Elections

Democratic candidates are pushing back on plans to have another online debate, saying New Yorkers “deserve and need to see the candidates debate in person.”Baseball fans are back at Yankee Stadium. Workers are returning to offices in Manhattan. Vaccinated New Yorkers are abandoning their masks as summer weather arrives in the city.But the second major Democratic debate for mayor will be virtual again.The first major debate, on May 13, was virtual, a format that some candidates and viewers found too restrictive. Now six of the Democratic candidates in the New York City mayor’s race are pushing back, sending a letter to the city’s Campaign Finance Board on Wednesday to demand that their next debate be held in person. It was signed by several front-runners, including Andrew Yang, the former presidential hopeful, and Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio.“New Yorkers face one of the most consequential elections in history, and they deserve and need to see the candidates debate in person,” the letter said.The first major Republican debate, scheduled for next Wednesday, will be virtual; so will the second Democratic debate on June 2, which is being hosted by the local ABC station in New York.The board said the Democratic debate could not be held in person because of health protocols at ABC’s studio. One challenge, it said, is that there are at least eight Democrats who qualified for the debate and it would be difficult to space them apart.In the letter, the candidates said they care about safety as the city recovers from the pandemic, and there was a way to hold the debate safely in person, including social distancing, no studio audience and having the candidates get tested for Covid-19 within 48 hours before the debate.A spokeswoman for the station, Elita Adjei, said it was looking for a way to accommodate the candidates’ request and would “review our options and report back.”“The team here is working diligently to determine what’s possible for our station to ensure the safety of our employees and anyone entering the studio, which is always our number one priority,” she said. The letter from the candidates was also signed by Scott Stringer, the city comptroller; Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner; Raymond J. McGuire, a former Wall Street executive; and Shaun Donovan, the former federal housing secretary. Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, and Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, did not sign the letter, though both of their campaigns expressed support for the idea of holding the debate in person. A spokesman for Mr. Adams, who is leading in the polls along with Mr. Yang, said Mr. Adams would prefer to debate in person, but supports whatever decision the Campaign Finance Board makes.In the Republican race, the candidates were also frustrated. Fernando Mateo, a restaurant operator and advocate for livery drivers, said virtual debates were inferior.“There’s nothing like being in the ring with your opponent,” he said. Curtis Sliwa, a founder of the Guardian Angels group that patrols the subway to monitor crime, suggested holding the first Republican debate on the roof of Chelsea Market above NY1’s television studios.“The fear, fright and hysteria over Covid-19 must end,” he said. “This may be the only issue that I and my Democratic opponents agree on.”During the first major Democratic debate, the eight candidates appeared in a grid of boxes that were reminiscent of “The Brady Bunch.” They were able to joust a bit while seated in front of their computers, though one of the hosts threatened to mute them for speaking out of turn..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Most of the candidates are fully vaccinated, and they want to dive into the issues — and attack their rivals — in person after a long winter of Zoom forums when coronavirus cases were raging. Mr. Yang and Ms. Wiley in particular appear eager to use their experience appearing on cable news to try to outshine their opponents.On Wednesday, New York lifted many capacity restrictions on businesses, and vaccinated people no longer have to wear masks, indoors or outdoors, in most circumstances. Some have called for the debates to be held outdoors as a compromise, though that could present logistical challenges for the hosts if, for instance, it rained. The website Gothamist solicited ideas for locations on Twitter. New Yorkers had plenty: the plaza at Lincoln Center, Delacorte Theater in Central Park where Shakespeare in the Park is held; the Open Streets corridor on 34th Avenue in Jackson Heights, Queens; and Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx. Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat in his second term, said he liked the idea of an outdoor debate and called it a “clever solution.” “I have the fondest memories as a proud Italian-American of being in the piazza in my grandfather’s hometown and many other places I’ve been in Italy and where there’s a real public square and people gather,” the mayor said on Wednesday.For now, the Campaign Finance Board said its top priority was keeping the candidates and organizers safe and healthy ahead of the June 22 primary. “A debate stage must accommodate all of the qualifying candidates (eight, so far) while adhering to safety guidelines,” Matt Sollars, a spokesman for the board, said in a statement. “The C.F.B. will do everything we can to support our partners in producing safe, engaging debates.”At least one group is planning to hold a candidates’ forum in person, on June 7: the 92nd Street Y. Safety precautions will be in place, including requiring attendees to wear face masks and get a temperature check. More

We asked 10 candidates what they viewed as their central proposals. They named plans to offer cash relief to poor New Yorkers, child care grants and more.When Bill de Blasio ran for mayor of New York City in 2013, he was able to successfully distill his campaign into one big idea: creating universal prekindergarten. It reflected his larger theme of reducing inequality, and it was a promise he was able to deliver on not long after taking office.The large field of candidates running for mayor this year have plenty of ideas, from cash relief to property tax reform. But there is not, as of yet, one bold proposal that stands out in a similar way.“You’ve seen a stunning lack of original, big thinking from the candidates,” said Eric Phillips, a former press secretary for Mr. de Blasio.The mayor’s race is widely viewed as the most critical New York City election in a generation as voters choose a leader to guide the pandemic recovery. But weakened tax revenues could make it difficult to start ambitious new programs.Ahead of the June 22 primary, The New York Times asked eight leading Democrats and two Republicans to describe their one big idea for the city.Andrew Yang wants to offer some poor New Yorkers $2,000 per yearAndrew Yang, the former presidential hopeful, has perhaps the most memorable proposal: A pared-down version of the universal basic income plan that he championed during the 2020 presidential campaign.But instead of offering every American $1,000 a month, he proposes giving less than one-tenth of New Yorkers $2,000 on average per year.Still, Mr. Yang says his plan would be the “largest local cash relief effort in the country,” though he is still trying to figure out how exactly to pay for it.“We need to get cash in the hands of New Yorkers who need it most if we want our city to come back stronger than ever,” he said.The program would cost $1 billion per year, and Mr. Yang suggested that the city could offset some of that by closing tax loopholes for large institutions like Madison Square Garden and Columbia University.Eric Adams wants to create the ‘People’s Plan’Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, is proposing a “People’s Plan” with three components: tax credits for poor New Yorkers, free and low-cost child care for children under 3, and an app called MyCity to apply for benefits like food stamps.Under Mr. Adams’ tax credit plan, which he is calling NYC AID, poor families would receive about $3,000 per year.He also wants to give child care providers space in buildings owned by the city and offer developers incentives for charging them low rents.“Nothing holds back a woman’s opportunity to move up in business or to be employed than the lack of child care in this city,” Mr. Adams said. “That is devastating families.”The tax credit plan would cost about $1 billion a year. He said he would pay for it by cutting 3 to 5 percent of costs across city agencies, reducing the city work force, and increasing taxes on “ultramillionaires.”Scott Stringer wants to expand affordable housingScott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, has a plan to offer what he’s calling “universal affordable housing.”He wants to require new apartment buildings with more than 10 units to make 25 percent of them affordable to low- and middle-income families. And he wants to convert nearly 3,000 vacant lots owned by the city into affordable housing run by nonprofit groups.“The big real estate developers hate this plan — and for me, that’s a badge of honor,” Mr. Stringer said.His housing plan would cost about $1.6 billion per year. He would pay for it with a so-called pied-à-terre tax on luxury second homes and by reducing the need for homeless services, among other measures.Multiple candidates cited plans to strengthen child care and make it more affordable.Kirsten Luce for The New York TimesMaya Wiley wants to make child and elder care more affordableMaya Wiley, a former counsel to Mr. de Blasio, has a universal community care plan to offer 100,000 families a $5,000 annual grant to care for children and older people.The plan includes building “Community Care Centers” that would provide free child care, job training and activities for seniors, with a goal of reaching 300,000 New Yorkers in the first year.“As mayor, I will help us create a caring economy, where we invest in families through child care grants, so families can take care of themselves,” she said.Ms. Wiley wants to pay for the program, which would cost about $500 million, through local and federal funding, including by freezing the hiring of police and correction officers for two years.Dianne Morales wants to create a ‘community first responders department’Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, has excited left-leaning voters with her plan to defund the police.Ms. Morales wants to cut the $6 billion annual police budget in half and spend some of that money to create a “Community First Responders Department” to address homelessness and mental health crises.Ms. Morales said that the police could not continue to “profile, criminalize, and kill Black people with abandon.”“We need to keep the police out of interactions where their presence is likely to do more harm than good,” she said.Kathryn Garcia wants to cut down on bureaucracyKathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner, says her overarching priority is to “make government work.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}She wants to cut homelessness in half and make repairs to public housing, and she would reform the city’s permitting system for small businesses.Ms. Garcia said she thought some candidates were promising programs the city could not afford, and that others knew very little about procurement.“The truth is, the radical big idea that New Yorkers desperately want is simple: Cut the bureaucratic nonsense and actually make city government work equally for everyone,” she said.Ray McGuire wants to use a ‘comeback plan’ to create jobsRaymond J. McGuire, a former Wall Street executive, has proposed a “comeback plan” that includes subsidies, tax relief and a jobs program.His “job accelerator” would cover half the salary for workers for one year at small businesses that suffered during the pandemic. He also wants to work with state leaders to let small businesses keep a portion of the sales tax they collect for one year.“We have one shot to get this right,” Mr. McGuire said. “If we don’t succeed in putting New Yorkers back to work then no amount of subsidy or spending on social programs is going to make a dent on the catastrophic consequences of mass unemployment.”His plan would cost about $1.8 billion over two years. He would pay for it through federal stimulus funds and by possibly reversing some of Mr. de Blasio’s budget commitments and making other budget cuts.Shaun Donovan wants to create ‘15-minute neighborhoods’Shaun Donovan, the former federal housing secretary, has offered so many plans — roughly 200 pages of them — that he jokes that choosing a favorite is like choosing between his sons.His top priorities are “equity bonds” — giving $1,000 to every child, and up to $2,000 per year, to help close the wealth gap for poor families — and “15-minute neighborhoods,” where every New Yorker would have access to good schools, transit and parks within 15 minutes of their home.“Not all New York City neighborhoods are created equal, and many New Yorkers lack adequate access to basic necessities like fresh food, quality health care, and reliable transportation,” Mr. Donovan said.Mr. Donovan said the neighborhood plan would require zoning changes and tax incentives to support private investment. Transit upgrades would be paid for by so-called value capture on real estate development and a tax on marijuana sales. Curtis Sliwa wants to reform property taxesCurtis Sliwa, a founder of the Guardian Angels who is running as a Republican, wants to reform property taxes and use the money to hire more than 3,000 additional police officers.Like Mr. Yang, he wants to make institutions like Madison Square Garden pay more taxes. He also wants to cap property tax rates and assess properties at their actual fair market value, among other measures.The city’s method of calculating property taxes has long allowed owners of multimillion-dollar brownstones in Brooklyn and high-rise co-ops by Central Park to pay less in taxes than working-class homeowners in the South Bronx, relative to the value of their properties.“My comprehensive property tax reform plan will finally deliver a fair, transparent property tax system to New York City and will generate enough new revenue to fully re-fund our police,” he said.Fernando Mateo wants to achieve ‘universal teen employment’Fernando Mateo, a restaurant operator who is also running as a Republican, said his big idea was a voluntary year-round jobs program for teenagers, ages 14 to 18, called “Alpha Track.”Mr. Mateo said he dropped out of school at 14, and that he wanted to improve the drop-out rate and prevent teenagers from getting into trouble.“This is about getting them out of their community and exposing them to what New York is all about — exposing them to corporate America, city agencies and small businesses,” he said. More

Supporters and opponents of abortion rights say a major ruling just before the midterm elections could upend political calculations for the two parties.WASHINGTON — Within hours of the Supreme Court accepting a case that could lead it to overturn or scale back a landmark abortion rights ruling, Senator Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat facing re-election next year, issued a dire warning to supporters: The fate of Roe v Wade is on the line.“We cannot move backwards,” Mr. Bennet said in a campaign statement. “Colorado was a leader in legalizing abortion — six years before Roe v Wade. I will always fight for reproductive justice and to ensure everyone has safe and legal access to the health care they need.”His declaration was among the first in a quickly intensifying clash over abortion, long a defining issue to many voters but one likely to gain additional prominence as the court weighs the possibility of rolling back the constitutional protections it provided to abortion rights in Roe 48 years ago.Motivated in part by a belief that the Supreme Court will give them new latitude to restrict access, Republican-dominated states continue to adopt strict new legislation, with Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signing into law on Wednesday a prohibition on abortions after as early as six weeks. The law, sure to face legal challenges, is one of more than 60 new state-level restrictions enacted this year, with many more pending.With the Supreme Court ruling likely to come next year — less than six months before midterm elections that will determine control of Congress and the future of President Biden’s agenda — the court’s expanded conservative majority has injected new volatility into an already turbulent political atmosphere, leaving both parties to game out the potential consequences.Republicans had already shown that they intended to take aim at Democrats over social issues, and abortion will only amplify the culture wars.Nearly all agree that the latest fight over Roe, which has been building for years, is certain to have significant political repercussions. Conservative voters are traditionally more energized than liberals about the abortion debate, and for many of them it has been the single issue spurring voter turnout.But Democrats, likely to be on the defensive given their current hold on the White House and Congress, say a ruling broadly restricting abortion rights by a court whose ideological makeup has been altered by three Trump-era appointees could backfire on Republicans and galvanize women.“Outlawing Roe would create a backlash that would have critical unintended consequences for those who would like to repeal it,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire and a leading voice in Congress for abortion rights. “The women of the country would be very upset, particularly young women, that there would be such a deliberate effort to limit women’s access to reproductive choices.”Those on the right, already anticipating a favorable ruling given the conservative tilt of the 6-3 court, say they expect liberals to seize on the issue to try to “scare” voters. But they believe they can make a case for “reasonable” abortion limits.“This is clearly going to invigorate people on both sides of the debate, but this is a winning issue for pro-life candidates,” said Mallory Quigley, a spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony List, a conservative nonprofit.She said she did not expect conservative voting enthusiasm to ebb if the right triumphed at the Supreme Court, an outcome that would bring to fruition years of emphasis on electing anti-abortion lawmakers at the federal and state levels and working aggressively to confirm conservative judges.“What happened on Monday is evidence that elections have consequences,” Ms. Quigley said, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision to take a case about a Mississippi law that seeks to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — about two months earlier than Roe and subsequent decisions allow.Anti-abortion activists in the Texas State Capitol in Austin in March.  Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed into law one of the country’s most restrictive abortion measures.Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman, via Associated PressThe Supreme Court action may have political ramifications before next year. The case is likely to be argued weeks before Virginia voters head to the polls in November to elect a new governor in a race often seen as a midterm bellwether. Terry McAuliffe, a former governor and most likely the Democratic nominee, is eager for another political battle over abortion rights, rattling off his record protecting clinics in the state and vetoing legislation that would impose restrictions.“This is going to be a huge motivator,” he said in an interview. “In 2013, I promised women I would be a brick wall to protect their rights. And I will be a brick wall again.”Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, downplayed the potential effect of the court ruling, though he said that as an abortion opponent he welcomed the court taking up the case. But Mr. Scott said he believed voters would be more persuaded by what he described as the Biden administration’s failings on issues such as immigration, the economy, taxes, inflation and more.While the lines have always been starkly drawn on abortion into the pro and anti camps, public opinion has proved more nuanced, with a clear majority backing Roe but majorities also favoring some limits. How the Supreme Court comes down on the fine points of abortion law could determine how the issue plays in the elections.“Considering the decision will likely be made five months ahead of the election, and depending on the decision itself, it’s too early to measure its ultimate impact on the midterms,” said Nathan Gonzales, the editor of the nonpartisan Inside Elections. Mr. Gonazales said it could conceivably energize Republicans but also pay benefits for Democrats — a view shared by others.President Donald J. Trump helped inspire record turnout last year from Democratic voters, who were eager to reject his administration. With Mr. Trump no longer on the ballot, many Democrats say the Supreme Court case could provide crucial midterm motivation, particularly for suburban women in swing districts who were instrumental in Democratic wins last year.Katie Paris, the founder of Red, Wine and Blue, a group focused on organizing suburban female voters for Democrats across the country, said the Supreme Court news immediately touched off alarm on the Facebook groups and other social media channels run by her organization.“When the news came out that this was going to be taken up, it was like, ‘Everybody get ready. This is real,’” she said. “We know what this court could do, and if they do it, the backlash will be severe.”Tresa Undem, a pollster who specializes in surveys on gender issues, said that abortion rights would continue to be an effective cause for Democrats because voters link it to larger concerns about power and control that motivated female voters during the Trump administration.“Democrats and independents have felt a loss of control and power from people at the top,” said Ms. Undem, who has conducted polling for several abortion rights organizations. “Now you have six individuals who are going to make these decisions about your body in this personal area that will affect the rest of your life.”Mr. Bennet said he could not predict the political implications of the court taking on abortion, but he wanted to alert his supporters that something of consequence was at hand.“There are a lot of people who have worked for a long time to overturn Roe v. Wade, and that is what is at stake,” he said. “I think people needed to hear that in the wake of the Supreme Court taking this case from Mississippi.” More

MADRID — La determinación diplomática de José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero en Venezuela es inversamente proporcional a sus logros. Tras 40 viajes y seis años de misión, el expresidente español no está más cerca de frenar la deriva autoritaria del régimen o de aliviar la situación de los venezolanos. Tampoco le queda ya crédito mediador. Llegó el momento de agradecerle los servicios prestados y pedirle que dé un paso a un lado.No hay motivo para dudar de la sinceridad de Zapatero en su propósito de recuperar la convivencia democrática en Venezuela. Pero tampoco los hay para creer que haya regresado de sus viajes con nada salvo una valiosa lección sobre cómo no negociar con el autoritarismo. Su estrategia de apaciguamiento y diplomacia cándida ha ofrecido a Nicolas Maduro legitimidad sin apenas contraprestaciones, una combinación conveniente para un líder decidido a perpetuarse en el poder.Más allá de las simpatías y rechazos que genera, Zapatero es un político tolerante que impulsó importantes derechos sociales en España y ha mantenido una respetuosa distancia con la política doméstica tras su paso por el poder. Pero su legado internacional como estadista —el nacional quedó dañado por su gestión de los primeros años de la Gran Recesión— ha sido malogrado por la falta de neutralidad en la búsqueda de soluciones. No supo ver la fina línea que separa, al tratar con un autócrata, la utilidad de ser utilizado.El último viaje del expresidente español a Venezuela, a principios de mes, tenía el propósito de fomentar el deshielo entre Maduro y el gobierno estadounidense de Joe Biden, en un intento de reducir las sanciones internacionales. El líder chavista, enfundado en el disfraz de líder conciliador, se muestra dispuesto, de un tiempo a esta parte, a dialogar con quienes declaró sus enemigos, fuera y dentro del país. Entre sus guiños se incluye la designación de un nuevo Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE) con presencia no mayoritaria de la oposición y la medida de casa por cárcel otorgada a seis exejecutivos de Citgo —cinco de ellos ciudadanos estadounidenses—, filial de PDVSA en Estados Unidos. Todo sería más creíble si cesara el asalto a las instituciones, la perversión de las reglas democráticas y la persecución de los críticos, confirmada la semana pasada con el embargo de la sede del diario El Nacional.Frente a quienes desconfían de Maduro está la posición de Zapatero, favorable a concederle el beneficio de la duda las veces que haga falta. El político español ha legitimado en el pasado las elecciones ganadas con ventajismo autoritario por el chavismo e interpreta el conflicto desde una falsa equidistancia entre el régimen y quienes lo padecen. Entre sus logros quedan las liberaciones puntuales de presos políticos, que no detuvieron la represión ni fueron seguidas de una apertura sincera.Zapatero dinamitó en estos seis años su credibilidad ante los actores clave del conflicto venezolano, incluidos Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y su propio país, España, cuyo gobierno se ha distanciado en varias ocasiones de lo que considera iniciativas personales. La desconfianza es aún mayor en la oposición venezolana, donde el expresidente español hace tiempo que es visto como un obstáculo para la democracia en Venezuela. “Zapatero intenta blanquear la dictadura”, decía en una entrevista reciente Juan Guaidó.El líder opositor exagera al darle esa intencionalidad a las acciones de Zapatero. Y, sin embargo, el político socialista comparte responsabilidad en que sea percibido más como el ministro de Exteriores de Maduro que como un mediador neutral. Pudo aprovechar su acceso al régimen para hacer entender a sus dirigentes que debían ganarse con hechos la creación de un escenario de diálogo internacional. No lo logró y Guaidó ha delegado ahora en mediadores noruegos, más creíbles e independientes, la interlocución con Maduro.Cualquier concesión al régimen debe condicionarse al establecimiento de una ruta democrática y verificable, cuyo primer paso sería la convocatoria de elecciones libres. El nuevo CNE, que organizará los comicios regionales y locales del 21 de noviembre, sigue teniendo una mayoría de miembros chavistas: creer en su independencia exige un incondicional acto de fe. Lo cierto es que, con las principales instituciones del país bajo control gubernamental, incluido el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Maduro no está en condiciones de ofrecer garantías democráticas. La única alternativa viable es poner el sistema electoral venezolano, de forma temporal, en manos de un organismo internacional independiente.Varias entidades de las Naciones Unidas ofrecen esa posibilidad a los Estados donde los adversarios políticos son incapaces de reconocer un resultado. En 1999, asistí en Timor Oriental a una de esas votaciones, que tienen la ventaja de ofrecer resultados vinculantes e indisputables. Ante la incapacidad de Indonesia de organizar un referéndum por la independencia con las mínimas garantías, funcionarios de la ONU se hicieron cargo de todos los pasos, desde la impresión de las papeletas al recuento.Maduro podría ofrecer una oportunidad a la ONU para hacer creíble su promesa de respetar la voluntad popular. Es pronto para saber si la nueva actitud conciliadora del líder chavista es una trampa o un intento sincero de cambio. Lo seguro es que la segunda opción pasa irremediablemente por una acción diplomática coordinada, coherente y decidida de la comunidad internacional, con Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea al frente. En ese nuevo escenario, y una vez aprendidas las lecciones de los últimos años, Zapatero debería aceptar que su etapa venezolana se agotó. La mejor ayuda que podría prestar es hacerse a un lado.David Jiménez (@DavidJimenezTW) es escritor y periodista de España. Su libro más reciente es El director. More

The vote was a victory for Democrats, who were joined by 35 Republicans in pushing for a full accounting of the deadly riot. But Mitch McConnell voiced opposition, clouding Senate prospects.WASHINGTON — A sharply divided House voted on Wednesday to create an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol assault, overcoming opposition from Republicans determined to stop a high-profile accounting of the deadly pro-Trump riot.But even as the legislation passed the House, top Republicans locked arms in an effort to doom it in the Senate and shield former President Donald J. Trump and their party from new scrutiny of their roles in the events of that day.The 252-to-175 vote in the House, with four-fifths of Republicans opposed, pointed to the difficult path for the proposal in the Senate. Thirty-five Republicans bucked their leadership to back the bill.The vote came hours after Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, declared his opposition to the plan. Mr. McConnell had said just a day earlier that he was open to voting for it, and he had previously been vocal both in condemning Mr. Trump’s role in instigating the assault and denouncing the effort by some Republicans on Jan. 6 to block certification of the 2020 election results.His reversal reflected broader efforts by the party to put the assault on the Capitol behind them politically — or to recast the rioting as a largely peaceful protest — under pressure from Mr. Trump and because of concerns about the issue dogging them into the 2022 midterm elections.Proponents hailed the move to establish the commission as an ethical and practical necessity to fully understand the most violent attack on Congress in two centuries and the election lies by Mr. Trump that fueled it. Modeled after the body that studied the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the 10-person commission would take an inquiry out of the halls of Congress and deliver findings by Dec. 31.“I was on the Capitol floor, the speaker was in the chair and a howling mob attacked the United States Capitol,” Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of a committee already studying the attack, said in an animated appeal before the vote. She reminded colleagues of the “pounding on the doors” and the “maimed police officers.”“We need to get to the bottom of this to not just understand what happened leading up to the Sixth, but how to prevent that from happening again — how to protect the oldest democracy in the world in the future,” Ms. Lofgren said.But the prospects for Senate passage dimmed substantially after Mr. McConnell joined his House counterpart, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, and Mr. Trump in panning the proposal drafted by Democrats and a moderate House Republican as overly partisan and duplicative of continuing Justice Department criminal prosecutions and narrow congressional investigations.“After careful consideration, I’ve made the decision to oppose the House Democrats’ slanted and unbalanced proposal for another commission to study the events of Jan. 6,” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor.Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, who had earlier said he was open to backing the commission, came out against it on Wednesday.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesMany rank-and-file Republican senators who had flirted with backing the commission idea quickly fell in line, as well, arguing that the proposal was not truly bipartisan and that the investigation would take too long and learn too little. Their positions made it less likely that Democrats could win over the 10 Republican votes they would need to reach the 60-vote threshold required for passage of the bill in the evenly divided Senate.Republican leaders, who witnessed the events of Jan. 6 and fled for their lives as an armed mob overtook their workplace, had briefly considered supporting the commission out of a sense of fairness. The 9/11 commission was adopted nearly unanimously two decades ago, and its work was widely heralded.Their final opposition pointed to a colder political calculation now driving Republicans’ approach to 2022: that it is better to avoid a potentially uncontrollable reckoning centered on Mr. Trump and the false claims of voter fraud he continues to promulgate.“I want our midterm message to be about the kinds of issues that the American people are dealing with — it’s jobs and wages and the economy, national security, safe streets, strong borders and those types of issues,” said Senator John Thune of South Dakota, Mr. McConnell’s No. 2. “Not relitigating the 2020 election.”Coming after a bipartisan negotiation that had been sanctioned by Mr. McCarthy, the outcome was dispiriting to those who felt that Mr. Trump’s exit from the public stage and the realities of an attack on the seat of government might help ease the strained relations between Republicans and Democrats.The two parties are expected to deadlock again on Thursday when Democrats call a vote on a $1.9 billion spending plan to harden the Capitol’s defenses four months after at least five people died in connection with the invasion, which also injured nearly 140 people and caused tens of millions of dollars in damage to the Capitol complex.Democrats were furious. They had agreed to several concessions to Mr. McCarthy under the belief he would support the deal, only to see him slam it publicly because it did not study unrelated “political violence” on the left. Some Democrats said the episode only underscored to them that it was pointless to negotiate with the Republicans on any of the big issues that divide the parties, including President Biden’s infrastructure proposal.In the House, Democratic leaders threatened to pursue a more partisan investigation of Jan. 6 through existing congressional committees or by creating a new select committee if the commission proposal dies.Democratic lawmakers, and even some Republicans, speculated that Mr. McCarthy’s reticence could have been driven in part by an effort to prevent damaging information about his own conversations with Mr. Trump around Jan. 6 from coming to light at a time when he is trying to help his party retake the House and become speaker.“You’ll have to ask them what they are afraid of,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told reporters. “But it sounds like they are afraid of the truth, and that is most unfortunate.”Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, vowed to call a vote on the Senate floor in the coming weeks to force Republicans to take a public position, though he did not offer a specific date.“The American people will see for themselves whether our Republican friends stand on the side of truth or on the side of Donald Trump’s big lie,” he said.During debate on the House floor, Republicans who supported the panel repeatedly sought to frame it as a reprise of the 9/11 commission, whose leaders endorsed the new effort. Though the Senate impeachment trial and a handful of congressional committees have already produced a detailed account of that day, key questions remain unanswered, particularly about Mr. Trump’s conduct and the roots of intelligence and security failures.“Make no mistake about it, this is about facts, it’s not partisan politics,” said Representative John Katko, Republican of New York, who negotiated the legislation creating the commission with Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi.Representative Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday at the Capitol. He has panned the proposal as overly partisan and duplicative of continuing Justice Department criminal prosecutions and narrow congressional investigations.Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times“Jan. 6 is going to haunt this institution for a long, long time,” said Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, another Republican who voted in favor of establishing the commission. “Five months later, we still don’t have answers to the basic questions: who knew what when, and what did they do about it?”Among the Republicans voting in favor of the commission were a familiar group of moderates and stalwart critics of Mr. Trump, many of whom either voted to impeach him over the Jan. 6 attack or otherwise condemned his actions. The most notable was Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who was run out of the party leadership last week because she refused to stop criticizing Mr. Trump for his attempts to overturn the election.But supporters also counted a wider cast of established Republicans from conservative-leaning districts who, despite the politics, were rattled by the attack and want a thorough study.Among those voting no was Representative Greg Pence, Republican of Indiana and the brother of former Vice President Mike Pence, whose opposition to blocking certification of the election results made him one of the principal targets of the pro-Trump rioters, some of whom erected a gallows outside the Capitol. In a statement, Representative Pence said Ms. Pelosi was trying to appoint herself “hanging judge” to carry out a “predetermined political execution of Donald Trump.”The level of Republican defections on Wednesday’s vote was embarrassing for Mr. McCarthy at a time when he has vowed to unite the party, and few Republicans were willing to defend their opposition during debate. Allies of Mr. Katko were particularly incensed that the minority leader deputized him to make a deal and then cut him loose when he did.Democrats sought to further embarrass Republicans by circulating an unusual letter by Capitol Police officers expressing “profound disappointment” with Mr. McCarthy and Mr. McConnell.“It is unconscionable to even think anyone could suggest we need to move forward and get over it,” the officers wrote in the unsigned letter.In the Senate, a small group of moderate Republicans suggested on Wednesday they were still interested in pursuing a commission, albeit with changes to how staff members would be appointed. But Mr. McConnell left very little possibility that his leadership team could get to yes.Mr. McConnell had emerged from Jan. 6 as one of Mr. Trump’s most outspoken Republican critics, pinning blame squarely on him for losing the House, Senate and White House and inspiring the most deadly attack on Congress in 200 years. But in the months since, as Mr. Trump has reasserted control over the party, Mr. McConnell has been increasingly reluctant to stir his ire.On Wednesday, he insisted that he believed in getting to the bottom of what happened, but he argued that investigations already underway by the Justice Department and bipartisan Senate committees were sufficient. In reality, the scope of that work is likely to be much narrower than what a commission could study.“The facts have come out,” Mr. McConnell said, “and they will continue to come out.” More

The House of Representatives has voted in favor of a bill that would create a 9/11-style commission to investigate the deadly attack on the Capitol in January. The vote fell largely along party lines, with 35 Republicans joining Democrats in passing the measure. However, 175 Republicans voted against the bill, as Republican leaders endeavored to put the deadly 6 January attack behind them, and reframe the riot as a protest.Donald Trump, who was impeached by the House for a second time earlier this year for inciting the mob that stormed the Capitol, had criticized the effort to establish a commission and urged GOP leaders to block what he characterized as a “Democrat trap”.It is unclear whether the legislation can make it through the evenly divided Senate, after the top Republican senator Mitch McConnell, who initially signaled openness to the bill, announced on Wednesday that he would not support it.“It’s not at all clear what new facts or additional investigation yet another commission could actually lay on top of existing efforts by law enforcement and Congress,” McConnell said earlier on Wednesday. His remarks followed Trump’s criticism of the bill.Democrats would need to win 10 Republican votes without his backing.“It sounds like they are afraid of the truth, and that’s most unfortunate, but hopefully they’ll get used to the idea that the American people want us to find the truth,” Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said as she sharply criticized Republicans for opposing the bill.Three Republicans spoke in favor of the legislation: John Katko, Fred Upton and Peter Meijer. All were among the 10 who had voted days after the attack to impeach Trump for encouraging his supporters to attack the Capitol.Katko, the Republican ranking member of the House homeland security committee who helped craft the bill to form a bipartisan commission to study the 6 January insurrection, had urged his fellow Republicans to support the proposal.“I strongly believe this is a fair and necessary legislation,” Katko said in a House floor speech on Wednesday. “I encourage all members, Republicans and Democrats alike, to put down their swords for once, just for once and support this bill.”Katko is one of the 10 House Republicans who supported impeaching Trump for inciting the insurrection in January. Another one of those 10 Republicans, Fred Upton, said in a speech that he would also support the bill.“6 January is going to haunt this institution for a long, long time,” he said.Republicans in leadership have repeatedly downplayed the violence of 6 January, which left five people dead and saw rioters beat police, storm into the Capitol building and threaten lawmakers.The family of US Capitol police officer Howard “Howie” Liebengood, who died by suicide days after the insurrection, also issued a statement urging members to support the bill. Liebengood was one of two US Capitol police officers who died later in the immediate wake of the attack.“We believe a thorough, non-partisan investigation into the root causes of and the response to the 6 January riot is essential for our nation to move forward,” Liebengood’s family members said in their statement, which was released by their congresswoman, Democrat Jennifer Wexton.“Howie’s death was an immediate outgrowth of those events. Every officer who worked that day, as well as their families, should have a better understanding of what happened. Uncovering the facts will help our nation heal and may lessen the lingering emotional bitterness that has divided our country. We implore Congress to work as one and establish the proposed commission.”However, McConnell said he would oppose the bipartisan bill when it comes up for a Senate vote, calling it a “slanted and unbalanced proposal”.Echoing previous comments from House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, McConnell argued that the existing investigations into the insurrection rendered the commission unnecessary.Trump released a statement Tuesday night urging Republicans to oppose the commission, calling it a “Democrat trap.”The bill the House voted on was not the original Democratic proposal but rather a compromise measure crafted by Democrat Bennie Thompson and Katko. Katko won some key concessions. For example, the commission would be evenly divided between the two parties, whereas Democrats’ original proposal gave them a slight advantage on the panel.“Shame on the Republicans for choosing the ‘big lie’ over the truth – not all Republicans, but the majority who seem to be doing it,” the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.“Shame on them for defending the mob over our Capitol police officers and shame on the House Republican leadership for punishing Republicans who tell the truth, instead of those who poisoned faith in our democracy.”That final comment appeared to be a reference to both Katko, and congresswoman Liz Cheney, who was recently ousted as House GOP conference chair because of her criticism of Trump.Schumer reiterated his pledge that the Senate would hold a vote on the commission bill, despite Republican opposition.“The only way to stop these lies is to respond with the truth, with facts, with an honest objective investigation,” Schumer said.The Associated Press contributed to this report More

New York City has a very important mayoral election this year, which will very probably be decided in the June Democratic primary. Big debate coming up which voters will get to watch on … More

This time, party leaders hope, they won’t be stunned by Republican voters coming out of the woodwork.Democrats control both houses of Congress — but just barely.Cast your mind back to October 2020, and you might remember expecting things to turn out a bit different. Polls suggested that Democratic House candidates were on track to nearly match their historic margins in the 2018 midterms. But that didn’t happen.For the second presidential cycle in a row, Democrats were stunned by the number of voters who came out in support of Donald J. Trump and his Republican allies down the ballot.This week, the House Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, presented the results of an inquiry into the 2020 election, aimed at understanding what had gone askew for the party — and why, after the corrections that pollsters made in the wake of 2016, surveys were still missing the mark.The report came to two interrelated conclusions, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, the campaign committee chairman, said in a phone interview today. One is that Trump voters are disproportionately likely to refuse to take a poll, a conclusion echoed in other post-mortem reports that have recently been released by private Democratic pollsters. The other is that Mr. Trump’s presence on the ballot appears to have driven up turnout among the Republican base.“In 2020, what we realized is that the polling error really equaled Trump turnout,” Mr. Maloney said. “So in polling, you’ve got this mistake in the assumption about what the electorate will look like.”Because support for Mr. Trump lines up with a relative unwillingness to be polled, survey researchers may think they’ve reached the right share of, say, rural-dwelling, white men without college degrees. But in fact what they’ve reached is often a Democratic-skewing segment of that demographic.In 2018, when polls were relatively accurate, this didn’t factor in as much, presumably because the most anti-institutional and anti-polling voters were also those who were likely to turn out only if Mr. Trump himself was on the ballot.In 2020, Mr. Trump’s popularity with a typically low-turnout base meant that an upsurge in turnout actually helped Republicans more than Democrats — a rare occurrence. “Because low-propensity voters turned out for Trump in much higher numbers than our low-propensity voters turned out for us, it ripples through the data and has a big effect,” Mr. Maloney said.He has been through this process before: In 2017, after Mr. Trump’s upset win over Hillary Clinton, the congressman, then in his third term, led an inquiry into what had gone wrong for the Democrats. That work helped put him in position for his current role as the head of the party’s House campaign arm.This time around, he put together a team including campaign consultants, academics and other Democratic members of Congress, and they assembled what he called “a first-of-its-kind national polling database,” drawing from over 600 polls of House races, as well as voter-file and other local-level data.Last year, because Democrats underestimated the extent to which Mr. Trump’s presence on the ballot would drive up Republican turnout, their strategists mistakenly thought that a number of seats that had flipped blue in the 2018 midterms would remain safe in 2020. Six Democrats who had won for the first time in 2018 lost their 2020 races by less than two percentage points.Mr. Maloney said he was only half-swayed by arguments that ascribed a lot of impact to Republican attacks on the “defund the police” movement and “democratic socialism.” He said that the messenger had been far more important than the message.“What you realize is that it is true that the lies and distortions about socialism and ‘defund’ carried a punch — no argument from me,” Mr. Maloney said.“But I think the power of those lies has been exaggerated when you understand that Trump,” he added, was responsible for turning out “a bunch of people who were going into the voting booth.”In next year’s midterms, he said that Republicans would be running a risk if they were counting on Trump-level engagement from base voters, given that his name wouldn’t be on the ballot.“It leads you to ask: Will this post-Trump toxicity of QAnon and conspiracy theories and Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene and the attack on the Capitol — will that message work without Trump’s turnout?” Mr. Maloney said. “The research suggests that they have taken too much comfort in the power of messages that were effective, yes, but that were enormously helped by Trump’s power to turn out voters.”Still, he cautioned against taking comfort in the results of the report, which at the end of the day serves as a reminder of just how out-of-reach an entire swath of the population remains — for mainstream pollsters and Democratic candidates alike.On the tactics front, the report concluded that in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, Democratic spending had been heavily tilted away from grass-roots campaigning and toward TV ads, which mostly ran late in the campaign and ended up doing little to tip things in the party’s favor.Going forward, Mr. Maloney said, he plans to keep the 600-poll database in use. The D.C.C.C. has already been using it in special elections this year to analyze messages for effectiveness.“We think there’s a lot to learn, we’re going to learn as we go, and you’re always building the ship as you’re sailing it,” he said. “In this case it’s important that we apply what we’ve learned to as many contexts as we can.”On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at [email protected]. More