Elections

Even as President Biden achieves some significant victories, Democrats are warning that many of their most loyal supporters see inaction and broken campaign promises.Democrats across the party are raising alarms about sinking support among some of their most loyal voters, warning the White House and congressional leadership that they are falling short on campaign promises and leaving their base unsatisfied and unmotivated ahead of next year’s midterm elections.President Biden has achieved some major victories, signing a bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure bill and moving a nearly $2 trillion social policy and climate change bill through the House. But some Democrats are warning that many of the voters who put them in control of the federal government last year may see little incentive to return to the polls in the midterms — reigniting a debate over electoral strategy that has been raging within the party since 2016.As the administration focuses on those two bills, a long list of other party priorities — expanding voting rights, enacting criminal justice reform, enshrining abortion rights, raising the federal minimum wage to $15, fixing a broken immigration system — have languished or died in Congress. Negotiations in the Senate are likely to further dilute the economic and climate proposals that animated Mr. Biden’s campaign — if the bill passes at all. And the president’s central promise of healing divisions and lowering the political temperature has failed to be fruitful, as violent language flourishes and threats to lawmakers flood into Congress.Interviews with Democratic lawmakers, activists and officials in Washington and in key battleground states show a party deeply concerned about retaining its own supporters. Even as strategists and vulnerable incumbents from battleground districts worry about swing voters, others argue that the erosion of crucial segments of the party’s coalition could pose more of a threat in midterm elections that are widely believed to be stacked against it.Already, Mr. Biden’s approval ratings have taken a sharp fall among some of his core constituencies, showing double-digit declines among Black, Latino, female and young voters. Those drops have led to increased tension between the White House and progressives at a time of heightened political anxiety, after Democrats were caught off-guard by the intensity of the backlash against them in elections earlier this month. Mr. Biden’s plummeting national approval ratings have also raised concerns about whether he would — or should — run for re-election in 2024.Not all of the blame is being placed squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Biden; a large percentage of frustration is with the Democratic Party itself.“It’s frustrating to see the Democrats spend all of this time fighting against themselves and to give a perception to the country, which the Republicans are seizing on, that the Democrats can’t govern,” said Bishop Reginald T. Jackson, who leads the A.M.E. churches across Georgia. “And some of us are tired of them getting pushed around, because when they get pushed around, African Americans get shoved.”Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a leading House progressive, warned that the party is at risk of “breaking trust” with vital constituencies, including young people and people of color.“There’s all this focus on ‘Democrats deliver, Democrats deliver,’ but are they delivering on the things that people are asking for the most right now?” she said in an interview. “In communities like mine, the issues that people are loudest and feel most passionately about are the ones that the party is speaking to the least.”Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats acknowledge that a significant part of the challenge facing their party is structural: With slim congressional majorities, the party cannot pass anything unless the entire caucus agrees. That empowers moderate Democrats like Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia to block some of the biggest promises to their supporters, including a broad voting rights bill.A more aggressive approach may not lead to eventual passage of an immigration or voting rights law, but it would signal to Democrats that Mr. Biden is fighting for them, said Faiz Shakir, a close adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Mr. Shakir and others worry that the focus on the two significant pieces of legislation — infrastructure and the spending bill — won’t be enough to energize supporters skeptical of the federal government’s ability to improve their lives.“I’m a supporter of Biden, a supporter of the agenda, and I’m frustrated and upset with him to allow this to go in the direction it has,” said Mr. Shakir, who managed Mr. Sanders’s presidential run in 2020. “It looks like we have President Manchin instead of President Biden in this debate.”He added: “It’s made the president look weak.”The divide over how much attention to devote to staunch Democratic constituencies versus moderate swing voters taps into a political debate that’s long roiled the party: Is it more important to energize the base or to persuade swing voters? And can Democrats do both things at once?White House advisers argue that winning swing voters, particularly the suburban independents who play an outsize role in battleground districts, is what will keep Democrats in power — or at least curb the scale of their midterm losses. They see the drop among core groups of Democrats as reflective of a challenging political moment — rising inflation, the continued pandemic, uncertainty about schools — rather than unhappiness with the administration’s priorities.“It’s November of 2021, not September of 2022,” John Anzalone, Mr. Biden’s pollster, said. “If we pass Build Back Better, we have a great message going into the midterms, when the bell rings on Labor Day, about what we’ve done for people.”Even pared back from the $3.5 trillion plan that Mr. Biden originally sought, the legislation that passed the House earlier this month offers proposals transforming child care, elder care, prescription drugs and financial aid for college, as well as making the largest investment ever to slow climate change. But some of the most popular policies will not be felt by voters until long after the midterm elections, nor will the impact of many of the infrastructure projects.Already, Democrats face a challenging education effort with voters. According to a survey conducted by Global Strategy Group, a Democratic polling firm, only about a third of white battleground voters think that either infrastructure or the broader spending bill will help them personally. Among white Democratic battleground voters, support for the bills is only 72 percent.Representative James E. Clyburn, the high-ranking House Democrat from South Carolina and a close ally of Mr. Biden, said the way the bills were negotiated and reported in the media had voters in his district asking him about money that was cut from initiatives rather than the sweeping benefits.“People stopped me on the streets saying we cut money from our H.B.C.U.s,” Mr. Clyburn said, pointing out that more funding for historically Black colleges and universities will be added in the coming years of the administration. “So while everybody keeps blaming the Democrats, Democrats, Democrats, it’s the Senate rules that are archaic, and stop us from passing these bills.”Mr. Clyburn and other lawmakers say they struggle to explain the vacillations of congressional wrangling to their voters, who expected that by electing Democrats to the majority they would be able to pass their agenda.“Nobody thought about the filibuster and the realities,” said Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee. “People don’t understand the Byrd rule and the parliamentarian and the things we have to put up with. It does lower their enthusiasm.”Atlanta voters cast their ballots last November. Mr. Biden won more than 90 percent of Black voters in Georgia, but inaction on voting rights has weakened their support.Jessica Mcgowan/Getty ImagesAs they’ve begun to do with the infrastructure bill, the White House plans an aggressive approach to sell the social policy legislation once it passes, dispatching Mr. Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other top officials for events across the country.“There is a real window of opportunity to show the cooperation and competence people expect from us,” said Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey and a leader of a moderate wing of lawmakers in congressional negotiations. “It’s up to us to communicate what we just accomplished for families and for the country.”Yet many activists say the White House is to blame for failing to aggressively push for the central promises made to their supporters during the campaign. They said they wanted Mr. Biden to leverage both his bully pulpit and executive powers to tackle student loans, criminal justice, immigration reform and other issues.“We’re talking about democracy in such a crisis and here we are with very few legislative days left and the lack of urgency is deafening,” said Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, a minister and civil rights advocate who has helped lead the response from faith leaders on voting rights. “For the president to say he can only do one thing at a time is simply not true.”Lorella Praeli, the president of Community Change Action, a group advocating immigration reform, offered a terse warning to the administration about keeping Latino support: “There are no participation trophies.”Some of the most popular policies in the social safety net bill that passed the House won’t be felt by voters until long after the midterm elections.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesAlready, the national environment looks difficult for Democrats, who may lose seats in redistricting and face the historical trend of a president’s party losing seats during his first term in office.Tomás Robles, the co-chair of Lucha, a Latino civil rights group based in Phoenix that is widely credited with helping Democrats win the state in 2020, said people were “disillusioned and unmotivated” by what they had seen in the first 10 months of Democratic governance.“When you’re not passing bold progressive policies, you have to be able to show something,” Mr. Robles said. “President Biden gets the most blame because he’s the most visible, but it’s the party as a whole that has failed its voters.”In Georgia, inaction on voting rights has fueled a steepening decline of enthusiasm for Mr. Biden among Black voters. The New Georgia Project, a progressive civil rights group, conducted a study last month of Black voters in Georgia, and found that 66 percent approved of the job Mr. Biden was doing, and 51 percent thought that his administration was working to address the concerns of the Black community. In 2020, Mr. Biden won more than 90 percent of Black voters in Georgia.Representative Cori Bush, a progressive whose district includes large parts of St. Louis, said the social safety net and climate provisions included in the bill that passed the House could not be pared down any further. And, she added, the White House has to follow through on other provisions if Democrats want to excite Black voters — perhaps the party’s most loyal constituency — ahead of the midterm elections.“Do I believe Black community members will be happy to see these investments? Absolutely. Will they feel like this has changed their lives in some ways? Yes,” Ms. Bush said. “But will this be enough to excite? When you’re excited, that means that you feel like something else is coming. You have hope that more is happening. So what’s next?” More

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the former president, has beat back a flurry of corruption cases and climbed to the front of next year’s presidential race.RECIFE, Brazil — The former shoe shine boy who rose to the presidency left office a little more than a decade ago with rock star popularity, the embodiment of a nation that appeared to be on the cusp of greatness.The downfall of that president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and of his country, Brazil, was just as dramatic. A corruption scandal landed him in prison and exposed the malfeasance and miscalculations that helped bring an era of prosperity to a screeching halt, dragging down Latin America’s largest economy and setting in motion a period of political turbulence.Now Lula, as he is universally known, is back.A string of courtroom victories freed him and restored his right to run for office, allowing Mr. da Silva to again make the case that he’s the only way forward for a nation grappling with rising hunger, poverty and a deepening political divide.“We have total certainty that it’s possible to rebuild the country,” he said recently.Homeless people lining up to receive lunch from volunteers from a religious group in São Paulo. In 2021, the number of people in poverty in Brazil tripled to 27 million, from 9.7 million in 2020.Mauricio Lima for The New York TimesA return to power would be a stunning comeback for Mr. da Silva, 76, whose epic political career paralleled Brazil’s fortunes. He started as a labor leader and rose to prominence with the movement to end Brazil’s dictatorship of 1964 to 1985. After losing presidential elections three times, he won in 2002, steering the nation through a period of economic plenty and international prestige, when Brazil was tapped to give a party for the world as host of the World Cup and the Olympics.Voters are giving him a broad lead in next year’s presidential race, signaling that for millions, the memories of an ascendant, striving Brazil carry more weight than their reservations over the endemic corruption that marred Mr. da Silva’s legacy.His warm embrace by the presidents of Spain and France during a recent trip to Europe made clear that other leaders may also yearn for the Brazil of yore.But pulling off a victory may hinge on his ability to reframe the story of why Brazil unraveled so spectacularly after his presidency.While millions of Brazilians were lifted from poverty and inequality under his watch, many of the projects Mr. da Silva set in motion, critics argue, were unsustainable, wasteful and tainted by corruption.“They didn’t do what was necessary for the country, but what was necessary to remain in power,” said Marina Silva, a former environment minister in Mr. da Silva’s government who resigned over disagreements with the president’s approach to governance. “The ends justified the means.”Marina Silva, a former environment minister in Mr. da Silva’s cabinet, resigned in 2009 after disagreeing with the president’s approach to governance.Gabriela Portilho for The New York TimesMr. da Silva took no responsibility for the recession or for the huge bribery scandal that battered Brazil for years after he left office. And Brazilians turned their anger against Mr. da Silva’s handpicked successor, Dilma Rousseff, who was impeached in 2016 for improperly shifting public funds in an effort to mask the state of the economy before her re-election.Two years later, the country elected Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right former army captain who presented himself as Mr. da Silva’s polar opposite, praising the dictatorship and promising an iron fist against corruption and crime.Now Mr. Bolsonaro is facing a torrent of scandals, his administration ensnarled in investigations and his popularity waning, and Mr. da Silva is presenting himself as Brazil’s salvation.To understand Mr. da Silva’s promise, why it unraveled, and whether his return could deliver the stability and growth Brazilians crave, it helps to visit a small port community of artisanal fishermen that Mr. da Silva dreamed of turning into a flourishing manufacturing hub.‘The Brazilian naval industry is here to stay’Harbor workers restoring a ship at the Atlântico Sul shipyard as part of the Suape harbor project.Mauricio Lima for The New York TimesWhen Mr. da Silva took office in 2003, Brazil’s economy had managed to rein in inflation and was enjoying a commodities boom, giving the government a rare degree of fiscal flexibility. He quickly set in motion ambitious plans to reward the northeast, his birthplace and an electoral stronghold that is home to a little more than a quarter of the country’s population but nearly half its poor.The child of illiterate agricultural workers, Mr. da Silva, who grew up in a small shack with no electricity or plumbing, saw an opportunity to transform families like his by investing heavily in job-creating industries.The Brazilian Development Bank, which is run by the government, authorized a loan of $1.9 billion for a 1,090-mile railroad that would connect the agricultural heartland to two ports, including one just south of Recife, the largest city in the northeast and the capital of the state of Pernambuco.The Atlântico Sul shipyard seen from the abandoned Tatuoca island, which was privatized and had its residents removed from their homes for works in the Suape harbor project.Mauricio Lima for The New York TimesAlongside the Recife port area — at the easternmost corner of the continent, with easy access to European and African markets — two splashy projects broke ground. A new refinery signaled Brazil’s ambition to become a major oil producer. Plans for a shipyard, Estaleiro Atlântico Sul, boasted it would be the largest and most modern in the Southern Hemisphere.“The Brazilian naval industry is here to stay,” Mr. da Silva proclaimed in 2005, outlining plans for a network of shipyards. “Brazil is preparing for the next 10 years: growth, growth, growth.”The frenzy of construction was welcomed by residents of Tatuoca island, a small community of artisanal fishermen in the area. The jobs, they said, let them upgrade their shacks with luxuries that had been beyond their reach.Rodrigo José da Silva, a former worker at the harbor, fishing near his home in Suape.Mauricio Lima for The New York Times“It was a good life, with nice furniture, television sets, stereos,” recalled José Rodrigo da Silva, a fisherman born on the island.Mr. da Silva’s government created a patchwork of tariffs and financial incentives that let shipbuilders lock in contracts worth billions of dollars, guaranteeing work for at least two decades.“The idea was to use the naval industry to create jobs in the northeast,” said Nicole Terpins, the president of the shipyard near Recife.But there were plenty of reasons to be skeptical, said Ecio Costa, an economist at the Federal University of Pernambuco.A harbor worker at the Atlântico Sul shipyard.Mauricio Lima for The New York Times“You didn’t have the trained labor force, you didn’t have the supplies,” he said. “To build ships you need a whole supply chain, a technology sector, and those things don’t happen overnight.”The 75 families who lived on Tatuoca island began to question the benefits of the port complex expansion in 2009 when a dredger began scooping up chunks of the seabed to accommodate big ships.“The devastation began,” said Mr. da Silva, the fisherman. “Crabs vanished, fish vanished, everything began dying off, and we no longer had a way to make ends meet.”In 2010, residents on the island were told they would be evicted to allow an expansion of shipbuilding operations. All ended up abandoning their island homes in exchange for modest payouts and simple cookie-cutter houses on the mainland.“Many people living there didn’t know what a street was,” said Mr. da Silva, 37. “They prohibited us from returning to Tatuoca.”A path on Tatuoca island, which was abandoned to clear room for the Suape harbor project and its Atlântico Sul shipyard.Mauricio Lima for The New York Times‘We can be a great country’The forced displacement was broadly seen as part of the growing pains of a rising nation.Jobs in Pernambuco were suddenly plentiful and the path to them was open to more Brazilians. Investments in education and new affirmative action programs were enabling an unprecedented number of Black Brazilians to go to college.The discovery of vast offshore oil reserves in 2007 led an ecstatic Mr. da Silva to proclaim, in a speech: “God is Brazilian.”That year, the Brazilian Development Bank issued one of the largest lines of credit in its history: $1.2 billion to build 10 tanker ships. The bank also provided $252 million to build Estaleiro Atlântico Sul, which the bank projected would employ approximately 5,000 people and create 20,000 indirect jobs.On the international stage, Mr. da Silva was making waves.He helped set in motion a diplomatic alliance of major emerging economies that included China, India, Russia and South Africa. At the United Nations, he argued that nations like Brazil deserved a bigger voice — and a permanent seat on the Security Council.The sense of possibility and euphoria was perhaps best captured when thousands of Brazilians erupted in joyous celebrations in October 2009 after Brazil pulled off an upset in the contest to host the 2016 Olympic Games. It was a crowning achievement for Mr. da Silva.“I have never felt more pride in Brazil,” Mr. da Silva exclaimed. “Now we are going to show the world we can be a great country.”People stopped by the Olympic rings next to the Beach Volleyball Arena at Copacabana Beach to take photographs during the 2016 Olympics.Mauricio Lima for The New York Times‘Corruption became a means of governing’Mr. da Silva left office at the end of 2010 with an 80 percent approval rating, and Ms. Rousseff in place to build on his legacy.But she began to flail as commodities prices dropped and factions in Brazil’s notoriously transactional Congress began breaking ranks with the governing party.Ms. Rousseff was narrowly re-elected in 2014 as the economy entered a period of contraction that would soon turn into a deep recession. That year, federal law enforcement officials carried out the first arrests of the biggest corruption scandal in the nation’s history.President Dilma Rousseff in 2014. She was impeached two years later, after the economy soured and Brazilians became angry over accusations of corruption hanging over her predecessor’s government. Mauricio Lima for The New York TimesThe investigation exposed kickback schemes involving some of the country’s most powerful politicians and large companies that were awarded billions in government contracts. They included the state-owned oil giant Petrobras — the main client at the shipyard in Pernambuco — and the construction behemoth Odebrecht.Several prominent figures involved, including close aides to Mr. da Silva, struck deals with prosecutors in exchange for leniency. Their cooperation exposed the stunning extent of the malfeasance that had unfolded during Mr. da Silva’s presidency, which led to historic settlements with prosecutors in Brazil and the United States. Odebrecht agreed to pay $3.5 billion, the largest settlement in a foreign corruption case investigated by the U.S. Justice Department, and Petrobras agreed to pay $853 million.Deltan Dallagnol, one of the Brazilian prosecutors who led the investigation, said in an email that the governments of Mr. da Silva and Ms. Rousseff enabled “a pattern of structural and systemic corruption.” He added that the billions that companies agreed to return to government coffers, and the testimony of defendants who came clean, showed “that corruption became a means of governing the country.”Investigators soon zeroed in on Mr. da Silva, who was ultimately charged in 11 criminal cases involving alleged kickbacks and money laundering.Mr. da Silva during a campaign rally in São Paulo in 2017, before his imprisonment on corruption charges.Mauricio Lima for The New York TimesThe overlapping political and economic crises paved the way for the impeachment of Ms. Rousseff and rippled across the country, gutting several sectors — including the budding shipbuilding industry.Estaleiro Atlântico Sul unraveled. Petrobras abruptly canceled ship orders. Its credit line was suspended. And top executives at the two firms that built it were among those charged with corruption. Overnight, thousands of shipbuilders were laid off.It was far from an isolated case, said Samuel Pessôa, an economist at Getulio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo.“All the initiatives failed,” he said of the emblematic projects of the da Silva era. “Corruption was not the main factor; it was projects that were poorly planned, and the disconnect between the ventures that were launched and the conditions of Brazil’s economy and society.”Jair Bolsonaro as a federal legislator in his office in 2017. Behind him are the portraits of Brazil’s leaders during the military dictatorship.Lalo de Almeida for The New York Times‘The medicine Brazil found was stronger than the disease’When Brazilians went to the polls in 2018, Mr. da Silva was in jail, convicted of accepting renovations for an oceanfront apartment as a kickback from a construction firm.Landmark projects he had launched, including the railroad in the northeast and the shipyards, had become insolvent and paralyzed.Double-digit unemployment and a record number of homicides in 2017 made the electorate angry — and open to a disruptive presidential contender.Mr. Bolsonaro, who had been a fringe lawmaker for decades, channeled voters’ rage, presenting himself as an incorruptible politician. He easily defeated the Workers’ Party candidate, making an impressive showing in poor regions, including in Mr. da Silva’s home base of the northeast.João Campos, the mayor of Recife, who belongs to a center left party, said that three years later, millions of voters have come to regret that vote.Workers separating collected materials for recycling in Brasília Teimosa neighborhood, a low-income community in Recife.Mauricio Lima for The New York Times“It’s like you have a house with rats and cockroaches, and the solution you find is to set it on fire,” Mr. Campos said. “That’s what Brazil did.”Since he took office in January 2019, Mr. Bolsonaro has kept Brazil in crisis, picking fights with political allies and sparring with the Supreme Court justices overseeing investigations into his administration and members of his family.On his watch, unemployment rose, millions slipped back into poverty, inflation returned to double digits, and the pandemic killed more than 600,000 people.Recent public opinion polls show that if the election were held today, Mr. Bolsonaro would lose to all likely rivals.A banner depicting Mr. Bolsonaro as a devil during a demonstration calling for his impeachment in July over his handling of the pandemic.Mauricio Lima for The New York TimesOne recent head-to-head matchup by the Datafolha polling firm showed Mr. da Silva — who declined several interview requests — winning by a whopping 56 percent to Mr. Bolsonaro’s 31 percent.Some of the criminal cases against Mr. da Silva have unraveled as protagonists of the anti-corruption crusade fell into disrepute. Critical among them was Sergio Moro, the judge behind the conviction that sent Mr. da Silva to jail.Mr. Moro’s impartiality was questioned when he joined the Bolsonaro cabinet as justice minister and after leaked messages he exchanged with prosecutors during the investigation showed he had unlawfully provided them strategic advice.As the former judge’s once-sterling reputation was tarnished, several courts, including Brazil’s Supreme Court, issued a blizzard of rulings in favor of Mr. da Silva. The rulings, largely procedural, did not acquit him. But in practice they have all but given him a clear legal slate.Mr. da Silva, right, visiting a Landless Workers Movement settlement in Pernambuco state in August.Mauricio Lima for The New York Times‘He gave us priority’Given the torrent of scandals of the Bolsonaro era, an electorate that was once eager to crucify Mr. da Silva and his party has taken a more sanguine approach, said John French, a history professor at Duke University who wrote a biography of Mr. da Silva.“They were being indicted for not having been able to take money and corruption out of a political system where it has always been the essence of politics,” he said, arguing that Brazilian voters by and large have become resigned to political graft. “If you assume everybody is corrupt, the question is who really cares about you? Who feels for you? Who’s capable of doing something for you, something concrete?”Those questions have kept people like Rodrigo da Silva, the fisherman, loyal to Mr. da Silva.The shipyard where he once donned a uniform with pride is now overrun with weeds. The recruitment office is shuttered, the sign outside missing several letters.He has been unemployed since 2017. His electricity bill is months overdue. Raw sewage often bubbles up outside his home. But his eyes lit up when he spoke of the return of the former president who shares his last name.“The period during which I worked the most was when he was president,” he said. “Everybody steals. But he gave us priority.”Lis Moriconi contributed reporting from Rio de Janeiro. More

Mimicking official correspondence is an age-old marketing trick. But look-alike emails suggesting links to Beto O’Rourke’s campaign for governor show the tactic has accelerated in the digital era.Kenneth Pennington, a top digital strategist for Beto O’Rourke, had a simple plan.Mr. O’Rourke would announce his bid for governor of Texas early on a recent Monday morning and then Mr. Pennington would break the news via email to Mr. O’Rourke’s lucrative list of supporters, a loyal following that had already raised tens of millions of dollars for Mr. O’Rourke in his past bids for the Senate and the White House.But Mr. Pennington soon noticed something troubling: a parallel wave of look-alike emails from groups completely unaffiliated with the O’Rourke campaign that were designed to capitalize on the Texas Democrat’s moment. The emails used subject lines, sender names and URLs embedded with phrases like “team Beto” and “official Beto.” And in most cases, none of the money these emails eventually raised went directly to the campaign.Mr. O’Rourke still brought in more than $2 million from 31,000 donors, the largest 24-hour sum that any new candidate has announced this year, his campaign said. But for Mr. Pennington and the rest of the campaign, the nagging question was how much more they might have hauled in if other Democratic groups hadn’t been so busy siphoning off their share.“The frustrating thing,” Mr. Pennington said, “is we will never know how much we lost.”Welcome to the sometimes-sketchy world of online campaign fund-raising, where misdirection and misleading everyday Americans — often older Americans — to maximize clicks and cash is increasingly a dark art form.Imitating others and mimicking official correspondence with postage-paid mailers is an age-old trick that marketers have used since long before the internet. The tactic has been adapted and updated for the digital era — and appears to be accelerating in prevalence in the political sphere.At stake can be millions of dollars in an era when mass online political donating is in vogue in both parties. Copycatting Mr. O’Rourke’s brand surged in popularity recently, but on the Republican side, mimicking the brand of former President Donald J. Trump has been common for months.In some cases, established organizations are simply capitalizing on the day’s big news or the politician of the moment to gin up excitement among their own supporters with some verbal sleight-of-hand. In others, political action committees with anodyne names are raising funds in the name of a popular politician that they have no affiliation with at all. Mr. Pennington described such groups as “leeches” and “scam PACs.”Where the money goes from there can be murky, though big payments to the operatives and consulting firms that operate those PACs have drawn increasing scrutiny from political colleagues, regulators and law enforcement alike.Some of these operations are legal, sometimes burying the requisite disclaimers in the fine print. Others may not be. This month, the Justice Department charged three political operatives with running a scheme that prosecutors said defrauded small donors of $3.5 million.“I am not at all surprised that unscrupulous actors are essentially impersonating popular Democratic campaigns to try to raise money,” said Josh Nelson, a Democratic digital strategist who runs a firm, The Juggernaut Project, focused on growing email lists more ethically. “That’s the unfortunate trend we’ve seen.”Mr. Nelson has been publicly pressuring progressives to abandon more deceptive fund-raising tactics, and has asked the leading Democratic technology companies to intervene because new laws are unlikely to stiffen penalties for deception anytime soon.“Ultimately, I think it is going to take technology vendors cracking down on these tactics,” Mr. Nelson said.For now, there seems to be little that the most aggressive politicians and PACs in both parties won’t say to raise more money from online supporters.“Your covid test result,” read the alarming subject line of a fund-raising email from the campaign arm of House conservatives the day before Mr. O’Rourke entered the governor’s race. (The email was about mobilizing opposition to a Covid-19 vaccine mandate.)A new favorite tactic of the Republican National Committee has been making it appear as if supporters have urgent and overdue bills. “WARNING: Payment Incomplete” has been the sender line of more than 15 party emails since August, including one just before Thanksgiving. (A warning this week was about membership status as “Trump Social Media Founding Supporter.”)The day after Mr. O’Rourke’s announcement, the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, sent an email to supporters who had not ordered anything, using “Your Order Confirmation” as the sender and “Order ID: 73G526S” as the subject line. (The email was an effort to sell “Let’s Go Brandon” wrapping paper, which references a popular conservative phrase that has become a stand-in for an insult aimed at President Biden.)The House Conservatives Fund, the Republican National Committee and Mr. Abbott’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment.Some of these examples may seem like easily detectable and even harmless deceptions. But strategists in both parties say a huge share of online cash is raised from older Americans who are less adroit online and have a harder time separating fact from hyperbole. The reason that so-called Nigerian prince scams exist, after all, is because people fall for them.When Mr. O’Rourke ran for Senate in 2018, he shattered Democratic fund-raising records, and his entry into the 2022 governor’s race has been highly anticipated. His campaign team held discussions before the announcement about how to limit the funds that less scrupulous actors might try to cannibalize.Two PACs sent out similar emails suggesting they were raising money for Mr. O’Rourke, using “team beto” and “official beto” in the URLs of their donation links. But all of the funds went directly to the PACs instead of the campaign.And outside groups did pounce almost immediately.“Official: Beto is in!!” came one such message the morning his run was announced. It listed its sender as “Team Beto (BSP).”The “BSP” stood for Blue South PAC, a new political action committee that sprung up this year and was among the more aggressive imitators of Mr. O’Rourke’s campaign. The group sent no less than five emails from a sender that included the phrase “Team Beto” in the campaign’s first three days.“At the very least, they’re trying to trick people into opening the email as if it’s from the campaign,” Mr. Pennington said, adding that he raced to send out the campaign’s first fund-raising message sooner than planned when he saw others already arriving.In one solicitation, the link to the Blue South PAC donation page on ActBlue, the Democratic digital donation-processing site, was highlighted in bright yellow and appeared as if it belonged to the campaign: actblue.com/donate/team-beto.Those who clicked were greeted by a message: “Show your support by donating and joining Team Beto!” Except 100 percent of the funds went to the Blue South PAC, according to the fine print on the donation page.A related group, Defeat Republicans, deployed a nearly identical email, featuring a similar URL highlighted in yellow: actblue.com/donate/official-beto.Both groups are linked to the same digital strategist, Zach Schreiber, who emailed a statement on behalf of both Blue South PAC and Defeat Republicans saying that their digital strategy was “in line with the industry best practices.”“Our community looks to us for news, action alerts, and opportunities to help elect Democrats,” the statement said, adding that the PACs “look forward to working with the Beto campaign.”Founded in the summer of 2020, Defeat Republicans raised almost $1 million in less than a year through the end of June 2021. In that time, federal records show it paid Mr. Schreiber $133,000 and directed another $208,000 to a firm, Opt-In Strategies, that lists him as a consultant on its website. Blue South PAC had spent only about $37,000 through the end of June, with more than one-third of the spending going to another consulting firm, UpWave Digital Solutions, founded by Mr. Schreiber.Federal records show that Defeat Republicans has given more than $400,000 to Democratic campaigns. The biggest chunk, $230,000, went to Jennifer Carroll Foy, who ran for governor of Virginia as a Democrat; Ms. Foy’s campaign paid Opt-In Strategies $67,500 for “list acquisition,” state records show. The PACs also said it had contributed $5,000 to Mr. O’Rourke.Plenty of other groups with missions that bear little relation to Mr. O’Rourke’s campaign seized on his entry into the race. These PACs have no formal affiliation with Mr. O’Rourke, even as they cite his campaign in fund-raising, and have no obligation to spend any of what they collect to help him.One PAC, The Majority Rules, ostensibly devoted to ending partisan gerrymandering, wrote an email to its list on Mr. O’Rourke’s first day that read, “The first 24 hours after a campaign announces are critical to its success. We still need another 103 grassroots Democrats to step up before midnight to give Beto the momentum he needs.”All the funds went to the PAC.A solicitation email sent from a PAC called 314 Action.Another PAC, 314 Action, devoted to electing scientists, sent an email with the subject line “BREAKING: Beto is running for Texas governor” the day he entered the race. The funds went to the PAC. The sender line in that email displayed as “Beto O’Rourke Update” — a format that industry insiders say can make it appear, at a glance, as if the politicians themselves sent the missive. (Directly using a politician’s name alone without consent is generally not allowed because it is seen as writing directly in his or her voice without authorization.)A nonprofit arm of 314 Action has announced it will spend up to $500,000 this year targeting four Republican governors, including Mr. Abbott of Texas. Joshua Morrow, the executive director of the 314 Action groups, did not respond to questions about the group’s fund-raising tactics but said in a statement that Mr. Abbott is “at the top of the list” of “anti-science politicians” they will target into 2022.314 Action uses other techniques to lure potential supporters, including sending three emails so far this month from “BREAKING from NBC News.” Another set of 314 Action emails used “NBC News Alert” in the sender line in September.Mr. Nelson, the Democratic digital strategist pressing his industry to curb such tactics, said groups keep doing it because it works — at least in the short term. But he worries that over time bad actors could poison the well for the whole party if donors stop trusting political groups with their money.“Ultimately there is a real risk that we’re going to push donors away,” he said. More

“If anything, my election showed nobody’s untouchable,” said Edward Durr Jr., who pulled off a stunning victory to win a New Jersey State Senate seat.Edward Durr Jr., a Republican who this month toppled New Jersey’s second most powerful lawmaker, had three children under 13 when a mortgage company began foreclosure proceedings on his 1,200-square-foot, one-story home in South Jersey in 1997.Within two years, he and his first wife had filed for bankruptcy, identifying $64,784.99 in debts to J.C. Penney, an insurance company and a bank, court records show.“My kids didn’t really know what was going on,” said Mr. Durr, who dropped out of high school when his father, a self-employed carpenter, got sick and needed help at work. “We kind of sheltered them from that.”Two decades later, New Jersey’s high property taxes and cost of living would become centerpieces of Mr. Durr’s campaign, cementing his improbable win against Steve Sweeney, a Democrat who had held a near-final say over all legislation in Trenton as president of the State Senate.A commercial truck driver, he describes himself as a “blue-collar, Christian, Second Amendment supporter.” He is a strong backer of former President Donald J. Trump, who called to congratulate him on his win, and an opponent of vaccine and mask mandates and what he calls government “tyranny.”Mr. Durr’s victory and the region’s strong Republican turnout are considered emblematic of evaporating enthusiasm for Democrats in suburban and rural areas and wide dissatisfaction with President Biden. That mix contributed to a Republican win in Virginia and Gov. Philip D. Murphy’s unexpectedly close re-election in New Jersey, and is seen as an ominous sign for the Democratic Party ahead of next year’s congressional midterms.“If anything, my election showed nobody’s untouchable,” Mr. Durr said.During the campaign, Democratic operatives used mailers and a video ad to highlight Mr. Durr’s past financial troubles, but he won by about 2,300 votes anyway, pulling off one of the biggest political upsets in state history.“Not for nothing,” said Steve Kush, a Republican consultant who worked with Mr. Durr’s campaign, “but those kinds of attacks actually backfired this time. There’s a lot of other people going through some very hard times. Who hasn’t had problems with financing?”Since the Nov. 2 election, Mr. Durr, 58, has become a mini-celebrity, unable to walk through Walmart or ShopRite or pick up chicken wings from his local pub, Wilson’s, without being asked to pose for a selfie.Mr. Durr, a Republican who won an upset race against one of the most powerful Democrats in New Jersey, has said his newfound fame made him queasy.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesHe does not take office until Jan. 11. But he is already using a new domain name, edthetrucker.com, to raise funds for re-election and hawking “Ed the Trucker” hats, “Riding DURRty” bumper stickers and “Dangerous Durr” T-shirts and mugs, co-opting a term Mr. Murphy used to describe him.His campaign flew so far under the radar that it was not until after Election Day that a reporter for WNYC, a public radio station, publicized incendiary comments he had made on Twitter that disparaged the Muslim Prophet Muhammad and called Islam a “false religion.”On the day Mr. Sweeney conceded, Mr. Durr met with Muslim leaders at a masjid near his campaign headquarters, reiterating his public apology for the comments and offering a commitment to “stand against Islamophobia and all forms of hate.”“As long as you know somebody, it’s hard to hate somebody — don’t you think?” he told reporters gathered outside, holding a Quran given to him during a two-hour meeting with members of the state’s Council on American Islamic Relations. “It’s very easy to hate somebody that you don’t know.”At home in Logan Township, 15 miles outside Philadelphia, Mr. Durr himself remains largely unknown. He did not win a majority of votes in the Democrat-led town where he lives near the Delaware River, in an area known as Repaupo.In Penns Grove, where the three-bedroom, one-bath house he lost in foreclosure last sold for $22,000, neighbors said they had not heard of him before Election Day, if at all.“He didn’t win his own town,” said Frank Minor, Logan’s Democratic mayor. “That tells you a lot right there.”“He’s been anti-Muslim, anti-vax,” Mr. Minor added. “He’s a Trump Republican. That’s what he is. That’s what he’s going to do.”After disparaging Islam, Mr. Durr met with Muslim leaders at Al Minhal Academy of Islamic Education in Washington Township, N.J. He left carrying a Quran.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesRural and predominantly white, southern New Jersey is one of the most conservative parts of the state. Democrats in Mr. Durr’s district outnumber Republicans, yet Mr. Trump narrowly won more votes than his Democratic opponent in 2016 and in 2020.Buoyed by Mr. Sweeney and the influence of George E. Norcross III, a well-connected political boss, Democrats controlled most local and state offices. That also changed on Election Day.Mr. Durr’s two Republican running-mates ousted incumbent Democrats in the Assembly, and Republicans flipped two seats on the Gloucester County Board of Commissioners, the legislative body where Mr. Sweeney cut his political teeth.Mr. Durr said he shed 55 pounds during the campaign, weight loss he attributed to walking and knocking on doors in places Republicans seldom consider competitive: Mr. Sweeney’s hometown, West Deptford, and the city of Bridgeton, a tight-knit enclave of mostly Latino immigrants.“People were, like, shocked,” Mr. Durr said. “They’d say, ‘Nobody’s ever been here.’”Mr. Durr said he hoped to keep his job as a truck driver for the Raymour & Flanigan furniture chain, and the health insurance it provides, even after he is sworn in as a senator, a part-time position that pays $49,000. Lawmakers who took office after 2010 are not eligible for health coverage.He rides a 2012 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, spoils his three pit bulls — “I call them my fur babies” — and, with his five siblings, takes care of his mother, a recent widow who lives next door.Before joining the furniture company, he worked in construction and said he often held multiple jobs, including making pastries for Dunkin’ Donuts and working in a farm supply store. During two growing seasons, he drove trucks for East Coast Sod and Seed.“He was on time,” said Andy Mottel, the manager of the Pilesgrove, N.J., farm, which transports sod across the country and provides the field grass for Yankee Stadium. “He worked every day. He has that strong voice — very knowledgeable about sports.”Mr. Durr completed his G.E.D. through Gloucester City High School, and he has made no secret of his unease with his sudden stardom. (“I feel like I’m about to throw up,” he said the day Mr. Sweeney conceded.) He will be a member of the minority party in the State House, making it unlikely he will have significant power to steer or stonewall legislation.When ticking off his legislative priorities, he mentions goals like “bringing jobs here, bringing businesses here,” and he is the first to say he has a lot to learn about how Trenton works. “If it’s an issue that concerns New Jersey citizens, I’m going fight for it,” he said.It was his fourth campaign for public office. He ran for State Assembly as an independent in 2017 and as a Republican in 2019, and he ran last year for Logan Township council.It is unclear how much he spent to win. The latest financial reports show he spent roughly $2,300, but he has said that the final figure will be between $5,000 and $10,000.New Jersey has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and Mr. Durr said he originally decided to run for public office after learning he could not get a license to carry a concealed weapon.“I’ve been on every military base as a truck driver on the East Coast,” he said. “Why am I being refused my right to self-protect? The Second Amendment says I have a right to self-protect.”Mr. Durr’s Islamophobic remarks in 2019 were not his only controversial comments on social media.He also appeared to equate public acquiescence to pandemic-related mandates to remaining silent during the Holocaust. After a violent racist rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, he offered comments reflecting the legitimacy of “both sides,” a position similar to Mr. Trump’s initial response.Officials with the Islamic council said that they worried that Mr. Durr’s past hate speech, left unchecked, could lead to violence. During the meeting at the masjid, they offered him examples of relatives who had been targeted for being Muslim.Three people who participated said that he was engaged and appeared genuine in his desire to learn more about the Muslim faith. The group shared snacks, and Mr. Durr observed a 10-minute prayer service.“He was open minded,” said John Starling, the imam of a mosque in Cherry Hill, N.J. “He was without hesitation ready to make the situation right.”Atiya Aftab, who teaches in the Middle Eastern Studies program at Rutgers University and also attended the meeting, said she understood it as the start of an ongoing conversation.“I’m not second-guessing his intent,” Professor Aftab said. “I did feel that it was genuine and authentic. But ultimately it’s actions that will speak louder than words.”Camille Furst contributed reporting and Susan C. Beachy contributed research. More

Progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives can be forgiven their anxiety about whether Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona will support the more than $1.8 trillion Build Back Better plan. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, for example, rues the two senators’ outsize influence, while her colleague Rashida Tlaib of Michigan worries that Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema are “corporate Dems” led astray by special interests.But if disappointed progressives are looking for a Democrat to blame, they should consider directing their ire toward one of their party’s founders: James Madison. Madison’s Constitution was built to thwart exactly what Democrats have been attempting: a race against time to impose vast policies with narrow majorities. Madison believed that one important function of the Constitution was to ensure sustained consensus before popular majorities could prevail.Democrats do represent a popular majority now. But for Madison, that “now” is the problem: He was less interested in a snapshot of a moment in constitutional time than in a time-lapse photograph showing that a majority had cohered. The more significant its desires, Madison thought, the longer that interval of coherence should be. The monumental scale of the Build Back Better plan consequently raises a difficult Madisonian question: Is a fleeting and narrow majority enough for making history?In this Madisonian sense, Democrats are tripping over their own boasts. Even in announcing that the spending plan had been scaled back, President Biden repeatedly called the measure “historic.” No fewer than four times in a single statement, his White House described elements of the Build Back Better framework as the most important policy innovations in “generations.” Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, called the bill the House passed last week “historic, transformative and larger than anything we have done before.”Before the plan was trimmed from its original $3.5 trillion price tag, Democratic descriptions of it were even more grandiose. Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader, called the party’s initial proposal “the most significant legislation to expand support for American families since the era of the New Deal and the Great Society. If not quite Rooseveltian in scope, it is certainly near-Rooseveltian.” Ms. Pelosi said the legislation would “stand for generations alongside the New Deal and the Great Society as pillars of economic security for working families.”Madison might ask why legislation that will stand for generations should be enacted in months. The pragmatic answer, of course, is that Democrats may lose their majorities in the House and Senate next November. But that is part of the problem. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson passed the New Deal and Great Society with enormous, broad-based legislative majorities. The policies were so popular that they commanded at least some bipartisan support.There is a reason Madison thought it should be that way. In evaluating public opinion, he saw two distinctions as essential. The first was whether the public’s views were based on reason or passion. The second was whether the views were settled or fluctuating.According to Madison’s political psychology, passions were inherently short-lived. That was why he could say in Federalist 10 that factions would not overtake a geographically large republic: In the time it took for them to spread, passions would cool and dissipate. By contrast, opinions based on reason could withstand the test of time.Madison encapsulated his theory of democracy in Federalist 63, which pertained to the unique role of the Senate in pumping the brakes on speeding majorities. He assumed that “the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers,” just as there would be unusual moments when the people would get swept up in passionate measures “which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.”The most significant Madisonian fact is that majority rule is both a good idea and an inevitable one: public opinion both “ought” to and “will” win out in a republic. But, crucially, it will do so “ultimately,” not immediately. One original purpose of the Senate’s six-year terms was to give its members time between elections to resist public opinion. The different electoral clocks for representatives, presidents and senators require that public opinion cohere to prevail.In 1791, with the young Constitution in operation and nascent partisan alliances appearing, Madison wrote in a newspaper essay that the government owed deference to public opinion only when that opinion was “fixed” rather than fluctuating: “This distinction, if kept in view, would prevent or decide many debates on the respect due from the government to the sentiments of the people.”It is difficult to identify a case in American history of sustained, broad public opinion that did not ultimately manifest itself in public policy. Americans have been thwarted or delayed with respect to vague ideas like expanding access to health care. But they have also disagreed profoundly and deeply about what form those ideas should concretely take. When Americans have settled into an enduring consensus on particulars, they have almost always prevailed.One way proponents of particular policies encourage consensus is by appealing to public opinion. But according to Madison, the constitutional system judges majorities on their durability. A nearly $2 trillion bill that fundamentally alters relations between the government and the governed — even if in constructive and needed ways — should demonstrate broad and enduring support. A tied Senate and nearly tied House, acting in a space of months, cannot demonstrate that support on Madisonian terms.Democrats should not be overly faulted for failing to attract Republican support. At least since Democrats took the House in 2018, and arguably for longer, Republicans have been dogmatically uncooperative and uninterested in legislating.But the overuse of omnibus bills that throw every possible priority into a single measure make bipartisan support nearly impossible. Madison may have predicted the future of factions poorly. But his assumption was that coalitions would shift from issue to issue. A stand-alone bill on any one Democratic priority might well receive votes from across the aisle, as the recent $1 trillion infrastructure bill did. One reason for that bipartisan support is that isolating issues raises the cost of opposing them.In addition, the fact that one of the country’s two major political parties refuses to budge and — the decisive fact — feels no pressure from its constituents to do so is evidence that the Madisonian tests of durability and fixity have not been met. If majorities of the American people truly support the Democratic approach to social policy, the party’s candidates should be able to make that case on the campaign trail. The fact that they are trying to beat the clock instead suggests they know their support is fragile. Fragility is a poor foundation for major legislation.Polarization, especially when it falls along geographic lines, does not help. Madison, who foresaw that the enslavement from which he benefited might split the nation, warned against geographic fault lines. But to write off Republican politicians is also to write off broad swaths of voters who support them.Similarly, to blame Mr. Manchin for obstructing Democrats, as Representative Cori Bush of Missouri did in denying his authority “to dictate the future of our country,” is to ignore the fact that a 50-50 Senate gives every member of the body that power. A broader majority would deprive Mr. Manchin or Ms. Sinema of it. But because they serve as a moderating force that ensures wider support for legislation, disempowering them also risks increasing polarization.Devices like gerrymandering have the effect of exaggerating Republican support in the House. So does the geographic polarization reflected in the narrowly divided Senate. Consequently, Democrats’ slender margins in Congress may understate the degree of public support for their policies. But there is no constitutional means of registering public opinion other than elections. And it is equally unquestionable that the tragic flaw of many successful candidates for public office is exaggerating their mandates. The narrow majorities Democrats possess in Congress counsel caution instead. Mr. Biden’s mandate was largely for normalcy after four years of mania. It’s hard to make a case for being F.D.R. without a Great Depression.If progressive Democrats want to do more, they should demonstrate what Lincoln called “a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people.” If the people stand with them, Democrats will eventually — just not immediately — prevail.Greg Weiner (@GregWeiner1) is a political scientist at Assumption University, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Madison’s Metronome: The Constitution, Majority Rule, and the Tempo of American Politics.”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

Magdalena Andersson, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, quit after her new government’s budget was defeated on her first day in office and her coalition partners bolted.It seemed like a new era was dawning in Sweden on Wednesday when Magdalena Andersson, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, became the country’s first female prime minister.But her historic term lasted less than a day.She resigned on Thursday, a day after a painful budget defeat in parliament. She had only just formed a two-party minority government with the Green Party. But after their budget was rejected in favor of one proposed by the opposition, which included the far-right Sweden Democrats party, the Green Party the quit the coalition out of frustration, leaving Ms. Andersson’s center-left party without a partner.“According to constitutional practice, a coalition government should resign if one party leaves the government,” Ms. Andersson said in a statement shared on her Facebook page. “For me, it is about respect, but I also do not want to lead a government where there may be grounds to question its legitimacy.” She added that she had met with the speaker and asked to be dismissed from the her new position.Ms. Andersson’s resignation plunged Sweden into political uncertainty. The country’s political landscape was already frayed by fragile coalition governments, and a vote of no confidence in June against the former prime minister, Stefan Lofven. Ms. Andersson later succeeded Mr. Lofven as leader of the Social Democrats.Sweden, at one point, accepted more refugees per capita than any other European nation. But its progressive image has gradually been eroded by far-right populist sentiment that has taken hold, led by the Sweden Democrats party. The political spectrum has shifted to the right with increasing anti-immigrant and anti-European voices.Per Bolund, a Green Party spokesman, said his faction left the government in frustration because Parliament had approved a state budget negotiated by the opposition, which includeda right-wing extremist party — the Sweden Democrats.Until a new government is elected, the current one will remain on in the interim. Ms. Andersson, who served as Sweden’s finance minister since 2014, has said she is still ready to serve as prime minister, but only in a one-party government. More

Democrats were once able to count on wave elections to win back key statehouses. Republican gerrymandering is making that all but impossible.Republicans are locking in newly gerrymandered maps for the legislatures in four battleground states that are set to secure the party’s control in the statehouse chambers over the next decade, fortifying the G.O.P. against even the most sweeping potential Democratic wave elections.In Texas, North Carolina, Ohio and Georgia, Republican state lawmakers have either created supermajorities capable of overriding a governor’s veto or whittled down competitive districts so significantly that Republicans’ advantage is virtually impenetrable — leaving voters in narrowly divided states powerless to change the leadership of their legislatures.Although much of the attention on this year’s redistricting process has focused on gerrymandered congressional maps, the new maps being drafted in state legislatures have been just as distorted.And statehouses have taken on towering importance: With the federal government gridlocked, these legislatures now serve as the country’s policy laboratory, crafting bills on abortion, guns, voting restrictions and other issues that shape the national political debate.“This is not your founding fathers’ gerrymander,” said Chris Lamar, a senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center who focuses on redistricting. “This is something more intense and durable and permanent.”This redistricting cycle, the first one in a decade, builds on a political trend that accelerated in 2011, when Republicans in swing states including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan drew highly gerrymandered state legislative maps.Since those maps were enacted, Republicans have held both houses of state government in all three places for the entire decade. They never lost control of a single chamber, even as Democrats won some of the states’ races for president, governor and Senate.All three of those Northern states are likely to see some shift back toward parity this year, with a new independent commission drawing Michigan’s maps, and Democratic governors in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania will probably force the process to be completed by the courts.Gerrymandering is a tool used by both parties in swing states as well as less competitive ones. Democrats in deep-blue states like Illinois are moving to increase their advantage in legislatures, and Republicans in deep-red states like Utah and Idaho are doing the same.But in politically contested states where Republicans hold full control, legislators are carefully crafting a G.O.P. future. They are armed with sharper technology, weakened federal voting statutes and the knowledge that legal challenges to their maps may not be resolved in time for the next elections.In Texas, North Carolina and Ohio, Republican governors have signed into law new maps with a significant advantage for the party. Georgia is moving quickly to join them.Republicans say that the growth of such heavily skewed legislatures is both the result of the party’s electoral victories and of where voters choose to live.State legislative districts are by nature much smaller in population than congressional districts, meaning they are often more geographically compact.As Democratic voters have crowded into cities and commuter suburbs, and voters in rural and exurban areas have grown increasingly Republican, G.O.P. mapmakers say that they risk running afoul of other redistricting criteria if they split up those densely populated Democratic areas across multiple state legislative districts.“What you see is reflective of the more even distribution of Republican and right-leaning voters across wider geographic areas,” said Adam Kincaid, the director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. Trying to draw more competitive legislative districts, he said, would result in “just a lot of squiggly lines.”He pointed to maps in Wisconsin that were proposed by a commission created by Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. Under those designs, Republicans would still have a majority in both state legislative chambers (though with significantly smaller margins).“They’re limited by geography,” Mr. Kincaid said. “There’s only so many things you can do to spread that many voters across a wide area.”Democrats note that Republicans are still cracking apart liberal communities — especially in suburbs near Akron and Cleveland in Ohio and in predominantly Black counties in northern and central North Carolina — in a way that helps the G.O.P. and cuts against a geographical argument.“They are carving up Democratic voters where they can’t pack them,” said Garrett Arwa, the director of campaigns at the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. He argued that Democratic map proposals “all put forth better and more fair maps that I would say are far from a Rorschach test.”Democrats have fewer opportunities to unilaterally draw state legislative maps, particularly in battleground states. Of the 14 states where the margin of the 2020 presidential race was fewer than 10 percentage points, Democrats are able to draw state legislative maps in just one: Nevada. Republicans control the redistricting process in six of those 14 states. (The rest have divided governments, or their maps are drawn by commissions.)But when Democrats have had an opening, they have also enacted significant gerrymanders at the state legislative level. In Nevada, Democrats are close to finalizing a map that would give them supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature, despite President Biden’s winning just 51 percent of the state’s vote last year.The same holds true in deeply blue states. In Illinois, newly drawn State Senate maps would give Republicans roughly 23 percent of seats in the chamber, even though former President Donald J. Trump won more than 40 percent of voters in the state in 2020.Republicans have taken two approaches to ensure durable majorities in state legislatures. The tactics in Texas and Georgia are more subtle, while Republicans in Ohio and North Carolina have taken more brazen steps.In Texas and Georgia, the party has largely eliminated competitive districts and made both Republican and Democratic seats safer, a move that tends to ward off criticism from at least some incumbents in the minority party.“Out of the 150 seats in the Texas House, only six of them are within seven points or closer,” said Sam Wang, the director of the Princeton Redistricting Project. Republicans now hold a 20-seat advantage in the chamber, 85 to 65, and the new maps will give the party roughly two more seats. So while the G.O.P. lawmakers did not try to draw an aggressive supermajority, “what they really did a good job of there is getting rid of competition and getting a reasonably safe majority for themselves,” Mr. Wang said.Understand How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

Los observadores europeos dijeron que las elecciones no fueron libres ni justas. Mostraron cómo el gobierno del presidente, por impopular que sea, puede ganar excluyendo y dividiendo a los opositores.CARACAS, Venezuela — El martes, los observadores electorales de la Unión Europea afirmaron que las elecciones regionales de Venezuela fueron desvirtuadas por condiciones desiguales de participación, violencia y órdenes judiciales contra los líderes de la oposición.No obstante, la participación de funcionarios internacionales independientes —los primeros que presencian unas votaciones venezolanas en 15 años— resaltó que el presidente Nicolás Maduro se ha consolidado en el poder de Venezuela de una manera profunda, desde que asumió el cargo en 2013.Según los analistas y los líderes de la oposición, después de años de reprimir con fuerza a la disidencia y socavar los vestigios de las instituciones democráticas venezolanas, Maduro perfeccionó un sistema político en el que no le teme al escrutinio internacional cuando se enfrenta a oponentes que ya han sido analizados con atención.El gobierno demostró que al impedir que contiendan los líderes más destacados y populares de la oposición, fomentar la apatía entre los electores y conservar la lealtad de una minoría dependiente de las dádivas del gobierno, puede ganar las elecciones sin recurrir al fraude descarado, incluso con un apoyo popular mínimo.Pese a manejar una economía destrozada y, según las encuestas, tener el apoyo de solo el 15 por ciento de la población, el gobernante Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela ganó al menos 19 de las 23 gobernaciones, así como la mayoría de las alcaldías. De acuerdo con un estudio de las principales universidades del país, uno de cada cinco venezolanos ha huido del país bajo el mandato de Maduro y el 95 por ciento de los que se quedaron no ganan lo suficiente para satisfacer sus necesidades básicas.En el triunfo aplastante del partido gobernante tuvieron mucho que ver las divisiones internas de la oposición. Algunos líderes opositores boicotearon las elecciones, como sucedió en otros comicios recientes. Quienes decidieron participar dividieron los votos con facciones que habían pactado con Maduro o adoptaron una línea menos dura contra el presidente para sacarle provecho a la apertura económica que se ha permitido en los últimos años.La misión de los observadores de la Unión Europea señaló el martes que no podría decir que las elecciones del domingo hayan sido libres ni justas debido, en parte, a las ventajas competitivas de las que goza el partido en el gobierno y a la falta de un Estado de derecho.El presidente Nicolás Maduro a su llegada a su casilla de votación, acompañado de su nieta.Yuri Cortez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“Esta situación política, junto con las graves condiciones socioeconómicas, es la que ha provocado el éxodo de millones de venezolanos”, explicó Jordi Cañas, representante del Parlamento Europeo en la misión de observadores, durante una conferencia de prensa celebrada el martes en Caracas.Sin embargo, la misión subrayó varias mejoras en materia democrática durante las elecciones del domingo, y llegó a calificar el sistema de procesamiento electrónico de los votos como “confiable”.Estados Unidos, que no reconoce el gobierno de Maduro, consideró que las elecciones habían sido muy fraudulentas, pero recomendó a los candidatos de la oposición que decidieron participar que conservaran los pocos cargos democráticos que aún tenían.El domingo, en las casillas de votación de Caracas, muchos electores manifestaron tener poca confianza en la imparcialidad de las elecciones pero comentaron que, en algunos casos, habían decidido presentarse porque consideraban que su voto era un último recurso en la lucha por el cambio.“Sé que todo el proceso está controlado”, comentó Blas Roa, un carpintero de Caracas de 55 años que votó por primera vez desde 2015. “Pero si no voto, no estoy contribuyendo en nada”.La mayoría de los venezolanos no se molestaron en hacerlo.Solo el 42 por ciento de los electores emitieron su voto, la menor participación en cualquier elección en la que haya contendido la oposición en las últimas dos décadas. Después de 20 años de gobierno socialista, pocas personas siguen albergando esperanzas de que se produzca un cambio radical, en vez de eso se están enfocando en aprovechar la nueva apertura económica con el fin de mejorar sus precarios ingresos.La apatía fomentada por el gobierno resultó ser la mejor arma de Maduro en las elecciones, aseveró el líder opositor Freddy Superlano, quien contendió por la gobernación del estado ganadero de Barinas, el cual solía ser un importante bastión del Partido Socialista y es el estado natal del fundador del partido, Hugo Chávez.El martes en la tarde, la contienda todavía era demasiado cerrada como para declarar a algún ganador.Según Superlano, el resultado habría sido diferente si las facciones de la oposición hubieran apartado sus recelos para organizar una campaña conjunta.“Estamos luchando no contra un candidato, sino contra todo el poder del Estado”, señaló vía telefónica desde Barinas.Isayen Herrera More