Elections

Since a blue wave in the state in 2008, winning elections hasn’t been easy for Democrats. But polling is evenly divided as Cheri Beasley and Ted Budd compete.CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The pep rally at the Lenny Boy Brewing Company Friday night was a packed and raucous show of confidence as Democratic officials greeted the “next senator” from North Carolina, Cheri Beasley, and the Mecklenburg County faithful asked about her plans for after her inevitable triumph come Election Day.Then the Rev. Derinzer Johnson, a North Carolina native recently returned from New Jersey, grabbed a microphone, with a worried look, to plead with Ms. Beasley, a former state chief justice: Let him help her.“Being close is not good enough — you’ve got to win,” he said later. “They’re not organized,” he said of Ms. Beasley’s political team. “They’re campaigning, but they’re not organized.”The contest for the seat of Senator Richard M. Burr, a Republican who is retiring, may be 2022’s sleeper race, garnering far less attention than the colorful campaigns in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia. Even Ohio has captured more of the spotlight, though North Carolina is a more evenly divided state and public polling has shown Ms. Beasley knotted in a statistical tie with her Republican opponent, Representative Ted Budd.That may be because the sleeper is also the sleepiest.Representative Ted Budd campaigning at Boxcar Grille in Claremont, N.C. Mr. Budd, hoping to shed his association with former President Donald J. Trump, is trying to come off as a generic Republican.Logan R. Cyrus for The New York TimesIf fire is what voters are seeking, they won’t find it here. Neither Ms. Beasley nor Mr. Budd could be called incendiary on the stump, and that appears to be the way they want it: Ms. Beasley is running as a judge above the fray, and Mr. Budd, hoping to shed his association with former President Donald J. Trump, is trying to come off as a generic Republican campaigning against an unpopular Democratic president when the national environment favors his party.For Ms. Beasley, what passes for an attack line is her oft-repeated “This Budd’s not for you,” harking back to a beer ad from 1979.“If things continue as it right now, it’s a coin toss,” said Michael Bitzer, chairman of the politics department at Catawba College in central North Carolina.North Carolina is a state that loves to break Democrats’ hearts, and they can be forgiven their skittishness. A near lock on the governor’s mansion is countered by a heavily gerrymandered State Legislature that has secured Republicans an impenetrable majority. Democrats thought they had a breakthrough in 2008, when Barack Obama won the state, Kay Hagan knocked off then-Senator Elizabeth Dole as an underdog candidate and Ms. Beasley, then a former public defender and district judge, cruised to a seat on the elected North Carolina Court of Appeals.Then Mr. Obama narrowly fell to Mitt Romney in 2012. Ms. Hagan lost her re-election race in 2014 after leading Thom Tillis for months in the polls. Mr. Trump didn’t crack 50 percent but still beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s ambitions for the Tarheel State fell short by over a percentage point in 2020. That same year, a well-regarded Democratic Senate candidate, Cal Cunningham, stumbled on a sex scandal and dashed hopes again.The Beasley campaign is quick to note that she has won statewide — twice. But since she rode the 2008 wave, it hasn’t gotten easier. After an appointment to the state’s highest court, Ms. Beasley won a full term in 2014 by 5,400 votes after a recount. She lost her 2020 re-election by 401 votes, joining the ranks of the Democratic brokenhearted.Ms. Beasley spoke with a volunteer at Chosen City Church in Charlotte. She is betting that in her evenly divided state, she can win in November by turning out the Democratic vote in specific regions.Logan R. Cyrus for The New York TimesMs. Beasley’s bet this time is that in her evenly divided state, she can win in November by turning out the Democratic vote. Her focuses are the booming counties around Charlotte; the Research Triangle of Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill; and Greensboro. She also aims to cut into the overwhelming Republican advantage in more rural reaches, especially with Black voters who are less likely to come to the polls. Her calling card is her judicial temperament: She is, she says, not a politician but a judge, who has held people to account in North Carolina and would do the same in Washington.But in a state where Senator Jesse Helms once used openly racist advertising to crush a Democratic challenger, and as the super PAC aligned with the Republican Party leadership goes on the air attacking Ms. Beasley as a big-moneyed lawyer, some Democrats want a little less balance and a little more brimstone.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Inflation Concerns Persist: In the six-month primary season that has just ended, several issues have risen and fallen, but nothing has dislodged inflation and the economy from the top of voters’ minds.Times/Siena Poll: Our second survey of the 2022 election cycle found Democrats remain unexpectedly competitive in the battle for Congress, while G.O.P. dreams of a major realignment among Latino voters have failed to materialize.Echoing Trump: Six G.O.P. nominees for governor and the Senate in critical midterm states, all backed by former President Donald J. Trump, would not commit to accepting this year’s election results.Ohio Senate Race: The contest between Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance, appears tighter than many once expected.State Senator DeAndrea Salvador explained the stakes for Democrats: Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, could lose his veto power if Republicans in the gerrymandered Legislature pick up just a few seats. “It’s time to stop worrying about being nice,” she said delicately, “and start thinking about being kind” — her diplomatic prescription for a little tough love.And the Rev. Walter L. Bowers, the pastor of Chosen City Church on the edge of Charlotte’s sprawl, said Ms. Beasley was “a wonderful person, but people need to see how tough she is.”“When you have strong leaders that are not flamboyant, people mistake that for weakness,” he said.Playing into those concerns is Mr. Budd, a backbench Republican with six quiet years in the House but the kind of bland look that his party hopes can slide him into the Senate with minimal effort.His record is not all that tame. A gun store owner from outside Winston-Salem, Mr. Budd secured the Senate nomination by winning the endorsement of Mr. Trump.He did so, in part, by questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election, voting against its certification and calling the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol “just patriots standing up.” Jonathan Felts, a campaign spokesman, is quick to note that Mr. Budd also said Jan. 6 “was a bad day for America.”“Ted has consistently criticized those who broke the law that day and encouraged full investigations and prosecutions of the rioters,” Mr. Felts said.Mr. Budd at his primary party in Bermuda Run in May. His campaign has declined to say if he will accept the result of the November election.Erin Siegal McIntyre/ReutersMr. Budd’s campaign has declined to say if he will accept the result of the November election and claimed without evidence that Ms. Beasley might try to disenfranchise voters. Mr. Budd also opposed the recent bipartisan infrastructure and gun-control bills that his state’s Republican senators supported.Though Mr. Felts cited “Budd Crew Chiefs” in all 100 of the state’s counties and some 113 events and fund-raisers, Republican whispers of worry about Mr. Budd’s campaign are growing louder as he spends the last weeks of the campaign raising money behind closed doors, attending to Congress and leaving the task of earning votes largely to his advertising.“He’s depending on ‘I’m not a liberal Democrat, I’m a generic Republican, vote for me,’” said Pope McCorkle, known as Mac, a longtime Democratic strategist now at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy.No one could accuse Ms. Beasley of letting advertising do the work. On Friday, after two events in Greensboro, she dashed from a family pharmacy in Gastonia to a get-out-the-vote rally at the historically Black Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte to the packed pep rally. The next morning, she kicked off a round of canvassing outside Charlotte, stopped by the Fourth Ward Barber Shop, spoke at a labor rally and greeted canvassers in Matthews before heading, lunch in the car, to Rocky Mount for a full Sunday slate of appearances in the state’s rural northeast.Ms. Beasley at a campaign stop at Fourth Ward Barber just outside uptown Charlotte. In North Carolina, winning might be less about persuading swing voters than about bringing one’s team out in force.Logan R. Cyrus for The New York TimesFor all the talk of “purple” North Carolina, many political scientists say the number of true swing voters is tiny. The state is more a patchwork of deep-blue and deep-red redoubts. Winning might be less about persuading swing voters than about bringing your team out in force.North Carolina lacks a metropolis like the one Atlanta has become in Georgia, southwest of here. Mr. McCorkle points to “countrypolitan” counties that ring North Carolina’s biggest cities, which have remained heavily white and Republican even as the far suburbs of Atlanta have become diverse and politically fluid.Mr. Trump beat Mr. Biden in those exurban Carolina counties by a bigger margin than he did in rural counties.But Mr. McCorkle does not count Ms. Beasley out. North Carolina has traditionally been more liberal on abortion than much of the South, and with the Legislature on the edge of a conservative supermajority, the issue will resonate. Last month, a federal judge allowed the reinstatement of a 20-week abortion ban. Mr. Budd has co-sponsored a 15-week abortion ban with no exceptions at the national level.And North Carolinians have recoiled against conservative extremism when there was a sense that it had gone too far, as when Mr. Helms used the images of white hands to say whites were losing their livelihoods to “racial quotas” and people of color.For all his effort to look bland, Mr. Budd will be appearing at a rally in Wilmington on Friday with Mr. Trump.“Budd could rest on the Trump laurels for the primary. I’m not sure that strategy is effective for a general campaign,” Mr. Bitzer said.To stay on her message, Ms. Beasley will need to resist those in her party who want more fire. At Akers Pharmacy in Gastonia, she listened to voters describe their struggles with diabetes, cancer, soaring pharmaceutical costs and fickle insurance companies.Ms. Beasley, second from right, during a discussion about drug cost that included DonnaMarie Woodson, right, in Gastonia.Logan R. Cyrus for The New York TimesThen DonnaMarie Woodson, a two-time cancer survivor and party activist, looked at her plaintively.“I’m not trying to be too controversial,” Ms. Woodson told Ms. Beasley, before laying in. “Health insurance is a right, and I will go down fighting for that, and I know you will, too. I know you will, too.”Ms. Beasley smiled calmly, then expressed her gratitude to everyone there, never uttering the words “Republican” or “Budd” or taking up Ms. Woodson’s invitation. “You’re not pieces of paper or documents,” she said. “This truly is, for you and your children, about saving lives.”Afterward, Ms. Woodson acknowledged that she had been trying to bait Ms. Beasley into a stronger response. She said she backed off after catching the candidate’s gestures toward her.“I didn’t want to open a can that she would be responsible for,” Ms. Woodson said. More

Voters in New Hampshire and Mississippi face the highest personal cost in the country in terms of the time and effort required to cast a ballot, according to a new academic study. Voters in Oregon and Washington have it the easiest. And while residents of Georgia, Florida and Iowa face taller barriers to voting since […] More

It’s obvious. Glenn Youngkin, the Republican governor of Virginia, wants to be president.Within months of taking office, Youngkin had already established two political organizations, Spirit of Virginia and America’s Spirit, meant to raise his profile in national Republican politics with donations and assistance to candidates both in his home state and across the country. In July, he met privately with major conservative donors in New York City, underlining the sense that his ambitions run larger than his term in Richmond.Youngkin, a former private equity executive, is on a tour of the country, speaking and raising money for Republican candidates in key presidential swing states. And as he crisscrosses the United States in support of the Republican Party, Youngkin is neither avoiding Donald Trump nor scorning his acolytes; he’s embracing them.In Nevada last week, Youngkin stumped for Joe Lombardo, the Trump-backed Republican nominee for governor who acknowledges that President Biden won the election but says he is worried about the “sanctity of the voting system.” In Michigan, Youngkin stumped for Tudor Dixon, the Trump-backed Republican nominee for governor who has repeatedly challenged the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. And later this month, in Arizona, Youngkin will stump for Kari Lake, the Trump-backed Republican nominee for governor who accused Democrats of fraud in the state and says that unlike Gov. Doug Ducey, she “would not have certified” the 2020 election results.Whether Youngkin agrees with any of this himself is an open question. In the 2021 Virginia Republican primary, he flirted with election denialism but never fully committed. What matters, for our purposes, is that Youngkin believes he needs to cater to and actually support election questioners and deniers to have a shot at leading the Republican Party.You can sense, in conversations about the present and future of the Republican Party, a hope that there is some way to force the party off its current, anti-democratic path. You could see it in the outrage over Democratic Party “meddling” in Republican primaries. As the conservative columnist Henry Olsen wrote for The Washington Post in July, “True friends of democracy would seek to build new alliances that cross old partisan boundaries.”What Youngkin — a more polished and ostensibly moderate Republican politician — aptly demonstrates is that this is false. The issue is that Republican voters want MAGA candidates, and ambitious Republicans see no path to power that doesn’t treat election deniers and their supporters as partners in arms.There is an analogy to make here to the midcentury Democratic Party, which was torn between a liberal, Northern, pro-civil rights faction and a reactionary, Southern, segregationist faction. The analogy is useful, not because the outcome of the struggle is instructive in this case, but because the reason the liberal faction prevailed helps illustrate why anti-MAGA Republicans are fighting a losing battle.In 1948, the mayor of Minneapolis — 37-year-old Hubert Humphrey — called on the hundreds of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia to add a strong civil rights plank to the party’s national platform. “To those who say we are rushing this issue of civil rights,” Humphrey said, “I say to them we are 172 years late.”“The time has arrived for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights,” Humphrey added.As the historian Michael Kazin notes in “What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party,” both “the speech and the ebullient, and quite spontaneous, floor demonstration that followed helped convince a majority of delegates — and President Truman, reluctantly — to include the civil rights pledge in the platform.”But there were dissenters. A small number of Southern delegates left the convention in protest. Calling themselves the States’ Rights Democratic Party, they organized a challenge to Truman with Gov. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina at the top of their ticket.These “Dixiecrats” were anti-civil rights and, for good measure, anti-labor. “We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race, the constitutional right to choose one’s associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one’s living in any lawful way,” reads the States’ Rights Democratic platform, unanimously adopted at their convention in Oklahoma City the next month. We favor, they continued, “home-rule, local self-government and a minimum of interference with individual rights.”Of course, this meant the maintenance of Jim Crow, the subversion of the constitutional guarantees embedded in the 14th and 15th Amendments, and the continued domination of Black Americans by a tyrannical planter-industrial elite.From its inception in the late 1820s as the movement to elect Andrew Jackson president, the Democratic Party relied on the Solid South to win national elections. Now it had a choice. Democrats could reject their new civil rights plank, accommodate the Dixiecrats and fight with a unified front against a hungry and energetic Republican Party, shut out of power since Herbert Hoover’s defeat in 1932. Or they could scorn the so-called States’ Rights Democrats and run as a liberal party committed to equal rights and opportunity for all Americans.They chose the latter and changed American politics forever. And while much of this choice was born of sincere belief, we also should not ignore the powerful force of demographic change.From 1915 to 1965, more than six million Black Americans left their homes in the agrarian South to settle in the cities of the industrial North, from New York and Chicago to Philadelphia and Detroit and beyond.Their arrival marked the beginning of a tectonic shift in American political life. “The difference in laws between the North and the South created a political coming-of-age for Black migrants,” the political scientist Keneshia N. Grant writes in “The Great Migration and the Democratic Party: Black Voters and the Realignment of American Politics in the 20th Century.” “Seeing political participation as a badge of honor and hallmark of success in northern life, migrants registered to vote in large numbers. Northern parties and candidates worked to gain Black support through their election campaigns, and the parties expected Black voters to turn out to vote for their nominees on Election Day.”For a Democratic Party whose national fortunes rested on control of urban machines, Black voters could mean the difference between four years in power and four years in the wilderness. With the rise of Franklin Roosevelt, who won an appreciable share of the Black vote in the 1932 presidential election, Northern Democratic politicians began to pay real attention to the interests of Black Americans in cities across the region.By 1948, most Black Americans who could vote were reliable partners in the New Deal coalition, which gave liberals in the Democratic Party some of the political space they needed to buck Jim Crow. Yes, the Dixiecrats would withdraw their support. But for every white vote Harry Truman might lose in Alabama and Mississippi, there was a Black vote he might gain in Ohio and California, the two states that ultimately gave him his victory over the fearsome former prosecutor (and New York governor) Thomas Dewey.Not only did the Dixiecrat rebellion fail; it also demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that Democrats could win national elections without the Solid South. The segregationists were weaker than they looked, and over the next 20 years the Democratic Party would cast them aside. (And even then, with the Dixiecrat exodus, Truman still won most of the states of the former Confederacy.)There is no equivalent to northern Black voters in the Trumpified Republican Party. Put differently, there is no large and pivotal group of Republicans who can exert cross-pressure on MAGA voters. Instead, the further the Republican Party goes down the rabbit hole of “stop the steal” and other conspiracy theories, the more it loses voters who could serve to apply that pressure.In a normal, more majoritarian political system, this dynamic would eventually fix the issue of the MAGA Republican Party. Parties want to win, and they will almost always shift gears when it’s clear they can’t with their existing platform, positions and leadership.The problem is that the American political system, in its current configuration, gives much of its power to the party with the most supporters in all the right places. Republicans may have lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections, but key features in the system — equal state representation in the Senate, malapportionment in the House of Representatives and winner-take-all distribution of votes in the Electoral College (Nebraska and Maine notwithstanding) — gives them a powerful advantage on the playing field of national politics.To put it in simple terms, Joe Biden won the national popular vote by seven million ballots in the 2020 presidential election, but if not for roughly 120,000 votes across four states — Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — Donald Trump would still be president.Which is all to say that someone like Glenn Youngkin is only doing what makes sense. To make MAGA politics weak among Republican politicians, you have to make MAGA voters irrelevant in national elections. But that will take a different political system — or a vastly different political landscape — than the one we have now.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

Una encuesta de The New York Times/Siena College revela que los demócratas están mucho peor que en el pasado con los votantes hispanos. Pero, en general, el partido ha mantenido el control sobre el electorado latino.Han pasado casi dos años desde que Donald Trump logró algunos avances sorpresivos con los electores latinos. Pero según un nuevo sondeo de The New York Times y Siena College, no se han logrado materializar los sueños de los republicanos sobre una importante reorientación de los votantes latinos hacia las posturas de su partido sobre los problemas sociales y la delincuencia.Este sondeo —una de las encuestas no partidistas más grandes relacionadas con los electores latinos desde las elecciones de 2020— reveló que los demócratas habían mantenido un control sobre la mayoría de los electores latinos, motivados en parte por mujeres y por la creencia de que los demócratas seguían siendo el partido de la clase trabajadora. En general, es más probable que los votantes latinos estén de acuerdo con los demócratas en muchos temas: inmigración, política sobre el control de armas, cambio climático. También es más probable que vean a los republicanos como el partido de la élite y como el movimiento que tiene posturas extremas. Además, una mayoría de los electores latinos, el 56 por ciento, piensa votar por los demócratas este otoño, en comparación con el 32 por ciento que pretende votar por los republicanos.Pero en la consulta también se ven señales preocupantes para el futuro del mensaje de los demócratas. Pese a esa cómoda ventaja, el sondeo revela que los demócratas están mucho peor que en los años anteriores a las elecciones de 2020. Parece que los electores latinos más jóvenes, sobre todo los del sur, se están alejando del partido, un cambio que es impulsado por las enormes inquietudes en materia económica. En las elecciones intermedias de este año, deficiencias en el sur y entre los electores de las zonas rurales se podrían interponer en los triunfos importantísimos de Texas y Florida.Anthony Saiz, de 24 años, quien reseña el contenido de una plataforma de redes sociales en Tucson, Arizona, comentó que, para salir adelante, tuvo que aceptar un segundo empleo como pizzero en una cervecería. Saiz votó por Joe Biden en 2020 y se considera demócrata porque creció dentro de una familia demócrata. Pero cree que durante el mandato de Biden el costo de la vida se duplicó, pese a que se mudó a un apartamento más pequeño.“Las decisiones que ha tomado para el país me han puesto en una situación muy difícil”, comentó acerca del presidente.La manera en que voten los latinos será un asunto fundamental en las elecciones de noviembre y para el futuro de la política estadounidense. La participación de los electores latinos es decisiva en la lucha por el control del Congreso y conforman una parte considerable de los votantes —hasta el 20 por ciento— en dos de los estados que más probabilidades tienen de decidir el control del Senado: Arizona y Nevada. Los latinos también representan más del 20 por ciento de los electores registrados en más de una decena de contiendas muy competitivas para la Cámara de Representantes en California, Colorado, Florida y Texas, entre otros estados.Desde hace mucho tiempo, los demócratas han pensado que el creciente electorado latino condenaría a los republicanos, y las posibilidades de que haya un electorado cada vez más diverso han avivado las preocupaciones de los conservadores. Los resultados de las elecciones de 2020 —en las cuales, en comparación con 2016, Trump ganó más o menos unos ocho puntos porcentuales entre los votantes latinos— comenzaron a cambiar el panorama de ambos partidos. La encuesta del Times/Siena revela que siguen arraigadas las creencias y las lealtades históricas con respecto a los temas centrales, aunque hay algunos cambios que llaman mucho la atención.Aunque las mayorías de los votantes hispanos apoyan a los demócratas en temas sociales y culturales, una parte muy considerable sigue teniendo creencias que se alinean con los republicanos: más de una tercera parte de los electores hispanos afirman que están más de acuerdo con el Partido Republicano en los temas relacionados con la delincuencia y la vigilancia policial, y a cuatro de cada diez votantes hispanos les preocupa que el Partido Demócrata haya ido demasiado lejos en materia de raza y género. Los votantes latinos consideran que los problemas económicos son el factor más importante que determinará su voto este año y están divididos de manera uniforme acerca de con qué partido están más de acuerdo en lo que se refiere a la economía.Los electores latinos en Estados Unidos nunca han sido un bloque de votación monolítico y con frecuencia desconciertan a los estrategas políticos que tratan de entender su comportamiento. Los 32 millones de latinos que pueden votar son inmigrantes recientes y ciudadanos de cuarta generación, habitantes de las ciudades y de las zonas rurales, católicos y ateos.Ambos partidos se han llenado de fanfarronerías y han disparado sus expectativas respecto a los votantes latinos, recaudando y gastando millones de dólares para atraer su apoyo, pero hay pocos datos concretos no partidistas que respalden sus especulaciones. La encuesta ofrece una visión de una parte del electorado que muchos estrategas han denominado como el nuevo voto indeciso y cuyas opiniones suelen ser complicadas por las contradicciones entre subgrupos.Para Dani Bernal, una empresaria de Los Ángeles, los temas económicos ocupan un lugar destacado en sus decisiones.Jenna Schoenefeld para The New York TimesDani Bernal, de 35 años, que se dedica al mercadeo digital y es empresaria en Los Ángeles, dijo que alterna entre los candidatos de ambos partidos, en gran parte basándose en sus políticas económicas. Dijo que su madre llegó a Florida desde Bolivia con solo una bolsa de ropa y 500 dólares, y pudo prosperar porque los impuestos eran bajos y el costo de la vida era asequible. Bernal dijo que los temas económicos tienen una gran importancia en sus decisiones.“Estoy registrada como republicana, pero soy exactamente igual que Florida: voy de un lado a otro”, dijo.Los republicanos están teniendo un mejor desempeño con los votantes latinos que viven en el sur, una zona que incluye estados como Florida y Texas, donde los republicanos han logrado victorias importantes en las elecciones recientes con los votantes latinos. En el sur, 46 por ciento de los electores latinos dicen que piensan votar por los demócratas, mientras que el 45 por ciento afirman que planean votar por los republicanos. Por el contrario, en otras zonas del país, los demócratas tienen del 62 al 24 por ciento entre los electores latinos.Es posible que una brecha generacional también lleve a los republicanos a obtener más triunfos. La encuesta reveló que los demócratas gozaban de un gran respaldo sobre todo entre los electores latinos de mayor edad, pero el 46 por ciento de los votantes menores de 30 años apoyan el manejo de la economía por parte de los republicanos, en comparación con el 43 por ciento que están a favor de los demócratas.Los republicanos también tienen fuerza entre los varones latinos, quienes apoyan más a los demócratas en las elecciones intermedias, pero, por un margen de cinco puntos, dicen que votarían por Trump si volviera a contender en 2024. Parece que los varones jóvenes, sobre todo, están dando un giro hacia los republicanos. Son un importante punto débil para los demócratas quienes, con los varones menores de 45 años, mantienen una ventaja de solo cuatro puntos en las elecciones intermedias.La encuesta del Times/Siena ofrece una visión de los votantes latinos que tradicionalmente han apoyado a los demócratas en el pasado pero que planean votar a los republicanos este otoño: son desproporcionadamente votantes sin título universitario que se centran en la economía, y es más probable que sean jóvenes, hombres y nacidos en Estados Unidos, pero que viven en zonas con gran presencia de hispanos.La inmigración sigue siendo un tema primordial para los electores latinos, y ambos partidos tienen un atractivo particular. Mientras que los demócratas han presionado para reformar el sistema de inmigración legal y ofrecen una vía para que muchos inmigrantes que viven de manera ilegal en el país obtengan la ciudadanía, los republicanos se han enfocado en tomar medidas enérgicas contra la inmigración ilegal y en usar la política fronteriza para impulsar sus bases.Los demócratas conservan una gran ventaja en el tema de la inmigración legal y el 55 por ciento de los electores latinos afirman estar de acuerdo con este partido, en comparación con el 29 por ciento que dicen estar de acuerdo con los republicanos. Pero el Partido Republicano ha avanzado cuando ha acentuado la retórica y la política antiinmigración: 37 por ciento de los electores latinos apoyan las posturas de los republicanos con respecto a la inmigración ilegal. Y aproximadamente una tercera parte de estos respalda la construcción de un muro en la frontera entre México y Estados Unidos.Amelia Alonso Tarancón, de 69 años, quien emigró de Cuba hace 14 años y ahora vive en las afueras de Fort Lauderdale, Florida, quiere que el Congreso le proporcione estatus legal a los trabajadores que viven en el país de manera ilegal y que han estado ahí durante décadas. Pero concuerda con los republicanos en sus posturas radicales contra la inmigración ilegal. Esta idea la motivó a votar por Trump, pese a que es una demócrata registrada.Amelia Alonso Tarancón, que vive cerca de Fort Lauderdale, Florida, no se considera demócrata ni republicana.Saul Martinez para The New York Times“Sé que este país es un país de inmigrantes, pero deben migrar de forma legal”, dijo. Pero Alonso Tarancón dijo que ya no apoyaba al expresidente después de que se negó a entregar la presidencia, impulsó el ataque al Capitolio de Estados Unidos y “se llevó todos esos documentos” a Mar-a-Lago.“No me considero ni demócrata ni republicana, ahora mismo estoy en espera hasta las próximas elecciones”, dijo.En su esfuerzo por atraer nuevos votantes, los republicanos han criticado con frecuencia a los demócratas por ser demasiado “concienciados” o woke. Esa acusación resuena entre muchos votantes hispanos porque el 40 por ciento dice que el partido ha ido demasiado lejos al impulsar una ideología “concienciada” en materia de raza y género. Pero hay una clara división: el 37 por ciento opina lo contrario y dice que el partido no ha ido lo suficientemente lejos. Y casi uno de cada cinco votantes hispanos encuestados dijo que no sabía si los demócratas eran demasiado woke, un término que no se puede traducir fácilmente al español.En lo que se refiere a muchos temas sociales y culturales, los electores latinos siguen estando alineados con el Partido Republicano.La mayoría, un 58 por ciento, tiene una buena opinión del movimiento “Las vidas negras importan”, mientras que el 45 por ciento también apoyan el movimiento “Las vidas azules importan”, el cual defiende al personal de la policía. Una mayoría cree que el aborto debe ser legal en casi todos los casos; incluso entre los latinos republicanos, cuatro de cada diez personas rechazan la decisión de la Corte Suprema de anular la sentencia del caso Roe contra Wade. El apoyo a “Las vidas negras importan” y al derecho al aborto es impulsado principalmente por los jóvenes. Al preguntarles con quién están más de acuerdo en el caso de la política sobre el control de armas, el 49 por ciento dijo que con los demócratas, mientras que el 34 por ciento afirmó que con los republicanos.En repetidas ocasiones, los republicanos que intentan ganarse a los electores latinos han descrito a los demócratas como elitistas y alejados de la realidad, pero la encuesta indica que esta estrategia está teniendo un éxito limitado.Casi seis de cada 10 votantes latinos siguen viendo al Partido Demócrata como el partido de la clase trabajadora. Aunque los republicanos blancos se consideran de modo uniforme como el partido de la clase trabajadora, incluso algunos republicanos latinos creen que esa es una característica de los demócratas. Además, en la encuesta no se obtuvieron pruebas de que los republicanos estuvieran teniendo un mejor desempeño entre la población latina sin estudios universitarios ni entre los latinos de las zonas rurales, dos grupos demográficos fundamentales a los que han querido acercarse. Uno de cada cuatro votantes latinos de las zonas rurales sigue sin decidir por quién votar en noviembre.Los demócratas han sido criticados con contundencia por su aceptación del término Latinx, que tiene el propósito de ser más inclusivo que las palabras “latino” y “latina”, las cuales marcan el género. Encuestas anteriores han revelado que solo una pequeña minoría de votantes latinos prefieren ese término. Pero la encuesta indicaba que Latinx no es, en absoluto, el tema más polarizador; solo el 18 por ciento señaló que ese término le parecía ofensivo.La encuesta del Times/Siena, realizada a 1399 votantes registrados en todo el país, incluida una sobremuestra de 522 votantes hispanos, se llevó a cabo por teléfono con operadores en directo del 6 al 14 de septiembre de 2022. El margen de error de muestreo es de más o menos 3,6 puntos porcentuales para la muestra completa y de 5,9 puntos porcentuales entre los votantes hispanos. Las tabulaciones cruzadas y la metodología están disponibles para todos los votantes registrados y para los votantes hispanos.Nate Cohn More

Polling error is not inevitable, and there are signs that 2022 may be different.Pollsters are setting sail yet again this year. Is it a little scary? Yes. Adam Dean for The New York TimesLast Monday, I wrote about the early “warning signs” in this year’s Senate polling. Then three days later, I helped write up the results of a new national survey: a New York Times/Siena College poll showing Democrats up by two percentage points in the generic ballot among registered voters.If you thought that was a touch contradictory, you’re not alone. One person tweeted: “Didn’t you just write that the polls are an illusion? Why should we believe this one?”It’s a perfectly fair question, and it’s one I encounter regularly: Should I believe these polls — or not? It’s also a surprisingly complicated question to answer.This may sound obvious, but I’ll say it anyway: We believe our polls provide valuable information about voters and the state of the election. These polls are time-consuming, expensive and stressful, with considerable mental health and reputational costs when they wind up “wrong.” We would not be making this effort if we believed they were doomed to be useless.There are warning signs, yes — and we’ll track them in this newsletter. I do not think you should unquestioningly “believe” polls, at least not in the sense that you “believe” figures from an encyclopedia. Polls are not exact measurements, like the diameter of the Earth or the speed of light. They are imprecise estimates — and even the classic margin of error seriously understates the actual degree of uncertainty.But despite all the limitations, a 2020 polling error is not inevitable, either. In fact, our most recent survey showed some small signs of encouragement that 2022 polls may not be like those of 2020.Polling errors at seaI spent a week on a lake in Ontario last month, so forgive me for analogizing polling failures to a different kind of catastrophe: a boat capsizing in a violent storm.Like a rickety boat in a storm, the polling error in the last cycle required both difficult conditions — whether it’s rough waves or the lower likelihood that Trump voters participate in surveys — and a polling vessel that simply couldn’t handle the adversity.Nonetheless, we’re setting sail yet again this year.Is it a little scary? Yes. We pollsters are stuck with the same boats that flipped last time. We would like to buy something sturdier, but there isn’t anything better on the market. That’s not to say that we aren’t making changes, but many of our best ideas are the equivalent of tightening the screws and patching holes. Even with such changes, we can’t be confident that our ships today will withstand the storm we experienced in 2020.But are we doomed? No. For example, there’s a credible theory that the pandemic contributed to polling error, as safety-conscious liberals were more likely to be home during lockdowns (and answered telephone calls) while conservatives went out and lived their lives. With the lockdowns over, those tendencies may be, too.There’s also a credible theory that Donald J. Trump himself is an important factor. If so, polling could be more “normal” with him off the ballot.What you’ve read to this point is the nautical version of an analysis written by Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, who argued that the polls may not be wrong this fall. Although the piece is sort of framed as a rebuttal to mine, I don’t really disagree with any of it. Consider it recommended reading.A favorable data point from our most recent poll: response rates by partyThere’s one big difference between polling after 2020 and setting sail the day after a storm: The sailor can probably find a weather forecast.We don’t get poll error warnings, but last week’s newsletter pointed to something about as close as it gets: surprising Democratic strength in exactly the same places where the polls overestimated Democrats last time. If you’ll permit this metaphor to continue, it’s an ominous cloud on the horizon. Dark clouds don’t necessarily mean there will be a fierce storm, but if there were going to be a storm, we’d see some dark clouds first. Similarly, this pattern in the state polling is exactly what we would expect to see if the polls were going to err in the same way they did two years ago.This week, I can report a new measurement of the conditions facing pollsters: whether Democrats or Republicans were likelier to respond to our latest Times/Siena survey.I wasn’t systematically tracking this in fall 2020 — this data is not always easy to collect and process, especially with everything else going on. But if I had been tracking the response by party, it would have been another warning sign.Looking back at our data from September and October 2020, white Democrats were 20 percent likelier to respond to Times/Siena polls than white Republicans. This disparity most likely betrayed a deeper problem: Trump voters, regardless of party, were less likely to respond to our polls.On this front, I have good news: The response rate by party is more balanced so far this cycle. In the national poll we released last week, white Democrats were only 5 percent likelier to complete the survey than white Republicans. That’s back down near the level of our October 2019 polling, when our early survey of a projected Biden-Trump contest came eerily close to the final result among likely voters. In those battleground state polls, white Democrats were 6 percent likelier to respond than Republicans, compared with a 23 percent gap in the fall 2020 polling of those same states.This is a good sign. Maybe — just maybe — our poll last week was closer to the mark than polls have been in recent cycles.But what if it’s wrong anyway?Still, it’s worth imagining what might happen if the polls are off again by the same 2020 margin.Republicans would have been the ones leading our poll last week by two points among registered voters, instead of Democrats. It would certainly be a different race, but the story might not read very differently. We’d probably still characterize the contest as fairly competitive at the outset of a general campaign. That’s a little different than in 2020, when a four-point error made the difference between a Biden landslide and a fairly competitive race.If you think about it, there are a lot of cases when a 2020-like polling error can be quite tolerable. Does it make a huge difference whether 46 percent or 50 percent of Americans think the economy is good or excellent rather than poor or bad? What about whether Mr. Trump is at 54 percent or 58 percent in an early test of the 2024 primary? In contrast, polls of close partisan elections can be extremely sensitive: whether Mr. Biden has 46 percent or 50 percent of the vote could be the difference between a decisive eight-point victory or a clear victory for Mr. Trump, given the recent skew of the Electoral College.And it’s also worth noting that the polls contain valuable information, even when they miss on the horse race. In 2016, for instance, the pre-election polls showed Mr. Trump’s huge gains among white voters without a college degree.And last cycle, they showed Mr. Trump’s gains among Hispanics. These trends uncovered by polls continue to have import. If you missed it over the weekend, my colleagues analyzed the results of our poll that focused on Hispanics, in this article, based on these cross-tabs. More

STOCKHOLM — “Helg seger.”Those two words, spoken by Rebecka Fallenkvist, a 27-year-old media figure and politician from the Sweden Democrats, the far-right party that took 20 percent in Sweden’s general election last week, sent shivers down spines throughout the country. It’s not the phrase, which is odd and means “weekend victory.” It’s the sound: one letter away from “Hell seger,” the Swedish translation of the Nazi salute “Sieg Heil,” and the war cry of Swedish Nazis for decades.Ms. Fallenkvist was quick to disavow any Nazi associations. She meant to declare the weekend a victorious one, she said, but the words came out in the wrong order. Perhaps that’s true. But the statement would be entirely in keeping with the party Ms. Fallenkvist represents which, after a steady rise, is now likely to play a major role in the next government.For Sweden, a country that trades on being a bastion of social democracy, tolerance and fairness, it’s a shock. But perhaps it shouldn’t be. Steadily rising for the past decade, the Swedish far right has profited from the country’s growing inequalities, fostering an obsession with crime and an antipathy to migrants. Its advance marks the end of Swedish exceptionalism, the idea that the country stood out both morally and materially. There’s no doubt about the party’s Nazi origins. The Sweden Democrats was created in 1988 out of a neo-Nazi group called B.S.S., or Keep Sweden Swedish, and of the party’s 30 founding fathers, 18 had Nazi affiliations, according to a historian and former party member, Tony Gustaffson. Some of the founding fathers had even served in Hitler’s Waffen SS.Step by step the party changed its image — in 1995 uniforms were forbidden — but the core ideology remained: Immigrants should be persuaded to go home, Swedish culture should be protected and neither Jews nor the Indigenous Sami people were to be considered “real Swedes.” Not even the soccer star Zlatan Ibrahimovic secured the party’s approval, although he was born in the country and is the national team’s record goal scorer. The stances of the current leadership, which has sought to sanitize the party’s reputation, are equally worrying.Take Linus Bylund, the party’s chief of staff in the Swedish Parliament. In an interview in 2020, he declared that journalists for the national public service radio and television ought to be “punished” if their reporting was biased. Such people, he stated previously, would be “enemies of the nation.” Proximity to power hasn’t softened his views. The day after the recent election, a reporter asked him what he now looked forward to. “Journalist-rugby,” he replied.Jimmie Akesson, the party’s leader, also surprised a television audience in mid-February when he refused to choose between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. It’s of a piece with the party’s accommodating stance on Russia: The Swedish Parliament was so concerned about a journalist who used to work in the party’s office and had contact with Russian intelligence that it denied the journalist accreditation. Add in a cohort of representatives more prosecuted for crimes than any other, organized troll campaigns against opponents and even attempts to undermine faith in the electoral system, and you have the image of a deeply unsavory party.Even so, the Sweden Democrats’ rise is an impressive right-wing success story. The party entered the Parliament in 2010 with just over 5 percent of the vote — but, under the leadership of Mr. Akesson, it built an efficient, nationwide organization. It more than doubled its share of the vote in 2014 and, after Sweden admitted over 160,000 Syrian refugees, grew even more in the 2018 election. But it’s in this vote that Sweden Democrats secured a sought-after breakthrough with a stunning 20.6 percent of the votes, surpassing the conservative Moderaterna, which had been Sweden’s second-biggest party for over 40 years. Now only the Social Democratic Party, Sweden’s historic party of government, has more support.This monumental rise is thanks to the dramatic changes in Swedish life over the past three decades. Once one of the most economically equal countries in the world, Sweden has seen the privatization of hospitals, schools and care homes, leading to a notable rise in inequality and a sense of profound loss. The idea of Sweden as a land of equal opportunity, safe from the plagues of extreme left or extreme right, is gone. This obscure collective feeling was waiting for a political response — and the Sweden Democrats have been the most successful in providing it. It was better in the good old days, they say, and people believe them. Back to red cottages and apple trees, to law and order, to women being women and men being men.For opening this door, the major parties have themselves to blame. Bit by bit, the traditional parties have adopted the point of view and rhetoric on crime and immigrations of the Sweden Democrats Party — but this strategy hasn’t won back any votes. On the contrary, it seems to have helped the far right. In a little more than 12 years, Sweden Democrats has managed to compete with the Social Democrats for working-class voters, with Moderaterna for the support of entrepreneurs and with the Centre Party among the rural population.The media is culpable, too. In an attempt to protect traditional Swedish democratic values, the mainstream media has often shunned and canceled Sweden Democrats officials and supporters, especially in the party’s early years. But now it seems that this response actually might have had the opposite effect. Individuals leaning toward the Sweden Democrats for various reasons have felt stigmatized: Some haven’t been invited to family gatherings, and in a few cases have even lost their jobs. This has not only fed the party’s self-image as a martyr, but also nurtured even more loyalty among its supporters.One could argue that the traditional parties have had their part in creating the perfect storm. The Social Democratic party has named the Sweden Democrats their main enemy in the election campaign, making other alternatives almost invisible in the public debate. Us or them, was the strategy. Many, predominantly male Swedes, chose the Sweden Democrats. As for a conservative party like Moderaterna, they have seen their voters abandon them for Sweden Democrats and so Moderaterna reacted by emphasizing the similarities between the two parties until it reached a point where it became hard to distinguish any differences at all. The result is now plain to see. The Social Democrats, though the largest party, are unable to form a government. Instead, a conservative bloc, led by Ulf Kristersson from Moderaterna, will attempt to take office — as long as it has the support of the Sweden Democrats. Effectively a kingmaker, the party is now one of the most successful far-right parties in Europe since World War II.It’s a terrifying truth. But we must bear in mind that the majority of the country’s population is not among the Sweden Democrats’ ranks. These people want solutions to real problems — such as a worrying spike in gang and drug-related shootings in several cities — without recourse to ethnic blame games and the vilification of “un-Swedish” culture. As a liberal democrat I will never approve of a party that celebrates its success with references to Hitler’s Nazi ideology, no matter the claim that only by sheer coincidence was the exclamation “Helg Seger” just one letter apart from a Nazi war cry. Elisabeth Asbrink is the author of “1947: Where Now Begins,” “Made in Sweden: 25 Ideas That Created a Country” and “And in Wienerwald the Trees Remain.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

The footage raises new questions about efforts by Trump affiliates in a number of swing states to gain access to and copy sensitive voting software after the 2020 election.Newly released videos show allies of former President Donald J. Trump and contractors who were working on his behalf handling sensitive voting equipment in a rural Georgia county weeks after the 2020 election.The footage, which was made public as part of long-running litigation over Georgia’s voting system, raises new questions about efforts by Trump affiliates in a number of swing states to gain access to and copy sensitive election software, with the help of friendly local election administrators. One such incident took place on Jan. 7 of last year, the day after supporters of Mr. Trump stormed the Capitol, when a small team traveled to rural Coffee County, Ga.The group included members of an Atlanta-based firm called SullivanStrickler, which had been hired by Sidney Powell, a lawyer advising Mr. Trump who is also a conspiracy theorist.“We are on our way to Coffee County, Ga., to collect what we can from the election/voting machines and systems,” one of the company’s executives, Paul Maggio, wrote Ms. Powell on that January morning. Weeks later, Scott Hall, an Atlanta-area Trump supporter and bail bondsman who also traveled to Coffee County, said “we scanned every freaking ballot” in a recorded phone conversation.Mr. Hall said the team had the blessing of the local elections board and “scanned all the equipment, imaged all the hard drives and scanned every single ballot.”A nonprofit group that is suing over perceived security vulnerabilities in Georgia’s voting system released the new videos after obtaining them in its litigation.Coffee County Elections OfficeThe new videos show members of the team inside an office handling the county’s poll pads, which contain sensitive voter data. (The cases holding the equipment in the footage are labeled with the words “POLL PAD.”) In a court hearing on Sept. 9, David D. Cross, a lawyer for a nonprofit group that is suing over perceived security vulnerabilities in Georgia’s voting system — and that released the new videos after obtaining them in its litigation — told a judge that his group suspected that the “personally identifiable information” of roughly seven million Georgia voters may have been copied.Charles Tonnie Adams, the elections supervisor of Heard County, Ga., said in an email that “poll pads contain every registered voter on the state list.” It was not immediately clear what specific personal information about voters was on the poll pads, or what, if anything, was done with the data.Mike Hassinger, a spokesman for Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, said a poll pad “does have voter information but it’s not accessible because it’s scrambled behind security protocols.” He added that there were no driver’s license numbers or Social Security numbers on poll pads at the time.The new videos also show that some of the Trump allies who visited Coffee County were given access to a storage room, and that various people affiliated with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or his allies, had access to the building over several days.The new footage also shows Cathy Latham, then the head of the county’s Republican Party, with members of the Trump team, standing together in an office where the county’s poll pads were laid out on a table. Ms. Latham is among the targets of a criminal investigation in Atlanta, related to her participation as one of an alternate slate of electors who tried to overturn Mr. Trump’s loss in Georgia. That investigation, which is being led by Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, has also touched on what took place in Coffee County.In a court filing late Monday evening, the plaintiffs in the civil case assailed what they called “the persistent refusal of Latham and her counsel to be straight with this court about the facts.” They accused her of downplaying her involvement with the Trump team when “she literally directed them on what to collect in the office.”Robert D. Cheeley, a lawyer for Ms. Latham, declined to speak on the record on Monday. This month, he told CNN that his client “would not and has not knowingly been involved in any impropriety in any election.”Investigators from Mr. Raffensperger’s office also appear in the new videos, raising questions about what they knew. Along with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Raffensperger’s office is investigating what took place in Coffee County, 200 miles southeast of Atlanta, but voting rights advocates involved in the litigation have questioned why Mr. Raffensperger, the defendant in the civil case, did not move more aggressively.Mr. Hassinger said the secretary of state’s office had “no idea” why its investigators were at the elections office in Coffee County in early January.“We are looking into it,” he said. “Again, we take this very seriously. This investigation is a joint effort between the secretary of state’s office and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and if it’s determined that people have committed a crime, they’re going to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”The storage room at the Coffee County elections office.Coffee County Elections OfficeMr. Hassinger added that at that time, the secretary of state’s office was looking at “vote-counting procedures when Coffee County was unable to certify the results of their election by the time of the deadline.”Lawyers for SullivanStrickler did not respond to requests for comment. The company’s lawyers have previously said it was “categorically false” that it was part of an effort that “illegally ‘breached’ servers” or other voting equipment, but that “with the benefit of hindsight, and knowing everything they know now, they would not take on any further work of this kind.”Reached by phone on Monday, Rachel Ann Roberts, the current election supervisor for Coffee County, said she could not comment on the matter of the poll pads because she had started the job after the visit took place.“I’m not certain about any of that,” she said. “I wasn’t here at the time.”Georgia is hardly the only state where such activity occurred. In Michigan, a special prosecutor is investigating efforts by Trump allies, including the Republican candidate for attorney general, Matthew DePerno, to gain access to voting machines. And in Colorado, the secretary of state’s office estimated that taxpayers faced a bill of at least $1 million to replace voting equipment in Mesa County after a pro-Trump elections supervisor was indicted on charges that she tampered with the county’s voting equipment after the 2020 election. More

A measure to provide more money for local police departments has become mired in a long-running debate among Democrats about the politics of crime, as Republicans step up attacks.WASHINGTON — Legislation to increase funding for local police departments has hit a snag on Capitol Hill amid deep Democratic divisions, as progressives balk at steering more money to law enforcement and moderates clamor for action that could blunt Republicans’ efforts to paint them as soft on crime ahead of the midterm elections.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged for weeks to bring up a package of bills that would provide funding for hiring more police officers, increasing salaries, investing in officer safety and training and body cameras, as well as mental health resources for officers.But the measures, championed by vulnerable Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, have become mired in a yearslong internal feud about the politics of crime, leaving the party without an answer to Republican attacks and some of its members livid.“I have heard a whole host of reasons for people wanting to excuse inaction,” said Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, who is in a difficult re-election race in a competitive district that includes the suburbs of Richmond, and is a lead proponent of the legislation. “The sort of generalized excuses — I’ve heard it a lot. Tomorrow it will be, ‘It’s raining.’”Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who pressed successfully for the package to include measures to strengthen accountability for police misconduct, have also pushed to move ahead with it.A spokesman for the caucus said that the issue remains a priority for the group.Yet a small group of progressives has so far refused to back the legislation, leaving Democrats short of the votes they would need to bring it up. House Democratic leaders do not want to put their party’s divisions on display at a time when the political map is looking more favorable for them than it did just a few months ago. So Ms. Pelosi has been holding off on announcing any vote, as lawmakers continue discussions with those withholding their support.Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington and the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has positioned herself as the principal roadblock to the legislation, arguing that it would provide a blank check to police departments.“The answer is not just putting more money in,” Ms. Jayapal said. “I’m not sure that this has a chance of moving forward, given all of the challenges around it.”Because of Democrats’ slim majority in the House, the opposition of Ms. Jayapal and just three other liberals would be enough to block it from proceeding to a vote. Talks among her, moderate Democrats and party leaders were continuing on Monday, according to a person familiar with the negotiations, with some still hopeful for a potential breakthrough.Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, has been pushing for a vote on the measure this week, a second person familiar with the talks said.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Echoing Trump: Six G.O.P. nominees for governor and the Senate in critical midterm states, all backed by former President Donald J. Trump, would not commit to accepting this year’s election results.Times/Siena Poll: Our second survey of the 2022 election cycle found Democrats remain unexpectedly competitive in the battle for Congress, while G.O.P. dreams of a major realignment among Latino voters have failed to materialize.Ohio Senate Race: The contest between Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance, appears tighter than many once expected.Pennsylvania Senate Race: In one of his most extensive interviews since having a stroke, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee, said he was fully capable of handling a campaign that could decide control of the Senate.Yet time is running short for Democrats to act before the midterm elections, in which Republicans have once again made crime a major point of attack. With the legislation languishing, vulnerable Democrats are losing out on a potential political boost from passing a pro-police bill. There is little time remaining before November to campaign on such a vote or to produce an advertisement attempting to claim credit.Republicans have tried for years to portray Democrats as soft on crime and bent on defunding the police — a mantra that many progressives embraced amid a series of high-profile cases of excessive violence by law enforcement, particularly against people of color.The Republican criticism has sharpened around election time, including in recent weeks, as gas prices have fallen and the party has searched for other ways to tarnish Democrats in the eyes of suburban voters, such as spotlighting the dysfunctional immigration system and the continuing toll of inflation..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-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs 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.Before the 2018 midterm elections, President Donald J. Trump branded Democrats the “party of crime,” even though crime rates had risen in cities with leaders of both political parties. Since 2019, murders have spiked by nearly 40 percent, and violent crimes, including shootings and other assaults, have increased overall.The drama that is playing out now is the latest chapter in a long-running fight about the issue among Democrats. After the party’s disappointing results in the 2020 midterm elections, as Democrats bickered internally about what had gone wrong, Ms. Spanberger privately vented her frustration about progressive colleagues who had embraced the “defund the police” movement, arguing that Democrats had to push back much more forcefully against Republican efforts to caricature them as anti-law enforcement.At the time, progressives including Ms. Jayapal angrily rejected the criticism, arguing that they had helped to turn out the party’s liberal base by speaking to the issues that animated core supporters, including people of color, allowing Democrats to hold the House majority.Those pressing to pass the legislation this year argue that it goes beyond politics and would make communities safer by helping police departments focus on community-oriented approaches. And they have tried to address broad concerns among Democrats about including meaningful police accountability measures.Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey, has introduced the Invest to Protect Act, which would direct the Justice Department to award grants to local or tribal governments with fewer than 200 law enforcement officers to improve recruitment, purchase body cameras and provide de-escalation training.Police officers in a school active shooter drill in Oriskany, N.Y.Juan Arredondo for The New York Times“We have to make it clear to the country that we’re a party that’s tough on crime and supports protecting our communities and those who do,” Mr. Gottheimer said.Mr. Hoyer said in a recent letter to Democrats that the House would be “ready to consider” the legislation this month.“Democrats are not for defunding the police,” Mr. Hoyer told reporters, adding that party members had voted for police funding. “We voted for it in the last budget, the budget before that, and every budget since I’ve been here to make sure that law enforcement have the resources it needed.”Civil rights groups including the N.A.A.C.P. are also pressing for passage of the legislation, making the case that additional police funding should be paired with accountability measures.“A wealth of evidence supports the fact that certain preventative measures, such as violence prevention programs and other community investments, can dramatically improve safety outcomes,” the organization wrote in a letter to Democratic leaders last month.But with the legislative calendar dwindling, many pressing for action said they remained skeptical there would be any real effort to move forward.“I keep hearing from leadership, ‘We really want to bring these bills,’ ” Ms. Spanberger said. “And yet.”Democrats had originally hoped to vote on the police funding bills over the summer and were planning to pair them with legislation to ban assault weapons that passed in July, before lawmakers left Washington for their August recess. But when disagreements emerged about accountability measures in the police bills, Ms. Pelosi chose to move ahead with just the assault weapons ban and revisit the law enforcement legislation in the fall.Now the House is back, but the police funding issue has not yet been settled.Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York, said she recognized the need for additional police funding, but still had reservations that the measures lacked sufficient accountability measures for law enforcement, which she described as “a tacit acceptance of abusive behaviors.”“It’s important that we have the personnel in place to make sure that our cities are safe,” Ms. Clarke said. “We also need to make sure that there’s the proper training in place, so that communities of color feel like they’re in partnership with their police departments.”Jonathan Martin More