Elections

The three-term South Dakotan had considered retiring because of family concerns and the continuing grip of former President Donald J. Trump on the Republican Party.WASHINGTON — Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the second-ranking Senate Republican, announced on Saturday that he would seek re-election, after an aggressive lobbying campaign by colleagues prompted him to put aside concerns about the future of his party and pursue a fourth term.“I’m asking South Dakotans for the opportunity to continue serving them in the U.S. Senate,” Mr. Thune, the minority whip, said in a statement, adding that he could deliver for his state.“I am uniquely positioned to get that job done,” he said.The South Dakotan, who turned 61 on Friday, had recently told associates that he was considering retirement, complaining about the strain of congressional service and privately expressing concern about former President Donald J. Trump’s continuing grip on the Republican Party.But by seeking re-election in a heavily conservative state, Mr. Thune is well positioned to win again and potentially succeed Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, as the Senate’s top Republican.A host of Senate Republicans leaned on Mr. Thune in recent weeks to run again, but Mr. McConnell was especially aggressive and met privately with him this past week. The Kentucky Republican turns 80 next month and has made clear that he wants to remain his party’s Senate leader into 2023, when he would become the longest-serving party leader in the chamber’s history.It is unclear how long Mr. McConnell will serve beyond then, though, an open question that helped lure Mr. Thune to seek another term. Mr. Thune has told associates he is confident he would have the support to succeed Mr. McConnell when the leader exits.The South Dakotan would face competition for the post, however. Senator John Cornyn of Texas preceded Mr. Thune as the party whip and has indicated his interest in succeeding Mr. McConnell, as has Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, currently the No. 3 Republican.For now, Mr. Thune will have to navigate re-election in South Dakota, which rejected its two most famous senators, George S. McGovern and Tom Daschle, both Democrats, in their bids for fourth terms.Mr. Thune’s only real obstacle, though, would be a primary. He put off a decision on running until the new year because he wanted to minimize the time a potential Republican rival would have to mount a primary challenge — and to limit Mr. Trump’s window for mischief-making.The former president lashed out at Mr. Thune at the end of 2020 after the senator said Mr. Trump’s unfounded election objections would go down “like a shot dog” in the Senate.That prompted the former president, who maintains an iron grip on the Republican Party and has already intervened in a series of 2022 primaries to consolidate his power even further, to deride Mr. Thune as “Mitch’s boy” and a “RINO,” or a Republican in name only.“He will be primaried in 2022, political career over!!!” Mr. Trump warned at the time.But no major primary challenger has emerged. And Mr. Trump’s allies in the Senate said last month that the former president would be unlikely to oppose Mr. Thune if the senator appeared likely to win renomination.Once a hub of prairie populism, South Dakota has turned deeply red in the last two decades, a transition that began with Mr. Thune’s defeat of Mr. Daschle in 2004. More

Strategy shift: Biden confronts Trump head on after year of silent treatmentPresident strikes different tone in tacit admission that ignoring the most powerful force in the Republican party is risky In the first moments of his presidency, Joe Biden called on Americans to set aside their deep divisions inflamed by a predecessor he intentionally ignored. He emphasized national unity and appealed to Americans to come together to “end this uncivil war”.The Trump menace is darker than ever – and he’s snapping at Biden’s heels | Jonathan FreedlandRead moreNearly a year later, as a divided nation reflects on the first anniversary of the 6 January assault on the US Capitol, the uncivil war he sought to extinguish rages on, stronger than ever. In a searing speech on Thursday, Biden struck a different tone.He said he was “crystal clear” about the dangers facing the nation, and accused Donald Trump and his political allies of holding a “dagger at the throat of America, at American democracy”. In the course of the 21-minute speech, delivered from the US Capitol, Biden offered himself as a defender of democracy in the “battle for the soul of America”.“I will stand in this breach,” he promised. “I will defend this nation.”That moment of visceral speech-making marked a shift in strategy for how Biden has chosen to engage Trump – whose name he never uttered but instead taunted as the “defeated former president”.The decision to break his silence about Trump comes at a challenging moment in Biden’s presidency, with his Build Back Better agenda stalled, the Covid-19 pandemic resurgent and economic malaise widespread. It also reflected the reality that, far from being shunned, Trump remains the most powerful force in the Republican party and a potential rival to Biden in 2024.Confronting Trump was a calculated risk. Trump seized the opportunity to hurl all manner of insults and accusations at his successor, whose remarks he said were “very hurtful to many people”.But Biden’s speech was an acknowledgment that there were dangers in continuing to ignore Trump and what Biden called his “web of lies”. Recent polling suggests the vast majority of Republicans believe Trump’s unsubstantiated claims about the election fraud while a growing percentage of Americans are willing to tolerate political violence in some instances.Republican-controlled states are pursuing a raft of new voting restrictions, motivated in part by the doubts they sowed about the 2020 election results. At the same time, Republicans are passing laws that inject partisanship into the administration of elections and vote-counting while stripping power from and driving power from election officials who resisted pressure to throw out votes or overturn the elections in their state.“It was essential to be specific about the problem, and the source of the crisis,” said Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton University. “Otherwise the vague rhetoric, without agency, that we hear about polarization misses the way in which Trump and the GOP are the source of so much instability.”But he warned that a speech can only do so much. “Without holding people accountable for January 6 and the campaign against the 2020 election, and without real legislation to protecting voting rights and the electoral process, the ‘dagger at the throat of democracy’ won’t go away.”In his remarks, Biden argued that protecting voting rights was paramount to safeguarding American democracy. He sought to connect the dots between Trump’s promotion that the 2020 election was tainted by fraud and Republicans’ coordinated effort to “subvert” and undermine the electoral process in states where they control the levers of power.“Right now, in state after state, new laws are being written – not to protect the vote, but to deny it; not only to suppress the vote, but to subvert it; not to strengthen or protect our democracy, but because the former president lost,” he said.Biden will follow up on the theme on Tuesday when he delivers another consequential speech on voting rights. In Atlanta, Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris will call for the passage of two voting rights bills that face daunting odds in the US Senate: the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.The issue of voting rights has taken center stage after hopes of passing Biden’s sweeping domestic policy agenda were dashed by the opposition of Senator Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat from West Virginia. So far Republican opposition has blocked passage of the legislation in the evenly divided chamber, where Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.Manchin again holds the keys on voting rights legislation, which he broadly supports. But his opposition to eliminating the filibuster has forced Democrats to pursue other avenues such as creating an exception in the rules for certain legislation. The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said he would schedule a vote on easing the filibuster rules not later than 17 January, which is Martin Luther King Day.Biden has faced immense pressure from civil rights leaders and voting rights advocates frustrated with his handling of the issue, seen as critical to the president’s legacy. Indeed, a coalition of Georgia-based voting rights groups warned Biden and Harris not to bother coming to the state unless they delivered a concrete plan to move forward, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, told reporters this week that Biden planned to stress the “urgent need to pass legislation to protect the constitutional right to vote and the integrity of our elections”.Spencer Overton, an election law expert and the president of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, hopes Biden will use his bully pulpit to explain why passing federal voting rights legislation is so essential to combatting the lies and conspiracies undermining faith in the nation’s system of government.“Those lies have real consequences,” said. “Sometimes they’re graphic, as we saw a year ago on 6 January, but sometimes they silently erode democracy by preventing average citizens from participating in our democracy, and exercising their freedom to vote.”“This is the most important legislation in Congress now,” he added. “There’s just no benefit in waiting. The moment is now.”TopicsJoe BidenUS politicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackDemocratsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More

Una ola de revisionismo engañoso se ha convertido en una epidemia tanto en las autocracias como en las democracias. Ha sido notablemente efectiva… y contagiosa.En Rusia, una organización dedicada a recordar los abusos de la era soviética se enfrenta a la liquidación ordenada por el Estado mientras el Kremlin impone en su lugar una historia nacional aséptica.En Hungría, el gobierno expulsó o asumió el control de las instituciones educativas y culturales y las utiliza para fabricar un patrimonio nacional xenófobo alineado con su política etnonacionalista.En China, el Partido Comunista en el poder usa abiertamente los libros de texto, las películas, los programas de televisión y las redes sociales para escribir una nueva versión de la historia china que se adapte mejor a las necesidades del partido.Y en Estados Unidos, Donald Trump y sus aliados siguenpromoviendo una falsa versión de las elecciones de 2020, en la que aseguran que los demócratas manipularon los votos y afirman que el ataque del 6 de enero para interrumpir la certificación del presidente Joe Biden fue en su mayoría un acto pacífico o escenificado por los opositores de Trump.Unos revoltosos se enfrentaron a las fuerzas del orden del Capitolio de EE. UU. el 6 de enero de 2021.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesLa historia se reescribe todo el tiempo, ya sea por los académicos que actualizan sus supuestos, los activistas que reformulan el registro o los políticos que manipulan la memoria colectiva para sus propios fines.Pero una oleada de revisiones históricas falsas o engañosas de manera flagrante, tanto por parte de gobiernos democráticos como autoritarios, puede estar amenazando el ya debilitado sentido de un relato compartido y aceptado sobre el mundo.Los académicos creen que esta tendencia refleja algunas de las fuerzas que definen el siglo. Sociedades polarizadas y receptivas a las falsedades que afirman la identidad. El colapso de la fe en las instituciones centrales o en los árbitros de la verdad. El auge del nacionalismo. Tiranos cada vez más astutos. Líderes elegidos que giran cada vez más hacia el antiliberalismo.Como resultado, “deberíamos ser más propensos a ver el tipo de revisionismo histórico” impulsado por estos líderes, señaló Erica Frantz, politóloga de la Universidad Estatal de Michigan.Understand the Jan. 6 InvestigationBoth the Justice Department and a House select committee are investigating the events of the Capitol riot. Here’s where they stand:Inside the House Inquiry: From a nondescript office building, the panel has been quietly ramping up its sprawling and elaborate investigation.Criminal Referrals, Explained: Can the House inquiry end in criminal charges? These are some of the issues confronting the committee.Garland’s Remarks: Facing pressure from Democrats, Attorney General Merrick Garland vowed that the D.O.J. would pursue its inquiry into the riot “at any level.”A Big Question Remains: Will the Justice Department move beyond charging the rioters themselves?En algunos lugares, los objetivos son ambiciosos: rediseñar una sociedad, empezando por su comprensión más básica de su patrimonio colectivo. Para subrayar la importancia de este proceso, el líder de China, Xi Jinping, repite la frase de un erudito confuciano del siglo XIX: “Para destruir un país, primero hay que erradicar su historia”.Victoria Park en Hong Kong el 4 de junio de 2020Lam Yik Fei para The New York TimesEl lugar estaba vacío el 4 de junio de 2021Lam Yik Fei para The New York TimesPero, a menudo y al parecer, el objetivo es más a corto plazo: provocar la rabia o el orgullo de manera que los ciudadanos se unan a la agenda del líder.Las mentiras electorales de Trump parecen ser un ejemplo de éxito. Han escindido el sentido compartido de la realidad de los estadounidenses de manera que podrían fortalecer a los aliados de Trump y justificar los esfuerzos para controlar la maquinaria de futuras elecciones. Si las tendencias globales que permiten tales tácticas continúan, puede que vengan más casos parecidos.Integrantes del Ejército Juvenil de Rusia practicaban el montaje de rifles, técnicas de primeros auxilios y artes marciales el mes pasado en Noginsk, cerca de Moscú.Sergey Ponomarev para The New York TimesUn mundo cambianteLa manera en que los gobiernos tienden a gobernar es uno de los cambios más importantes de esta tendencia.Un reciente artículo académico afirma que el autoritarismo “está sufriendo una transformación”, con lo que resume la opinión cada vez más extendida entre los académicos.Desde la Primavera Árabe y los levantamientos de la “revolución de colores” de hace una década, los dictadores han dejado de hacer hincapié en la represión por la fuerza bruta (aunque esto también sigue ocurriendo) y han adoptado técnicas más sutiles, como la manipulación de la información o la generación de divisiones, con el objetivo de prevenir la disidencia en lugar de suprimirla.Entre otros cambios, se sustituye la estruendosa prensa estatal por una serie de llamativos medios de comunicación alineados con el Estado y bots en las redes sociales, lo que crea la falsa sensación de que la narrativa oficial no se impone desde lo alto, sino que surge de forma orgánica.La propaganda más sofisticada, cuyo objetivo es la persuasión en lugar de la coerción, se manifiesta a menudo como un tipo particular de reescritura histórica. En lugar de limitarse a eliminar a los funcionarios desfavorecidos o los errores del gobierno, cultiva el orgullo nacional y el agravio colectivo con el fin de congregar a los ciudadanos.Por ejemplo, el Kremlin ha manipulado los recuerdos de la Unión Soviética y de su caída para convertirlos en una memoria de grandeza y asedio de la herencia rusa, justificando la necesidad de un líder más fuerte como Vladimir Putin y alentando a los rusos a apoyarlo con gratitud.Esto también se manifiesta en pequeñas formas. Putin ha insistido, falsamente, en que la OTAN prometió nunca extenderse al este de Alemania, justificando así la reciente agresión a Ucrania como una necesidad defensiva.Las democracias cambian también de modos dramáticos y los líderes se vuelven cada vez menos liberales y emplean más mano dura.Las crecientes divisiones sociales, junto con la creciente desconfianza popular hacia los expertos y las instituciones, a menudo contribuyen a encumbrar a esos líderes en primer lugar.Esto puede ser una fuente de apoyo para un líder dispuesto a desechar la historia oficial y sustituirla por algo más cercano a lo que sus partidarios quieren oír. Y da a esos líderes otro incentivo: justificar la toma de poder como algo esencial para derrotar a los enemigos externos o internos.Por ejemplo, Viktor Orbán, el primer ministro húngaro, hizo una revisión de la historia de Hungría para convertirla en una víctima inocente de los nazis y los comunistas, que logró salvarse gracias a su guía patriótica. De este modo, defiende el escepticismo hacia la inmigración como la continuación de una gran batalla nacional, que también le exige suprimir a los rivales, a los críticos y a las instituciones independientes.El presidente Donald J. Trump dijo en 2020 que promovería un nuevo plan de estudios escolar “pro estadounidense”.Oliver Contreras para The New York TimesPor qué funciona el revisionismo históricoSegún las investigaciones, la propaganda más eficaz de cualquier tipo, suele centrarse en una apelación a la identidad de algún grupo, como la raza o la religión.Hay un experimento famoso: a la gente se le da un examen, se le dice su puntuación y luego se le pide que califique la objetividad del examen. Las personas a las que se les dice que han obtenido una buena puntuación tienden a calificar la prueba de justa y rigurosa. Las personas a las que se les dice que han obtenido una mala puntuación son más propensas a considerar que el examen es tendencioso o inexacto.Key Figures in the Jan. 6 InquiryCard 1 of 10The House investigation. More

Two different leaders with differing approaches landed on a policy of coexisting with the virus. Analysts say they had little choice.LONDON — On the evening of Dec. 21, Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared from 10 Downing Street to tell anxious Britons they could “go ahead with their Christmas plans,” despite a surge in new coronavirus cases. At nearly the same moment, President Biden took to a White House podium to give Americans a similar greenlight.It was a striking, if unintended, display of synchronicity from two leaders who began with very different approaches to the pandemic, to say nothing of politics. Their convergence in how to handle the Omicron variant says a lot about how countries are confronting the virus, more than two years after it first threatened the world.For Mr. Johnson and Mr. Biden, analysts said, the politics and science of Covid have nudged them toward a policy of trying to live with the virus rather than putting their countries back on war footing. It is a highly risky strategy: Hospitals across Britain and parts of the United States are already close to overrun with patients. But for now, it is better than the alternative: Shutting down their economies again.“A Conservative prime minister trying to deal in a responsible way with Covid is very different than a Democratic president trying to deal responsibly with Covid,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster in Washington. And yet, he said, their options are no longer all that different.“From both a medical perspective and a political perspective,” Mr. Garin said, “there’s not as strong an imperative for people to hunker down in the way they were hunkering down a year ago.”President Biden, taking office, promised to pay greater heed to scientific advice and embraced measures like “expanded masking, testing and social distancing.”Al Drago for The New York TimesSome analysts say the two leaders had little choice. Both are dealing with lockdown-weary populations. Both have made headway in vaccinating their citizens, though Britain remains ahead of the United States. And both have seen their popularity erode as their early promises to vanquish the virus wilted.Several of Mr. Biden’s former scientific advisers this week publicly urged him to overhaul his strategy to shift the focus from banishing the virus to a “new normal” of coexisting with it. That echoes Mr. Johnson’s words when he lifted restrictions last July. “We must ask ourselves,” he said, “‘When will we be able to return to normal?’”Devi Sridhar, an American scientist who heads the global health program at the University of Edinburgh, said, “The scientific community has broad consensus now that we have to use the tools we have to stay open and avoid the lockdowns of 2020 and 2021. But it’s not easy at all, as we are seeing.”The alignment of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Biden is significant because Britain has often served as a Covid test case for the United States — a few weeks ahead in seeing the effects of a new wave and a model, for good or ill, in how to respond to it.Miami this week. Several of Mr. Biden’s former scientific advisers have publicly urged him to shift the focus from banishing the virus to a “new normal” of coexisting with it.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesIt was the first country to approve a vaccine and the fastest major economy to roll it out. Its frightening projections, from Imperial College London, about how many people could die in an uncontrolled pandemic helped push a reluctant Mr. Johnson and an equally reluctant President Donald J. Trump to call for social distancing restrictions in their countries.That Mr. Johnson and Mr. Trump initially resisted such measures was hardly a surprise, given their ideological kinship as populist politicians. When Mr. Johnson locked down Britain, several days after his European neighbors, he promised to “send the virus packing” in 12 weeks. Mr. Trump likewise vowed that Covid, “like a miracle,” would soon disappear. Both later suffered through bouts with the disease.Mr. Biden, taking office, promised a different approach, one that paid greater heed to scientific advice and embraced difficult measures like “expanded masking, testing and social distancing.” Though Mr. Johnson never flouted scientific advice like Mr. Trump, he was sunnier than Mr. Biden, continuing to promise that the crisis would soon pass.For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the major obstacle is not defiant regional leaders or the opposition but members of his own Conservative Party.Pool photo by Jack HillBut both he and Mr. Biden have languished politically as new variants have made Covid far more stubborn than they had hoped. Last July 4, with new cases dropping and vaccination rates rising, Mr. Biden claimed the United States had gained “the upper hand” on the virus. Weeks later, the Delta variant was sweeping through the country.In England, with nearly 70 percent of adults having had two doses of a vaccine, Mr. Johnson lifted virtually all social-distancing rules on July 19, a bold — some said reckless — move that the London tabloids nicknamed “Freedom Day.” After a midsummer lull in cases that appeared to vindicate Mr. Johnson’s gamble, the Omicron variant has now driven new cases in Britain to more than 150,000 a day.Mr. Biden and Mr. Johnson have different powers in dealing with the pandemic. As prime minister, Mr. Johnson can order lockdowns in England, a step he has taken twice since his first lockdown in March 2020. In the United States, those restrictions are in the hands of governors, a few of whom, like the Florida Republican Ron DeSantis, have become vocal critics of Mr. Biden’s approach.For Mr. Johnson, the major obstacle is not defiant regional leaders or the opposition but members of his own Conservative Party, who fiercely oppose further lockdowns and have rebelled against even modest moves in that direction.Riders in the London tube last month. The Omicron variant has now driven new cases in Britain to more than 150,000 a day.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesThe prime minister has kept open the possibility of further restrictions. But analysts say that given his eroding popularity, he no longer has the political capital to persuade his party to go along with an economically damaging lockdown, even if scientists recommended it.Mr. Johnson is “essentially now a prisoner of his more hawkish cabinet colleagues and the 100 or so MPs who seem to be allergic to any kind of public health restrictions,” said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary, University of London. They “just feel that the state has grown too big in trying to combat Covid and that they really don’t want the government to grow any bigger,” Mr. Bale said.Some British analysts draw a comparison between red-state governors like Mr. DeSantis and Conservative lawmakers from the “red wall,” former Labour strongholds in the Midlands and the north of England that Mr. Johnson’s Tories swept in the 2019 election with his promise to “Get Brexit done.”Las Vegas Boulevard during a lockdown in May 2020. Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesThese are not low-tax, small-government conservatives in the tradition of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher, but right-leaning populists who model themselves on Mr. Trump and the Mr. Johnson who championed the Brexit vote — voters the prime minister would need to win re-election.Some critics argue that Mr. Biden and Mr. Johnson are both out of step with their countries. Britons have proven far more tolerant of lockdowns than the lawmakers in the prime minister’s party. In parts of the United States, by contrast, popular resistance to lockdowns is widespread and deeply entrenched.“Biden suffers from seeming to do too much and Boris suffers from seeming to do too little,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who was a classmate of Mr. Johnson’s at Oxford University. “Biden would have done a better job if he had led Britain, and Boris would have done a better job if he led the U.S.”Ice skaters in London last month.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesMr. Biden, unlike Mr. Johnson, does not face an internal party rebellion on his Covid policy. But the continued grip of the pandemic has sapped the president’s poll ratings, stoking fears of a Republican landslide in the midterm elections. The calls for change from members of Mr. Biden’s former scientific brain-trust, some said, reflected concerns that his Covid messaging was lagging reality.Others pointed out that the president’s determination to keep schools and businesses open, despite the soaring number of cases, signaled that a change in thinking was underway in the White House — if a few months later than that in Downing Street.“When Biden says we ought to be concerned but not panicked, he’s meeting Americans where they are,” Mr. Garin, the Democratic pollster, said. “He’s also meeting the science where it is.”Stephen Castle contributed reporting. More

The organization that conducted the widely derided review of the presidential vote in Arizona’s largest county said it was insolvent and had laid off its employees.For a company that has had its share of bad weeks, Cyber Ninjas, the Florida firm behind the widely derided review of Arizona’s 2020 presidential vote, may finally have hit bottom.On Thursday, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in Phoenix delivered a detailed four-hour livestreamed rebuttal of all the firm’s claims, showing that all, except one involving 50 votes, were either mistaken, misleading or outright false.That same day, a superior court judge cited the company for contempt after it refused to surrender records of its vote review to The Arizona Republic, which is seeking them under a freedom of information request. He levied a $50,000-a-day fine on the firm until it produces the records.By week’s end, lawyers said the firm was insolvent and had laid off its employees, including Doug Logan, its chief executive and onetime proponent of a baseless theory that the state’s voting machines had been rigged.The shutdown was confirmed on Friday by a spokesman, Rod Thomson, who said it was unclear whether the company would declare bankruptcy.That did not impress the judge, John Hannah, who suggested that the shutdown might be designed “to leave the Cyber Ninjas entity as an empty piñata for all of us to swing at.” The official Maricopa County Twitter account seized on the description, declaring that “an empty piñata is a pretty accurate description of the ‘audit’ as a whole.”But whether the exercise was a complete failure is another matter. Experts say it played a role in accomplishing a more fundamental political goal: fueling anger over the accuracy and integrity of the 2020 election among former President Donald J. Trump’s most ardent backers.The six-month, $5.6 million review of the 2.1 million votes cast in Arizona’s largest county was ordered up last year by the Republican-controlled State Senate after supporters of Mr. Trump insisted that his narrow loss in the state was the result of fraud.It became something of a national punchline in September after the review concluded that President Biden actually won by a greater margin than official tallies showed.Still, the review and its supporters insisted that the election was suspect, citing 75 potential irregularities they said the Cyber Ninjas were unable to resolve.The rebuttal by the five-member Board of Supervisors, four of them Republicans, was striking both for its detail and its bluntness.The Cyber Ninjas have laid off their employees, including Doug Logan, the organization’s chief executive.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesA 93-page printed version said that a review of the Cyber Ninjas’ claims of irregularities found only 37 potentially questionable ballots among the 53,304 that had been labeled suspect. Those were referred to the state attorney general, a Republican who has been asked to review the organization’s claims.Out of the 75 claims of irregularities, the county said, the only one that could be valid involved 50 ballots that may have been double-counted. That error would not have affected the outcome of any race in the November 2020 election, the county said.The county supervisors had denounced the Senate’s review for months as partisan theatrics aimed at mollifying the substantial far-right share of the state’s Republican voters. But the board’s chairman, Bill Gates, a Republican, went further on Thursday, drawing a straight line between tolerance for “extreme misinformation” and political violence like the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.Referring to protesters who stormed the building, Mr. Gates said that “many of these people did it because they believed they were saving their country from an election that they had been told had been stolen.”“Many people in positions of power, they fed into this, for they simply turned a blind eye,” he added. “They’ve listened to the loud few and told them what they want to hear, and that’s the easy thing to do. But here, we don’t do what’s easy. We do what’s right.”The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 6Numerous inquiries. More

Did the Capitol riot make the belief in American democratic decline mainstream?From “The Daily” newsletter: One big idea on the news, from the team that brings you “The Daily” podcast. You can sign up for the newsletter here.The idea that America is in decline isn’t new.For decades, academics have warned that partisan gridlock, politicized courts and unfettered lobbying were like dangerous substances — if taken in excess, America’s democratic systems were at risk of collapse.But what happens when the idea itself gets mainlined? When words like “died,” “decline” and “dagger” sit near “America” on front pages across the country? When a majority of the American public rewrites the story they tell themselves about their country’s standing in the world?That’s what some experts say is happening now — that the Capitol riot and its aftermath have normalized a sense among Americans that the country, its economic system and its standing in the world are in decline. New data supports this claim: 70 percent of Americans believe the U.S. is “in crisis and at risk of failing,” according to a recent poll.As you heard in today’s episode, fortifying America’s democracy is not just about ensuring the trustworthiness of elections, but also about safeguarding Americans’ belief in the possibility of change. So we wanted to dive deeper on the latter and ask: What happens when that self-conception falters — when Americans begin to believe their country isn’t winning, but instead is losing a long battle?A fractured collective narrative at home“Jan. 6 and then the Republican reaction is a really important turning point in the perception of American decline,” said Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist and author. Mr. Fukuyama noted said that while he had been writing about American political decay for years, the concept had assumed more systemic import after the Capitol riots — and wider acceptance.Just a few years ago, a majority of Americans believed the U.S. was one of the greatest nations in the world. In a Pew Research survey from 2017, 85 percent of respondents said either that the U.S. “stands above all other countries in the world” or that it is “one of the greatest countries, along with some others.” Additionally, 58 percent of those surveyed said the American democracy was working “somewhat” or “very well.”“Prior to the rise of all this populism,” Mr. Fukuyama said, “there was a basic progressive narrative to American history. And that was based on a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that were flexible enough to be modified over time to be made more inclusive.”“This American narrative that has held us together, it doesn’t hold anymore,” he said, adding that the riot, “more than anything that happened during the Trump presidency, I think does underline that.”Now, nearly two-thirds of respondents in the NPR/Ipsos poll agreed that U.S. democracy is “more at risk” now than it was a year ago. Among Republicans, that number climbs to four in five. This narrative persists on both sides of the political spectrum — with each side pointing the finger at the other as a threat to the nation’s well-being. It’s also a narrative that has direct effects on American democracy — polarizing partisanship on national and local levels, affecting critical legislative functions like passing budgets and limiting social consensus-building in response to crises like Covid.Understand the Jan. 6 InvestigationBoth the Justice Department and a House select committee are investigating the events of the Capitol riot. Here’s where they stand:Inside the House Inquiry: From a nondescript office building, the panel has been quietly ramping up its sprawling and elaborate investigation.Criminal Referrals, Explained: Can the House inquiry end in criminal charges? These are some of the issues confronting the committee.Garland’s Remarks: Facing pressure from Democrats, Attorney General Merrick Garland vowed that the D.O.J. would pursue its inquiry into the riot “at any level.”A Big Question Remains: Will the Justice Department move beyond charging the rioters themselves?In light of these varied crises, “what is most striking is not what has changed but what has not,” Peter Baker, The Times’s chief White House correspondent, wrote on the anniversary of the Capitol Riots. “America has not come together to defend its democracy; it has only split further apart.”It is this growing chasm that some political theorists say will be most difficult to reconcile in the interest of shoring up America’s democratic institutions.“We have two Americas,” James Morone, a professor of political science at Brown University, said, with Americans in urban centers experiencing the benefits of globalization while many in rural areas feel left behind as the American middle class shrinks. These two Americas also often inhabit opposing factual realities, allowing misinformation to persist and even fuel violence. “And here’s the thing: Each is represented by a different party. That’s one reason the two-party system is breaking down.”Rippling effects abroadThis national self-doubt also has implications for the perception of American strength and supremacy globally, a challenge for President Biden’s foreign policy as his administration struggles to win back the global repute thrown into question by four years of “America First.”In his address at the Capitol on Jan. 6, Mr. Biden said, “Both at home and abroad, we’re engaged anew in a struggle between democracy and autocracy.”Donald J. Trump and his allies continue to push a false retelling of the 2020 election, in which Democrats stole the vote and the Jan. 6 riot to disrupt President Biden’s certification was largely peaceful or was staged by Mr. Trump’s opponents. This approach is part of a broader transformation of authoritarian tactics globally, as Max Fisher, the Interpreter columnist at The Times, points out.“Dictators have shifted emphasis from blunt-force repression (although this still happens, too) to subtler methods like manipulating information or sowing division, aimed at preventing dissent over suppressing it,” he wrote. Now, history is being rewritten in Russia, Hungary and China, where governments are repressing and sanitizing elements of national history in favor of contemporary politics — as is also happening in the United States.This tactical similarity with foreign autocrats, some experts argue, throws American ideals into question internationally. “If crucial facts can be denied by a major American party and millions of American citizens, aren’t all American claims to truth and rationality suspect?” said Robert Daly, director of the Kissinger Institute on China.“For as long as I can remember, U.S. democracy, even with its flaws, was held up as the gold standard of democracy worldwide,” said Cynthia Arnson, director of the Latin America program at the Wilson Center. Now, according to a Pew Research survey, a median of just 17 percent of respondents said democracy in the U.S. is a good example for others to follow.America still benefits from some positive reputational assessments around the world, with a majority of respondents to the Pew survey expressing favorable opinions on America’s technology, its military and its entertainment output. But some experts argue those sources of soft power are also under threat in conjunction with democratic backsliding.“One of the side effects of losing the democracy is losing control over the markets,” Rebecca Henderson, a professor at Harvard Business School, said, adding, “I think it’s an incredibly dangerous moment. I think we absolutely could lose the democracy.”Key Figures in the Jan. 6 InquiryCard 1 of 10The House investigation. More

Inflation and the pandemic are hurting President Biden’s popularity, but the midterms are still months away.Hi. Welcome to On Politics, your guide to political news. We’re your hosts, Leah and Blake.We know it feels early, but it really isn’t, politically speaking. It’s 2022, and the midterm elections have started, whether we’re emotionally prepared or not. With control of Congress and key states at stake, we’re watching about a dozen competitive Senate races, 30 or so governor’s races and a few dozen competitive House races, along with a host of primaries and lower-tier contests.Here are five questions that could shape the outcome.1. Does inflation cool off?The reasons behind the surge in inflation are complex. But for months, Republicans have banged home a simple attack: It’s President Biden’s fault. And that’s been devastatingly effective.The Consumer Price Index had risen 6.8 percent last year through November — the fastest in four decades. Most troubling for the White House: Gasoline and groceries have led the way. Research shows that public approval ratings of presidents track closely with gas prices.Taming inflation by November won’t be easy, economists say.“There’s little that can be done to affect the overall inflation rate over the next six to nine months,” Larry Summers, a former Treasury secretary, told us.Summers is urging the Biden administration to show a “united front” against inflation through rhetoric and key Federal Reserve Board appointments, and to resist populist calls to attack corporations for raising prices. “I think they flirt with the idea that it’s greedy meatpackers causing inflation,” he said, “which is modestly counterproductive.”Inflation isn’t the only reason Biden is one of the most unpopular presidents in 70 years, with an average approval rating of just under 43 percent. He is also struggling on crime, government spending, immigration and taxes in recent polls.Although Biden isn’t on the ballot in 2022, he’s the leader of the Democratic Party. In midterm elections, presidents with job approval ratings below 50 percent have seen their parties lose an average of 37 House seats.The only president who rebounded significantly in his second year? Donald J. Trump.2. Does the Covid-19 pandemic finally recede?Biden got elected in part by promising to “beat the virus.” More than 62 percent of Americans are now fully vaccinated, according to C.D.C data. There are no more follies in the White House briefing room. New medicines are coming.But two years on, the coronavirus is still with us. More than 1,000 Americans on average are dying of Covid-19 each day. Public health officials keep issuing confusing messages. The new Omicron variant is exposing flaws in the U.S. testing regimen. Life is not back to normal.The murky results make us wonder whether Biden can reap a political windfall if and when conditions improve.Redistricting at a GlanceEvery 10 years, each state in the U.S is required to redraw the boundaries of their congressional and state legislative districts in a process known as redistricting.Redistricting, Explained: Answers to your most pressing questions about redistricting and gerrymandering.Breaking Down Texas’s Map: How redistricting efforts in Texas are working to make Republican districts even more red.G.O.P.’s Heavy Edge: Republicans are poised to capture enough seats to take the House in 2022, thanks to gerrymandering alone.Legal Options Dwindle: Persuading judges to undo skewed political maps was never easy. A shifting judicial landscape is making it harder.“We just have to continue to keep our heads down, focus on solving the problems, focus on what we can do to deal with Covid, continuing to try to get vaccination rates up, continuing to try to work through this challenge,” said Representative Dan Kildee, a Michigan Democrat running for re-election.And though many Republicans have resisted vaccines, masks and other measures to combat the pandemic, there are no signs that voters intend to punish them for it.“If you’re Biden, I don’t think you want to go into the midterms having the discussion we’re having with Covid,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “That discussion has gotten very stale with people.”3. How does redistricting shake out?About 30 states have finalized new congressional maps based on 2020 census data. For some incumbents, new maps mean facing primaries against other sitting members of Congress. For others, new maps might offer a convenient excuse to retire rather than taking on a colleague in a primary or testing their political strength in newly competitive seats.So far, it’s safe to say the House battleground has shrunk. A handful of districts that were competitive in 2018 and 2020 won’t be in 2022. In Texas, for example, Democrats and Republicans will be fighting for control of just a few districts, down from about 10 in 2020.But even after every state passes its final lines, courts can intervene. Kelly Burton, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, called the maps passed in North Carolina and Ohio the “worst-case scenario for Democrats,” but expects those to change as a result of lawsuits.“I think there will be a sufficient number of competitive seats for Democrats to hold the House in 2022 even in a tough cycle,” Burton said. “I feel cautiously optimistic.”Even if things could have gone worse for Democrats in the redistricting process, they’re still at a disadvantage in the race for the House. Democrats oversee redistricting in about half as many House districts as Republicans, and history is working against the president’s party, which has lost House seats in all but two midterm elections since the 1940s.4. Can Democrats pass their agenda in Congress?Senator Joe Manchin III seemed to answer that question with a knife-twisting “no” in a Fox News interview before the holidays, announcing he could not support the Democrats’ $1.75 trillion social policy bill, the Build Back Better Act.But there’s too much at stake for Democrats to just give up. So Senate leaders are quietly trying to revive Build Back Better, along with federal voting rights legislation that would need to somehow overcome a Republican filibuster. Even Oprah is getting involved.Some Democrats argue for breaking Build Back Better into chunks: “For example, if we can move on prescription drug pricing, if we can move forward on child care, things that literally end up being part of that kitchen table conversation,” Kildee, the Michigan Democrat, told us.It could be months before those efforts succeed, if ever, and, in the meantime, Democrats in vulnerable seats are venting their frustration over the impasse. The longer the bickering in Washington drags on, the longer they’ll be stuck in limbo.Understand How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

Su influencia sobre el partido muestra, una vez más, que el expresidente es capaz de sobreponerse a casi cualquier periodo de indignación, sin importar su intensidad.Hace un año, el mismo día en que partidarios febriles de Donald Trump irrumpieron en el Capitolio de Estados Unidos en una revuelta violenta que mancilló el símbolo de la democracia estadounidense, la dirigencia del Comité Nacional Republicano estaba reunida en el hotel Ritz-Carlton de la Isla de Amelia, Florida, a unos 1120 kilómetros de distancia.En Washington, el futuro político de Trump jamás se había visto tan sombrío, y se debilitaba con rapidez. Había perdido las elecciones y, a modo de protesta, su personal de alto nivel estaba renunciando. Sus aliados más importantes lo repudiaban. Pronto sería expulsado de las redes sociales.Pero los cimientos de un renacimiento político, al menos dentro de su partido, estuvieron allí desde el principio.Con los vidrios rotos y los escombros aún desperdigados por las instalaciones del Capitolio, más de la mitad de los republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes votaron en contra de la certificación de las elecciones, repitiendo el falso argumento de fraude planteado por Trump. Aunque el comité nacional del partido redactó un comunicado en el que condenaba la violencia (sin mencionar el nombre de Trump), algunos miembros del comité presionaron para que se añadiera una muestra de solidaridad hacia la perspectiva de la muchedumbre que asaltó el Capitolio. Sus peticiones tuvieron que ser rechazadas.La mañana siguiente, Trump hizo una llamada por altavoz a la reunión del comité. “¡Lo amamos!”, gritaron algunos de los asistentes.“Muchos de quienes venimos de los estados del noreste solo resoplamos”, dijo Bill Palatucci, integrante del comité nacional republicano procedente de Nueva Jersey y un importante detractor de Trump dentro del partido. Pero fue más común la postura de miembros como Corey Steinmetz, de Wyoming, quien dijo en una entrevista que culpar a Trump por los acontecimientos del 6 de enero “no fue más que una mentira desde el principio”.En este momento, el Partido Republicano le sigue perteneciendo en gran medida a Trump, y ha transformado sus mentiras sobre el robo de las elecciones en un artículo de fe, e incluso en una prueba de fuego que intenta imponer con los candidatos que respalda en las elecciones primarias de 2022. Es el patrocinador más codiciado del partido, su principal recaudador de fondos y quien va adelante en las encuestas para la nominación presidencial de 2024.Trump también es una figura profundamente divisiva, impopular entre el electorado más general y bajo investigación por sus prácticas empresariales y su intromisión en las actividades de las autoridades electorales en el condado de Fulton, Georgia. Sigue siendo el mismo político cuya Casa Blanca presenció cuatro años de derrotas devastadoras para los republicanos, entre ellas las de la Cámara de Representantes y el Senado. Y pese a que unos cuantos republicanos dispersos alertan de manera pública que el partido no debería ceñirse a él, son más quienes, en privado, se preocupan por las consecuencias.No obstante, a un año de incitar el asalto al Capitolio para frustrar por la fuerza la certificación de las elecciones, su poder inigualable dentro del Partido Republicano es un testimonio de su influencia constante en la lealtad de las bases del partido.Su regreso —si acaso se necesitaba entre los republicanos— es el ejemplo más reciente de una lección permanente de su turbulenta etapa en la política: que Trump puede sobrevivir a casi cualquier periodo de indignación, sin importar su intensidad.Understand the Jan. 6 InvestigationBoth the Justice Department and a House select committee are investigating the events of the Capitol riot. Here’s where they stand:Inside the House Inquiry: From a nondescript office building, the panel has been quietly ramping up its sprawling and elaborate investigation.Criminal Referrals, Explained: Can the House inquiry end in criminal charges? These are some of the issues confronting the committee.Garland’s Remarks: Facing pressure from Democrats, Attorney General Merrick Garland vowed that the D.O.J. would pursue its inquiry into the riot “at any level.”A Big Question Remains: Will the Justice Department move beyond charging the rioters themselves?Los reflectores apuntan a otra parte. El escándalo se desvanece. Y luego, él reescribe la historia.El relato distorsionado que Trump ha creado en torno al 6 de enero es que “la verdadera insurrección tuvo lugar el 3 de noviembre”, el día en que perdió unas elecciones que fueron libres y justas.Hubo un breve momento, como consecuencia del asalto del 6 de enero, en el que los dirigentes republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes y el Senado tuvieron la oportunidad de cortar por lo sano con Trump, mientras los demócratas se apresuraban para llevarlo a juicio político.“No cuenten conmigo”, había dicho en el Senado Lindsey Graham, senador republicano por Carolina del Sur que era un aliado incondicional de Trump. “Ya basta”.Pero a los votantes republicanos no les afectó tanto como a algunos legisladores republicanos que apenas lograron escapar de la violencia ese día y se encontraban en un momento decisivo. Una encuesta de AP-NORC reveló que después de un mes, a principios de febrero de 2021, solo el 11 por ciento de los republicanos dijeron que Trump tenía mucha o bastante responsabilidad por el asalto al Capitolio; en la actualidad, esa cifra es del 22 por ciento.Los políticos republicanos se realinearon con rapidez para coincidir con la opinión pública. En menos de una semana, Graham estaba de nuevo al lado de Trump en el avión presidencial y, el año pasado, en repetidas ocasiones visitó los campos de golf de Trump para ser visto con el expresidente.Tal vez el primer apoyo renovado a Trump que tuvo mayores consecuencias provino de Kevin McCarthy, el líder republicano de la Cámara de Representantes que el 13 de enero había dicho que Trump “tiene responsabilidad” por la revuelta. Para finales del mes, ya iba en un avión con destino a Mar-a-Lago para intentar hacer las paces.Un artículo sobre la reunión privada se publicó antes de tiempo. “¿Tú la filtraste?”, le dijo Trump a McCarthy dos veces, según dos personas informadas sobre la discusión. McCarthy dijo que no.Trump sonrió sutilmente y se encogió de hombros, con lo que parecía reconocer que McCarthy no había sido quien había filtrado la reunión. “Pero es bueno para los dos, Kevin”, dijo Trump. Un portavoz de McCarthy se negó a comentar, mientras que un portavoz de Trump negó que se hubiera producido ese intercambio.Después, el comité de acción política (PAC, por su sigla en inglés) de Trump publicó una foto de los dos juntos.Dentro del Senado, el líder republicano, Mitch McConnell había sido más firme al acusar a Trump. “El presidente Trump es el responsable, en términos prácticos y éticos, de provocar los acontecimientos de este día”, declaró en un discurso en el pleno del Senado y añadió: “El líder del mundo libre no puede pasar semanas vociferando que fuerzas sombrías nos están robando el país y luego parecer sorprendido cuando la gente le cree y hace cosas imprudentes”.Pero al final, McConnell votó por absolver a Trump en su juicio político cuando se le acusó de exhortar a la insurrección.Ahora Trump y McConnell no se dirigen la palabra, pese a que el senador por Florida Rick Scott, quien encabeza el órgano de campaña del Partido Republicano en el Senado, ha estado muy atento con Trump e incluso le otorgó el nuevo premio de “Defensor de la libertad” en un viaje que realizó en abril a Mar-a-Lago.Ese mismo fin de semana, en un evento de recaudación de fondos del Comité Nacional Republicano, Trump destrozó a McConnell mientras hablaba con donadores al proferir un burdo insulto a su inteligencia.Al salir del cargo, Trump había dicho en un momento de ira que crearía un tercer partido, aunque cerró la posibilidad a esa idea en su primer discurso pospresidencial a fines de febrero, en la Conferencia de Acción Política Conservadora de activistas pro-Trump.En cambio, dijo, planeaba retomar el dominio del Partido Republicano y purgarlo de sus críticos.“Deshacerme de todos ellos”, dijo.Trump ya ha apoyado a candidatos en casi 100 contiendas de las elecciones intermedias y ha instituido la temporada de elecciones primarias de 2022 como un periodo de venganza contra los republicanos que se atrevieron a contrariarlo. A algunos asesores les preocupa que su amplia serie de respaldos lo exponga a posibles derrotas contundentes que podrían implicar un debilitamiento de su influencia en el electorado republicano.Sin embargo, Trump ha reclutado contrincantes para sus detractores más fuertes del partido, como Liz Cheney, representante por Wyoming, quien fue expulsada de la dirigencia de la Cámara de Representantes por rehusarse, en sus propias palabras, a “difundir las perniciosas mentiras de Trump” sobre las elecciones de 2020.Whit Ayres, un experimentado encuestador republicano, señaló que el respaldo de Trump tiene mucho peso en las primarias, pero es “una peligrosa arma de dos filos” en los distritos indecisos.Key Figures in the Jan. 6 InquiryCard 1 of 10The House investigation. More