Elections

Republican leaders think a moderate nominee for governor could beat Gov. J.B. Pritzker. But the party’s base seems to prefer a far-right state senator — and he is getting help from Mr. Pritzker.LINCOLN, Ill. — Darren Bailey, the front-runner in the Republican primary for governor of Illinois, was finishing his stump speech last week at a senior center in this Central Illinois town when a voice called out: “Can we pray for you?”Mr. Bailey readily agreed. The speaker, a youth mentor from Lincoln named Kathy Schmidt, placed her right hand on his left shoulder while he closed his eyes and held out his hands, palms open.“More than anything,” she prayed, “I ask for that, in this election, you raise up the righteous and strike down the wicked.”The wicked, in this case, are the Chicago-based moderates aiming to maintain control over the Illinois Republican Party. And the righteous is Mr. Bailey, a far-right state senator who is unlike any nominee the party has put forward for governor in living memory.A 56-year-old farmer whose Southern Illinois home is closer to Nashville than to Chicago, he wears his hair in a crew cut, speaks with a thick drawl and does not sand down his conservative credentials, as so many past leading G.O.P. candidates have done to try to appeal to suburbanites in this overwhelmingly Democratic state. On Saturday, former President Donald J. Trump endorsed Mr. Bailey at a rally near Quincy, Ill.Mr. Bailey has sought to respond to grievances long felt across rural Central and Southern Illinois toward Chicago, which he once proposed removing from the state.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesMr. Bailey rose to prominence in Illinois politics by introducing legislation to kick Chicago out of the state. When the coronavirus pandemic began, he was removed from a state legislative session for refusing to wear a mask, and he sued Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, over statewide virus mitigation efforts. Painted on the door of his campaign bus is the Bible verse Ephesians 6:10-19, which calls for followers to wear God’s armor in a battle against “evil rulers.”He is the favored candidate of the state’s anti-abortion groups, and on Friday he celebrated the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade as a “historic and welcomed moment.” He has said he opposes the practice, including in cases of rape and incest.Mr. Bailey has upended carefully laid $50 million plans by Illinois Republican leaders to nominate Mayor Richard C. Irvin of Aurora, a moderate suburbanite with an inspiring personal story who they believed could win back the governor’s mansion in Springfield in what is widely forecast to be a winning year for Republicans.Mr. Bailey has been aided by an unprecedented intervention from Mr. Pritzker and the Pritzker-funded Democratic Governors Association, which have spent nearly $35 million combined attacking Mr. Irvin while trying to lift Mr. Bailey. No candidate for any office is believed to have ever spent more to meddle in another party’s primary.The Illinois governor’s race is now on track to become the most expensive campaign for a nonpresidential office in American history.Public and private polling ahead of Tuesday’s primary shows Mr. Bailey with a lead of 15 percentage points over Mr. Irvin and four other candidates. His strength signals the broader shift in Republican politics across the country, away from urban power brokers and toward a rural base that demands fealty to a far-right agenda aligned with Mr. Trump.For Mr. Bailey, the proposal to excise Chicago, which he called “a hellhole” during a televised debate last month, encapsulates the grievances long felt across rural Central and Southern Illinois — places culturally far afield and long resentful of the politically dominant big city.An audience in Green Valley, Ill., listened to Mr. Bailey speak. Polling shows him leading the Republican primary by double digits.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times“The rest of the 90 percent of the land mass is not real happy about how 10 percent of the land mass is directing things,” Mr. Bailey said in an interview aboard his campaign bus outside a bar in Green Valley, a village of 700 people south of Peoria. “A large amount of people outside of that 10 percent don’t have a voice, and that’s a problem.”That pitch has resonated with the conservative voters flocking to Mr. Bailey, who seemed to compare Mr. Irvin to Satan during a Facebook Live monologue in February.“Everything that we pay and do supports Chicago,” said Pam Page, a security analyst at State Farm Insurance from McLean, Ill., who came to see Mr. Bailey in Lincoln. “Downstate just never seems to get any of the perks or any of the kickbacks.”The onslaught of Democratic television advertising attacking Mr. Irvin and trying to elevate Mr. Bailey has frustrated the Aurora mayor, whose campaign was conceived of and funded by the same team of Republicans who helped elect social moderates like Mark Kirk to the Senate in 2010 and Bruce Rauner as governor in 2014. Their recipe: In strong Republican years, find moderate candidates who can win over voters in Chicago’s suburbs — and spend a ton of money.Richard C. Irvin speaking to employees at a manufacturing plant in Wauconda, a suburb north of Chicago. Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesMr. Irvin, 52, fit their bill. Born to a teenage single mother in Aurora, he is an Army veteran of the first Gulf War who served as a local prosecutor before becoming the first Black mayor of the city, the second most populous in Illinois.Kenneth Griffin, the Chicago billionaire hedge fund founder who is the chief benefactor for Illinois Republicans, gave $50 million to Mr. Irvin for the primary alone and pledged to spend more for him in the general election. Mr. Griffin, the state’s richest man, will not support any other Republican in the race against Mr. Pritzker, according to his spokesman, Zia Ahmed. Mr. Griffin announced last week that his hedge fund and trading firm would relocate to Miami.While Mr. Irvin, a longtime Republican who has nevertheless voted in a series of recent Democratic primaries in Illinois, expected an expensive dogfight in the general election, he is frustrated by the primary season intervention from Mr. Pritzker, a billionaire who is America’s richest elected official.“This has never happened in the history of our nation that a Democrat would spend this much money stopping one individual from becoming the nominee of the Republican Party,” Mr. Irvin said in an interview after touring a manufacturing plant in Wauconda, a well-to-do suburb north of Chicago. “There are six Republican primary opponents — six of them. But when you turn on the television, all you see is me.”Mr. Griffin said that “J.B. Pritzker is terrified of facing Richard Irvin in the general election.”He added, “He and his cronies at the D.G.A. have shamelessly spent tens of millions of dollars meddling in the Republican primary in an effort to fool Republican voters.”Mr. Pritzker said that ads emphasizing Mr. Bailey’s conservative credentials had the same message he plans to use in the general election. He said he was not afraid of running against Mr. Irvin or of the millions Mr. Griffin would spend on his campaign.“It’s a mess over there,” Mr. Pritzker said in an interview on Friday. “They’re all anti-choice. Literally, you can go down the list of things that I think really matter to people across the state. And, you know, they’re all terrible. So I’ll take any one of them and I’ll beat them.”Gov. J.B. Pritzker, the country’s richest elected official, has poured money into the primary, attacking Mr. Irvin while trying to help Mr. Bailey. Pat Nabong/Chicago Sun-Times, via Associated PressThe primary race alone has drawn $100 million in TV advertising. Mr. Pritzker has spent more money on TV ads than anyone else running for any office in the country this year. Mr. Irvin ranks second, according to AdImpact, a media tracking firm.Far behind them is Mr. Bailey, whose primary financial benefactor is Richard Uihlein, the billionaire megadonor of far-right Republican candidates, who has donated $9 million of the $11.6 million Mr. Bailey has raised and sent another $8 million to a political action committee that has attacked Mr. Irvin as insufficiently conservative.Presidential politics for both parties loom over the primary.Mr. Irvin won’t say whom he voted for in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and, in the interview, declined to say if he would support Mr. Trump if he ran for president in 2024. He called President Biden “the legitimate president” and said former Vice President Mike Pence had performed his constitutional duty on Jan. 6, 2021.Mr. Bailey would not say if the 2020 election had been decided fairly or if Mr. Pence did the right thing.Mr. Pritzker’s motivation to help Mr. Bailey in the primary may be informed not only by his desire for re-election but also by what many see as potential aspirations to seek the White House himself. Last weekend he addressed a gathering of Democrats in New Hampshire — a stop only those with national ambitions make in the middle of their own re-election campaigns.Mr. Bailey, 56, is a farmer with roots in Southern Illinois. Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesAs the primary draws near, establishment Republicans across the state are fretting about the prospect of Mr. Bailey dragging down the entire G.O.P. ticket in November.Representative Darin LaHood predicted an “overwhelming” Bailey primary victory in his Central Illinois district, but warned that he would be toxic for general-election voters.“Bailey is not going to play in the suburbs,” said Mr. LaHood, who has not endorsed a primary candidate. “He’s got a Southern drawl, a Southern accent. I mean, he should be running in Missouri, not in suburban Chicago.”Former Gov. Jim Edgar, the only Illinois governor from outside the Chicago area since World War II, said Mr. Bailey’s rise showed that party leaders “don’t have the grasp or the control of their constituents like they did back in the ’80s and the ’90s.”Mr. Bailey’s supporters say the real fight is for the soul of the Republican Party. To them, winning the primary and seizing control of the state party is just as important, if not more so, than triumphing in the general election.Thomas DeVore, left, a candidate for Illinois attorney general who has “Freedom” and “Liberty” tattooed on his arms, with Mr. Bailey in Lincoln.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesRunning for attorney general on a slate with Mr. Bailey is Thomas DeVore, his lawyer in the pandemic lawsuits against Mr. Pritzker. On the campaign trail, he wears untucked golf shirts that reveal his forearm tattoos — “Freedom” on his right arm, “Liberty” on his left.“Whether or not Darren and I win the general election, if we can at least get control within our own party, I think long term we have an opportunity to be successful,” Mr. DeVore said at their stop in Green Valley.And David Smith, the executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, an anti-abortion organization whose political arm endorsed Mr. Bailey, said the G.O.P. race was about excising the party’s moderate elements.“This primary,” he said, “has got to purge the Republican Party of those who are self-serving snollygosters.”Catie Edmondson More

No bloviating speeches or partisan rancor. Lots of video and a tight script. The story of Donald J. Trump’s efforts to hold on to power is being unspooled in a way totally new to Capitol Hill.The typical congressional hearing features a pileup of long-winded statements — what some might consider bloviating. There are harsh partisan exchanges that can obscure the substance at hand. Visual presentations tend to involve an easel. The television audience is largely on C-SPAN.But the congressional hearing has been utterly, if perhaps temporarily, redefined over the past month by the House select committee investigating President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to hold on to power.The five sessions the panel has produced so far this month resemble a tightly scripted television series. Each episode has a defined story with a beginning, middle and end. Heroes and villains are clearly identified. Only a few of the committee members speak at any given hearing, and those who do often read from teleprompters.The answers to the questions are known before they are asked. There is no grandstanding or partisan rancor.Earlier this month, the committee postponed its third scheduled hearing for a reason far different from those that have typically troubled the tradition-bound elected officials and aides of Capitol Hill: Their writers and producers needed more time to sharpen their scripts and cut better video clips, people involved in the decision said.When that hearing finally occurred on Thursday, the members — with the cable networks all carrying it live — wove together videos of depositions, audio from interviews and other material to document in detail how Mr. Trump tried to pressure the Justice Department into aiding his schemes.“For the first time since Trump became president, there is a clarity of message and a clear story that is being told,” said Michael Weisman, a longtime network and cable television producer and executive who oversaw live coverage of sporting, news and entertainment events. “In the past, it was muddy, they were talking over each other, there was playing to the camera and Democrats had a hard time getting their story out. This is different.”At the end of the day, the committee’s success or failure will hinge primarily on the power of the extensive factual record it has marshaled about Mr. Trump’s unrelenting efforts to reverse his election loss in 2020 and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. But it has also faced the challenge of presenting its evidence in a way that can break through to the public in a highly polarized environment in which Republicans often get their news from pro-Trump sources.The committee has been aided by James Goldston, a former head of ABC News, who leads a small team that is sifting through the hours of depositions and vivid, sometimes disturbing footage of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol to put together the presentations.But the panel’s ability to draw on all that material traces back to a decision its members and investigators made months ago to videotape depositions with witnesses, a move largely unheard-of on Capitol Hill.Armed with thousands of hours of recorded depositions, the investigators and producers working for the committee have identified just the snippets they need for their storytelling. It is a tactic that keeps the narrative flowing but also has another big benefit: Having the option of using edited video means the committee does not have to call for live testimony from witnesses who could seize the opportunity to help Mr. Trump.The committee has only been able to pull off its approach because the House Republican leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, decided last year not to appoint members to the panel after Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked two of his choices. The result is that the only Republicans on the committee, Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the vice chairwoman, and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, are in sync with the Democrats in judging Mr. Trump to be a danger to democracy.And while current and former congressional officials said that it was highly unlikely that another committee could pull off the approach, they said the panel had probably permanently changed things in at least one way: Taped depositions in investigations are likely to become the norm and be relied on heavily by Republicans if they retake control of the House or Senate in November.“In some sense, this is the first congressional hearing of the 21st century,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and a member of the committee, who is set to lead a presentation at the panel’s next hearing. “We have really made full use out of video, out of tweets and email, and interspersing technology with live statements by the witnesses and members.”The goal, Mr. Raskin said, has been to create riveting television, with constituents anticipating the next session as if it were a drama series.“It’s one thing to tell America there was an attempted coup and a violent insurrection,” he said. “It’s another to actually tell the inside story of how these things happened and what the human dimension was all about.”Allies of Mr. Trump have dismissed the proceedings as a showbiz stunt lacking any balance and ignoring testimony helpful to the former president.The videos have rankled Mr. Trump, who has long prided himself on his instincts for good television.The news media at the hearing on Thursday. The panel’s ability to draw on video traces back to a decision its members and investigators made months ago to record depositions with witnesses.Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times“Those losers keep editing video,” Mr. Trump has told associates.Mr. Trump has closely watched the hearings, expressing surprise at the testimony against him from former administration officials and even his family members, associates said. Mr. Trump has also repeatedly told associates that episodes that former advisers have discussed on video simply “didn’t happen.”A person familiar with the discussions at the time between Mr. Trump and Mr. McCarthy said that the former president supported walking away from the committee after the House leader’s choices were blocked.And some witnesses have claimed that the panel used their testimony out of context. One Trump adviser, Jason Miller, said the committee unfairly truncated parts of his interview. Mr. Miller has complained that the panel made “selective edits” in an effort “to turn MAGA teammates against each other” and Mr. Trump.If they wanted to keep the quality of the production high, committee members determined, they only had the staff and bandwidth to put on two hearings a week, a conclusion that led them to delay the hearing on Mr. Trump’s attempts to use the Justice Department to remain in power.Each hearing has featured a behind-the-scenes element. The committee has played footage of high-profile members of Mr. Trump’s administration, like former Attorney General William P. Barr, speaking candidly as if they were trading war stories. Mr. Barr, with his sport jacket open and flanked by his highly paid lawyers, cursed as he described to investigators how he told Mr. Trump his claims of election fraud were bogus.The committee then played footage of Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump speaking on a Zoom-like conference call as she told investigators she respected Mr. Barr and believed him when he publicly pushed back on her father.The hearings have also introduced new characters who were largely unknown to even the closest followers of the Trump story. Among them has been Eric Herschmann, a White House lawyer in the final days of the administration. Sitting in what appeared like a fancy office with a black baseball bat with the word “Justice” in capital letters on the wall behind him, Mr. Herschmann has relayed expletive-laced anecdotes and rebukes of the lawyers Mr. Trump was using to try to overturn the election.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 6Making a case against Trump. More

US women’s national team forward Megan Rapinoe described the supreme court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade as “sad and cruel”. The Supreme Court has ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion in the United States, upending the landmark Roe v Wade case from nearly 50 years ago. 
‘It will completely exacerbate so many of the existing inequalities that we have in our country. It doesn’t keep not one single person safer,’ she said

US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe v Wade
‘It’s important to fight’: US cities erupt in protest as Roe v Wade falls
The supreme court just overturned Roe v Wade – what happens next? More

Most of the Republican candidates for governor are embracing conservative stances as the primary nears, but that may turn off moderate voters in November.POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. — For most of his early political career, Lee M. Zeldin was a classic Long Island moderate Republican: As an Army officer elected to the State Senate, he worked with Democrats to champion causes like tax cuts, veterans’ benefits and even beer, protecting breweries in his district and elsewhere.That centrism began to fade after Mr. Zeldin was elected to Congress in 2014 and was cast off completely after the election of President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Zeldin was one of the earlier House Republicans to embrace Mr. Trump, a fealty that culminated in his vote to overturn the results of the 2020 election in key swing states.Now, Mr. Zeldin may be forced to reconcile his past and present stances as he pursues a run for governor this year, a tricky balancing act that will require him to win a surprisingly fractious four-way Republican primary on Tuesday and then try to appeal to a far more moderate general electorate.Mr. Zeldin has largely stayed in the right lane, voicing allegiance to an array of conservative touchstones, including support for the Second Amendment, rejection of abortion and a devotion to Mr. Trump.Even so, he on some occasions has seemed mindful of the general election audience, a nuance that has emerged in subtle ways in debates, interviews and on the stump.Mr. Zeldin, for example, celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade on Friday, calling it “a victory for life, for family, for the constitution, and for federalism” and adding that “New York clearly needs to do a much better job to promote, respect and defend life.” But last month, before the decision, he had also been keen to stress that “nothing changes” for states like New York, which have enshrined abortion rights.On the Second Amendment, Mr. Zeldin cheered the Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to strike down a century-old law that placed strict limits on the carrying of handguns, calling it “a historic, proper and necessary victory.” He also says he would like to overturn a 2013 state law — the Safe Act — that tightened state guns laws.But after the recent massacre at a Buffalo supermarket, Mr. Zeldin walked back a call for the abolition of so-called red-flag laws, which prohibit gun ownership for those deemed a threat to themselves and others. He clarified that he simply felt such laws shouldn’t apply to “law-abiding New Yorkers.”Mr. Zeldin, right, with Kirk Imperati, the acting Dutchess County sheriff who is running for election.Richard Beaven for The New York TimesAnd even as Mr. Zeldin has attacked rivals for being “never-Trumpers” and Republicans in name only, he has stopped short of saying the 2020 election was stolen and didn’t exactly endorse a 2024 Trump campaign during the candidates’ first debate.“If President Trump wants to run,” Mr. Zeldin said, “he should run.”On Tuesday, too, when asked during the candidates’ final debate — hosted by Newsmax, the conservative cable network — if he was politically closer to Mr. Trump or former Vice President Mike Pence, Mr. Zeldin demurred, saying he was his “own man” — and drew a mixed reaction from a live audience in Rochester.Indeed, the challenge facing Mr. Zeldin, the putative front-runner endorsed by the state Republican Party, is one facing all four party candidates ahead of the primary on Tuesday: How to appeal to primary voters, hungry for red-meat issues like crime, immigration and social welfare, while not alienating more moderate swing voters who are dissatisfied with President Biden or Gov. Kathy Hochul, the incumbent Democrat favored to win her primary on Tuesday.Such a balancing act, political consultants from both parties say, is central to achieving one of the most daunting tasks in American politics: winning a statewide race in New York as a Republican.No Republican has done so since George E. Pataki won a third term as governor in 2002. And in the decades since, the task has become even more difficult as the state’s demographics have steadily drifted left while New York Republicans — once known for centrists like former governor Nelson A. Rockefeller — have banked hard to the right.“Right now, you have a race to the absolute bottom,” said Jefrey Pollock, the veteran pollster who is working with Ms. Hochul, referring to what he described as the Republicans’ pandering to right-wing voters. “So what you get is Republican candidates who are going to be incredibly out of step with general election voters on things that are going to be in the news, like guns and abortion and Donald Trump.”Mr. Zeldin’s victory in the primary is far from assured, with a spirited challenge coming from three rivals: Rob Astorino, the former Westchester County executive; Harry Wilson, a corporate turnaround specialist; and Andrew Giuliani, the son of the former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.Some voter surveys have shown Mr. Giuliani running a close second, or even surpassing, Mr. Zeldin in the closing weeks of the campaign.Even if Mr. Zeldin is the winner on Tuesday, it will be an uphill climb to the governor’s mansion in Albany. In pure statistical terms, Republicans are a third party in New York, trailing Democrats by more than three million registered members, and also outnumbered by nonaffiliated voters. And the calculus for Republicans winning in a statewide election generally means winning at least 30 percent of the vote in New York City, which is heavily Democratic. Still, with voters across the country rejecting Democratic leadership, and concern about crime and cost of living spiking in New York, Republicans believe this year could be an exception to that terrible track record. Even Democrats acknowledge that it could be a good year for Republicans, who lost their last foothold of power in Albany — control of the State Senate — in the 2018 elections. Mr. Zeldin insists that his proposed policies will remain constant even after the primary, emphasizing that he believes New Yorkers are most focused on kitchen-table issues like the economy, taxes and public safety.“These are issues that resonate with Republicans, these are issues that also resonate with independents, and they’re resonating with Democrats as well,” he said in an interview, adding that while “the conversation may be different in a general election,” on issues like guns, “My positions won’t change. My positions don’t change.”Like other Republicans, he’s also tried to emphasize less polarizing policies — mocking “the geniuses in Albany” and laying out ideas like stopping out-migration from the state, as well as reducing crime and government mandates.“We rule the government,” he said. “They don’t rule us.”From left to right, Harry Wilson, Rob Astorino, Lee Zeldin and Andrew Giuliani, at a recent debate of Republican candidates for governor.Pool photo by Brittainy NewmanLikewise, Mr. Zeldin’s Republican primary opponents seem aware of the calculations Republicans must make with voters.Mr. Wilson, a wealthy Greek American from the well-to-do enclave of Scarsdale, N.Y., is probably the campaign’s closest approximation of a moderate, having voiced support for abortion rights and advised the Treasury Department under President Barack Obama. He says he refused to vote for Mr. Trump in 2020 and wrote in Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and United Nations ambassador under Mr. Trump.Mr. Wilson, who has plowed more than $10 million of his own money into his campaign, has also shunned litmus tests on social issues, saying he’s running on an economic platform. He prefers to speak in wonky bullet points about overhauling state government and producing more housing units.“What I’m trying to do is lay out very clearly how different I am than any other candidate,” said Mr. Wilson said in a recent interview. “You used the term moderate. I think about it as someone who is not a politician — an outsider who has spent his entire career fixing failed organizations. And we need to hire a governor who has the capability to fix the most failed state government in the country.”Mr. Astorino, the former Westchester County executive, knows about the challenges of winning statewide in New York; he was the party’s unsuccessful nominee for governor in 2014. Still, he’s touted something Republicans have often pushed aside in primary contests in recent years: electability. He argues that Mr. Zeldin’s trail of votes in Albany and Washington has made him toxic to many New Yorkers.“I’m the most electable Republican in this race,” he said, noting his record winning Democratic crossover votes in “overwhelmingly blue Westchester County.”In an interview, Mr. Astorino played down the impact of Mr. Trump’s shadow over the race, insisting that voters would focus more on real-life concerns than on whom Mr. Trump might favor.“There’s the quality of life, the chaos, the dangerousness, the radicalism that’s taken hold because of the progressives right now,” he said. “All of that is subplot in this, but the basics are the economy, taxes, jobs and crime.”In the first debate, Mr. Astorino also went further than any other candidate in tying Mr. Trump to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, calling it “a horrible day in our nation’s history,” and saying that Mr. Trump “bears some responsibility.”Mr. Giuliani seems to be the most willing to embrace far-right talking points, seemingly hoping to energize the base by leaning on his father and emphasizing divisive culture-war topics. He railed against “the leftist media,” consideration for transgender people and critical race theory.Mr. Giuliani, who worked in the Trump administration for four years, has also actively sought Mr. Trump’s backing and unequivocally voiced his belief in the baseless conspiracy theory that Mr. Trump had won the 2020 election, the outcome of which he called “one of the greatest crimes in American history.”But in terms of political accomplishments and experience, Mr. Zeldin, who has represented the eastern part of Long Island since 2015, seems to have the upper hand. Trained as a lawyer, Mr. Zeldin passed the bar at the age of 23 and served in the U.S. Army as an intelligence officer and prosecutor, as well as being deployed to Iraq with the 82d Airborne in 2006. He still serves in the Army Reserve; married with two twin daughters, Mr. Zeldin likes to joke that he is “the fourth highest- ranking person” in his family.On a recent Thursday night, in front of a well-dressed coterie of Republican faithful at an elegant event space in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., Mr. Zeldin noted all the reasons he had for not running for governor, including the fact that he could have easily won another term and perhaps had a leadership position in a potential Republican majority in the House.But he said he was called to run to “save our state,” arguing — in a catch phrase from his campaign — that “losing is not an option.”“I’m not in this race to win a primary,” Mr. Zeldin said, stirring the audience to its feet. “I’m in this race to win in November.” More

Shaye Moss, a Georgia election worker, described on national television on Tuesday the smear campaign that Rudy Giuliani waged against her and her mother. Mr. Giuliani, speaking to Georgia legislators weeks after the 2020 presidential vote, had accused the two women of engaging in “surreptitious, illegal behavior” while working the polls on election night and conjured a racist image of them “passing around USB ports as if they are vials of heroin or cocaine.” The fabricated allegations, based on a cynical misrepresentation of a video, were designed to persuade Georgia officials to overturn the election results in their state, and they triggered an avalanche of harassment and death threats against the women.How did America’s mayor get to this low point? Mr. Giuliani’s rise to power in New York was often marked by venality, but nothing from his mayoral or prosecutorial years resembles his near-complete moral collapse under Donald Trump. They have been a pernicious team, and the strength of their bond — and how it ultimately drove the attempted subversion of the 2020 election — is rooted in Mr. Trump’s veneration of a bygone champion and Mr. Giuliani’s almost primal need to remain relevant.On election night, Mr. Giuliani was the only one of Mr. Trump’s advisers pushing him to declare victory early, even though Mr. Trump was behind in the count, with millions of ballots outstanding. Jason Miller, a Trump adviser, said in video testimony released on June 13 that Mr. Giuliani appeared inebriated when he pushed this dubious strategy, bringing his mountain of personal problems to a defining moment in history. (Mr. Giuliani has denied that he was intoxicated on election night and has previously denied that he has a drinking problem. A spokesman for Mr. Giuliani declined to comment for this essay.)Rudy Giuliani onscreen during the Jan. 6 hearing on Thursday.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Trump, never known for his loyalty to aides, has stood by Mr. Giuliani for years and through many embarrassments, including a raft of bungled television appearances, a compromising scene in a “Borat” film, a nationally televised news conference held in a parking lot of a landscaping company and another in which what appeared to be hair dye streamed down his cheeks. “Rudy was there when a lot of you guys weren’t,” the former president would snap at staff members.Mr. Trump rarely gushes about anyone besides himself, but there is something about Rudy Giuliani that has always made him swoon. “Some people don’t like him and some people love him totally,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Giuliani on “Larry King Live” on Oct. 7, 1999. “I happen to be in love.” As president, Mr. Trump often spoke about him with a deference that virtually no other aide received. Mr. Giuliani as mayor was a role model for Mr. Trump; his raw exercise of power, his use of bombast as a weapon and his relentless attacks on his critics and the media all made a huge impression. His style influenced Mr. Trump’s approach to the presidency “more so probably than any other political figure,” Mr. Miller, the Trump adviser, told me over the course of reporting for a new biography of Mr. Giuliani.The two men go back decades. As mayor, Mr. Giuliani looked favorably upon Mr. Trump’s development projects. He spoke at the funerals of both of Mr. Trump’s parents. Mr. Trump, in turn, wasn’t just “in love” with the New York mayor — Mr. Giuliani was perhaps the most famous national political leader with whom Mr. Trump had longstanding ties as he explored a presidential bid in 2000 and beyond. Mr. Trump saw how Mr. Giuliani became a hero after Sept. 11 and how he became a punchline after losing the run for the White House in 2008. Mr. Trump went to some lengths to help Mr. Giuliani in that low period. Indeed, the hallmarks of what would become one of the most toxic partnerships in recent presidential history came into stark relief during the months after Mr. Giuliani’s lifelong hopes of becoming president ended in humiliation.Mr. Giuliani was the favorite to win that race. Beloved for his leadership after Sept. 11, the former mayor was at one point more admired than the pope. He spent nearly a year as the front-runner before the start of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries. But an almost comically misguided campaign ended nearly four weeks after the Iowa caucus, when he withdrew from the race with some $4 million in debt and just one delegate to show for his efforts.The ridicule that he endured in its aftermath was merciless. T. Boone Pickens, the Texas billionaire, went public with his displeasure in a written letter of apology to donors he recruited to the campaign. Mr. Giuliani “rode up to the grandstand and fell off his horse,” he wrote.Mr. Giuliani’s ex-wife Judith, who was with him at the time, told me that what gnawed at the former mayor most was a creeping fear of irrelevancy. (The couple divorced in 2019.) The flameout forced him to lower his sights from how to amass power to how to hold on to what he had left. When he offered a reporter a rare post-mortem on the race in 2009 he betrayed his concern. “I think I should’ve fought Iowa harder,” he told New York magazine. “That was the beginning of becoming irrelevant.”After endorsing John McCain at the end of January, Mr. Giuliani disappeared from public view. Eager to escape the dreary cold of February in New York, he and his wife packed their bags and went to Florida to stay at her parents’ two-bedroom condo in Palm Beach, which Mr. Giuliani bought for them. They lived in Palm Beach Towers, an upscale high-rise apartment complex, with views of the crystalline blue Intracoastal Waterway, a swimming pool, landscaped gardens and nearby golf courses — a natural place to relax after a brutal campaign. But he rarely left the apartment, spending his time sitting listlessly on his in-laws’ living room couch, sleeping late in the bedroom or smoking cigars in his bathrobe on the terrace facing a parking lot.Ms. Giuliani said he refused to socialize or sit for meals, even as her mother, Joan, tried to entice him with his favorite dish, pasticcio. “It started to really worry me because he was waking up only if I would wake him,” she said. He became melancholy and self-pitying (“You should leave me”), she said. Her response — “You still have kids that love you, you have me, you have your health” — failed to assuage his sense of failure. “He just could not get over it,” she said.She said he started to drink more heavily. While Mr. Giuliani was always fond of downing a scotch with his cigars, his friends never considered him a problem drinker. Ms. Giuliani felt he was drinking to dull the pain. The situation was concerning enough to send the couple searching for a more discreet locale for his recuperation, as the press caught on to their stay at Palm Beach Towers and photographers started popping up.In search of a friend to turn to, they found one in Donald Trump. “We moved into Mar-a-Lago and Donald kept our secret,” Ms. Giuliani said.Mr. Trump provided them with a hideaway that was secluded from the press and passers-by, a safe space for an ailing friend who was a magnet for photographers. He had a perfect spot for them — a bungalow across the street from Mar-a-Lago. A small tunnel ran underneath South Ocean Boulevard, a narrow two-lane highway, allowing the Giulianis to walk to dinner beyond the glare of the press. “He thought he was finished,” she told me. His drinking accelerated, she said, the beginning of a series of episodes in which he fell and hurt himself. “He was always falling shitfaced somewhere,” she said.The true depth of his depression was something that only she and Mr. Giuliani knew for certain, because they were largely isolated at the time. Many of Mr. Giuliani’s aides considered his wife a loose cannon, prone to exaggeration. Mr. Giuliani’s only mention of that period was to tell The New York Times in 2018 that he “spent a month at Mar-a-Lago, relaxing.” Their friends in New York said the two were out of touch with them. Joseph Lhota, the former deputy mayor, told me that his vague recollection was that Mr. Giuliani “kind of lost himself. No one heard from him for a while.” He recalled that Tony Carbonetti, Mr. Giuliani’s political adviser and closest aide, told him at the time that Mr. Giuliani was “in a dark place.”Mr. Carbonetti now says that only the Giulianis know for sure how bad things were for his old boss. “There was a period where it was just the two of them for two or three months,” he told me. “She was the only person really spending significant time with him.”Both Donald and Melania Trump kept a protective eye on them, Ms. Giuliani said. According to a confidante of hers, she and Ms. Trump were practicing yoga on the beach one day when Ms. Trump spotted a Mar-a-Lago employee shooting photos of them. Ms. Trump complained to her husband, who marched to the scene and confronted the employee. After some back-and-forth, the man grudgingly handed Mr. Trump his camera. When Mr. Trump saw the photos his employee had taken of his wife and her companion, he fired him on the spot.During their stay, Ms. Giuliani said, she and her husband decided to see a movie at a West Palm Beach shopping center one afternoon. The outing ended soon after it began. She said he stumbled out of the car, fell to the ground and gashed his forehead so badly he needed stitches. Several weeks later, he made his first public appearance since arriving at Mar-a-Lago, traveling to New York to appear on “Saturday Night Live.” He sat on the set of “Weekend Update” making self-deprecating jokes about the failure of his campaign. His makeup just barely hid a scar above his right eyebrow.Notwithstanding the turmoil in Mr. Giuliani’s life, it was clear that he and Mr. Trump had found a compelling kinship. The former mayor and the celebrity developer were two New York colossuses, dinosaurs from another time and place — or perhaps it was just a state of mind — in which powerful men flaunted their money and influence to prove their dominance over other powerful men, and wives were first and foremost arm candy, the more beautiful and diamond bedecked the better. “He would always come home and bring these beautiful gifts,” Ms. Giuliani said of her former husband. “He wanted it to be ostentatious, he wanted me to walk down Madison Avenue with a big pearl necklace or a big diamond ring. He loved that it was emblematic for him of his not being, as he used to say, just a Brooklyn boy. He needed that validation.”That Mr. Trump would take Mr. Giuliani under his protective wing at a desperate time in the former mayor’s life was a glimpse into their unique bond, and may well have solidified the relationship. What’s clear is that it survived when other Trump relationships died away like so many marriages of convenience. For decades the two have performed a dance of respect and loyalty that has endured their shifting power dynamics.When Mr. Trump’s presidential candidacy reeled from the release of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, Mr. Giuliani was one of few who defended him. When Robert Mueller investigated Mr. Trump’s Russia ties, Mr. Giuliani promoted a theory about a nonexistent Biden-Ukraine conspiracy. When Mr. Trump faced the abyss in 2020, the two needed each other more than ever. Mr. Giuliani was the last of the president’s high-profile advisers willing to lead his immoral battle. Seventy-six years old at the time, Mr. Giuliani’s political and financial future, possibly even his escape from prosecution, was now dependent upon Mr. Trump’s remaining in office.Ms. Giuliani always felt that her husband’s Achilles’ heel was his bottomless need for validation. It would lead him to make a lot of bad decisions. He would never stop protecting Mr. Trump. As the nation witnessed in the hearings of the past two weeks, he worked to upend a legitimate presidential election, destroying reputations and sabotaging American democracy in the process, all without batting an eye.Andrew Kirtzman, a former New York political reporter and the writer of books about Rudy Giuliani’s mayoralty and the Bernie Madoff scandal, is the author of the forthcoming “Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America’s Mayor.”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 double defeat exposed the party’s vulnerabilities and was likely to revive talk of another no-confidence vote against the prime minister.LONDON — Britain’s governing Conservative Party lost two strategically important parliamentary seats on Friday, prompting the resignation of a party chairman and raising fresh doubts about the future of the country’s scandal-scarred leader, Prime Minister Boris Johnson.The double defeat is a stinging rebuke of Mr. Johnson, who survived a no-confidence vote in his party this month, precipitated by a scandal over illicit parties held at Downing Street during the coronavirus pandemic. And it revived talk of another attempt to oust him, though under the party’s current rules Mr. Johnson cannot face another challenge until next June.In elections on Thursday, voters in Tiverton and Honiton, a rural stretch of southwest England that is the party’s heartland, and in the faded northern industrial city of Wakefield evicted the Conservative Party from seats that had come open after lawmakers were brought down by scandals of their own.The Labour Party’s victory in Wakefield was widely expected, and it ran up a comfortable margin over the Conservatives. In the south, which had been viewed as a tossup, the Liberal Democrats scored a stunning upset, overcoming a huge Conservative majority in the last election to win the seat by a solid margin.It was the first time a governing party had lost two seats in a parliamentary by-election since 1991. And as grim as the electoral prospects for the Conservatives look, they could worsen further in the next year, with galloping inflation, interest rate hikes and Britain almost certainly heading for a recession.Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, who is dealing with swelling discontent at home, was in Rwanda on Friday for the opening ceremony of a Commonwealth summit.Pool photo by Dan KitwoodThe political fallout was swift and stark: Oliver Dowden resigned his job as a chairman of the Conservative Party on Friday morning in a letter sent to Mr. Johnson less than two hours after the votes had been counted. The party’s supporters were “distressed and disappointed by recent events, and I share their feelings,” Mr. Dowden wrote, adding that “somebody must take responsibility.”A longtime ally of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dowden pointedly professed his loyalty to the Conservative Party, rather than to its leader. But on Friday, Mr. Johnson showed no signs of reconsidering his position, even as he acknowledged the defeats and promised to listen to the voters.“Midterm governments, postwar, lose by-elections,” said the prime minister, who is attending a meeting of the leaders of the Commonwealth in Kigali, Rwanda.“We are facing pressures on the costs of living,” Mr. Johnson added. “We are seeing spikes in fuel prices, energy costs, food costs, that is hitting people. We have to recognize that there is more that we have got to do and we certainly will. Challenged later on his own responsibility for the two losses, Mr. Johnson responded: “I genuinely, genuinely, don’t think that the way forward in British politics is to focus on issues of personalities, whether they are mine or others.” Rishi Sunak, the chancellor of the Exchequer, offered his support to the prime minister, echoing his explanation of the defeats and accepting some of the blame. “We all take responsibility for the results and I’m determined to continue working to tackle the cost of living,” he wrote on Twitter.Mr. Sunak had been seen as a potential successor to Mr. Johnson until his popularity plummeted this year, and — although other senior ministers kept noticeably quiet — his statement suggests that a coordinated cabinet move against the prime minister was unlikely. However, one senior Conservative figure, Michael Howard, called for the resignation of a prime minister now seen by many as an electoral liability. “The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership,” Mr. Howard, a former Tory leader, told the BBC, adding, “Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions.”And Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, a senior Conservative lawmaker, said Mr. Johnson could still be removed either by a cabinet rebellion or if the rule protecting him from another no-confidence vote for a year was changed. “There will be a lot of conversations taking place next week,” he told Times Radio, “and we’ll have to see what happens.”The defeats exposed Conservative vulnerabilities on two fronts: the so-called red wall, in the industrial north of England, where Mr. Johnson shattered a traditional Labour stronghold in the 2019 general election, and in the southwest, a traditional Tory stronghold often called the “blue wall.”The political fallout was swift and stark: Oliver Dowden resigned his job as a chairman of the Conservative Party on Friday morning in a letter sent to Mr. Johnson less than two hours after the votes had been counted.Paul Ellis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn Tiverton and Honiton, where the Liberal Democrats won 53 percent of the vote to the Conservatives’ 39 percent, the victorious candidate, Richard Foord, said the result would send “a shock wave through British politics.” The Liberal Democrats’ leader, Ed Davey, called it “the biggest by-election victory our country has ever seen.”The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, said that his party’s victory in Wakefield, where Simon Lightwood won a solid 48 percent of the vote to the Conservative candidate’s 30 percent, was “a clear judgment on a Conservative Party that has run out of energy and ideas.”While the political contours of the two districts are very different, they share a common element: a Conservative lawmaker who resigned in disgrace. In Tiverton and Honiton, Neil Parish quit in April after he admitted watching pornography on his phone while sitting in Parliament. In Wakefield, Imran Ahmad Khan was sentenced to 18 months in prison in May after being convicted of sexually assaulting a teenage boy.Mr. Khan’s legal troubles, which included multiple unsuccessful efforts to have his case heard secretly, meant that Wakefield did not have a functioning representative in Parliament for two years. “The whole unfortunate situation is about a broken political system that ignores the voters and their wishes, and politicians who don’t do the right thing or serve the people who got them into power,” said Gavin Murray, editor of the Wakefield Express newspaper. “This point is amplified and exaggerated by the behavior of Boris and Downing Street.”While there had been little expectation that the Conservatives would hold on to the Wakefield seat, the scale of the victory for Labour suggested that the party could compete successfully against the Conservatives in the next general election.The giant swing in votes in Tiverton and Honiton, a usually safe Conservative district where the party had hoped to hold on, was even more sobering for Mr. Johnson. It suggested that even the most loyal Tory voters had become disenchanted with the serial scandals and nonstop drama surrounding the prime minister.The Labour candidate Simon Lightwood won a solid 48 percent of the vote to the Conservatives’ 30 percent in Wakefield.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesLast year, the Conservatives were stunned by the loss of a parliamentary seat in Chesham and Amersham, a well-heeled district northwest of London. Analysts said that it suggested a backlash against Mr. Johnson’s divisive brand of politics and tax-and-spend policies.The government has promised to “level up” and bolster the economy in northern England, a reward to the red-wall voters. But some analysts see a significant risk of support fracturing among traditional Tories in the south.The Liberal Democrats specialize in fighting on local issues in by-elections. They have a long history of achieving surprise results, and success for them in Tiverton and Honiton consolidated the party’s strong performance in local elections in May, where they also emerged the big winners.In the days leading up to the two elections, Labour and the Liberal Democrats both concentrated their resources in the districts they were better placed to win, leaving the other a freer run. Worryingly for Mr. Johnson, that tactic proved effective.Vince Cable, a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, said that rather than any official cooperation between the two parties, there was a “tacit understanding, relying on the voters to get to a sensible outcome.” Kenneth Baker, a former chairman of the Conservative Party and a member of the House of Lords, said that Mr. Johnson was now too polarizing a figure.“If the Conservative Party continues to be led by Boris,” he said, “there is no chance of the Conservatives winning an overall majority.” More

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — The Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade on Friday catapulted the explosive battle over abortion rights into the center of several marquee midterm races, turning the fight over key governor’s contests and coveted Senate seats into heated debates about personal freedom and public health.Devastated Democrats, facing staggering political challenges amid high inflation and President Biden’s low approval ratings, hoped the decision might reinvigorate disaffected base voters. They also saw the moment as a fresh chance to hold on to the moderate, suburban swing voters who have helped them win recent elections.Republicans, for their part, publicly celebrated the ruling as the realization of a decades-long effort, even as some strategists — and former President Donald J. Trump — privately acknowledged that the issue created at least some risk for a party that has enjoyed months of political momentum. Many argued that competitive races would ultimately be decided by other issues.“From the grass-roots perspective, there’s a lot of joy,” said Scott Jennings, a Republican who is a former top campaign aide to Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader. “This is why we fight. And at the same time, this election is going to be decided on a couple of issues: Joe Biden’s approval rating, inflation, the economy, crime, quality of life.”For years, the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade was an abstract concept for many Americans — a distressing but distant worry for some and a long-term goal rather than an imminent possibility to others. The Supreme Court’s opinion eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion ended that era of disbelief, opening a new chapter of concrete consequences, in which races for governor, state legislature and attorney general, and even state courts might determine whether millions of Americans have access to the procedure.“This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” Mr. Biden said on Friday. “Personal freedoms are on the ballot.”Both parties agree that the high stakes will be galvanizing, to some degree, to their respective bases. But the critical question remains whether swing voters — in particular, independent women from the diverse suburbs, who are currently focused on economic uncertainty — will turn their attention to the fight over access to abortion.Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan after a discussion of abortion rights in Grand Rapids.Emily Elconin for The New York Times“There are a lot of independent women, I think there are a lot of women who haven’t been participating in elections, and are going to engage,” Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan said in an interview earlier this week, after hosting an emotional round table focused on abortion rights at a brewery in Grand Rapids. “But I’m not going to assume it. We’re going to have to make sure that we’re doing the work of education and persuasion and activation.”Already this year, Democratic campaigns and supportive outside groups have spent nearly $18 million in advertising on abortion issues, while Republicans and affiliated outside groups have spent nearly $21 million, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact. Both figures may balloon.Activists and party strategists, who have been preparing for months to mobilize around this issue, are focusing in particular on governor’s races in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, three states currently led by Democratic governors, and places where the outcomes this fall could directly impact the future of abortion rights after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision handed control over abortion protections back to the states.Democrats also are planning to use the issue to play offense in other governor’s races, while making the case that Senate and House candidates across the country, too, have embraced positions on abortion that are far outside the mainstream.An early test of energy around this issue will come in August, as Kansans vote on whether to remove the right to an abortion from the state constitution.In a fund-raising email on Friday, Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas, a Democrat, declared that “I could be the only Kansas leader standing in the way” of new abortion restrictions. Her likely opponent, the state attorney general, Derek Schmidt, said that he would support the ballot initiative.The Kansas Senate debated an amendment to the state constitution that would regulate abortion rights last year.Evert Nelson/The Topeka Capital-Journal, via Associated PressDemocrats had been preparing to try to direct the expected outpouring of shock and anger into electoral action once the opinion was handed down, with party committees and state parties conferring on national messaging and mobilization plans, as well as launching a website on Friday to direct organizing efforts.Candidates and organizations have employed focus groups and polling to assess the issue; there are sprawling fund-raising efforts; and the abortion rights groups Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List have said they intend to spend $150 million on the midterm elections. American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic-aligned super PAC, says it has tapped social media influencers to communicate about abortion rights and Republican records on that issue to Americans who may be only casually political.“We will see, state by state by state, pre-existing bans go into effect, state legislatures rush to pass abortion bans,” said Cecile Richards, the former president of Planned Parenthood who is now a chair of American Bridge. “It’s a different conversation now because it’s become real.”Despite all the mobilization, many party strategists do not anticipate that even Friday’s seismic decision will fundamentally change voters’ focus on cost-of-living worries. But some see it as reinforcing their core argument against Republicans: that the right wing of the party is in control, out of step with public opinion, and focused above all else on cultural battles. Senate Democrats and strategists are particularly focused on highlighting the Republican candidates who support near-total bans on abortion.“Economic issues are always going to outweigh abortion for a lot of voters,” said Celinda Lake, a veteran Democratic strategist. “But it’s very, very important for Democrats — to win these swing voters — to make this a choice, not a referendum.” Abortion, she said, “is going to be a major factor in that, because it is a very clear distinction.”Abortion rights supporters protested the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta.Kendrick Brinson for The New York TimesPolling shows that Americans strongly oppose completely overturning Roe v. Wade — in a Washington Post-ABC poll conducted in late April, 54 percent of Americans thought the Roe decision should be upheld, while 28 percent believed it should be overturned. But views on abortion vary depending on a state’s political tilt.That is one reason Republicans’ messaging on the issue has been less unified. On Friday, as some candidates, lawmakers and the Republican National Committee rushed to celebrate the ruling, others sought to quickly return their focus to pocketbook issues.Adam Laxalt, the Republican Senate candidate in Nevada — a state with a history of supporting abortion rights — on Friday cheered the “historic victory for the sanctity of life,” but stressed that access to abortion was already “settled law” in Nevada.“It won’t distract voters from unaffordable prices, rising crime or the border crisis,” he said.When asked for comment, Jesse Hunt, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association, responded in a statement that “the persuadable voters that will determine the outcome in competitive races are deeply concerned with the damage being done to their financial security” by Democrats.Even Mr. Trump, the former president who put conservatives on the court, has privately told people that he believes the court’s decision will be “bad for Republicans.” In a public statement on Friday, Mr. Trump called the decision “the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation.”Abortion rights opponents are working to capitalize on conservatives’ enthusiasm.The anti-abortion rights group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America launched a field program last year, with plans to engage eight million voters in critical battleground states. The group is focusing on “those people that are in play, that could go either way based on this particular issue,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the organization.“It’s not just some theoretical vote about somebody who says they’re pro-life,” she said. “It’s now an opportunity to actually do something about it.”Penny Nance, the president of Concerned Women for America, an organization that opposes abortion rights, said the group was planning a summit that would focus on the role of state activism in a post-Roe nation.Some state officials have “basically said, ‘We don’t really have the ability to change the law because of the Supreme Court decision,’” she said.“Now,” she continued, “it changes everything.”That new focus on state laws has already intensified the debate in statehouses and governor’s races in politically divided states. In Pennsylvania, the next governor and a Republican-led statehouse will likely determine access.Doug Mastriano, the Republican candidate for governor of Pennsylvania, with supporters in Portersville in May.Keith Srakocic/Associated Press“Roe v. Wade is rightly relegated to the ash heap of history,” said Doug Mastriano, the far-right Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania. Josh Shapiro, the state attorney general and the Democratic nominee for governor, wrote on Twitter on Friday that “without Roe, the only thing stopping them is the veto pen of our next Governor.”In Michigan and Wisconsin, old laws on the books call for near-total bans on abortion and Democratic governors up for re-election have vowed to fight to protect access.In Michigan, abortion rights supporters are working to secure a constitutional amendment protecting the right to an abortion. Ms. Whitmer has also filed a lawsuit asking “the Michigan Supreme Court to immediately resolve” whether the State Constitution protects the right to an abortion. At her roundtable discussion this week, Ms. Whitmer spoke with women about whether they thought voters had yet grasped the significance of what overturning Roe v. Wade would mean.“So many people,” one attendee told her, “didn’t realize it was this serious.” More

Gov. Kathy Hochul’s fund-raising pace could make her run for a full term the most expensive campaign ever for governor of New York.It was the night after the first debate among the major Democrats running to be New York’s governor, and the favored incumbent, Gov. Kathy Hochul, was in a fund-raising mood.As Neil Diamond’s “Sweet Caroline” played on the sound system at Hush HK, a gay bar in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan, Ms. Hochul worked the crowd of well-connected guests who had paid $500 to $25,000 apiece to attend the June 8 event.As voters prepare for the Democratic primary on Tuesday, Ms. Hochul appears to be a prohibitive favorite over her rivals, Representative Thomas R. Suozzi of Long Island and Jumaane D. Williams, New York City’s public advocate.That has not stopped her from raising campaign cash at a furious pace: Ms. Hochul, who had already collected roughly $34 million in political donations as of Thursday, has set a target of raising a total of $50 million to $70 million by Election Day, according to three Democrats familiar with her plans.“The stakes of this election could not be higher and Governor Hochul is proud of the widespread support for her campaign,” Jen Goodman, a spokeswoman for Ms. Hochul’s campaign, said in a statement. “The governor will continue to build momentum from now until November, connecting with voters across the state and working tirelessly to deliver results for all New Yorkers.”Ms. Hochul and her team have exhaustively pursued contributions from all corners of the donor class: real estate and health care, cryptocurrency and gambling.And she shows no signs of letting up: On Monday, the day before the primary, Ms. Hochul plans a rooftop fund-raiser on Manhattan’s Far West Side. Admission costs a minimum of $100. Hosts are asked to give or raise $25,000.Should Ms. Hochul achieve her desired fund-raising goal, she may be in the running for most expensive campaign for governor in New York history — rivaling only the billionaire Tom Golisano’s failed bid to unseat Gov. George E. Pataki in 2002, an effort with an estimated cost of $54 million to $74 million. She will also put herself in league with similarly expensive campaigns for governor in Virginia and California.Ms. Hochul’s fund-raising effort is somewhat rooted in Albany tradition, with governors often gathering money from donors with business before the state even while the State Legislature is in session.“This is essentially an open seat, so I can understand the logic for why she wants to raise as much as she does to ward off significant competition,” said Blair Horner, the executive director of the New York Public Interest Research Group, a government watchdog. “On the other hand, where does the money come from?”A Guide to New York’s 2022 Primary ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.Governor’s Race: Kathy Hochul, the incumbent, is expected to handily win against Jumaane Williams and Tom Suozzi in the Democratic primary on June 28. But some allies worry her low-key approach comes at a cost.Lieutenant Governor’s Race: Ms. Hochul’s handpicked candidate is facing a sharp challenge from the Democratic Party’s left wing.Maloney vs. Nadler: New congressional lines have put the two stalwart Manhattan Democrats — including New York City’s last remaining Jewish congressman — on a collision course in the Aug. 23 primary.15 Democrats, 1 Seat: A newly redrawn House district in New York City may be one of the largest and most freewheeling primaries in the nation.Offensive Remarks: Carl P. Paladino, a Republican running for a House seat in Western New York, recently drew backlash for praising Adolf Hitler in an interview dating back to 2021.Ms. Hochul became the state’s first female governor last August after Andrew M. Cuomo resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment that the state’s attorney general deemed credible.Many of her donations have come from the gambling industry, which is eagerly awaiting the issuance of up to three new licenses for casinos in and around New York City.In recent months. Ms. Hochul has raised more than $200,000 from donors with direct interests in gambling. More than $100,000 of that sum came from contributors associated with Hard Rock, a company that wants to open a casino in New York City, records show.Donors tied to Hard Rock gave Ms. Hochul $80,000 from June 18 to June 23, building on the nearly $40,000 they have given her since she became governor. Jim Allen, Hard Rock International’s chairman, was the largest single donor associated with the company. He gave Ms. Hochul $25,000 on June 20 after contributing almost $13,000 to her campaign in January, the reports show.In addition, Edward Tracy, the chief executive of Hard Rock Japan LLC and a former chief executive at the Trump Organization, gave Ms. Hochul $25,000 on Thursday.A Hard Rock representative declined to comment on the contributions and referred questions to Ms. Hochul’s campaign.Ms. Hochul smashed previous fund-raising records when she announced a $21.6 million haul at the beginning of the year, by far the largest amount any New York candidate had reported for a single filing period.She has continued pulling in money at a dizzying clip, in some cases raising hundreds of thousands of dollars in a single day. She reported taking in $340,000 on Tuesday and another $200,000 on Wednesday, campaign finance records show. That is more than Mr. Suozzi raised in the previous three-week reporting period, which ended in mid-June.Ms. Hochul’s campaign team believes she needs a large campaign war chest to help ensure victory in an election cycle that is widely expected to favor Republicans. While she has been largely absent from the campaign trail, she has been a far more frenetic presence on the fund-raising circuit.On Wednesday, the chief executive of CLEAR — whose biometric technology is used to screen passengers at New York airports — hosted a fund-raiser for Ms. Hochul at Zero Bond, a nightclub often frequented by Mayor Eric Adams. Tickets cost $5,000 to $25,000, according to one invitee.In the most recent filings, which trickle in daily and include contributions since June 14, Ms. Hochul had already exceeded $1 million by Friday, with an average donation of about $10,000 and two new donors giving her the maximum $69,700. Since taking office, at least 10 percent of her cash has come from donors giving the maximum.Real estate interests, still smarting from their loss of a lucrative tax break that lapsed this year, continue to pour money into Ms. Hochul’s campaign. Two members of the Cayre real estate family, which controls the Midtown Equities firm, donated the maximum this week, bringing the family’s total to more than $400,000 since November.The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Several real estate titans have found a way to keep on giving even after hitting their limit with Ms. Hochul’s campaign: contribute to her running mate, Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado, instead. In the last few days alone, Mr. Delgado has picked up several five-figure checks from real estate industry contributors who had already maxed out to Ms. Hochul, pushing his total from all donors since June 16 to almost $600,000.Mr. Delgado succeeded Brian Benjamin, who resigned after prosecutors indicted him on federal bribery and fraud charges. The night before the indictment was announced, Ms. Hochul was at a fund-raiser in Midtown Manhattan that featured a performance of Otis Redding’s “(Sittin’ On) The Dock of the Bay” by a former governor, David Paterson.“The lyrics for ‘Dock of the Bay’ are quite existential,” Mr. Paterson said in an interview this week before reciting them to a reporter. More