Elections

Economists warn that a blitz of midterm election campaign ads could push consumer prices even higher.WASHINGTON — Triple-digit gasoline bills. Bulging hamburger prices. A Fourth of July holiday that broke the bank.Prices are rising at the fastest rate in four decades, a painful development that has given Republicans a powerful talking point just months ahead of the midterm elections. With control of Congress very much in play, Republicans are investing heavily in a blitz of campaign advertisements that portray a dark sense of economic disarray as they seek to make inflation a political albatross for President Biden and Democrats.According to Kantar’s Campaign Media Analysis Group, candidates running in House, Senate and governor races around the country have spent nearly $22 million airing about 130,000 local and national television ads that mention inflation from early April through the beginning of July. Inflation was the 10th most common issue mentioned by Democrats and 11th most common for Republicans, according to the data, underscoring how critical the issue is to both parties this election cycle.The data released Wednesday showing that prices in June climbed 9.1 percent over the past year gave Republicans fresh ammunition against Mr. Biden and his party, ammunition that includes faulting Democrats for passing a $1.9 trillion stimulus package last year and efforts to push through additional spending in a sweeping climate and economic package known as “Build Back Better.”The intensifying focus on inflation is already weighing on Mr. Biden’s poll numbers. A New York Times/Siena College poll this week showed his approval at a meager 33 percent, with 20 percent of voters viewing jobs and the economy as the most important problem facing the country. Inflation and the cost of living followed closely behind. The poll also showed that the race for control of Congress is surprisingly tight.While gas prices have fallen from their $5 a gallon peak and there are signs that inflation might be slowing, consumers are unlikely to feel better off anytime soon. Gas prices are still much higher than they were a year ago, with the average national price for a gallon at $4.60 versus $3.15 in 2021, according to AAA.Voters view jobs and the economy as among the most important issues facing the country.Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times“It’s a very negative thing politically for the Democrats,” said Jason Furman, an economist at Harvard University and former Obama administration economic adviser. “My guess is that the negative views about inflation are so deeply baked in that nothing can change in the next few months to change them.”The White House, while acknowledging the pain that inflation is causing, has tried to deflect responsibility, saying that it is a global problem and attributing it to shortages of food and oil stemming from Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.On Wednesday, Mr. Biden called the latest Consumer Price Index “out-of-date” given the recent fall in gas prices and said the data “is a reminder that all major economies are battling this Covid-related challenge, made worse by Putin’s unconscionable aggression.”8 Signs That the Economy Is Losing SteamCard 1 of 9Worrying outlook. More

Secret Service agents’ January 6 texts were erased after oversight requestOffice of Inspector General revealed that messages from 5 and 6 January were destroyed only after the request was made Texts sent between US Secret Service agents on 5 and 6 January 2021 were erased after the agency’s oversight body sought the communications in a review into the Capitol attack, according to a letter from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG).The disclosure in the letter, sent on Thursday to the House homeland security and Senate homeland security and government affairs committees, marked the latest failure for the Secret Service amid increasing scrutiny for their actions over the attack.‘Game over’: Steve Bannon audio reveals Trump planned to claim early victoryRead moreAppearing to rebuke the erasure of the messages, the inspector general, Joseph Cuffari, decried the move and noted that the destruction came only after the body sought the communications as part of an internal investigation into the agency’s response to the January 6 events.“The USSS erased those text messages after OIG requested records of electronic communications from the USSS,” Cuffari said, including the emphasis on the sequencing of when the records destruction occurred.Cuffari also noted in the letter that the Department of Homeland Security staff told investigators that they were not permitted to directly turn over records to the oversight body, and that they first needed to be vetted by its lawyers.“This review led to weeks-long delays in OIG obtaining records and created confusion over whether all records had been produced,” Cuffari added.The timing of the message destruction raised in the letter, earlier reported by the Intercept and also reviewed by the Guardian, raised the prospect that senior leadership at the Secret Service, tasked with protecting the president, tampered with records.The letter indicated that the erasure came as part of a “device-replacement program”. But it was not clear on Thursday as to why that would involve the loss of communications just as they were being investigated by the agency’s independent oversight body.A spokesperson for the Secret Service could not immediately be reached Thursday evening.Asked about the disclosure, Bennie Thompson, the chair of the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack who is also the chair of the House homeland security committee, told reporters that he was disturbed about the incident.“It’s concerning, obviously, and if there’s a way we can reconstruct the texts or what have you, we will,” Thompson said. The chairman also left open the possibility of calling in Secret Service agents to testify about the matter, and the Capitol attack more generally.The revelation was the latest damaging incident surrounding the Secret Service in recent weeks, after former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified to the select committee that Donald Trump initiated an altercation with an agent on 6 January.Hutchinson testified that Trump tried to wrestle control of the presidential SUV because he wanted to go to the Capitol, over his security detail’s objections, and reportedly had his hands around the neck of the agent driving the vehicle.TopicsSecret ServiceUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

I’d like you to consider the possibility that the political changes that have rocked this country over the past six years will be nothing compared with the changes that will rock it over the next six. I’d like you to consider the possibility that we’re in some sort of prerevolutionary period — the kind of moment that often gives birth to something shocking and new.Look at the conditions all around us:First, Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the way things are going. Only 13 percent of voters say the country is on the right track, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll published this week.Second, Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the leaders of both parties. Joe Biden has a 33 percent job approval rating among registered voters. About half of Republican voters want to move on from Donald Trump and find a new presidential candidate for 2024.Third, inflation is soaring. Throughout history, inflationary periods have often been linked to political instability. As the economist Lionel Robbins wrote about Weimar Germany, inflation “destroyed the wealth of the more solid elements in German society; and it left behind a moral and economic disequilibrium, apt breeding ground for the disasters which have followed.”Fourth, the generational turnover is coming. The boomer gerontocracy that now dominates power is bound to retire, leaving a vacuum for something new.Fifth, Americans are detaching from the two political parties. Far more Americans consider themselves independents than consider themselves either Democrats or Republicans, and independents may be growing more distinct. And there’s some research that suggests independents are increasingly not just closeted members of the two main parties but also hold different beliefs, which put them between parties. Sixty-two percent of Americans believe a third party is needed.Sixth, disgust with the current system is high. A majority of American voters believe that our system of government does not work, and 58 percent believe that our democracy needs major reforms or a complete overhaul. Nearly half of young adult voters believe voting does not affect how the government operates.If these conditions persist, the 2024 presidential primaries could be wild. Sure, conventional candidates like the Republican Ron DeSantis or the Democrat Gavin Newsom may run for the nominations. But if the hunger for change is as strong as it is now, the climate will favor unconventional outsiders, the further outside the better. These sorts of oddball or unexpected candidates could set off a series of swings and disequilibriums that will make the existing party systems unstable.Furthermore, if ever there was a moment ripe for a Ross Perot-like third candidate in the 2024 general election, this is that moment. There are efforts underway to prepare the way for a third candidate, and in this environment an outsider, with no ties to the status quo, who runs against the establishment and on the idea that we need to fundamentally fix the system — well, that person could wind up winning the presidency.These conditions have already shaken up the stereotypes we used to use to think about politics. We used to think of the Democrats as the party of the economically disadvantaged. But college-educated metropolitan voters continue to flock to it and reshape it more and more each year. In the Times/Siena poll of registered voters, white college graduates wanted Democrats to control Congress by 57 to 36 percent. For the first time in the survey’s history, Democrats had a larger share of support among white college graduates than among nonwhite voters. These white voters are often motivated by social policy issues like abortion rights and gun regulation.The Republicans used to be the party of business, but now they are emerging as a multiracial working-class party. In the Times/Siena poll, Hispanic voters were nearly evenly split about whether they favored Republicans or Democrats in the midterms. That may be overstating how much Hispanics have shifted, but it does seem as if the Republicans are genuinely becoming a working-class white-brown coalition. These voters care about the economy, the economy and the economy.In other words, we now have an establishment progressive party and an anti-establishment conservative party. This isn’t normal.If I were a cynical political operative who wanted to construct a presidential candidate perfectly suited for this moment, I’d start by making this candidate culturally conservative. I’d want the candidate to show by dress, speech and style that he or she is not part of the coastal educated establishment. I’d want the candidate to connect with middle- and working-class voters on values and to be full-throatedly patriotic.Then I’d make the candidate economically center-left. I’d want to fuse the economic anxieties of the working-class Republicans with the economic anxieties of the Bernie Sanders young into one big riled populist package. College debt forgiveness. An aggressive home-building project to bring down prices. Whatever it took.Then I’d have that candidate deliver one nonpartisan message: Everything is broken. Then he or she would offer a slew of institutional reforms to match the comprehensive institutional reforms the Progressive movement offered more than a century ago.I guess I’m looking for a sort of modern Theodore Roosevelt. But heck, I don’t know. What’s coming down the pike is probably so unforeseeable that I don’t even have categories for it yet.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

After his acquittal for inciting a riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, he became a leading environmental toxicologist, shaping government standards on lead and diesel exhaust.John R. Froines, a quiet but politically stalwart chemist who stood trial alongside six other antiwar activists — known collectively as the Chicago Seven — on charges of conspiring to incite a riot during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, and who went on to become a pioneering advocate for environmental justice, died on Wednesday in Santa Monica, Calif. He was 83.His wife, Andrea Hricko, said the death, at a hospital, was caused by complications of Parkinson’s disease.A recently minted Yale Ph.D. on his way to teach chemistry at the University of Oregon, Dr. Froines found himself drawn into the swirl of antiwar activism building up to the Democratic convention, to be held in August 1968 at Chicago’s International Amphitheater.Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis, two of the protest organizers, knew Dr. Froines through his work in Connecticut with the New Haven chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, and they invited him to join their inner circle.During the convention, tens of thousands of protesters marched in the streets and hundreds were arrested during violent clashes with the Chicago Police Department. But only eight were indicted under federal charges of crossing state lines to incite a riot; they included Mr. Hayden, Mr. Davis and Dr. Froines, who was also charged with building an incendiary device, accused of having shown three women how to make a stink bomb.Police clashing with protesters during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Aug. 28, 1968. Associated PressSeveral of those charged were already famous as radical activists and counterculture provocateurs. Bobby Seale had co-founded the Black Panther Party in 1966; Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, co-founders of the Youth International Party, or the Yippies, were renowned for antics like dropping wads of cash onto the floor of the New York Stock Exchange from the visitors gallery.The defendants were originally known as the Chicago Eight, but became the Chicago Seven when the judge in the case, Julius Hoffman — no relation to Abbie — had Mr. Seale legally severed from the group to be tried separately. (In an extraordinary move, the judge had earlier ordered Mr. Seale bound and gagged for several days in the courtroom after Mr. Seale’s repeated protests over his treatment by the court. He was later jailed for contempt.)Though the men stood in solidarity, Dr. Froines stuck out as particularly straight-laced and earnest, especially in contrast to the likes of Mr. Hoffman, who treated the trial with comic disdain, putting his feet on a table and referring to Judge Hoffman as his illegitimate father.“John was straight,” Lee Weiner, one of the defendants, said in a phone interview. “I’m not going to say we didn’t get along, because that’s not true. But I never had an impulse to say to John, ‘Let’s go smoke some dope.’”Despite what many saw as clear bias against the defendants by Judge Hoffman, in 1970 the jury acquitted Dr. Froines and Mr. Weiner of all charges. An appeals court later dismissed most of the charges against the others.Dr. Froines, left, in 1969 with Tom Hayden during their high-profile trial.David Fenton/Getty ImagesDr. Froines eventually returned to academia, then worked for several years in Washington for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Under his direction, the agency wrote the first regulatory guidelines for non-carcinogenic toxins like lead and cotton dust, setting the stage for dramatic increases in workplace and public health.He did much the same at the University of California, Los Angeles, where he moved in 1981. He directed numerous university research centers and sat on the state’s scientific review panel for air quality.And he engaged with communities hit hard by industrial pollution and smog, tailoring his research to their needs and even accompanying neighborhood groups to meet with government and corporate officials.“When you walk into a room with an internationally recognized expert on an issue, it makes a difference,” Angelo Logan, co-founder of one such organization, the California-based East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, said in a phone interview. “John’s work was driven, driven to make real differences in people’s lives.”Dr. Froines addressing a crowd at the University of Washington in 1970. After his acquittal in the Chicago Seven trial, he continued his antiwar activism. UPIJohn Radford Froines was born on June 13, 1939, in Oakland, Calif. His father, George, a shipyard worker, was murdered when John was 3, leaving his mother, Katherine (Livingston) Froines, a teacher, to raise him and his brother, Robert, by herself.After graduating from high school, he joined the Air National Guard, then earned an associate degree from Contra Costa Community College. He went on to the University of California, Berkeley, where he received a bachelor’s degree in chemistry in 1962.It was at Yale, where he pursued a doctorate, that he first became involved in politics. He started as a moderate, chairing the university chapter of Students for Johnson during the 1964 presidential campaign.But, like many young people, he soured on the president after Johnson followed his landslide victory that fall with a massive expansion of the war in Vietnam. Mr. Froines joined the local branch of S.D.S., helping to organize poor white and Black residents in the city’s Hill neighborhood.He met his first wife, Ann (Rubio) Froines, through the organization. They later divorced. In addition to his wife, Ms. Hricko, he is survived by his daughter, Rebecca Froines Stanley, and his son, Jonathan.After his acquittal, Dr. Froines resigned from his position at the University of Oregon to continue his antiwar activism. He went back to New Haven to support the Black Panther Party during a series of trials against Mr. Seale and others, and in 1971 he helped organize the May Day antiwar protests in Washington, D.C.The next year, he returned to academia as a professor at Goddard College, in Plainfield, Vt. He later worked for Vermont’s department of occupational health for two years before moving to Washington.Dr. Froines in 2015 at U.C.L.A., where he directed numerous university research centers and was a pioneering advocate for air quality regulations.UCLA Fielding School of Public HealthDr. Froines’s death leaves just two surviving members of the Chicago Eight, Mr. Seale and Mr. Weiner.The trial of the Chicago Seven became a touchstone of the era, one repeatedly mined for its historical significance. Two movies have been made about the case, most recently “The Trial of the Chicago Seven” (2020), written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, with Danny Flaherty playing Dr. Froines.It was a personal legacy that left Dr. Froines with mixed feelings. He remained as committed to social justice as he had been in his youth, he said, but he had left his activist days behind and was eager to be known better for his work regulating lead than for standing in court beside Abbie Hoffman.“No one is the same now as then,” he told The Los Angeles Times in 1990. “We still need student protesters because many of the problems of the ’60s continue and new issues have emerged. But nobody’s a student activist at 50. You’d have to have your head examined.” More

A judge in Colorado issued an arrest warrant on Thursday for Tina Peters, the Mesa County clerk who is under indictment in relation to a breach of election equipment after the 2020 presidential contest, for violating conditions of her bond that prevented her from traveling without court approval.The judge, Matthew D. Barrett of Colorado’s 21st Judicial District, also revoked her $25,000 cash bond and called for her to be held in jail pending a hearing.Ms. Peters traveled to Las Vegas this week to speak at an event hosted by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, a conservative group of county sheriffs and their allies. According to court documents, she did not obtain permission from the judge to travel outside Colorado.Ms. Peters had been deemed a flight risk and was ordered to remain in the state after she was indicted in March on criminal charges, including seven felonies, that stemmed from a scheme to copy sensitive election software from county voting machines in an effort to prove that the 2020 presidential election was tainted by fraud.But because she was running for the Republican nomination for Colorado secretary of state, Ms. Peters was given permission to travel outside the state for political purposes, as long as she notified the court of her plans.She lost her primary bid last month, and on Monday, Judge Barrett ruled that she would again need the court’s approval before traveling out of state. Ms. Peters has continued to claim, without evidence, that her election loss was the result of fraud. In a sign that Ms. Peters had not yet left for Las Vegas when the Monday order arrived, Daniel P. Rubinstein, the Mesa County district attorney, said in a court filing that Ms. Peters was at the Mesa County Detention Facility that day, “nearly five hours after the court restricted any out-of-state travel.”On Thursday afternoon, Harvey A. Steinberg, a lawyer representing Ms. Peters, filed a motion to quash the arrest warrant, arguing that she had told his office of her intent to travel and that his office had not filed the necessary notice with the court, meaning that Ms. Peters did not know the court was unaware of her travel. “Ms. Peters has not knowingly violated bond conditions,” Mr. Steinberg wrote.Ms. Peters did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was not clear if she was still in Las Vegas.During her speech in Las Vegas, Ms. Peters claimed that Representative Lauren Boebert, a Republican who is also from western Colorado, had dinner with multiple people who helped carry out the plot to copy election data.Benjamin Stout, the communications director for Ms. Boebert, said on Thursday that Ms. Peters’s “claims are untrue.”Ms. Peters had previously told The New York Times that Ms. Boebert “encouraged” her to carry through with the operation. Ms. Boebert’s campaign denied those allegations.One of Ms. Peters’s top aides, Sandra Brown, turned herself in on Monday after being indicted over her role in the alleged scheme to extract data from county election machines. Ms. Brown, who was the county’s election manager, faces several felony charges, including conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and attempting to influence a public servant. Her arrest was earlier reported by The Daily Sentinel.Court records suggest that Ms. Brown was involved in the alleged plot from the very beginning. On April 23, Ms. Peters, Ms. Brown, another aide and Sherronna Bishop, a former campaign manager for Ms. Boebert, met with Douglas Frank, a high school math and science teacher in Ohio whose debunked theories have been influential among election conspiracists, according to records.Court documents cite a recorded conversation in which Ms. Peters asked Mr. Frank if he could open the machines, but he said it was against the law based on county contracts. Ms. Bishop then suggested using a routine software procedure known as a “trusted build” to get inside the machines, according to the documents.Ms. Bishop has not been charged with any wrongdoing. She did not immediately respond to a request for comment.In all, three officials in Ms. Peters’s office face criminal charges related to the scheme; Belinda Knisley, Ms. Peters’s deputy, was indicted in March on six charges. More

‘Game over’: Steve Bannon audio reveals Trump planned to claim early victoryRecording shows the president intended to ‘take advantage’ of early vote lead and declare himself the winner prematurely Days before the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump was already planning to declare victory on election night, even if there was no evidence he was winning, according to a leaked Steve Bannon conversation recorded before the vote.In the audio, recorded three days before the election and published by Mother Jones on Wednesday, Bannon told a group of associates Trump already had a scheme in place for the 3 November vote.“What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon, laughing, told the group, according to the audio.“He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”The release of the audio comes as Bannon is due to go on trial Monday for criminal contempt, after he ignored a subpoena last year from the House select committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol in 2021.On Wednesday Bannon’s attorneys again asked a federal judge to delay the trial, citing references to some of his past comments during Tuesday’s public hearing of the select committee, and the planned airing of a CNN documentary on Bannon the day before his trial is due to start.Both events create “the very serious risk of prejudice here” among jurors, Bannon’s lawyers said, according to CNBC.On Monday a federal judge dismissed a previous motion by Bannon to delay the trial, and ruled Bannon could not make two of his principal defences to a jury.That came after Bannon said he was now willing to testify before the House select committee, an offer dismissed by the justice department as a “last-ditch attempt to avoid accountability”, and US district judge Carl Nichols said the trial must go ahead.Before the 2020 election it had been reported that Trump planned to declare victory early, and in the Mother Jones audio Bannon says the former president planned to “take advantage” of the likelihood that Democratic postal votes would be tallied later than in-person Republican ballots.Trump did exactly that hours after the election, claiming: “Frankly, we did win this election”, even as millions of ballots were yet to be counted, and after Fox News had – correctly – called the state of Arizona for Joe Biden.“As it sits here today,” Bannon said later in the audio, describing a scenario in which Trump held an early lead in swing states, “at 10 or 11 o’clock Trump’s gonna walk in the Oval, tweet out, ‘I’m the winner. Game over. Suck on that.’”Mother Jones said the audio, which is nearly an hour long, was recorded during a meeting between Bannon and supporters of Guo Wengui, an exiled Chinese mogul whom Bannon helped launch a series of rightwing websites.In the meeting Bannon said Democratic supporters were more likely than Republicans to vote by mail, meaning their votes would be counted and reported later.That would lead to a public perception that Trump was winning the election, according to the audio. Democrats would “have a natural disadvantage”, Bannon said.“And Trump’s going to take advantage of it. That’s our strategy. He’s gonna declare himself a winner.”“So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it’s going to be a firestorm,” Bannon said.“You’re going to have antifa, crazy. The media, crazy. The courts are crazy. And Trump’s gonna be sitting there mocking, tweeting shit out: ‘You lose. I’m the winner. I’m the king.’”Axios reported before the 2020 election that Trump had “told confidants he’ll declare victory on Tuesday night if it looks like he’s ‘ahead’”, and Bannon said on his podcast on the day of the election that Trump would claim victory “right before the 11 o’clock news”. The Mother Jones audio supports both claims.Trump, the only US president to have been impeached twice, lost the election: Biden won 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232. About 81.3 million people voted for Biden, compared with 74.2 million for Trump.TopicsUS elections 2020Donald TrumpSteve BannonUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

A confidence vote showed potentially fatal fractures in Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s grand coalition, as the anti-establishment Five Star Movement withheld support and set off a political crisis.ROME — The broad national unity government led by Prime Minister Mario Draghi, which has expanded Italy’s influence in Europe, guided it through a successful vaccination campaign and injected competence and confidence into the country, suddenly neared collapse on Thursday as it faced a rebellion from the remnants of Italy’s recent anti-establishment past.The revolt by the mostly imploded Five Star Movement, led by Mr. Draghi’s predecessor as prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, threatened to usher in the end of a period of political stability for Italy and thrust the country back into the familiar political turmoil that has paralyzed it for decades.Mr. Draghi had opted for the confidence vote early Thursday in an effort to call Mr. Conte’s bluff as he threatened to break with the government over a relief bill for soaring energy costs and new investments, which Five Star found inadequate. It turned out that, this time, Mr. Conte, who has made repeated threats to break with the government, was not bluffing. His party withheld its support in the confidence vote, but it was not immediately clear whether it would remain a part of the government.Though the government survived — by 172 to 39 — Mr. Draghi had made clear that he would not lead a unity government that had no unity. He is now expected to meet with the country’s president, Sergio Mattarella, to discuss next steps.Mr. Mattarella may ask Mr. Draghi to present a new political program to Parliament next week, or form a new government with a simple cabinet shuffle.Mr. Draghi could also choose to resign, forcing the president to ask a different person to try to form a new government or call for early elections.Five Star, whose support crumbled after a chaotic spell running the government and Mr. Draghi’s succession, would most likely suffer terribly in such elections, and many of its members of Parliament, who are loath to lose their paychecks and pensions, would be out of a job.But as the 2023 deadline for elections draws nearer, Five Star also has less to lose, and Mr. Draghi’s government is likely to face more internecine fighting and instability. So it is not entirely surprising that the threat came from Mr. Conte.Giuseppe Conte, a former prime minister and leader of the Five Star Movement, last week. He has made a habit of issuing ultimatums to the government.Massimo Percossi/EPA, via ShutterstockMr. Conte, a lawyer plucked from obscurity by Five Star and the League to lead the government in 2018, has struggled to find his footing as a political leader of what is left of Five Star.He is still bitter, members of Parliament say, over being pushed out as prime minister in 2021, when he was replaced by Mr. Draghi, and he is desperate to rebuild a party that has wasted away, hemorrhaging half of its support.The Five Star leader who brought him in as prime minister — Luigi Di Maio, the current foreign minister — quit the party last month, taking dozens of members with him. Mr. Di Maio, a onetime firebrand, now follows in Mr. Draghi’s footsteps and speaks about the importance of NATO, clearly seeing his future in the establishment.Mr. Conte instead has struggled to signal to his unsatisfied supporters that he can deliver on their interests. But he speaks in legalistic terms, is often inconsistent and has the added headache of constantly trying to appease the party’s often inscrutable founder, Beppe Grillo.Mr. Conte has made a habit of issuing ultimatums to the government. Usually he falls in line. But this time, he did not.“The scenario has changed, we need a different phase,” Mr. Conte told reporters after failing to reach a compromise during talks with Mr. Draghi on Wednesday. “We are ready to support the government but not to sign a blank bill. Whoever accuses us of irresponsibility needs to look in their own backyard.”Among Mr. Conte’s objections to the spending priorities, he has argued that the government has not set aside enough funds for a cost of living package. Five Star — which is traditionally close to Russia and admiring of its president, Vladimir V. Putin — has also opposed sending significant military support to Ukraine in response to the Russian invasion, something Mr. Draghi strongly supports.The potential departure of Mr. Draghi opens the door to forces who are much more sympathetic to Mr. Putin, and as a result risks fracturing Europe’s united front on issues such as sanctions and refusing Russian energy.Mr. Conte, reflecting Five Star’s environmentalist roots, has also vehemently opposed using government money to build a garbage incinerator to alleviate Rome’s devastating trash problems.Mr. Conte set off the spark that brought down the government, and even the parties that have been most solidly behind Mr. Draghi did not want to get caught in the conflagration.Enrico Letta, the leader of the center-left Democratic Party, which has drastically climbed in the polls as Five Star has plummeted, applied pressure on Five Star at a party meeting when he said he would be unwilling to form a new government without them. He added that early elections were preferable if the broad coalition fell apart.Mr. Conte’s former ally, Matteo Salvini of the nationalist League party, said he, too, might pull his support from the coalition government and push for early elections if Five Star left.“If a coalition party doesn’t back a government decree that’s it, enough is enough,” Mr. Salvini said on Italian television. “It seems clear that we should go to elections.”Even so, his support has declined, while backing has increased for the hard-right Brothers of Italy party, led by Giorgia Meloni. Her party would be the greatest beneficiary of early elections, which she supports.The earliest time for that election would be autumn, which would disturb the usual drafting of Italy’s budget and create the unlikely event of Italian politicians campaigning in the summer.Gaia Pianigiani More

Alexandra Chadwick went to the polls in 2020 with the singular goal of ousting Donald J. Trump. A 22-year-old first time voter, she saw Joseph R. Biden Jr. as more of a safeguard than an inspiring political figure, someone who could stave off threats to abortion access, gun control and climate policy.Two years later, as the Supreme Court has eroded federal protections on all three, Ms. Chadwick now sees President Biden and other Democratic leaders as lacking both the imagination and willpower to fight back. She points to a generational gap — one she once overlooked but now seems cavernous.“How are you going to accurately lead your country if your mind is still stuck 50, 60 or 70 years ago?” Ms. Chadwick, a customer service representative in Rialto, Calif., said of the many septuagenarian leaders at the helm of her party. “It’s not the same, and people aren’t the same, and your old ideas aren’t going to work as well anymore.”While voters across the spectrum express rising doubts about the country’s political leadership, few groups are as united in their discontent as the young.A survey from The New York Times and Siena College found that just 1 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds strongly approve of the way Mr. Biden is handling his job. And 94 percent of Democrats under 30 said they wanted another candidate to run two years from now. Of all age groups, young voters were most likely to say they wouldn’t vote for either Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump in a hypothetical 2024 rematch.The numbers are a clear warning for Democrats as they struggle to ward off a drubbing in the November midterm elections. Young people, long among the least reliable part of the party’s coalition, marched for gun control, rallied against Mr. Trump and helped fuel a Democratic wave in the 2018 midterm elections. They still side with Democrats on issues that are only rising in prominence.But four years on, many feel disengaged and deflated, with only 32 percent saying they are “almost certain” to vote in November, according to the poll. Nearly half said they did not think their vote made a difference.Interviews with these young voters reveal generational tensions driving their frustration. As they have come of age facing racial strife, political conflict, high inflation and a pandemic, they have looked for help from politicians who are more than three times their age.Those older leaders often talk about upholding institutions and restoring norms, while young voters say they are more interested in results. Many expressed a desire for more sweeping changes like a viable third party and a new crop of younger leaders. They’re eager for innovative action on the problems they stand to inherit, they said, rather than returning to what worked in the past.“Each member of Congress, every single one of them, has, I’m sure, lived through fairly traumatic times in their lives and also chaos in the country,” said John Della Volpe, who studies young people’s opinions as the director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics. “But every member of Congress has also seen America at its best. And that is when we’ve all come together. That is something that Gen Z has not had.”The Biden PresidencyWith midterm elections looming, here’s where President Biden stands.Struggling to Inspire: At a time of political tumult and economic distress, President Biden has appeared less engaged than Democrats had hoped.Low Approval Rating: For Mr. Biden, a pervasive sense of pessimism among voters has pushed his approval rating to a perilously low point.Questions About 2024: Mr. Biden has said he plans to run for a second term, but at 79, his age has become an uncomfortable issue.Rallying Allies: Faced with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Mr. Biden has set out to bolster the West and outline a more muscular NATO.Staff Changes: An increasing number of West Wing departures has added to the sense of frustration inside the Biden White House.At 79, Mr. Biden is the oldest president in U.S. history and just one of several Democratic Party leaders pushing toward or into their 80s. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, is 82. The House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, is 83. The 71-year-old Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, is the baby of the bunch. Mr. Trump is 76.In a rematch of the 2020 election, Mr. Biden would lead 38 percent to 30 percent among young voters, but 22 percent of voters between 18 and 29 said they would not vote if those candidates were their choices, by far the largest share of any age bracket.For Ellis McCarthy, “It feels like whether it’s Biden, whether it’s Trump, no one is stepping in to be a voice for people like me, like you, whoever.”Brian Kaiser for The New York TimesThose voters include Ellis McCarthy, 24, who works a few part-time jobs around Bellevue, Ky. McCarthy says she’s yearning for a government that is “all brand-new.”Ms. McCarthy’s father, an electrician and union member who teaches at a local trade school, met Mr. Biden last summer when the president visited the training facility. The two men talked about his union and his job — two things he loved. Not long after, her father fell ill, was hospitalized and after his recovery, was left soured by the health care system and what the family saw as Mr. Biden’s failure to fix it.“It feels like whether it’s Biden, whether it’s Trump, no one is stepping in to be a voice for people like me,” she said. “Laborers are left out to dry.”Denange Sanchez, a 20-year-old student at Eastern Florida State College, from Palm Bay, Fla., sees Mr. Biden as “wishy-washy” on his promises.Ms. Sanchez’s mother owns a house-cleaning service and does most of the cleaning herself, with Denange pitching in where she can. Her whole family — including her mother, who has a heart condition and a pacemaker — has wrestled with bouts of Covid, with no insurance. Even while sick, her mother was up at all hours making home remedies, Ms. Sanchez said.“Everyone said we were going to squash this virus. Biden made all those promises. And now nobody is taking the pandemic seriously anymore, but it’s still all around us. It’s so frustrating,” she said. Ms. Sanchez, who is studying medicine, also counted college debt forgiveness on her list of Mr. Biden’s unfulfilled promises.Democratic politicians and pollsters are well aware of the problem they face with young voters, but they insist there is time to engage them on issues they prioritize. The Supreme Court’s recent decisions eliminating a constitutional right to abortion, limiting states’ abilities to control the carrying of firearms, and cutting back the federal government’s regulatory powers over climate-warming emissions are only now beginning to take root in voters’ consciousness, said Jefrey Pollock, a pollster for House Democrats.“We’re not talking about a theory anymore; we’re talking about a Supreme Court that is turning the country back by 50 years or more,” he said. “If we can’t deliver that message then shame on us.”While middle-aged voters consistently identified the economy as a top interest, it is just one of many for younger voters, roughly tied with abortion, the state of American democracy and gun policies. That presents a quandary to Democratic candidates in tough districts, many of whom say they should focus their election message almost solely on the economy — but perhaps at the expense of energizing younger voters.Tate Sutter says he is frustrated by inaction on climate change. Rozette Rago for The New York TimesTate Sutter, 21, feels that disconnect. A native of Auburn, Calif., studying at Middlebury College in Vermont, Mr. Sutter recounted watching Fourth of July fireworks and cringing as another fire season begins and aggressive federal action to combat global warming is stalled in Congress. Sure enough, he said, he could see a brush fire kicking up in the hills to the south.“Climate plays a big role for me in my politics,” he said, expressing dismay that Democrats don’t talk more about it. “It’s very frustrating.”Mr. Sutter said he understood the limits of Mr. Biden’s powers with an evenly divided Senate. But he also said he understands the power of the presidency, and did not see Mr. Biden wielding it effectively.“With age comes a lot of experience and wisdom and just know-how. But perception-wise he appears out of touch with people my generation,” he said.After years of feeling that politicians don’t talk to people like him, Juan Flores, 23, says he’s turned his attention to local ballot initiatives on issues like housing or homelessness, which he sees as more likely to have an impact on his life. Mr. Flores went to school for data analytics but drives a delivery truck for Amazon in San Jose, Calif. There, home prices average well over $1 million, making it difficult if not impossible for residents to live on a single income.“I feel like a lot of politicians, they already come from a good upbringing,” he said. “A majority of them don’t really fully understand the scope of what the majority of the American people are going through.”The Times/Siena College poll found 46 percent of young voters favored Democratic control of Congress, while 28 percent wanted Republicans to take charge. More than one in four young voters, 26 percent, don’t know or refused to say which party they want to control Congress.Ivan Chavez plans to vote in November but is unsure who he will support.Ramsay de Give for The New York TimesIvan Chavez, 25, from Bernalillo, N.M., said he identified as an independent in part because neither party had made compelling arguments to people his age. He worries about mass shootings, a mental health crisis among young people and climate change.He would like third-party candidates to get more attention. He plans to vote in November, but is unsure whom he’ll support. “I think that Democrats are afraid of the Republicans right now, Republicans are afraid of the Democrats,” he said. “They don’t know which way to go.”Young Republican voters were the least likely to say they want Mr. Trump be the party’s nominee in 2024, but Kyle Holcomb, a recent college graduate from Florida, said he would vote for him if it came to it.“Literally, if anyone else other than Biden was running I would be more comfortable,” he said. “I just like the idea of having someone in power who can project their vision and goals effectively.” Kyle Holcomb has soured on Donald Trump but will vote for him if it comes to it.Zack Wittman for The New York TimesYoung Democrats said they were looking for the same out of their leaders: vision, dynamism, and maybe a little youth, but not too much. Several young voters brought up Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 32-year-old Democrat of New York. Ms. Chadwick praised her youth and willingness to speak out — often against her older colleagues in Congress — and summed up her appeal in one word: “relatability.”Michael C. Bender More