda Ciro Gomes, que tem atualmente cerca de 6% nas pesquisas, podem até dar seus votos para o ex-presidente. Se isso ocorrer, Bolsonaro certamente será derrotado.Essa gloriosa perspectiva faz pouco para dissipar a ansiedade que envolve o país. É fisicamente impossível não se deter no que pode acontecer. As possibilidades são aterrorizantes: as pesquisas podem estar erradas e Bolsonaro pode vencer. As pesquisas podem estar certas e Bolsonaro pode recusar-se a conceder a derrota, e até mesmo iniciar um golpe. Cada dia agora parece ter a duração de um dia em Vênus — em torno de 5.832 horas — a julgar pela agitação no meu feed do Twitter.Há simplesmente muita coisa em jogo. De um lado, há o processo democrático em si, que tem sido posto à prova por Bolsonaro. De outro, há o futuro do nosso Judiciário. Só no próximo ano, teremos duas cadeiras vagas no Supremo Tribunal Federal, de um total de onze. Se estiver no poder, Bolsonaro certamente aproveitará a chance para escolher ministros da linha-dura conservadora, como fez com suas duas últimas indicações. Uma remodelagem do Judiciário à moda de Trump pode estar a caminho.E há o meio ambiente. Até o momento, este ano, mais incêndios florestais foram registrados na Amazônia brasileira do que em todo o ano de 2021, que já tinha sido catastrófico. Desde o início de setembro, nuvens densas de fumaça cobriram inúmeros estados brasileiros. Sob a administração de Bolsonaro, o desmatamento cresceu, as agências regulatórias foram desmanteladas e as mortes de indígenas aumentaram. Reverter essas desastrosas políticas ambientais não poderia ser mais urgente.Além disso, um novo governo poderia enfrentar o terrível destino das 33 milhões de pessoas vivendo em um estado de fome e insegurança alimentar — isso para não mencionar os 62,9 milhões de pessoas (ou 29% da população) que se encontram abaixo da linha da pobreza. Também poderia reduzir a quantidade de armas de fogo em circulação, que, sob os auspícios de Bolsonaro, atingiu a cifra perturbadora de 1,9 milhão. Por último, os brasileiros talvez comecem a se recuperar do trauma de 685 mil mortes por Covid-19.Mas, antes de tudo isso, há um necessário primeiro passo: conduzir Jair Bolsonaro à aposentadoria. Então nós poderemos começar a respirar de novo.Vanessa Barbara é a editora do sítio literário A Hortaliça, autora de dois romances e dois livros de não-ficção em português, e escritora de opinião do The New York Times. More

Si las elecciones del domingo provocan disturbios masivos, se llamaría a la policía militar del país a restaurar el orden, dándole un tremendo poder para incidir en los resultados.El domingo, los brasileños acuden a las urnas para elegir a su próximo presidente. Pero desde hace meses, la cuestión que se plantea en el país no es quién ganará, sino si Jair Bolsonaro, el actual líder del país, intentará dar un golpe de Estado si pierde.Bolsonaro, quien va a rezagado en las encuestas, ha hecho todo lo posible por sembrar dudas sobre la validez de las elecciones brasileñas, al afirmar, por ejemplo, que las máquinas de votación electrónica del país serán manipuladas para inclinar el voto a favor de su oponente de izquierda, el expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.A pesar de las relaciones amistosas de Bolsonaro con los militares, parece carecer del apoyo institucional que necesitaría para dar un golpe de Estado exitoso. Y si pierde por un amplio margen, puede llegar a la conclusión de que es más prudente aceptar el resultado que intentar anularlo.Pero a muchos les sigue preocupando la posibilidad de un levantamiento violento por parte de sus partidarios, similar al que experimentó Estados Unidos el 6 de enero de 2021, pero potencialmente a mayor escala.Y eso ha llamado la atención sobre el papel potencialmente importante de la fuerza policial de Brasil en cualquier levantamiento postelectoral. Si se producen disturbios masivos, la llamada policía militar del país, una fuerza de aproximadamente medio millón de oficiales, sería llamada a restaurar el orden. La policía militar está separada de la policía federal, una fuerza más pequeña bajo el mando del Ministerio de Justicia. A pesar de su nombre, las fuerzas de la policía militar están bajo el mando de los gobernadores estatales y no de las fuerzas armadas.Bolsonaro ha pasado años cultivando su apoyo.¿Controlar la crisis, o no?Puede ser fácil olvidar que la policía es un actor político. Los militares y los altos tribunales tienden a recibir mucha atención en las especulaciones sobre si los golpes de Estado podrían o no ser inminentes. La policía, por el contrario, suele ser vista como funcionarios municipales de bajo nivel, importantes cuando se trata de cuestiones de orden público cotidiano, pero no decisivos en cuestiones de supervivencia democrática.Esto puede ser razonable cuando se trata de golpes de Estado tradicionales, que casi siempre requieren el control de los militares para tener éxito, y a menudo también recurren a los altos tribunales para reforzar su legitimidad. (Hay una razón por la que se oye hablar mucho de “golpes militares” y poco de “golpes policiales”).Agentes de policía patrullando a principios de este verano en la Amazonía brasileña.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesPero las revueltas, los levantamientos populares y otras formas de disturbios masivos son diferentes de los golpes tradicionales. La policía suele ser la primera línea de respuesta a estas acciones masivas. Y eso les da un enorme poder para influir en los resultados, por una razón sencilla: pueden decidir si aparecen o no.En la Revolución naranja de Ucrania de 2014, por ejemplo, se produjo un momento decisivo cuando la policía antidisturbios del país, que había perdido la fe en la capacidad del gobierno para aislarlos de la persecución u otras consecuencias, se negó a desalojar a los manifestantes de la plaza que habían ocupado en la capital. Su abandono del gobierno resultó ser un punto de inflexión, y este se derrumbó poco después.En cambio, durante los disturbios del 6 de enero en el Capitolio de Estados Unidos, la actuación decisiva de la Policía del Capitolio protegió a los integrantes del Congreso y a su personal, y acabó por controlar los disturbios.Por supuesto, la policía también puede desempeñar un papel más directo en las crisis electorales. En Kenia, en 2007, por ejemplo, el país estalló en violencia tras acusaciones creíbles de manipulación de votos contra el presidente en funciones. Más tarde, una investigación oficial encontró pruebas de que el gobierno había desplegado 1600 agentes de policía vestidos de civil “para actuar como agentes del gobierno en la interrupción de los procesos electorales o su participación en ellos”, y que los agentes de policía habían matado posteriormente a más de 400 personas y participado en violaciones, saqueos y otros delitos durante la violencia postelectoral.‘Activaron un sistema de frenos’En Brasil, Bolsonaro ha pasado años cortejando el apoyo de los oficiales de la policía militar del país, unidades fuertemente armadas que alguna vez fueron parte del ejército durante los años de dictadura del país, pero que ahora dependen de los gobernadores civiles, dijo Yanilda María González, una politóloga de la Universidad de Harvard que estudia la policía en el continente americano. Esto ha suscitado la preocupación de que la policía pueda respaldar a Bolsonaro en un intento de golpe de Estado, negarse a actuar contra un levantamiento de sus partidarios o ir a la huelga si su oponente es declarado ganador.Adilson Paes de Souza, un teniente coronel retirado de la policía militar que ahora es investigador de psicología policial, dijo que cree que la policía militar es, como individuos, en su mayoría pro-Bolsonaro. Pero el apoyo personal no significa necesariamente que la policía como institución participaría, o se negaría a intervenir, en un levantamiento o golpe de Estado después de las elecciones.En el último año, las autoridades estatales han tomado medidas para reprimir la actividad política de la policía, que tiene prohibido hacer declaraciones políticas públicas. En agosto de 2021, por ejemplo, el gobernador de São Paulo despidió a un comandante de la policía que había publicado un llamamiento público en Facebook para que la gente asistiera a un mitin de Bolsonaro el 7 de septiembre, día de la independencia de Brasil. Esa misma semana, los gobernadores de los estados del país plantearon la cuestión del apoyo de la policía a Bolsonaro en una reunión, y reiteraron la importancia de garantizar que se mantuvieran dentro de los límites legales y constitucionales.El Supremo Tribunal Federal también ha enviado fuertes señales de que no cooperará con ningún intento de golpe de Estado por parte de Bolsonaro o sus partidarios. El tribunal ha ampliado fuertemente sus propios poderes en los últimos años en un esfuerzo por contrarrestar a Bolsonaro, aunque muchos expertos ahora advierten que los esfuerzos de los tribunales han tomado un giro autoritario, que socava la legitimidad de una institución crucial de la democracia brasileña.Paes de Souza dijo que hasta el año pasado, se había sentido “totalmente seguro” de que si el líder de extrema derecha intentaba un golpe, la policía lo acompañaría. Pero después de la reacción institucional de los gobernadores y otros, tiene más confianza en que la democracia prevalecerá. “Las autoridades en estas situaciones han despertado. Y han actuado como instituciones democráticas”, me dijo Paes de Souza. “Dijeron ‘basta’. Activaron un sistema de frenos”.Pero si ese sistema de frenos falla, las consecuencias podrían ser catastróficas.“Las fuerzas policiales, a diferencia de las militares, están repartidas por todo el país”, me dijo González. “Son números enormes. Solo la policía de São Paulo tiene más de 100.000 integrantes”.Y añadió: “Me preocupa mucho la magnitud del daño que podrían causar en poco tiempo los agentes de policía, si participaran en algún tipo de golpe”. More