Elections

All were residents of the famed, sprawling retirement community northwest of Orlando. Two were Republicans, and one had no affiliation.Three residents of a sprawling Florida retirement community were arrested over the last two weeks on charges of voting more than once in the 2020 general election, according to the authorities.The residents, Jay Ketcik, 63, Joan Halstead, 72, and John Rider, 61, lived in The Villages, a planned community northwest of Orlando where former President Donald J. Trump held a campaign rally shortly before the 2020 election.The three were each charged with casting more than one ballot in an election, according to arrest records from the office of the state attorney in the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Florida.Each charge is a third-degree felony and punishable by up to five years in prison, said Bill Gladson, the state attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Ocala, Fla. Citing rules of professional conduct, Mr. Gladson said on Wednesday that he could not comment on pending cases. Ms. Halstead declined to comment on Wednesday. Mr. Rider and a lawyer for Mr. Ketcik did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Court records did not say for whom the three voted in the 2020 general election or in what other elections they voted out of state. Voting records in the Florida Department of State list Mr. Ketcik and Ms. Halstead as registered Republicans. Mr. Rider has no party affiliation on record.About a 45-minute drive northwest from Orlando, the community was built in the 1960s as a collection of tracts and grew in popularity in the 1980s and 1990s with retirees from Northern states as its organizers added amenities such as movie theaters, shopping and other leisure activities. With more than 130,000 residents, the community of adults 55 and older, which stretches into three counties, has become one of Florida’s fastest-growing metro areas.The disputed votes had no effect on the 2020 election. Mr. Trump won Florida by about 51.2 percent and by an even far greater margin in The Villages, although Joe Biden had energetic supporters there as well. After residents who supported Mr. Trump held a golf cart rally amid counterprotesters, he tweeted a video of the event, writing, “Thank you to the great people of The Villages.” Then came his rally in October.Following his defeat in the 2020 election, Mr. Trump made baseless claims of rampant voter fraud, which failed to gain any traction in courts across seven states. But the former president and his allies have continued to repeat the false allegations, and Republican legislators have used the claims to justify new restrictions on voting.But election officials in dozens of states representing both political parties have said that there was no evidence that fraud or other irregularities played a role deciding the presidential race. In general, voter fraud is extremely rare in the United States, and cases that do occur are often isolated and unlikely to affect an election.Mr. Ketcik and Ms. Halstead turned themselves in to the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office Detention Center on Nov. 29 and Dec. 8, according to the sheriff’s office. Mr. Rider was arrested by Brevard County deputies at a cruise ship terminal at Port Canaveral on Dec. 3, according to prosecutors.It was not clear whether the three residents knew each other. Each was booked into a detention center or jail and released the same day of their arrest, records show.A probable cause affidavit said that, in addition to casting more than one vote in Florida in October 2020, Ms. Halstead and Mr. Rider also cast second ballots in New York through an absentee ballot. Mr. Ketcik was also accused of voting through mail in Florida and casting a second, absentee ballot in Michigan.The investigation into allegations of voter fraud by Mr. Ketcik, Ms. Halstead and Mr. Rider was initiated by the office of the Sumter County supervisor of elections, Bill Keen, according to arrest records. His office did not immediately respond to an inquiry for comment about the charges.Even though voter fraud is extremely rare, Republican leaders in several states, including Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, have cited isolated cases to pursue tougher rules around voting in the wake of the 2020 election. On Wednesday, Christina Pushaw, a spokeswoman for Mr. DeSantis, said, “Multiple voting is unlawful.”She added, “It isn’t a crime to be registered to vote in more than one state, as long as you only vote in one.”Ms. Pushaw said that in 2019, the state joined the Electronic Registration Information Center, a nonprofit group that helps states improve the accuracy of voter rolls. By joining the system, she said, state officials could crosscheck voter registration data to find duplicate registrations and outdated records.“Though the system is not perfect, it does help ensure election integrity and deter potential fraud,” she said. More

Mark Rutte, who has weathered a scandal and criticism for overstaying his welcome, will be prime minister for a fourth term.After nine months of negotiations among a group of fractious political parties after an election in the spring, the Netherlands finally has a new government.But it will not have a new leader; that position has been taken by Mark Rutte, who will be starting a fourth term as prime minister. It is a testament to his ability to weather crises and shake off a scandal that brought down his previous coalition last January — earning him the nickname “Teflon Mark.”Mr. Rutte’s party will be in coalition with the same two centrist parties and a more right-leaning Christian party that made up the last government.“It took too long,” Mr. Rutte acknowledged in brief remarks when announcing the formation of the four-party coalition that will be led by his Party for Freedom and Democracy. Mr. Rutte, who is known for his sober lifestyle, has been leading the Netherlands since 2010, and he has been criticized in recent years for clinging to power. He has said that he will lead the country with renewed “zeal.”The road to Mr. Rutte’s fourth term started after his previous cabinet resigned over a scandal involving overzealous tax authorities who had hunted down a number of innocent families, often after racial profiling, and accused them of falsely claiming child care benefits. Many were forced to repay huge amounts of money, reducing them to ruin.But Mr. Rutte faced perhaps the biggest crisis in his career as the country’s caretaker prime minister after the resignation of his cabinet amid widespread calls for systematic change in the Netherlands and for his departure from the political stage. But he weathered the criticism, and opposition from the far-right parties that have been gaining ground in the Netherlands in recent years; he won the March elections by a landslide.On Wednesday, Mr. Rutte and other leaders in his centrist coalition announced that an extra 35 billion euros, about $40 billion, would be allocated over the coming 10 years to help Dutch people make the transition to greater energy efficiency as part of efforts to tackle climate change.The government said it also planned to free up more money to address housing shortages, health care and education and more subsidies for child care, areas that Mr. Rutte’s previous administration had been criticized for cutting back.“Rutte came in as a budget hawk,” who trimmed government spending and increased some taxes, said Tom-Jan Meeus, a political columnist for the newspaper NRC Handelsblad. “Now he is advocating spending, also because that was the only way to get other parties on board with another term of him leading the government.”Talks with coalition partners dragged on for months, highlighting the increasing complexity of forming coalition governments in a changing political landscape with the emergence of populists and fringe parties. In the Netherlands and other northern European countries, traditional parties have lost lots of ground to numerous smaller parties, making it harder and harder to form compromise governments.The departure of Angela Merkel, who led Germany for 16 years, makes Mr. Rutte one of the longest continuously serving leaders in Europe. He shares that position with one of his political enemies, Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, who has been his country’s leader continuously since 2010.In June, Mr. Rutte challenged Mr. Orban to “leave the European Union,” after Hungary created a law that several other European countries said undermined the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. people. Mr. Orban later replied that he was persuaded that Mr. Rutte “hated” him. More

Political analysts, scholars and close observers of government are explicitly raising the possibility that the polarized American electoral system has come to the point at which a return to traditional democratic norms will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.The endangered state of American politics is the dominant theme of eight articles published by the National Academy of Sciences on Tuesday, with titles like “Polarization and tipping points” and “Inter-individual cooperation mediated by partisanship complicates Madison’s cure for ‘mischiefs of faction.’ ”The academy is not alone. On Dec. 6, The Atlantic released “Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun,” by Barton Gellman, and “Are We Doomed? To head off the next insurrection, we’ll need to practice envisioning the worst,” by George Packer.On Dec. 10, The Washington Post published “18 Steps to a Democratic Breakdown” which warned:Democracy is most likely to break down through a series of incremental actions that cumulatively undermine the electoral process, resulting in a presidential election that produces an outcome clearly at odds with the voters’ will. It is this comparatively quiet but steady subversion, rather than a violent coup or insurrection against a sitting president, that Americans today have to fear most.Michael W. Macy, a professor of sociology at Cornell and the lead author of “Polarization and tipping points,” put it this way in an email:Unlike the threat to democracy posed by a military coup, the threat posed by authoritarian populism is incremental. If the water temperature increases only one degree per hour it may take a while before you notice it is too hot and by that time it is too late. We might be better off if we faced an armed insurrection, which might be the exo-shock needed to get the G.O.P. establishment to wake up.The political scientist Suzanne Mettler, also at Cornell, used the same metaphor of slowly boiling water in her reply to my query:The greatest danger to democracy right now has emerged in one of our two major parties — a longstanding party that helped to protect democracy until recently, and this makes it hard for people to recognize what is going on. Finally, I think that most Americans now see politics through very partisan lenses and are mostly attentive to how their “team” is doing; they are much less likely to be thinking about the health of the basic pillars of democracy, e.g. electoral integrity, the rule of law, the legitimacy of the opposition, and the integrity of rights. Our political system is in crisis and we should be shouting from the rooftops about it and coming together to save it.Zack Beauchamp, a senior correspondent at Vox, writing on Dec. 9, raised similar concerns: “We are experiencing failures on both the elite and mass public level,” he wrote, as Republican elites “have chosen to normalize the violence committed by their extreme right flank on Jan. 6.”The activist anti-democratic Trump wing of the Republican Party, committed to avoiding at nearly any cost a political system dominated by an Election Day majority of racial and ethnic minorities, women and social and cultural liberals, has adopted an aggressive strategy to preserve the political power of whites, especially heteronormative white Christians.Democracy — meaning equal representation of all citizens and, crucially, majority rule — has, in fact, become the enemy of the contemporary Republican Party. As The Washington Post noted on Jan. 24, “The last two Republicans to win a majority of the popular vote in a presidential contest were father and son: George H.W. Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2004.” In the four elections since 2004, the Republican nominee has consistently lost the popular vote to the Democratic candidate, including Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020.The widely publicized efforts by Republican-controlled state legislatures to politicize election administration and to disenfranchise Democrats through gerrymandering and restrictive voting laws testify to the determination of Republicans — especially the 66 percent who say they believe that the 2020 election was stolen — to wrest control of election machinery. On Sept. 2, ProPublica documented a national movement to take over the Republican Party at the grass roots level in “Election Deniers Organize to Seize Control of the G.O.P. — and Reshape America’s Elections.”These developments, taken together, are amplifying alarms about the viability of contemporary democracy in America.“The nonlinear feedback dynamics of asymmetric political polarization,” a Dec. 14 paper by Naomi Ehrich Leonard and Anastasia Bizyaeva, both at Princeton, Keena Lipsitz at Queens College, Alessio Franci at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Yphtach Lelkes at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that in the case of polarization, there are:critical thresholds or moments when processes become difficult if not impossible to reverse. Our model suggests that this threshold has been crossed by Republicans in Congress and may very soon be breached by Democrats.I sent the five authors a series of questions asking them to elaborate on a number of points, and they replied in a jointly written email. My first question was: “Could you explain in terms accessible to the layperson how ‘political processes reinforce themselves’ in ways that can push a political party past a ‘tipping point’ ”?Their reply:Political processes, like any other natural dynamical process, in nature, technology, or society, have the capacity to feed themselves and enter an unstable positive, or, self-reinforcing, feedback loop. A classic example is an explosion: when thermal energy is provided to burn a few molecules of a combustible substance, they in turn produce more energy, which burns more molecules, producing more energy in a never-ending loop, at least until combustibles are no longer available.A similar process can take place in politics, they argue:For example, elected officials can respond to the signals of extremist donors by becoming more extreme themselves. When these extremist representatives become party leaders, they are then in a position to punish moderates in their party by backing more extreme candidates in primaries. This in turn leads to the election of more extremist candidates and the cycle continues.In theory, votersare a potential check on this cascading extremism, but they must be willing to punish ideologically extreme legislators by voting them out of office. As voters have become more concerned about party labels than ideology, they have become less willing to do that, allowing cascading extremism to continue.What about the Democratic Party, I asked?The Democrats are indeed still below the tipping point; therefore, their polarization state is still evolving slowly, or, linearly. But looking at the current policy mood trend and projecting our model slightly into the future, the present large left shift in policy mood due to the Trump era could easily cause the Democrats to tune up their ideological self-reinforcing behavior and let them pass their polarizing tipping point.The good news, the five authors continued, “is that the Democratic Party is still very much in control of their trajectory.”Leonard and her co-authors are apprehensive about the future course of the Republican Party:Even if Republican voters suddenly decide to start punishing extremists in their party, so many other parts of the political process — interest groups, right-wing media, donors — encourage and reinforce the extremism that we expect it would have little effect. In fact, Republican leaders would very likely simply stop listening to Republican voters or ignore elections altogether. Indeed, this is already happening.In “Polarization and tipping points” Macy, along with Manqing Ma, Daniel R. Tabin, Jianxi Gao and Boleslaw K. Szymanski, all of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, map out the risks of escalating partisan hostility:the existence of a tipping point beyond which the activation of shared interests can no longer bring warring factions together, even in the face of a common threat. Our interest in this problem is motivated by a series of crises that might be expected to activate a broad political identity and unified response: the Great Recession, Russian electoral interference, impending climate catastrophe, a global pandemic, and, most recently, the January 6. attack on the U.S. Congress.As partisanship becomes a core element of voters’ self-identity and as voters adopt policy stands in line with their party, polarization reaches new and threatening heights, Macy and his four co-authors argue. In an email, Macy wrote:The most likely outcome of increasing polarization is political paralysis in which the parties are more interested in preventing the other side from winning than in solving problems. We have heard politicians even feel so emboldened that they can publicly acknowledge that their goal is obstruction, not problem solving. That is the most likely outcome of extreme polarization. A less likely but more frightening outcome is that the partisan animosity against the opposition becomes so intense that each side now views the other as “traitors” or “enemies of the people.” When that happens, the party in power may feel justified in changing the rules of the game to prevent the other party from being able to hold it accountable.An R.P.I. report on the Macy paper quotes Szymanski:We see this very disturbing pattern in which a shock brings people a little bit closer initially, but if polarization is too extreme, eventually the effects of a shared fate are swamped by the existing divisions and people become divided even on the shock issue.“If we reach that point,” Szymanski added, “we cannot unite even in the face of war, climate change, pandemics, or other challenges to the survival of our society.”I asked Szymanski to describe the nature of a tipping point which, once triggered, would preclude reversion to traditional democratic norms. He replied by email:In our democracy, the tipping point is achieved when all discussions on divisive issues are within polarized groups and none across groups, because then neither can differences be resolved, nor can we agree to disagree.In “Inter-individual cooperation mediated by partisanship complicates Madison’s cure for ‘mischiefs of faction’” Mari Kawakatsu, Simon A. Levin and Corina E. Tarnita, all of Princeton, and Yphtach Lelkes of Penn make the case that the core strategy developed by one of the nation’s founders to constrain destructive partisan divisions no longer works. The phrase they refer to in the title of their paper comes from Madison’s famous argument, in Federalist Paper No. 10, that the pluralist character of a country as large and diverse as the United States equips the nation to counter “the mischiefs of faction.”The potential of the majority to exercise tyrannical domination diminishes as “you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,” Madison wrote, making it “less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”Kawakatsu and her colleagues argue that, in theory, contemporary trends should favor Madison’s strategy:Potentially driven by increases in educational attainment, the nationalization of politics, and changes to the information environment, the number of issues people care about and consider within the realm of national politics has markedly increased. Despite this trend, and the consequent expectation that an abundance of issues will improve the collective cohesion by decreasing the likelihood of monoliths, polarization is markedly worse.How has this come about?“A potential explanation for this paradox is the decreasing dimensionality of the issue space,” Kawakatsu and her colleagues write. “In other words, although the number of issues may have increased, individuals’ opinions on these issues might be so strongly correlated with their political ideology that, in effect, there are only one or two issue dimensions.” Put another way, members of both parties have increasingly adopted the beliefs and issue stands of their fellow partisans, effectively eliminating crosscutting interests, leaving the only salient division the split between Democrats and Republicans.When partisan bias is extreme, the authors write,individuals become completely closed off to influence from ideologically divergent peers, and the emergent tribalism boosts inter-individual cooperation at the cost of a weakened, polarized collective. This suggests that, in a highly polarized state, there will be an emergent tension between the individual and the collective levels, with little incentive for individuals to reduce the collective polarization.The Kawakatsu article builds on the work of Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler, political scientists at Berkeley, who wrote the 2020 essay “Madison’s Constitution Under Stress: A Developmental Analysis of Political Polarization” and the November 2021 book chapter “Polarization and the Durability of Madisonian Checks and Balances.”In the chapter, Pierson and Schickler write:Our two-party system has been grounded in a structural decentralization of political authority. Yet the emergence of hyper-partisanship means that the check on authoritarian developments in the presidency that the Madisonian system relies on most, Congress, may not work. Instead, G.O.P. members of Congress in particular face multiple incentives to bandwagon rather than resist. Among those incentives are the intense preferences of the party’s interest groups, the heavily ‘red’ and negatively partisan electoral bases of these politicians, and the likelihood that influential partisan media will exact a very high price for defection.Given these realities, Pierson and Schickler continue,the developmental perspective we offer raises a disturbing prospect: Under conditions of hyperpolarization, with the associated shifts in meso-institutional arrangements and the growth of tribalism, the Madisonian institutions of the United States may make it more vulnerable to democratic backsliding than many other wealthy democracies would be.In an email, Pierson wrote:Today, polarization has become self-reinforcing. Most of that decentralization is gone — state parties are more linked to national parties; so are many very powerful interest groups; so is the media (especially for the GOP). Everything gets fed into the existing lines of division rather than producing something crosscutting. Defection from one’s party ‘team’ becomes harder to contemplate because victory for the team has become so important, and defection is more likely to result in swift retribution. There is nothing in the system “pulling things back to the middle” or disrupting lines of division. This situation is truly novel for the United States (although there are some parallels to the 1850s, when politics became nationalized around a single issue divide). It is in a very real sense a new and quite different political system.An Aug. 3-Sept.7, CNN survey of 2,119 people demonstrates the differing ways Democrats and Republicans are responding to the emerging threats to democracy.Far higher percentages of Republicans, many of them preoccupied by racial and tribal anxiety, believe “American democracy is under attack” (75 percent agree, 22 percent disagree) than Democrats (46 percent agree, 48 percent disagree). Republicans are also somewhat more likely to believe (57-43) than Democrats (49-51) “that, in the next few years, some elected officials will successfully overturn the results of an election in the United States because their party did not win.”This level of anxiety is in and of itself dangerous, all the more so when it masks the true aim of America’s contemporary right-wing movement, the restoration and preservation of white hegemony. It is not beyond imagining that Republicans could be prepared, fueled by a mix of fear and provocation, to push the nation over the brink.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

After saying he would stay out of the race, Eric Adams, the incoming mayor, has sought to install an ally. It was unclear whether he would succeed.When New York City’s mayor-elect, Eric Adams, said he was staying out of the combative race for City Council speaker, the declaration made sense: He still has the vast majority of his cabinet appointments to make, and an extraordinarily challenging job awaiting him in three weeks.And yet, skipping an important political contest — one that would decide whether the second-most powerful position in city government would be held by an ally of Mr. Adams — seemed like an almost novel notion in New York.And sure enough, in the past week or so Mr. Adams and his associates had spoken with council members on behalf of his preferred candidate, Francisco Moya of Queens, who was thought to have little pre-existing support among those who would have to choose him as their leader.The move, however, could end up backfiring.On Tuesday, four candidates for the leadership post agreed to quit the race and support a different contender, Adrienne Adams, a Queens councilwoman, bringing her closer to the 26 votes she needs to become speaker when the election takes place in January.“After much discussion and collaboration with my colleagues, I am honored to have received the necessary votes to become the next speaker of the New York City Council,” Ms. Adams said in a statement. “The incoming City Council will be beautifully diverse and wonderfully collaborative in so many ways.”But in an illustration of how complicated the jockeying has been, Mr. Moya also declared victory on Tuesday shortly after Ms. Adams’s announcement.“I am humbled to announce that our diverse coalition of council members and leaders from across New York City has collected a majority of votes to elect the next speaker of the Council,” he said on Twitter. “I look forward to leading this body into a brighter future for our great city.”Neither he nor Ms. Adams identified the council members they believe to be behind them.If Mr. Moya prevails, Mr. Adams would gain a trusted governing partner, helping to clear the way for him to execute his mayoral agenda.A victory by Ms. Adams, in contrast, would amount to a striking political defeat for a new mayor who had expended political capital to try to advance his choice, although Ms. Adams endorsed Mr. Adams in the Democratic primary and the two, who are not related, do not appear to have sharp ideological differences.Whatever the result, Mr. Adams has ended up at odds with key labor unions and council members at a vital moment in his transition, which has so far lagged behind that of his predecessor. The machinations threaten to create his first political headache as he seeks to fill out his administration.On Tuesday, Adrienne Adams of Queens gained the support of four council colleagues who had been vying to be speaker. Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesThe four council members who decided to drop out of the speaker’s contest and endorse Ms. Adams — Diana Ayala of East Harlem and the Bronx; Keith Powers of the East Side; Gale Brewer of the Upper West Side; and Justin Brannan of southern Brooklyn — did so after meeting with her on Sunday, The Daily News reported.The incoming City Council will be the most diverse in history, with women and members who identify as people of color in the majority. Some of the speaker candidates felt that it was important for a person who represents that diversity to lead the Council.“I recognize the moment we are in — that for the first time we have a women of color majority council, and I am proud to support Adrienne Adams as speaker of the Council who represents the body and this historic moment,” Ms. Ayala, one of three women of color in the race for speaker, said in a statement on Tuesday. Carlina Rivera of Manhattan remains in the race.(Later in the day, Ms. Ayala said the race had come to resemble a “telenovela.”)Should Mr. Adams fail in his first major political play as incoming mayor, he may have to grapple with lingering bitterness on the part of the City Council and some labor leaders upset by his team’s efforts to override their will.In interviews over the past several days, some council members have expressed concern about the advisers who worked with Mr. Adams to support Mr. Moya in the first place. These members also questioned why Mr. Adams has appeared unwilling to back down in the face of substantial resistance from the Council and several influential labor unions, including 32BJ, which represents building service workers, and DC37, the city’s largest public employee union, that wanted a more collaborative process.The battle over who will be the next council speaker has consumed New York politics at every level in recent days. Labor leaders, county officials and other party leaders have all sought to square the preferences of the incoming mayor, who is at the height of his political power and enjoying reservoirs of good will, with an incoming class that includes independent-minded members. Some of them have deep reservations about Mr. Moya, although certainly he now has public endorsers as well.Mr. Moya is Latino and, at a moment when no citywide office is held by a Latino, a number of his supporters have cited his background in making the case for his candidacy.Mr. Moya’s foes have taken to using a “Star Wars” term to characterize their opposition, referring to themselves as the Rebel Alliance.Sarah Stier/Getty Images For QbfcThe race has even created divisions within Mr. Adams’s own coalition — so much so that some council members and others involved in the process who oppose Mr. Moya have referred to themselves as the Rebel Alliance, a “Star Wars” reference.“It is the most senselessly divisive speaker’s race I have ever seen,” said Representative Ritchie Torres, a Democrat from the Bronx and a former council member, speaking broadly of the upheaval. “A wedge has been driven through the congressional delegation, the county organizations, the council and the labor movement.”But Staten Island Councilman Joseph Borelli, who leads the council’s five-member Republican caucus, said the maneuvering was not unusual.“People can’t remember four years ago and they can’t remember four years before that,” said Mr. Borelli, who has yet to publicly declare his allegiance in the race, but is believed to support Mr. Moya. “And there’s always this level of horse-trading and ebbing and flowing of momentum.”Representative Grace Meng, a Queens Democrat who is close to three members of the incoming council who are thought to be undecided, has been urging union officials, Mr. Adams and county party leaders to hold a meeting to sort out their differences.Tiffany Cabán, a newly elected Queens council member and a democratic socialist, said it was important that the next speaker be able to “democratize” the City Council and help members craft an agenda based on the needs of the communities they represent.“There are a few things that are incredibly important in the next speaker,” Ms. Cabán said. “First and foremost is that the mayor isn’t picking the speaker. The best way to move forward is with an independent body that provides checks and balances.”Despite multiple people describing Mr. Adams having direct conversations about the race with council members, he continues to maintain that he is taking a hands-off approach.“I stated it from the beginning, that I was not going to be heavy-handed in this race,” he said, during a TV interview on Tuesday morning. “People call me, they call me all the time, and they say, ‘Eric what are your thoughts?’ I give them an analysis of the people who are mentioned in the race, to give my input. I’m looking for a partner. The speaker does not work for me.” More

Is it a good idea for Joe Biden to run for re-election in 2024? And, if he runs again and wins, would it be good for the United States to have a president who is 86 — the age Biden would be at the end of a second term?I put these questions bluntly because they need to be discussed candidly, not just whispered constantly.In the 1980s, it was fair game for reputable reporters to ask whether Ronald Reagan was too old for the presidency, at a time when he was several years younger than Biden is today. Donald Trump’s apparent difficulty holding a glass and his constricted vocabulary repeatedly prompted unflattering speculation about his health, mental and otherwise. And Joe Biden’s memory lapses were a source of mirth among his Democratic primary rivals, at least until he won the nomination.Yet it’s now considered horrible manners to raise concerns about Biden’s age and health. As if doing so can only play into Trump’s hands. As if the president’s well-being is nobody’s business but his own. As if it doesn’t much matter whether he has the fortitude for the world’s most important job, so long as his aides can adroitly fill the gaps. As if accusations of ageism and a giant shushing sound from media elites can keep the issue off the public mind.It won’t do. From some of his public appearances, Biden seems … uneven. Often cogent, but sometimes alarmingly incoherent. What’s the reason? I have no idea. Do his appearances (including the good ones) inspire strong confidence that the president can go the distance in his current term, to say nothing of the next? No.And many people seem to know it. On Sunday, my colleagues Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns reported on the Democratic Party’s not-so-quiet murmurs about what to do if Biden decides not to run. Aspirants for the nomination appear in the story like sharks circling a raft, swimming slow.This is not healthy. Not for the president himself, not for the office he holds, not for the Democratic Party, not for the country.In 2019, the Biden campaign — cognizant of the candidate’s age — sold him to primary voters as a “transition figure,” the guy whose main purpose was to dethrone Trump and then smooth the way for a fresher Democratic face. Biden never made that promise explicit, but the expectation feels betrayed.Things might be different if the Biden presidency were off to a great start. It’s not. Blame Joe Manchin or Mitch McConnell or the antivaxxers, but Biden’s poll numbers have been deeply underwater since August. The man who once gave his party hope now weighs on his party’s fortunes like a pair of cement shoes.Things might also be different if it looked like the administration would soon turn the corner. That’s the administration’s hope for the mammoth Build Back Better legislation. But last month’s passage of the infrastructure bill didn’t really move the political needle for Biden, and that bill was genuinely popular. Now B.B.B. looms as another costly progressive distraction in a time of surging prices, spiking homicides, resurgent disease, urban decay, a border crisis, a supply-chain crisis and the threat of Iran crossing the nuclear threshold and of Russia crossing the Ukrainian border.Oh, and Kamala Harris. Her supporters might decry the fact, but to an ever-growing number of Americans, the heir apparent seems lighter than air. Her poll numbers at this point in her term are the worst of those of any vice president in recent history, including Mike Pence’s. If she winds up as her party’s default nominee if Biden pulls out late, Democrats will have every reason to panic.So what’s the president to do? He should announce, much sooner than later, that he will not run for a second term.The argument against this is that it would instantly turn him into a lame-duck president, and that’s undoubtedly true.But, news flash: Right now he’s worse than a lame duck, because potential Democratic successors are prevented from making calls, finding their lanes and appealing for attention. That goes especially for people in the administration who should be powerful contenders: Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and infrastructure czar Mitch Landrieu.And what would that mean for the rest of the Biden presidency? Far from weakening him, it would instantly allow him to be statesmanlike. And it would be liberating. It would put an end to the endless media speculation. It would inject enthusiasm and interest into a listless Democratic Party. It would let him devote himself wholly to addressing the country’s immediate problems without worrying about re-election.And it needn’t diminish his presidency. George H.W. Bush accomplished more in four years than his successor accomplished in eight. Greatness is often easier to achieve when good policies aren’t encumbered by clever politics. Biden should think on it — and act soon.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

Democrats have a razor-thin margin that could be upended with the loss of a single seat.Sign up here to get On Politics in your inbox on Tuesdays and Thursdays.A single state could determine whether Democrats maintain control of the Senate after the midterm elections, a tenuous advantage that hinges on the tiebreaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris.Thirty-four Senate seats are at stake in 2022, but the list of races considered competitive is much smaller.Most are in states that were fiercely contested by President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump in 2020. The burden will be on Democrats to try to ward off the midterm losses that have historically bedeviled the party holding the presidency, said Donna Brazile, a former interim party head and veteran strategist.“Joe Biden has a lot riding on these states,” she said. “He doesn’t have a lot of wiggle room.”AlaskaOf the seven Republicans in the Senate who voted to convict Mr. Trump in the impeachment trial that followed the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Senator Lisa Murkowski is the only one facing re-election in 2022.Mr. Trump, who is seeking to exact revenge against his impeachment foes, endorsed Kelly Tshibaka, a former commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration, to run against Ms. Murkowski in the primary.ArizonaSenator Mark Kelly, a Democrat who won a special election in 2020 to fill the seat once held by John McCain, is now seeking a full term.Both parties are prioritizing the race.The Republican field includes Mark Brnovich, Arizona’s attorney general since 2015; Mick McGuire, a retired major general in the U.S. Air Force; Jim Lamon, a businessman; and Blake Masters, chief operating officer of an investment firm run by Trump’s tech pal Peter Thiel.GeorgiaStacey Abrams’s decision to run again for governor could boost the re-election prospects of Senator Raphael Warnock, a fellow Democrat, Ms. Brazile said.Mr. Warnock, the pastor at the storied Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, is seeking a full term after defeating Kelly Loeffler last January in a runoff.His victory helped give Democrats control of both Senate seats in Georgia, where an expansion of the Democratic voter rolls in Atlanta’s suburbs has dented Republicans’ political advantage in the South and flipped the state for Biden.Now, Mr. Warnock is seeking a full term.“What he’ll get from Stacey is somebody who can stir up the electorate to get the results he needs to win in 2022,” Ms. Brazile said.Herschel Walker, the Georgia college football legend backed by Mr. Trump, is the favorite among seven Republicans who have filed to run so far. He has faced repeated accusations of threatening his ex-wife.FloridaIn Mr. Trump’s adopted home state, Senator Marco Rubio is seeking a third term.Mr. Rubio had raised more than $11.6 million in 2021 through September.He is facing Representative Val B. Demings, a Democrat with significant name recognition who out-raised him over the same period, with more than $13 million.NevadaCatherine Cortez Masto, the first Latina senator, faces her first re-election test since her milestone victory in 2016, a race that was flooded with nearly $90 million in outside spending.Opposing her is Adam Laxalt, a former Nevada attorney general who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018.Mr. Laxalt has been endorsed by both Mr. Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader. Mr. Biden carried Nevada by fewer than 34,000 votes last year.New HampshireRepublicans have circled New Hampshire as a pickup opportunity, salivating over the dismal approval numbers of Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat.But their enthusiasm was tempered when Gov. Chris Sununu said that he would run again for his current office instead of the Senate. Kelly Ayotte, whom Ms. Hassan unseated by about 1,000 votes in 2016, also opted out.Don Bolduc, a tough-talking Republican candidate and retired Army general, caused a stir recently when he called Mr. Sununu a “Chinese communist sympathizer.”North CarolinaSenator Richard Burr, another Republican who voted to convict Mr. Trump during his second impeachment trial, is retiring.Waiting in the wings is a crowded field of Republicans that includes Pat McCrory, a former governor; Representative Ted Budd, who has been endorsed by Trump; and Mark Walker, a former congressman.The Democrats include Cheri Beasley, a former chief justice of North Carolina’s Supreme Court and the first Black woman to serve in that role, and Jeff Jackson, a state senator and military veteran from the Charlotte area.OhioA large field of G.O.P. candidates will vie for the seat being vacated by the Republican senator Rob Portman, who is retiring.The leading Republican is Josh Mandel, Ohio’s former treasurer and an ardent Trump supporter. J.D. Vance, the “Hillbilly Elegy” author and Republican venture capitalist who has performed a whiplash-inducing conversion to Trumpism, is also running.Other G.O.P. candidates include Matt Dolan, a state senator; Jane Timkin, the state party’s former head; and the businessmen Bernie Moreno and Mike Gibbons.“You’ve got a lot of people fighting for the populist conservative lane,” said Beth Hansen, a Republican strategist and former manager of John Kasich’s campaigns for governor and president.Ms. Hansen downplayed the possibility of Republicans alienating moderate voters in a combative primary.“Honestly, I’m not sure these guys could pivot any further to the right,” she said.Representative Tim Ryan, supported by Ohio’s other senator, Sherrod Brown, is a prohibitive favorite among Democrats.PennsylvaniaAn open-seat race in Pennsylvania generated even more of a buzz when the celebrity physician Dr. Mehmet Oz recently jumped into fray.He joined a large group of candidates trying to succeed Senator Patrick J. Toomey, a Republican critic of Mr. Trump who is retiring.Dr. Oz’s entrance came just days after Sean Parnell, a leading Republican endorsed by Mr. Trump, suspended his campaign amid allegations of spousal and child abuse.Kathy Barnette, a former financial executive, is also running as a Republican, and David McCormick, a hedge fund executive, has been exploring getting into the race as well.Democrats have several seasoned candidates that include Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and Representative Conor Lamb. Also running are Dr. Val Arkoosh, a top elected official from the Philadelphia suburbs, and Malcolm Kenyatta, a state representative from Philadelphia.WisconsinA top target of Democrats is Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican whose approval rating has cratered amid an onslaught of television ads criticizing him for casting doubts about Mr. Biden’s election. Mr. Johnson has yet to announce his re-election plans.The top tier of Democrats includes Mandela Barnes, the lieutenant governor; Sarah Godlewski, the state treasurer; Alex Lasry, the Milwaukee Bucks executive ; and Tom Nelson, the top elected official in Outagamie County.On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at [email protected]. More

Afterward, on their shows, Laura Ingraham spread the false claim of antifa involvement, and Sean Hannity referred to the 2020 election as a “train wreck.”Three prominent Fox News anchors sent concerned text messages on Jan. 6 to Mark Meadows, the last chief of staff for President Donald J. Trump, urging him to persuade the president to take the riot seriously and to make an effort to stop it.The texts were made public on Monday, shortly before the House committee scrutinizing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol voted 9-0 in favor of recommending that Mr. Meadows be charged with contempt of Congress. Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, read the text messages aloud.The texts, part of a trove of 9,000 documents that Mr. Meadows had turned over before he stopped cooperating with the inquiry, were sent to the former White House chief of staff by Laura Ingraham, the host of the nighttime show “The Ingraham Angle”; Sean Hannity, a longtime prime-time host who once appeared onstage with Mr. Trump at a campaign rally; and Brian Kilmeade, a host of the morning show “Fox & Friends.”“Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home,” Ms. Ingraham wrote. “This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.”Mr. Kilmeade echoed that concern, texting Mr. Meadows: “Please, get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-1g3vlj0{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g3vlj0{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-1g3vlj0 strong{font-weight:600;}.css-1g3vlj0 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1g3vlj0{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0.25rem;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Sean Hannity texted: “Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.”Ms. Ingraham’s text came in contrast with what she said on her Fox News program in the hours after the attack, when she promoted the false theory that members of antifa were involved.“From a chaotic Washington tonight, earlier today the Capitol was under siege by people who can only be described as antithetical to the MAGA movement,” Ms. Ingraham said on the Jan. 6 episode. “Now, they were likely not all Trump supporters, and there are some reports that antifa sympathizers may have been sprinkled throughout the crowd.”Ms. Ingraham went on to cite “legitimate concerns about how these elections were conducted,” while adding that any dissatisfaction with the vote should not have resulted in violence.Mr. Hannity, a onetime informal adviser to Mr. Trump, condemned the attack, saying at the top of his Jan. 6 show, “Today’s perpetrators must be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” He also said that the nation must do more to protect law enforcement and political representatives.On that matter of who was responsible, Mr. Hannity said, “I don’t care if the radical left, radical right — I don’t know who they are. They’re not people I would support. So how were officials not prepared? We got to answer that question. How did they allow the Capitol building to be breached in what seemed like less than a few minutes?”He also brought up the 2020 election, the results of which had been questioned by Mr. Trump and his supporters in the weeks before the riot, although there was no evidence of widespread fraud.“Our election, frankly, was a train wreck,” Mr. Hannity said. “Eighty-three percent, according to Gallup, of Republicans, and millions of others, do not have faith in these election results. You can’t just snap your finger and hope that goes away.”The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol voted 9 to 0 to recommend Mark Meadows, the last White House chief of staff for former President Donald J. Trump, be charged with criminal contempt of Congress for defying its subpoena.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesRepresentatives for Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment.In the 11 months since the attack, the Fox News hosts who appear in the morning and in the prime-time hours have often played down the events of Jan. 6, with some likening it to the violence during the widespread protests against racism and police violence in the summer of 2020.Understand the Claim of Executive Privilege in the Jan. 6. InquiryCard 1 of 8A key issue yet untested. More