Elections

The second Democratic debate, featuring eight candidates for New York City mayor, takes place Wednesday night from 7 to 9 p.m.The second official debate among the eight major Democratic candidates for mayor of New York City takes place Wednesday from 7 to 9 p.m.The candidates set to attend are Eric Adams, Shaun Donovan, Kathryn Garcia, Raymond J. McGuire, Dianne Morales, Scott M. Stringer, Maya Wiley and Andrew Yang.The event comes as the contest moves into its final weeks before the June 22 primary, at a crucial time when the dynamics of the race and voter preferences still appear fluid.The first debate was held virtually, and Wednesday’s in-person session will offer clearer opportunities for the candidates to distinguish themselves with standout moments — and to better land the criticisms of one another that they have ramped up in recent weeks.The state of the race now also looks different in several ways from the last debate.Ms. Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner, has gained traction in the limited polling available, placing her as a front-runner alongside Mr. Yang and Mr. Adams. Other candidates, like Ms. Wiley, are looking to build similar momentum. And the campaign of the most left-leaning candidate in the field, Ms. Morales, is facing internal strife and disillusion.Here are some of the ways you can watch and follow the debate:Reporters from The New York Times will provide commentary and analysis throughout the evening.The first hour of the debate will be televised on WABC Channel 7, with the second hour scheduled on WABC’s streaming platforms and over the air on Channel 7.2. Streams will also be available online from ABC 7 New York and Univision.The debate will also be carried on cable networks including Optimum on Channel 110; Spectrum on Channel 1240; Verizon Fios on Channel 467; and Comcast on Channel 790.NYC Life TV will broadcast the entire debate on Channel 25.1.Bloomberg Radio New York will stream the debate on 1130-AM. Listeners can also tune in to a broadcast on 92.7 FM from the Spanish-language station WQBU-FM.Other streams are expected to be available on YouTube. More

Ms. Hobbs, a Democrat who gained prominence for defending the state’s election system, has condemned a Republican recount currently underway, calling it a threat to democracy.Katie Hobbs, the Democratic secretary of state in Arizona, who gained national attention for her stalwart defense of the state’s electoral system in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, announced on Wednesday that she was running for governor, portraying herself as a pragmatic leader who does not back down in the face of criticism and threats.Ms. Hobbs has become a frequent fixture on cable news shows since the fall — first as Arizona’s vote count continued for several days after Election Day in November, and again this spring as Republicans conducted a widely criticized audit of ballots cast in Maricopa County. Ms. Hobbs has repeatedly condemned the partisan recount as a dangerous threat to democracy and has assigned observers to track problems with the process.“We did our job,” she said in a video announcing her bid. “They refused to do theirs. And there’s a lot more work to be done.”I’m running for Governor to deliver transparency, accountability, and results for Arizonans — just like I’ve done my whole career.Join me: https://t.co/LM2sCDVynA pic.twitter.com/5y3QtFvYAk— Katie Hobbs (@katiehobbs) June 2, 2021
In some ways, the recount has elevated Ms. Hobbs, who some polls suggest is the most popular statewide elected official. She joined a lawsuit to try to stop the recount, which has no official standing and will not change the state’s vote. She issued a scathing six-page letter detailing problems with the audit and has recommended that Maricopa County replace its voting machines and vote tabulators because of the lack of physical security and transparency around the process. “We cannot be certain who accessed the voting equipment and what might have been done to them,” she wrote.A campaign video announcing her run opens by referring to the attacks and death threats that she has faced in the wake of the election — including armed protesters showing up at her home.“When you’re under attack, some would have you believe you have two choices: fight or give in. But there is a third option: get the job done,” Ms. Hobbs says in the video announcement. “I’m here to solve problems.”In the days after last November’s election, as Arizona’s votes were being counted amid intense scrutiny and criticism from the Trump White House and its allies, Ms. Hobbs regularly appeared on television to provide updates on the counting process and defend the integrity of the state’s voting processes.Republicans in the State Legislature have struck back at Ms. Hobbs for her opposition to the recount. After Ms. Hobbs sued them, Republicans passed a measure to strip her of her ability to defend election lawsuits, instead giving that power to the attorney general, also a Republican.The bill, which has not yet been approved by the full Legislature, appears to specifically target Ms. Hobbs; it would expire in January of 2023, when her current term ends. Ms. Hobbs called the measure “an attack on Arizona voters.”The Arizona G.O.P. has largely doubled down on the baseless accusation that the election was “stolen” from former President Donald J. Trump, with the state party going as far as censuring elected officials, including the Republican governor, Doug Ducey, for not being sufficiently loyal by declining to back the attempt to subvert the election.But the efforts have largely turned off independent voters in the state, who make up roughly a third of the electorate there.“The other side isn’t offering policies to make our lives better, they’re offering conspiracy theories that only make our lives worse,” Ms. Hobbs said in her video.Mr. Ducey is not eligible to run in the 2022 election because of term limits and the field to replace him is likely to be crowded. Several Republicans have also declared their candidacy in recent days, including Kimberly Yee, who is currently the state treasurer, and Kari Lake, a former anchor for the local Fox television station. More

Alvin Bragg and Tali Farhadian Weinstein both had dealings with President Donald J. Trump’s administration that Mr. Trump could try to use against them.Whoever wins the race to become the next Manhattan district attorney will take over one of the most contentious, highest-profile criminal investigations in the office’s history: the inquiry into former President Donald J. Trump and his business.Two of the leading candidates in the Democratic primary field, Alvin Bragg and Tali Farhadian Weinstein, have had past contacts with Mr. Trump’s administration — dealings that could become an issue if one of them becomes district attorney.Mr. Bragg, a former official with the New York attorney general’s office, reminds voters frequently that in his former job, he sued Mr. Trump’s administration “more than a hundred times.”Ms. Farhadian Weinstein, who once served as general counsel to the Brooklyn district attorney, has been less vocal about Mr. Trump. She only occasionally notes her involvement in a successful lawsuit against the Trump administration. And she has not spoken publicly about once interviewing with Trump administration officials for a federal judgeship early in his term.Mr. Bragg and Ms. Farhadian Weinstein are among eight Democratic candidates vying to replace Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the district attorney, who is not running for re-election. With the primary less than one month away, Mr. Trump continues to loom over the race.Mr. Vance’s office recently convened a grand jury that will hear evidence about Mr. Trump and his company, according to a person with knowledge of the matter — a sign that the investigation could soon intensify.Tali Farhadian Weinstein attended a meeting on White House grounds to discuss a federal judgeship.Sara Naomi Lewkowicz for The New York TimesMr. Bragg and Ms. Farhadian Weinstein have raised more money than any of their opponents, and both say they have the prosecutorial experience to take over the office.But each would also bring particular experiences to the Trump investigation that the former president, based on his past actions, seems likely to weaponize against them: Mr. Bragg’s history of legal conflict with Mr. Trump and Ms. Farhadian Weinstein’s previously undisclosed discussion of a judicial post with Trump administration lawyers.Andrew Weissmann, a former senior prosecutor under Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, said he expected Mr. Trump to target the next district attorney just as he had attacked Mr. Mueller, whom the former president had called a “true Never Trumper” and “totally conflicted.”“No matter who gets elected, he’s going to do opposition research, and assuming an indictment’s brought or anything close to that, he’s going to do what he did with the special counsel,” Mr. Weissmann said.The impaneling of a new grand jury, first reported by The Washington Post, follows years of investigation by Mr. Vance, who has focused on possible financial crimes at the Trump Organization, including tax and bank-related fraud.Prosecutors were already using grand juries to issue subpoenas, obtain documents and hear some testimony, but the new grand jury is expected to hear from a range of witnesses in the coming months. There is no indication that the investigation has reached an advanced stage or that prosecutors have decided to seek charges against Mr. Trump or his company.Mr. Trump’s advisers have said that he will try to impugn the motives of the prosecutors investigating him. After The Post’s report came out, Mr. Trump called the inquiry “purely political” and said that “our prosecutors are politicized.”That is an attack that he might wield against Mr. Bragg, who has repeatedly brought up his many lawsuits against Mr. Trump and his administration, referring to a period in 2017 to 2018 when he served as a senior official under successive New York attorneys general, Eric Schneiderman and Barbara D. Underwood.One of the most prominent of the office’s lawsuits, filed in June 2018, accused the Donald J. Trump Foundation and the Trump family of what Ms. Underwood called “a shocking pattern of illegality,” and ultimately led to the foundation’s dissolution.Alvin Bragg worked in the New York State attorney general’s office when suits against President Donald J. Trump were filed.Andrew Seng for The New York TimesMr. Bragg, at a Democratic candidate forum in December, cited that lawsuit as one reason he was qualified to oversee the district attorney’s Trump investigation.“I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation,” Mr. Bragg said. “I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable.”Mr. Bragg acknowledged that Mr. Trump could seek to make an issue of his history if he wins. Asked how he would contend with accusations of bias from the former president, Mr. Bragg said he had been attentive to what he had said publicly — and what he had not said.“It is a fact that I have sued Trump more than a hundred times,” Mr. Bragg said. “I can’t change that fact, nor would I. That was important work. That’s separate from anything that the D.A.’s office may be looking at now.”A spokeswoman for Ms. Farhadian Weinstein, Jennifer Blatus, accused Mr. Bragg of attacking Mr. Trump “for political advantage every chance he gets,” in contrast to what Ms. Blatus characterized as her candidate’s “judicious approach.”In an emailed statement, Ms. Farhadian Weinstein explained her reluctance to speak about a potential attack on her by Mr. Trump.“I have repeatedly declined requests to discuss a hypothetical argument that a current subject of an investigation in the Manhattan D.A.’s office might make — that’s the only proper approach for open matters the next D.A. will inherit,” she said.She also criticized Mr. Bragg for hosting a fund-raiser with Daniel S. Goldman, a former House lawyer who worked on Mr. Trump’s first impeachment.Ms. Farhadian Weinstein’s meeting with Trump administration lawyers over the judgeship occurred in 2017, early in the Trump administration.A friend of Ms. Farhadian Weinstein, the Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, suggested her as a candidate for a district court judgeship to Avi Berkowitz, then a special assistant to Jared Kushner, Mr. Feldman said. He did so on his own initiative, he said. (Two years later, in 2019, Mr. Feldman testified against Mr. Trump at his first impeachment hearing.)Ms. Farhadian Weinstein, who had previously applied for a judgeship during the administration of President Barack Obama, received a phone call from the Trump administration out of the blue, she told an associate. It is not unusual for lawyers with judicial aspirations to seek judgeships regardless of political party — Ms. Farhadian Weinstein has been registered as both an independent and a Democrat in recent years — and she took the meeting at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House grounds.But the meeting, which included lawyers John Bash and Gregory G. Katsas from the White House Counsel’s Office, became heated during a disagreement over constitutional law, the associate said, and the conversation never went further.A former administration official who was familiar with the meeting did not remember its being characterized as heated and called it a “perfunctory” interview set up to appease the former president’s son-in-law.A person close to Mr. Kushner said that while Mr. Kushner would periodically pass along to the White House Counsel’s Office recommendations people would make for judges, he has no memory of Ms. Farhadian Weinstein being discussed. There is no evidence Mr. Trump personally knew of Ms. Farhadian Weinstein’s interest in a judgeship or of her trip to meet with the White House lawyers.While Ms. Farhadian Weinstein’s interview for a judgeship in 2017 could become fodder for the former president’s political attacks should she become district attorney, legal experts said it raised no ethical concerns, nor would it require that she recuse herself from the office’s investigation into Mr. Trump and his organization.Susan Lerner, the executive director of Common Cause New York, a good government advocacy group, said in an interview that while Ms. Farhadian Weinstein would not have been required to disclose the meeting publicly in the district attorney’s race, the information was “certainly relevant to the job she’s applying for.”“It’s information that voters will want to consider, and it’s up to them to decide how this factors into their ultimate choice,” Ms. Lerner said.William K. Rashbaum More

LIMA — El domingo 6 de junio los peruanos iremos nuevamente a las urnas para elegir entre Pedro Castillo, un profesor de escuela rural y dirigente sindical que postuló con Perú Libre —un partido de extrema izquierda—, y Keiko Fujimori por Fuerza Popular, la hija del expresidente autoritario Alberto Fujimori, cuyo gobierno y principal legado, la Constitución de 1993, ha reivindicado en su campaña.Las últimas encuestas publicadas muestran un virtual empate entre ambos candidatos. La elección del domingo es también una suerte de referéndum en torno a la continuidad del modelo económico neoliberal que ha reinado en Perú en las últimas tres décadas, pero que llega agotado y golpeado por la pandemia a este proceso.No es la primera elección que pone en el banquillo a las políticas de libre mercado que se adoptaron en los años noventa, pero esta vez la posibilidad de que Perú gire drásticamente hacia la izquierda es concreta, y pondría fin a un periodo de bonanza y continuo crecimiento económico que, si bien tuvo límites, alcanzó logros muy notorios que vale destacar y defender.Lo que entendemos como modelo económico neoliberal nunca fue antagónico al Estado, pero el establecimiento ortodoxo fue dogmático y miope frente a la realidad, y ahora se juega la vida en esta elección. El triunfo de Castillo implicaría un retorno a políticas estatistas y anacrónicas que han encontrado eco entre un sector amplio de la población que no ha gozado los frutos del crecimiento económico y la globalización.La disyuntiva no es nueva. En 2006, en el contexto de la firma del Tratado de Libre Comercio con Estados Unidos, un Ollanta Humala en la órbita chavista hizo campaña prometiendo cambio constitucional, políticas nacionalistas y un mayor rol del Estado en la economía. De haber triunfado, Perú habría sido parte del giro a la izquierda que fue casi hegemónico en América Latina en ese momento. Cinco años después, un Humala moderado y más próximo al Brasil de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva que a la Venezuela de Hugo Chávez, terminó alcanzando la presidencia. Salvo un mayor énfasis en políticas sociales, poco del modelo se vio alterado.Tras un respiro en 2016, donde dos candidaturas de derecha pasaron a segunda vuelta, las encuestas de esta elección no advirtieron hasta la última semana la arremetida final de Castillo, quien pasó en primer lugar a la segunda vuelta pero con menos del 20 por ciento de los votos válidos.Si bien tras críticas de diversos sectores, Castillo presentó una nueva versión de su plan de gobierno (el original era un ideario firmado por el fundador de Perú Libre, Vladimir Cerrón, médico formado en Cuba, que reivindica el carácter marxista del partido), sus propuestas insisten en devolverle un rol protagónico al Estado e incluyen sacrilegios a la ortodoxia económica reinante como la revisión de los tratados de libre comercio y la prohibición de importaciones, entre otras medidas populistas y obsoletas.Aunque las vías para implementar sus políticas, que incluyen convocar a una Asamblea Constituyente dirigida a reemplazar a la vigente, no están libres de obstáculos (Perú Libre tiene solo 37 congresistas de 130 en el parlamento), lo cierto es que en la segunda vuelta Castillo abandonó algunas de sus promesas más extremas, como la pena de muerte para los corruptos y el desmantelamiento de la Defensoría del Pueblo, y se comprometió a respetar el Estado de derecho, pero solo ha matizado su discurso y sus propuestas económicas.Y, a pesar de su negativa a buscar el centro, el apoyo a Castillo se ha mantenido en las encuestas, que ha liderado prácticamente hasta este fin de semana. Una encuesta de principios de mayo de IPSOS revelaba que un 54 por ciento de peruanos quiere cambios moderados al modelo económico, y un 32 por ciento, cambios radicales. Solo el 11 por ciento apuesta por la continuidad.Las elecciones de 2006 y 2011 eran indicios de un sentimiento similar, pero sin duda la pandemia catalizó la crisis del modelo económico.Un afiche de Pedro Castillo, en Puna, promete una nueva Constitución.Martin Mejia/Associated PressAunque las reformas de mercado que se adoptaron en el gobierno de Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) han tenido éxito en términos de estabilidad macroeconómica y prosperidad, la pandemia provocó un retroceso de diez años en la lucha contra la pobreza, merced a la cual más de 3 millones de personas cayeron nuevamente en ella.Hasta poco antes de la pandemia, el progreso económico era tangible, aunque venía perdiendo ímpetu. Entre 2002 y 2013, Perú fue uno de los países que más creció en América Latina, a un promedio de 6,1 por ciento anual. El ritmo decreció a 3 por ciento entre 2014 y 2019, pero igual contribuyó a que la pobreza bajará de 52,2 por ciento en 2005 hasta el 20,2 por ciento en 2019, y que la extrema pobreza rural se redujera hasta menos del 10 por ciento en el mismo periodo.El crecimiento económico y la reducción de la pobreza coincidieron con un superciclo de materias primas, el cual Perú, como uno de los principales exportadores de minerales en el mundo, supo aprovechar muy bien gracias a una economía ordenada y abierta al mercado. Esa estrategia incluyó también una agresiva promoción de agroexportaciones que permitió al país convertir su desértica franja costera en una de las principales fuentes de uvas, espárragos, arándanos y otros cultivos a nivel global.Esta historia de éxito, no obstante, contrasta con la suerte de un amplio sector de la población que quedó relegada. Como en otras partes del mundo, la globalización dividió a la sociedad en ganadores y perdedores. Los ganadores de esas reformas han defendido y sostenido el modelo año tras año y en cada elección. El impacto de la pandemia debilitó ese bastión de defensa y facilitó el ascenso de un candidato radical como Castillo.La pandemia también acentuó la desigualdad. En el mismo periodo que 3 millones de peruanos caían debajo de la línea de la pobreza, cuatro nuevos peruanos se convirtieron en multimillonarios, y entre los seis identificados por Forbes acumulan una fortuna estimada en más de 11,4 trillones de dólares.La estrategia del modelo económico peruano ha sido positiva, como lo muestran los números, pero deficiente: 3 de cada 4 trabajadores son informales en Perú, y bajo el eufemismo de clase media vulnerable escondimos muy bajos niveles de ingresos que se evaporaron con un shock externo como la pandemia.Para evitar que el modelo se agote, como ha sucedido en Chile, se tiene que adaptar. Lamentablemente, ante intentos desde el Estado de extender la receta agroexportadora a otros sectores, la respuesta fue vehemente en defensa de la llamada “mano invisible” del mercado, cuando fue muy visible a la hora de elegir ganadores entre los agricultores costeros, con rotundo éxito.Si el modelo sobrevive al 6 de junio, requerirá de una actualización urgente. No se puede soslayar el malestar y las demandas de cambio, ni justificarlas por los estragos únicos de la pandemia. Hace dos décadas que sabemos esto pero la complacencia y la ideología nos ganó.Es necesario que el Estado acompañe la expansión del modelo, con inversión en capital humano e impulso a la productividad, por nombrar dos medidas, para que más peruanos sean parte de sectores ganadores y no vean atractivas ideas y políticas probadamente fallidas en el Perú y en la región.Omar Awapara es politólogo y director de ciencias políticas en la Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC), Lima. More

Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherFrom the moment Joe Biden was elected president, all eyes have been on Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator from West Virginia.Representing a vanishing brand of Democratic politics that makes his vote anything but predictable, he has become the make-or-break legislator of the Biden era.Mr. Manchin has often been a holdout when it comes to Mr. Biden’s economic plans because of his commitment to the ideals of bipartisanship and the cultural conservatism of his constituents.We explore how and why Mr. Manchin’s vote has become so powerful.On today’s episodeJonathan Martin, a national political correspondent for The New York Times.In an evenly divided Senate, the vote of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is indispensable to President Biden. Sarah Silbiger/The New York TimesBackground readingIn Washington, policy revolves around Joe Manchin. Read Jonathan Martin’s exploration of why the senator likes it that way.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.Transcripts of each episode are available by the next workday. You can find them at the top of the page.Jonathan Martin contributed reporting.The Daily is made by Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Austin Mitchell, Neena Pathak, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Daniel Guillemette, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Kaitlin Roberts, Rachelle Bonja, Leslye Davis, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano and Soraya Shockley, Corey Schreppel and Anita Badejo.Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Theo Balcomb, Cliff Levy, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Nora Keller, Sofia Milan, Desiree Ibekwe, Erica Futterman and Wendy Dorr. More

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: A smart, experienced woman walks into an important meeting and can sense her male colleagues immediately looking her up and down to form judgments based on her appearance. She then raises a great idea in the meeting, it’s dismissed or ignored, and then a man in the meeting offers a similar proposal that wins praise.During my 30 years in public service, I found myself in this situation far too often, and I’m certain this would not be the case if my name were Christopher instead of Christine.I wish my story were unique. That is why every time I hear Andrew Yang say that Kathryn Garcia would make a great first deputy mayor or Eric Adams question the civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley’s knowledge of policing, I want to scream.What frustrates me about these comments is not the obvious fact that they are demeaning and erase these candidates’ impressive careers; it’s that history keeps repeating itself. As a candidate for New York’s mayor in 2013, I was ready for my record and my ideas to get withering scrutiny. I didn’t think I’d become the latest woman in New York politics whose gender and personal attributes would be in the spotlight. By contrast, Mr. Yang and Mr. Adams have consistently been at the top of the polls and will likely pay no price for their questionable comments about their female opponents. No matter how many experienced and smart women run for mayor, it feels as if far too many voters are looking only for the best man for the job.I’m sure that there are some who would dismiss New York City’s lack of a female mayor as a strange historical asterisk. After all, we’re the birthplace of the women’s suffrage movement, we were among the first states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, and this has been the home of trailblazers like Sojourner Truth, Eleanor Roosevelt, Sonia Sotomayor, Shirley Chisholm, Hillary Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro and Sylvia Rivera, to name a few. But despite this progress, New York City has elected 109 men in a row to lead City Hall, so the three women running for mayor this year do not have the odds on their side.Frankly, no one should be surprised. Women have made important progress as legislators, but when it comes to executive leadership at any level, very few women ever reach the executive mansion. Just 44 women have ever served as governor across the country. What does New York City have in common with Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia and Boston? None of them have ever elected a woman for mayor — and these five cities went through 378 men until Kim Janey took office in March as Boston’s acting mayor.The deck is stacked at the start against women who run for office. Women are less likely to be encouraged to run by party leaders, advocacy groups and donors — which, from my experience, stems from skepticism that women can be competitive. Thanks to generations of pay inequity, women and particularly women of color have lower incomes and net worths than their male rivals to spend on elections.These financial hurdles continue after a woman has decided to start her campaign. Women candidates persistently struggle with fund-raising. In September of 2018, Democratic women running for the U.S. House in 67 of the most competitive districts that year had raised an average of $500,000 less than their male counterparts. According to the most recent filings in New York City’s mayoral race, male candidates are outraising their female counterparts by nearly seven to one. Campaigns need money to survive, so if a woman candidate has to spend the bulk of her time fund-raising to catch up to her rivals, she will have less time to make her case to the public about why she should be elected.And it’s not just that money doesn’t flow to female-led campaigns; it’s also that many women in my generation were brought up with the idea that being aggressive and hard-charging — inherent in fund-raising — is distasteful or negative in women.Beyond the recruitment, cultivation and fund-raising difficulties, there is a unique set of hurdles that plagues women candidates. We are subject to intense public scrutiny and biased coverage that shapes voters’ perceptions.When I ran for mayor, I was warned this could happen. But it still came as a deep disappointment to see the media quickly move from focusing on policy stances to critiquing my appearance, demeanor and even the tone of my voice — as if Ed Koch had been melodious. Every time I wore a new color, smiled or put on nail polish, it was covered with the same vigor as a new policy platform. While men are celebrated for their boldness, women are deemed volatile and too unstable to hold higher office. To be blunt, a woman who displays the qualities that are celebrated in male leaders — strength, ambition, pugnacity — ends up being told, “You’re a bitch.”Women candidates are also held to an impossibly high, difficult to define and even harder to meet standard of likability. It is quite a burden to make 51 percent of people live their lives trying to guess what others want them to be. In my mayoral campaign, I thought that I had to act a certain way so that voters would like me. I twisted myself in knots trying to be less assertive, less of a lesbian and ultimately less of myself. It is a haunting mistake to lose a race when you were not true to yourself, and a choice that I hope no woman running for office in the future is forced to make.Look, I know that when you step into the arena of a political campaign, almost everything about you is fair game. But negative attention can take a painful toll. Throughout our lives, women are judged in a way that men aren’t: From an early age, we’re told implicitly and explicitly that we’re not pretty enough, we’re overweight, we’re too brash, we’re too outspoken. When women take the courageous step to run for office — entering a contest that is completely about judgment — that lifetime of personal criticism comes back tenfold.Thankfully, more and more cracks are being made in the glass ceiling across the country. We finally have a female vice president, and more women are running for elected office than ever before because of the tireless work of organizations like Emily’s List, Run for Something, Eleanor’s Legacy and 21 in ’21 to disrupt the flawed candidate recruitment process.New Yorkers have three accomplished female mayoral candidates to consider in the June 22 Democratic primary, but we first need to stop letting our forward-thinking attitudes blind us from the fact that misogyny affects every facet of our society, including our decisions at the ballot box. Women candidates are not looking for your approval or for preferential treatment. We simply asked to be judged on our merits and not on the basis of our sex.Christine C. Quinn served as New York City Council speaker from 2006 to 2013 and ran for mayor of New York in 2013. She is now the president and C.E.O. of Win, the largest provider of shelter, social services and supportive housing for homeless families in New York City. More

New Mexico Special Election Results: First Congressional District – The New York Times

Elections|New Mexico Special Election Results: First Congressional Districthttps://nyti.ms/2RaEMnG More

Ms. Stansbury won a landslide victory in a special election to fill the seat vacated by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland. The result is likely to hearten national Democrats worried about the 2022 midterms.Melanie Stansbury, a Democrat, won a landslide victory in a special House election in New Mexico on Tuesday, claiming the seat previously held by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and easily turning back a Republican effort to make the race a referendum on rising crime in the Albuquerque-based district.Late Tuesday night, Ms. Stansbury, a state representative, had captured 62 percent of the vote, while her Republican rival, Mark Moores, had won 34 percent.Her dominating performance represented an early vote of confidence in the Democratic-controlled White House and Congress in a heavily Hispanic district and could quiet some anxiety in the party about its prospects going into the 2022 midterm elections.An environmental policy expert who has worked as a congressional and White House aide, Ms. Stansbury emphasized economic fairness, the urgency of addressing climate change and the importance of Democrats’ retaining their four-seat House majority.Mr. Moores, a state senator, ran almost entirely on crime and related issues. He assailed Ms. Stansbury for endorsing a bill in Congress that would shift money away from police departments, noting that there have been twice as many murders in Albuquerque this year as there were at this point in 2020.Ms. Stansbury’s victory illustrates that the crime issue alone is insufficient for Republicans to win on in Democratic-leaning districts, at least when their candidates receive little financial help from the national party, as was the case with Mr. Moores.Special elections in the first year after a president is newly elected can often carry grim tidings for the party in control of the White House. And with few such contests this year taking place on even remotely competitive terrain, Democrats moved aggressively to ensure that they were not caught by surprise in New Mexico.Ms. Stansbury enjoyed a commanding financial advantage while benefiting from the Democratic tilt of the district, the First Congressional, which President Biden carried by 23 percentage points last year.She also moved to rebut Mr. Moores’s line of attack, broadcasting a commercial that featured a retired sheriff’s deputy and trumpeted her work in the Legislature bringing state dollars for law enforcement back to Albuquerque.Washington-based Republicans, determining that the heavily urban seat was out of reach, did little to help Mr. Moores. Conversely, national Democrats flooded Ms. Stansbury with assistance.Mark Moores speaking in Albuquerque in May. National Republicans did little to help his campaign financially. Sharon Chischilly for The New York TimesGuarding their thin House majority and fearing the political echo of a loss, or narrow victory, in a race centered on law and order, Washington Democrats dispatched Jill Biden, the first lady, and Doug Emhoff, the second gentleman, to appear with Ms. Stansbury in Albuquerque.House Democrats and their allies in the nation’s capital also showered their nominee in New Mexico with an infusion of money in the final weeks of the race, enabling her to overwhelm Mr. Moores on the television airwaves.Ms. Stansbury raised nearly $1.2 million in the last reporting period, from April 1 to May 12, while Mr. Moores brought in just $344,000 in the same period.Mr. Moores made little attempt to hide his frustration at the lack of national assistance, but congressional Republicans said it would have been a waste of resources to spend significant money in a district that has been held by a Democrat since 2009.In dismissing the race, though, Republicans ceded an opportunity to test just how politically potent the crime issue may prove in the midterm elections next year. With violence dominating the daily headlines in the district, Mr. Moores sought to capitalize on Ms. Stansbury’s support for a little-known bill that would, among other provisions, cut funding to local police departments.She declined to say she regretted supporting the bill, but she largely avoided discussing the subject on the stump, even as she aired the ad emphasizing her efforts to secure funding for law enforcement.After House Democrats were shut out entirely from the runoff in a Republican-tilting special House election in Texas, the New Mexico results were welcome for the party.Representative Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, the chairman of the caucus’s campaign arm, traveled to Albuquerque on Tuesday to join the celebration and to claim a share of credit for retaining Ms. Haaland’s seat.“New Mexico voters chose a leader with the grit and determination to deliver results and rejected the tired Republican tactics of lies and fear-mongering,” Mr. Maloney said after Ms. Stansbury’s victory. More