Elections

President Biden’s latest proposal is funded by raising taxes on wealthier Americans, and it is likely to encounter Republican resistance for that reason.WASHINGTON — President Biden’s $1.8 trillion spending and tax plan is aimed at bolstering the United States’ social safety net by expanding access to education, reducing the cost of child care and supporting women in the work force.Like the $2 trillion infrastructure plan that preceded it, Mr. Biden’s latest proposal is funded by raising taxes on wealthier Americans, and it is likely to encounter Republican resistance for that reason.Here’s a look at parts of the president’s spending proposal:Free Pre-K and Community CollegeMr. Biden’s plan promises universal free preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds, as well as two years of free community college for young adults.The plan outlines a $200 billion investment in free universal preschool and another $109 billion over 10 years to make two years of community college free. On top of that, the president is proposing an $85 billion investment in Pell grants, vouchers that low- and moderate-income students use to pay for tuition, fees, books, room and board.The universal free preschool includes children from affluent families. That follows a model that cities like Washington and New York City have used, but some education experts favor programs targeted to helping low-income children.Experts call the plan to fund college education the “biggest expansion in federal support for higher education in at least half a century.”Even though it is broadly popular, free college across 50 states with unique systems and tuition costs, is complicated to carry out. The Biden plan would require states to eliminate tuition for community colleges to receive funding.The president’s pitch is that a high school diploma is no longer enough to ensure success and that making a federal investment in education will increase earnings long term. During the pandemic, unemployed workers without college credentials are having a much harder time finding jobs.Funding for Historically Black Colleges and UniversitiesMr. Biden’s proposal singles out historically Black colleges and universities, known as H.B.C.U.s, as well as institutions that serve members of Native American tribes and other minority groups, for specific funding.Addressing racial equity is a theme that runs through Mr. Biden’s agenda, and the 15-page memo outlining his spending plans notes the extent to which historically Black colleges and universities outperform. While they account for only 3 percent of four-year universities, their graduates account for 80 percent of Black judges and half of Black lawyers and doctors. (Vice President Kamala Harris, the first woman of color to hold the role, is a graduate of Howard University.)Students and alumni gathering at Howard University to celebrate Vice President Kamala Harris’s victory last November.J. Scott Applewhite/Associated PressMr. Biden’s plan calls for $39 billion over the next decade to fund two years of subsidized tuition for students from families earning less than $125,000 enrolled in a four-year program at H.B.C.U.s, or institutions that serve members of Native American tribes or other minority groups.During the 2020 presidential campaign, Mr. Biden promised to invest more than $70 billion in such schools, including $20 billion to build research facilities on their campuses.Affordable Child CareMr. Biden’s plan seeks to invest $225 billion to make child care more affordable and allow parents to stay in the labor force and work outside their homes.The plan would give child care providers funding to maintain small class sizes and classrooms that can help children with disabilities. It would also cover all child care costs for working families who are struggling. Administration officials did not say exactly who would qualify to have all child care costs covered, only that it would be a sliding scaled based on earnings compared with the state’s median income. Under the plan, families earning 1.5 times their state median income would pay no more than 7 percent of their income for child care.The plan also seeks to increase wages of early child care providers, who are by and large women of color who currently earn about $12.24 an hour without any benefits. Mr. Biden’s plan would include a $15 minimum wage for early childhood staff.National Paid LeaveMr. Biden is proposing a $225 billion investment over 10 years to cover a nationally mandated 12 weeks of paid parental, family and personal illness leave. The program seeks to provide workers up to $4,000 a month in paid leave, rising to 80 percent for the lowest wage workers.President Donald J. Trump also called for paid family leave in his State of the Union address last year, the first Republican president to take up what has long been a popular Democratic cause.In contrast to Mr. Biden’s approach, the Republican-backed proposal only covered leave for parents of babies or newly adopted children under 6, excluding care for sick family members or leave for personal medical problems. It also did not propose a new source of funding to pay for it. Instead, people could dip into their own future federal benefits, and receive smaller benefits later.NutritionMr. Biden’s plan proposes $45 billion over the next 10 years to combat food insecurity among children.The program would make permanent a summer food program that allows families eligible for free and reduced-price meals during the school year access to meals during the summer at the same rates. Mr. Biden’s plan allocates more than $25 billion to make the program permanent and available to all 29 million children who receive free and reduced-priced meals.The plan also includes $17 billion to expand healthy school meals at high-poverty schools. The proposals would provide free meals to an additional 9.3 million children, about 70 percent of whom are in elementary school. More

Jean Kim said Mr. Stringer assaulted her when she worked on his campaign 20 years ago and warned her not to tell anyone. He denied the allegation.A woman who said she worked on a 2001 campaign for Scott M. Stringer, the New York City comptroller who is now running for mayor, has accused him of sexually assaulting her 20 years ago.The woman, Jean Kim, now a political lobbyist, said at a news conference on Wednesday that Mr. Stringer, without her consent, “repeatedly groped me, put his hands on my thighs and between my legs and demanded to know why I would not have sex with him.”She said that Mr. Stringer warned her not to tell anyone about his advances, some of which she said took place during taxi rides.Mr. Stringer strenuously denied the allegations, and said that he and Ms. Kim had a consensual relationship over the course of a few months.Roughly two hours after Ms. Kim’s news conference ended, Mr. Stringer convened his own. Standing with his wife outside their Lower Manhattan apartment building Wednesday afternoon, he repeatedly characterized Ms. Kim’s allegations as “false” and “inaccurate.”“Sexual harassment is unacceptable,” he told a gaggle of reporters. “I believe women have the right and should be encouraged to come forward. They must be heard. But this isn’t me. I didn’t do this. I am going to fight for the truth because these allegations are false.”After he spoke, his wife, Elyse Buxbaum, came to the microphone and attested to her husband’s character.Ms. Kim said Mr. Stringer, who was then a state assemblyman running for New York City public advocate, had offered to make her the first Asian Democratic Party district leader on the Upper West Side, with one proviso.“You would have to prove yourself to me,” she recalled Mr. Stringer saying.Ms. Kim said she did not come forward earlier because she was “fearful of his vindictive nature and that he would retaliate against me and destroy my career in politics.” Her lawyer said that Ms. Kim faced less of a risk now that she was transitioning away from political work.Ms. Kim’s account, which was reported by Gothamist, comes roughly eight weeks before the June 22 mayoral primary. In the limited early polling that is available, Mr. Stringer is often in third place, behind Andrew Yang, the 2020 presidential candidate, and just behind Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president.Mr. Stringer denied the allegations on Wednesday, appearing with his wife at a news conference in Manhattan.Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York TimesMr. Stringer’s campaign had recently started to gain more steam, as he won the endorsements of the United Federation of Teachers and the Working Families Party, as well as one of two endorsements from the New York chapter of Sunrise Movement, a group of young climate activists. “The Momentum Continues to Build” was a headline in a recent email his campaign sent to the news media.People who had spoken with Mr. Stringer’s team in recent days described a sense of having turned the corner after months of struggling to break through in a crowded primary field. But among allies and others in touch with his campaign, there was concern that the accusation would damage his chances.Indeed, by late Wednesday, he had lost the backing of State Senator Jessica Ramos, one of the earliest supporters of his mayoral campaign.“I am officially rescinding my endorsement of Scott Stringer for mayor,” she said. “This kind of behavior is unacceptable in any workplace, and those who have perpetrated such acts must be held accountable for their actions, not given bigger platforms.”In Ms. Kim’s remarks on Wednesday, she said that she met Mr. Stringer, who was not married at the time, in 2001, through an introduction by Eric Schneiderman, who was then a state senator. Mr. Schneiderman would go on to become New York State attorney general, before resigning amid allegations that he abused women.Mr. Schneiderman, who admitted to the misconduct, did not return requests for comment.Ms. Kim said that she was an unpaid intern for Mr. Stringer’s 2001 campaign for public advocate; Mr. Stringer later said that she was a campaign volunteer. At some point that year, she joined a West Side Democratic club in which he was involved.Mr. Stringer “inappropriately and relentlessly pursued a sexual relationship with me,” she said, adding in a statement that he “kissed me using his tongue, put his hand down my pants and groped me inside my underpants.”She said she decided to come forward because she was sickened by Mr. Stringer’s run for mayor, and his portrayal of himself as an ally to women.“I am coming forward now because being forced to see him in my living room TV every day, pretending to be a champion for women’s rights, just sickens me when I know the truth,” Ms. Kim said.She called on Mr. Stringer to resign and withdraw from the mayor’s race.Mr. Stringer said his relationship with Ms. Kim was friendly until 2013, when she wanted a job on his campaign for comptroller and did not get one. Mr. Stringer also said that Ms. Kim had donated to his political campaigns..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-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.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;}“Based on my understanding, she did not apply for any job on his 2013 campaign,” said Ms. Kim’s lawyer, Patricia Pastor, who said that it was part of Ms. Kim’s job as a lobbyist to make small donations to candidates.Ms. Kim, seen at a news conference with her lawyer, called on Mr. Stringer to resign as city comptroller and resign from the mayor’s race.Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York TimesStephen Levin, a Brooklyn councilman, said he had known Ms. Kim a long time professionally, and described her as a “a very nice, very good person.”“For someone like Jean, her entire career is in New York City politics,” said Mr. Levin, who is backing one of Mr. Stringer’s opponents, Maya Wiley. “So I have no reason to believe that she’s not telling the truth. Just like in elected office, for a lobbyist, your credibility is the most important thing.”Mr. Stringer, who has spent decades in politics, has cast himself as an ardent progressive in recent years. In the mayoral election, some observers view him as the most viable of the three left-wing options, along with Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, and Ms. Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio.Ms. Morales was the first mayoral candidate to issue a statement condemning Mr. Stringer. She and other candidates — Ms. Wiley; Mr. Adams; Mr. Yang; and the former Wall Street banker Raymond J. McGuire — all expressed solidarity with Ms. Kim.Kathryn Garcia, another mayoral candidate and the former sanitation commissioner, called on Mr. Stringer to drop out of the race. So, too, did Shaun Donovan, a mayoral candidate and former federal housing secretary.Ms. Garcia noted that Mr. Stringer backs a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment and that in March, he called for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who is facing several sexual harassment allegations, to resign.Mr. Stringer said that he believed his situation bore no resemblance to Mr. Cuomo’s.“The allegations against Governor Cuomo are serious and multiple and they are in the workplace,” Mr. Stringer said. “I don’t think we are in the same situation.”Several supporters of Mr. Stringer’s mayoral campaign — State Senators Alessandra Biaggi and Julia Salazar and Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou — issued a joint statement demanding “accountability.”“As survivors of childhood sexual assault, we believe survivors,” they said. “Our commitment to a harassment-free government, workplace, and society is steadfast, and our zero tolerance standard regarding sexual assault applies to abusers like Andrew Cuomo, if not more so, to our friends.”State Senator Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat, said that she had dealt with Ms. Kim in a professional capacity.“I was surprised and disturbed,” said Ms. Krueger, who has not yet endorsed a candidate in the mayor’s race. “There’s no reason for me not to think of Ms. Kim as a credible person.”“Maybe it’s time for us to stop voting for men,” she added. More

Brendan Hunt said videos and social media posts calling for the slaughter of congressional Democrats were just jokes. Jurors were not convinced.Brendan Hunt was struggling to find success as an actor in New York City when he discovered another way to become famous.He began to film conspiracy theory videos about the Sept. 11 attacks and other mass killings, building an audience over many years. He posted anti-Semitic propaganda, and branded himself as a free speech warrior. He eventually became a fan of President Donald J. Trump.But during the pandemic, Mr. Hunt’s tone escalated. The tipping point came on Jan. 8, two days after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, when Mr. Hunt published a video urging Mr. Trump’s supporters to kill Democratic politicians. A viewer notified the F.B.I., and Mr. Hunt was arrested in January.On Wednesday, after a weeklong trial in Brooklyn, a jury concluded that Mr. Hunt’s words were not protected by the First Amendment. He was found guilty of making a threat to kill members of Congress, a federal crime that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.Although Mr. Hunt did not travel to Washington on the day of the Capitol riot, his criminal trial was the first one in the country that required jurors to weigh the events of Jan. 6 in their verdict. Jurors watched footage from the attack and heard the testimony of a Capitol Police officer.Mr. Hunt’s rhetoric, prosecutors said, had to be viewed in the context of the Capitol riot.“Many watched the video clips from the Capitol in horror, but the defendant was inspired,” said Ian Richardson, an assistant U.S. attorney, in his closing statement. “He watched the events of Jan. 6, and he wanted more, more violence, more bloodshed.”Mr. Hunt’s lawyers, Jan Rostal and Leticia Olivera, argued at trial that all of his statements were strongly worded political opinions, not specific and targeted threats.People like Mr. Hunt have long posed a challenge for law enforcement officials, who sift through violent threats online to determine which ones are worthy of criminal prosecution and which ones are protected speech. Mr. Hunt was arrested on Jan. 19, the day before President Biden’s inauguration, a signal that F.B.I. agents did not want to wait and see what he might have done on that day.The trial centered around four social media posts that Mr. Hunt made starting in December. Upset about the 2020 election outcome, he urged the slaughter and beheading of prominent Democrats ahead of Mr. Biden’s inauguration. Mr. Hunt singled out Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Senator Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “high value targets.”“We’re not voting in another rigged election,” he wrote on Facebook in December. “Start up the firing squads, mow down these commies, and lets take america back!”In a Jan. 8 video on BitChute, a video-sharing site, he said: “If anybody has a gun, give me it. I’ll go there myself and shoot them and kill them.”On Wednesday’s verdict sheet, the jurors indicated that they found the video to be an illegal threat, but not the three other Facebook and Parler posts that prosecutors had also presented. The jury only had to conclude that one of the posts was a true threat to convict Mr. Hunt.Mr. Hunt, a former clerical worker with the New York State court system and the son of a retired Queens judge, published the posts from his home in Ridgewood, Queens, about a 20-minute drive from Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s district office. The government presented no evidence that Mr. Hunt owned or took any real-life steps to obtain weapons.This undated video frame grab image shows Brendan Hunt, 37, in a video he posted online.US Attorneys Office/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe jury reached its verdict after three hours of deliberation. After the verdict, Mr. Hunt’s lawyers said in a statement: “This prosecution is a slippery slope into a new war on speech.”The climax of the trial was Mr. Hunt’s highly unusual decision to testify in his own defense — a risky maneuver that allowed him to share his side of the story but also meant prosecutors could cross-examine him about his anti-Semitic and white supremacist beliefs.Before he took the stand, Judge Pamela K. Chen of Federal District Court in Brooklyn asked him repeatedly if he was sure about the decision.During Mr. Hunt’s testimony, he apologized for his posts and took full responsibility, but insisted that he did not intend for them to be serious threats. He described himself as “a pretty immature 37-year-old.” Wearing a gray suit, blue tie and a clear plastic face shield, he seemed relaxed and spoke nonchalantly.“The idea that I would somehow borrow somebody’s gun, waltz into Biden’s inauguration ceremony like some Looney Tunes character and somehow line up all senators and execute a firing squad on them, I think is a pretty ridiculous idea,” he said.He has been in jail since his arrest, which he said has made him realize how irresponsible his social media posts were and how he needed to “readjust what I think is humorous.”“I’m sort of just a YouTube guy who makes controversial content and clickbait videos,” he said.But the verdict showed that the jurors sided with the prosecutors, who argued that the posts were not poorly worded jokes.Prosecutors presented evidence that Mr. Hunt repeatedly posted threatening language against members of Congress, motivated by his anti-Semitic belief that the government was controlled by a Jewish conspiracy. He created a video that was never published online in which he talked about killing Jewish people.Mr. Hunt was quick to resort to violent threats, prosecutors said. In December, after his cousin unfriended him on Facebook, Mr. Hunt sent the cousin a text message threatening to stab his child with a knife.Mr. Hunt was charged with one count of making an illegal threat. He was not charged with inciting violence. Prosecutors did not need to prove that he intended to carry out the threat, nor that members of Congress even received the threat.Prosecutors had to prove that a “reasonable person” would have seen the messages as real threats, and that Mr. Hunt made the threats with the intention of interfering with or retaliating against members of Congress for doing their jobs.Daniel Bonthius, the law enforcement coordinator for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s office, testified at trial that he was concerned that Mr. Hunt spoke so calmly in his Jan. 8 video and did not seem mentally ill. Mr. Bonthius said he worried for his staff’s safety, as Mr. Hunt’s Facebook post about a “public execution” brought back memories of the Capitol riot.Among the prominent Democrats Mr. Hunt said should be killed were Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, left, and Sen. Chuck Schumer. Seth Wenig/Associated PressThe trial testimony became a time capsule of the world-altering events in 2020. Mr. Hunt explained that he became increasingly lonely working from home during the pandemic, drinking and smoking marijuana to deal with isolation. He listened to the news all day long, furious about government lockdowns and mask mandates.He started visiting a neo-Nazi website and began reading Adolf Hitler’s book, “Mein Kampf.” Two days after the 2020 election, he downloaded the manifesto of Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who killed nine Black churchgoers in 2015 in South Carolina.Mr. Hunt testified that he merely wanted to learn more about mass murderers and did not endorse their beliefs.“Are you a Nazi?” his lawyer asked him. He replied, “No. I’m not a Nazi. I hate Nazis,” pointing to the fact that he owned comic books written by Jewish men.After he published his Jan. 8 video calling for people to kill their senators, right-wing commenters called him an “imbecile” and asked if he had lost his mind. One person wrote: “Good way to put a target on your back and get arrested soon.” Humiliated, he deleted the video the next day.But it was too late. Among the 502 people who viewed the video was the one who called the F.B.I. hotline. Agents opened an investigation and followed Mr. Hunt for over a week.On the day of Mr. Hunt’s arrest, 17 law enforcement officers showed up to his home, searching for bombs and weapons. Instead, his lawyers said, the officers found a trove of comic books, toys and a Ninja Turtle sweater.Mr. Hunt testified that when he is released from prison, he hopes to continue making videos.“I think I should maybe stay away from the political kind of stuff or offensive material,” he said. “Maybe reviewing comic books, reviewing movies. Things like that.” More

Unless the Brazilian defender is excused from working at a polling place next week, he may miss his club’s Champions League match at Chelsea.Real Madrid could be without one of its best defenders for a semifinal match in the Champions League next week because he was randomly selected to work a shift at the polls during local elections in Madrid.Marcelo, a fullback who started the first leg of Real Madrid’s semifinal against Chelsea on Tuesday in Spain, was randomly selected by the Spanish government to work at the polls next Tuesday, when there will be elections for seats in the Madrid Assembly, El Mundo reported. A second Madrid player, Victor Chust, was also selected, but he is injured and will not be missed by the team.All registered voters in Spain are eligible to be randomly selected to work at the polls. Though Marcelo, 32, was born in Brazil, he has played for Real since 2007 and has been a Spanish citizen for a decade.Spanish law allows for exemptions, which may be given for “professionals who must participate in public events to be held on the voting day that are scheduled before the electoral call when the party cannot be replaced and his nonparticipation forces suspension of the event, producing economic damages.”In the past, soccer players and others with pressing business have been excused from the polling duty. In 2019, for example, Aitor Fernández, a Levante goalkeeper, did not have to work the polls because his team had a match that day.Even leaving aside whether Marcelo is irreplaceable and whether the game would have to be canceled in his absence, there is another problem for Real’s appeal: In the case of Fernández, his game was the same day as the election. In Marcelo’s case, the second leg of the semifinal against Chelsea in London is not until the following evening. But Real Madrid is planning to travel to England a day early, the same date of the elections, and because of coronavirus protocols it may not be possible for Marcelo to make the trip on game day.El Mundo reported that Marcelo was “very upset by his electoral luck.” Real Madrid and Chelsea tied the first leg, 1-1, on Tuesday, when Chelsea’s Christian Pulisic became the first American to score in the semifinals of the competition.If he has to stay behind, Marcelo will at least pick up a small bonus: Poll workers are paid 65 euros ($78) for their day’s work.A logical replacement for Marcelo at left back would be Ferland Mendy, but it is not clear if he will be ready to return from a calf injury. More

Should the Democratic Party focus on race or class when trying to build support for new initiatives and — perhaps equally important — when seeking to achieve a durable Election Day majority?The publication on April 26 of a scholarly paper, “Racial Equality Frames and Public Policy Support,” has stirred up a hornet’s nest among Democratic strategists and analysts.The authors, Micah English and Joshua L. Kalla, who are both political scientists at Yale, warned proponents of liberal legislative proposals thatDespite increasing awareness of racial inequities and a greater use of progressive race framing by Democratic elites, linking public policies to race is detrimental for support of those policies.The English-Kalla paper infuriated critics who are involved in the Race-Class Narrative Project.The founder of the project, Ian Haney López, a law professor at Berkeley and one of the chairmen of the AFL-CIO’s Advisory Council on Racial and Economic Justice, vigorously disputes the English-Kalla thesis. In his view, “Powerful elites exploit social divisions, so no matter what our race, color or ethnicity, our best future requires building cross-racial solidarity.”In an email, López wrote me that the English and Kalla studyseems to confirm a conclusion common among Democratic strategists since at least 1970: Democrats can maximize support among whites, without losing too much enthusiasm from voters of color, by running silent on racial justice while emphasizing class issues of concern to all racial groups. Since at least 2017, this conclusion is demonstrably wrong.English and Kalla, for their part, surveyed 5,081 adults and asked them about six policies: increasing the minimum wage to $15; forgiving $50,000 in student loan debt; affordable housing; the Green New Deal; Medicare for All; decriminalizing marijuana and erasing prior convictions.Participants in the survey were randomly assigned to read about these policies in a “race, class, or a class plus race frame,” English and Kalla write.Those given information about housing policy in a “race frame” read:A century of housing and land use policies denied Black households access to homeownership and neighborhood opportunities offered to white households. These racially discriminatory housing policies have combined to profoundly disadvantage Black households, with lasting, intergenerational impact. These intergenerational impacts go a long way toward explaining the racial disparities we see today in wealth, income and educational outcomes for Black Americans.Those assigned to read about housing policy in a “class frame” were shown this:Housing is the largest single expense for the average American, accounting for a third of their income. Many working-class, middle-class, and working poor Americans spend over half their pay on shelter. Twenty-one million American families — over a sixth of the United States — are considered cost-burdened, paying more for rent than they can afford. These families are paying so much in rent that they are considered at elevated risk of homelessness.The “race and class group” read a version combining both race and class themes.English and Kalla found thatWhile among Democrats both the class and the class plus race frames cause statistically significant increases in policy support, statistically indistinguishable from each other — among Republicans the class plus race frame causes a statistically significant decrease in policy support. While the race frame also has a negative effect among Republicans, it is not statistically significant.Among independents — a key swing group both in elections and in determining the levels of support for public policies — English and Kalla found “positive effects from the class frame and negative effects from both the race and class plus race frames.”A late February survey of 1,551 likely voters by Vox and Data for Progress produced similar results. Half the sample was asked whether it would support or oppose zoning for multiple-family housing based on the argument thatIt’s a matter of racial justice. Single-family zoning requirements lock in America’s system of racial segregation, blocking Black Americans from pursuing economic opportunity and the American dream of homeownership.The other half of the sample read that supporters of multiple-family zoningsay that this will drive economic growth as more people will be able to move to high opportunity regions with good jobs and will allow more Americans the opportunity to get affordable housing on their own, making it easier to start families.The voters to whom the racial justice message was given were split, 44 in support, 43 in opposition, while those who were given the economic growth argument supported multiple-family zoning 47-36.After being exposed to the economic growth message, Democrats were supportive 63-25, but less so after the racial justice message, 56-28. Republicans were opposed after hearing either message, but less so in the case of economic growth, 35-50, compared to racial justice 31-60.López founded the Race-Class Narrative Project along with Anat Shenker-Osorio, a California-based communications consultant, and Heather McGhee, a former president of Demos, a liberal think tank and author of the recent book, “The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together.”I asked López about the English-Kalla paper. He was forthright in his emailed reply:As my work and that of others demonstrates, the most potent political message today is one that foregrounds combating intentional divide-and-conquer racial politics by building a multiracial coalition among all racial groups. This frame performs more strongly than a class-only frame as well as a racial justice frame. It is also the sole liberal frame that consistently beats Republican dog whistling.Shenker-Osorio faulted English and Kalla’s work for being “unsurprising”:If you tell someone to support a policy because it will benefit a group they’re not part of, and that doesn’t work as well as telling them to support a policy they perceive will help them — this isn’t exactly shocking.Testing the effectiveness of messages on controversial issues, Shenker-Osorio continued, has to be done in the context of dealing with the claims of the opposition:Politics isn’t solitaire and so in order for our attempts to persuade conflicted voters to work, they must also act as a rebuttal to what these voters hear — incessantly — from our opposition. A class-only message about, say, minimum wage, held up against a drumbeat of “immigrants are taking your jobs” or racially-coded caricatures of who is in minimum wage jobs doesn’t cut through. Neither does a message about affordable housing credits or food stamps when the opposition will just keep hammering home the notion of “lazy people” wanting “handouts.”Unless Democrats explicitly address race, Shenker-Osorio wrote, millions of whites, flooded with Republican messages demonizing minorities, will continue to beprimed to view government as taking from “hard working people” (coded as white) and handing it to “undeserving people” (coded as Black and brown). If we do not contend with this basic fact — and today’s unrelenting race baiting from the right — then Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” will simply continue to haunt us. In other words, if the left chooses to say nothing about race, the race conversation doesn’t simply end. The only thing voters hear about the topic are the lies the right peddles to keep us from joining together to demand true progressive solutions.The Race-Class Narrative Project, which has conducted extensive surveys and focus groups, came to the conclusion that race could effectively be addressed in carefully worded messages.For instance:No matter where we come from or what our color, most of us work hard for our families. But today, certain politicians and their greedy lobbyists hurt everyone by handing kickbacks to the rich, defunding our schools, and threatening our seniors with cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Then they turn around and point the finger for our hard times at poor families, Black people, and new immigrants. We need to join together with people from all walks of life to fight for our future, just like we won better wages, safer workplaces, and civil rights in our past.The race-class project also tested the efficacy of a class only message — “We need elected leaders who will reject the divide and conquer tactics of their opponents and put the interests of working people first” — versus a race and class message that simply added the phrase “whether we are white, Black or brown” to read:We need elected leaders who will reject the divide and conquer tactics of their opponents and put the interests of working people first, whether we are white, Black or brown.The result? The race and class message did substantially better than the class alone message among both base Democratic voters and persuadable voters. Base Democrats approved of the class message 79-16 and approved of the race and class message 86-11. Fewer persuadable voters approved of the class message than disapproved, 42-45, while more approved than disapproved of the race and class message, 48-41.I asked Shenker-Osorio how well she thinks Biden is doing when he talks about race:It’s definitely hit or miss. Sometimes he uses what I shorthand as “dependent clause” messaging where you name race after you’ve laid out an economic problem or offered an economic solution — e.g. “It’s getting harder for people to make ends meet, and this impacts [X Group] in particular.” This doesn’t work. For many people of color, this feels like race is an afterthought. For many whites, it feels like a non sequitur.At other times, Shenker-Osorio continued, Bidendoes what we’ve seen work: begin by naming a shared value with deliberate reference to race, describe the problem as one of deliberate division or racial scapegoating, and then close with how the policy he is pushing will mean better well-being or justice or freedom for all working people.In partial support of the Shenker-Osorio critique, Jake Grumbach, a political scientist at the University of Washington, emailed me to say:The English and Kalla survey experiment was done in a particular context that did not include Republican messaging, media coverage and imagery, and other content that “real-world” politics cannot escape. If Republicans use race, whether through dog whistles or more overt racism, then it might be the case that Democratic “class only” appeals will fall flat as voters infer racial content even when Democrats don’t mention race.Another “important piece of context,” Grumbach wrote, “is that Biden is an older white man, which, research suggests, makes his policy appeals sound more moderate to voters than the actually more moderate Obama proposals.” More

Kellyanne Conway, Mike Pence and William Barr have book deals. That is raising new challenges for publishers trying to balance ideological lines with a desire to continue representing the political spectrum.Things were already strained at Simon & Schuster.After backing out of a deal with Senator Josh Hawley, a prominent supporter of former President Donald J. Trump, the company announced this month that it would publish two books by former Vice President Mike Pence. Dana Canedy, who joined Simon & Schuster as publisher last year, called Mr. Pence’s memoir “the definitive book on one of the most consequential presidencies in American history.” That’s when much of the staff erupted in protest.On Monday, editors and other employees at Simon & Schuster delivered a petition to management demanding an end to the deal, with signatures from more than 200 employees and 3,500 outside supporters, including Simon & Schuster authors such as Jesmyn Ward and Scott Westerfeld.Most were probably not aware that the company has also signed the former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, according to people familiar with the matter — a move that is sure to throw gas on the fire.In another era, book deals with former White House officials were viewed as prestigious and uncontroversial, and major publishers have long maintained that putting out books from across the political spectrum is not only good for business but an essential part of their mission. In today’s hyperpartisan environment, however, Simon & Schuster has become a test case for how publishers are trying to draw a line over who is acceptable to publish, and how firmly executives will hold in the face of criticism from their own authors and employees.Many publishers and editors have said privately that they would be reluctant to acquire a book by Mr. Trump because of the outcry that would ensue and the potential legal exposure they would face if Mr. Trump used a memoir to promote the false view that he won the 2020 election.But the reticence extends beyond Mr. Trump himself, and several publishers acknowledge that there are certain ideological lines that they won’t cross. Some said they wouldn’t acquire books by politicians or pundits who questioned the results of the presidential election. Another bright line is working with people who promoted the false narratives or conspiracy theories that Mr. Trump espoused.Certain literary agents representing Trump officials have adjusted their sales tactics. A few are avoiding large auctions in hopes of staving off a backlash until after a contract is signed, according to some publishing executives.“What I’m watching very closely is the succession of lines crossed,” said Thomas Spence, the president of Regnery, a conservative publisher. “People start to wonder: Whom else might they shut down?”Donald Rumsfeld, a defense secretary under George W. Bush, is among the former Republican officials whose books attracted little scrutiny in a different political era.Scott Olson/Getty ImagesThose who work in the industry, which is concentrated in New York, tend to be left leaning in their politics, but publishing houses have long adhered to the principle of political neutrality when it comes to who they publish. After the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, major publishers signed deals with administration officials like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Mr. Bush himself, with little blowback. (An imprint of Penguin Random House published a book of portraits and stories about immigrants by Mr. Bush last week called “Out of Many, One.”)After the 2020 election, those ideals have been tested in unprecedented ways.“There is a tension there — on the one hand, I’ve always believed, and I still believe fervently, that we need to publish major voices that are at the center of the national conversation, whether we agree with them or not,” said Adrian Zackheim, the president and publisher of two Penguin Random House imprints, including Sentinel, which is geared toward conservative books. “On the other hand, we have to be leery of public figures who have come to be associated with blatant falsehoods.”At the same time, conservative publishers and some literary agents say there is enormous demand for books from voices on the right, particularly now that Republicans are out of power, and publishers are demonstrating that they are eager to work with politicians they regard as acceptable mainstream conservatives. Politico reported that William P. Barr, Trump’s former attorney general, sold a book about his role at the Justice Department. Sentinel acquired a book by Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose appointment by Mr. Trump last year caused an uproar on the left. Ms. Conway’s book will be published by Threshold, a Simon & Schuster imprint focused on conservative titles, though a person familiar with it said it would be more of a memoir than a standard political book.Simon & Schuster declined to comment.The company published several political blockbusters last year, including Mary L. Trump’s “Too Much and Never Enough” and John R. Bolton’s “The Room Where It Happened.” This year has been more complicated.In January, Simon & Schuster dropped plans to release Mr. Hawley’s book following criticism of his efforts to overturn the election and accusations that he helped incite the Capitol riot on Jan. 6. This month, it said it would not distribute a title, published by Post Hill Press, a small publisher in Tennessee, by one of the police officers in the raid that killed Breonna Taylor.The petition drafted by Simon & Schuster staff, which circulated on social media last week, demanded the company cancel Mr. Pence’s books, not sign any more former Trump officials and end its distribution deal with Post Hill Press. Jonathan Karp, Simon & Schuster’s chief executive, wrote a letter to the company saying it wouldn’t take those actions.“We come to work each day to publish, not cancel,” Mr. Karp wrote, “which is the most extreme decision a publisher can make, and one that runs counter to the very core of our mission to publish a diversity of voices and perspectives.”Staff members who organized the petition were not satisfied by his response. They sent a letter to Mr. Karp and Ms. Canedy on Monday along with the petition.“Let’s be clear: the First Amendment protects free speech from legal encroachment. It in no way calls for publishing companies to publish all viewpoints, much less those as dangerous as Mike Pence’s,” the letter said. “When S&S chose to sign Mike Pence, we broke the public’s trust in our editorial process, and blatantly contradicted previous public claims in support of Black and other lives made vulnerable by structural oppression.”Some publishing employees said the decision to sign Mr. Pence and other Trump officials was especially jarring as major publishers have taken pains to stress their commitment to diversity over the past year.“It feels like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth,” said Stephanie Guerdan, an assistant editor at HarperCollins, who was speaking in her role as a shop steward at its union. “You want to make a safe space for your Black employees and your queer employees and put out your anti-Asian-discrimination statements. You can’t say the company supports these causes and then give money to people who have actively hurt those causes.”The reluctance among mainstream publishers to work with some conservatives has created an opportunity for smaller independent houses.“It’s one thing to be published by a group of people who are holding their nose,” Adam Bellow, who runs the conservative imprint Bombardier, “but it’s another thing to be published by a group of people who hate you.”Guerin Blask for The New York Times“The reaction of people on the right to the cancellation of political books is to double down, so we have lots of books to publish,” said Adam Bellow, who founded the Broadside imprint at HarperCollins and is now an executive editor at Bombardier, an imprint of Post Hill, which has published books by Representative Matt Gaetz and other prominent Republicans.Mr. Bellow added that some conservatives have grown wary of selling their books to mainstream publishing houses.“It’s a purge that’s becoming more of an exodus,” he said. “Many conservative authors are telling their agents they don’t want to be pitched to publishers who have canceled conservative books. It’s one thing to be published by a group of people who are holding their noses, but it’s another thing to be published by a group of people who hate you.”The highly charged atmosphere could lead to a realignment in the political publishing landscape, with the formation of a new literary niche that caters to voices on the far right.The D.C. public relations firm Athos started a literary agency and is representing some prominent conservatives. Co-founded by Alexei Woltornist, who worked in communications in the Department of Homeland Security under Mr. Trump, and Jonathan Bronitsky, who served as Mr. Barr’s chief speechwriter, Athos recently sold Bombardier a book by Scott Atlas, Mr. Trump’s former coronavirus adviser, about the Trump administration’s handling of the pandemic.Conservative publishers are also experimenting with direct-to-consumer sales with a new online bookstore, conservativereaders.com, that was created by Mr. Bellow and a small group of colleagues and investors. With a new online outlet, they are aiming to develop an alternative platform to traditional retailers and Amazon in the event that stores refuse to sell a controversial title.Some predict the appetite for political books will only continue to grow.“After the election, there was this big question mark over the future of the political book,” the literary agent Rafe Sagalyn said, “and I think we’re learning now that they’re very much in demand.” More

Like any employee, President Biden has to suffer through periodic performance reviews. Thursday marks his 100th day in office — a time-honored if vaguely arbitrary milestone at which a president’s early moves are sliced, diced and spun for all the world to judge. How many bills has he gotten passed? Whom has he appointed? How many executive orders has he signed? Which promises has he broken? Which constituencies has he ticked off?Mr. Biden took office under extraordinary circumstances, with the nation confronting what he has called a quartet of “converging crises”: a lethal pandemic, economic uncertainty, climate change and racial injustice. Bold policy action was needed. So, too, was an effort to neutralize the toxic politics of the Trump era — which, among other damage, spawned a large reality-free zone in which the bulk of Republicans buy the lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.All of which feels like a lot for one mild-mannered 78-year-old to tackle in his first three or so months. Then again, Mr. Biden is built to keep chugging along in the face of adversity, tragedy and lousy odds. That’s how he rolls. And while his first 100 days have been far from flawless, they reflect a clear understanding of why he was elected and what the American people now expect of him.The president moved fast and went big on his signature challenge: confronting the one-two public-health-and-economic punch of the pandemic. He asked Congress for a $1.9 trillion relief package, and Congress basically gave him a $1.9 trillion relief package. Did Republican lawmakers sign on? No, they did not. But the ambitious bill — which went so far as to establish a (temporary) guaranteed income for families with children — drew strong bipartisan support from the public. That was good enough for the White House.Mr. Biden also showed that he knows how to play the expectations game: underpromise, then overdeliver. He initially pledged to get 100 million Covid-19 vaccine doses in arms by his 100th day in office. The nation crushed that target in mid-March, prompting Mr. Biden to up the goal to 200 million shots by Day 100. That hurdle was cleared last week.He has fulfilled a range of more targeted promises, largely through executive action. He jettisoned Donald Trump’s repugnant Muslim ban and established a task force to reunite migrant families separated at the southwestern border. He put the United States back in the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accord. He directed federal agencies to conduct internal audits, with an eye toward advancing racial equity, and he rescinded the Trump ban on transgender troops in the military. He hasn’t persuaded Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, but he is upping it for federal contractors.With foreign policy, Mr. Biden has surprised some with his announcement that all U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by Sept. 11. Depending on your perspective, this decision is either long overdue or a disaster in the making. Either way, the president wanted to show that he can make the tough calls. More

The campaign to recall the state’s governor shows that even a one-party stronghold like California can be rocked by the nation’s political polarization.SACRAMENTO — For all the controversies and Covid-19 crises that now have Gov. Gavin Newsom of California facing a historic recall election, it was a pair of prosaic events on Nov. 6 — a court hearing and a dinner — that led to the current political instability that will grip the state for months to come.That Friday morning, a Sacramento Superior Court judge gave a small cadre of conservative Republicans four additional months to gather signatures for a petition to recall Mr. Newsom. The state felt the governor had such a compelling case that its lawyers did not even show up for oral arguments against the recall proponents, who said Mr. Newsom’s pandemic restrictions had “severely inhibited” their ability to collect the nearly 1.5 million signatures required.Then, that night, Mr. Newsom and his wife celebrated the birthday of Jason Kinney, a Sacramento lobbyist and longtime friend and adviser. The governor had recently urged residents to stay home amid fears of a holiday-season virus outbreak — but there he was in Napa Valley, schmoozing maskless at the French Laundry restaurant. Photographs of him mingling set off a fury up and down the state.EXCLUSIVE: We’ve obtained photos of Governor Gavin Newsom at the Napa dinner party he’s in hot water over. The photos call into question just how outdoors the dinner was. A witness who took photos tells us his group was so loud, the sliding doors had to be closed. 10pm on @FOXLA pic.twitter.com/gtOVEwa864— Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) November 18, 2020
Within a month, a recall effort that had only managed to submit roughly 4 percent of the necessary signatures was suddenly soaring, as major Republican donors sent money and the petition gained nearly 500,000 signatures.With Monday’s announcement that the recall has officially qualified for the ballot, California finds itself plunged into a political reversal-of-fortune scenario: A fading Republican Party that has not won a statewide election in 15 years is mounting a real challenge to a high-profile Democratic leader, in only the second recall election of a California governor in more than 80 years of attempts.The recall effort has revealed that even a one-party stronghold like California can be rocked by the nation’s political polarization, as health emergencies and lockdown policies disrupt and divide a jittery public. It has also brought into relief the conservative vein that threads through the state, from the rural Far North, through the Sierra foothills, down the Central Valley and into the tile-roof-and-cinder-block tracts of the struggling Southern California exurbs.Demonstrators supported a recall of Mr. Newsom during a protest against a stay-at-home order in Huntington Beach in November.Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press“The whole social reality is disturbing to a lot of people,” said Jerry Brown, the former four-term governor of California, who said the recall effort also reflected anger at political leaders across the country. “The destruction of so many businesses — there’s an acceleration of instability and therefore in the confidence that millions of people have in their future. That’s then a breeding ground for hostilities. That certainly makes scapegoats very attractive.”The political targeting of Mr. Newsom comes as public schools have yet to fully reopen, leaving many children at home and many parents aggravated. Public school enrollment has dropped by more than 160,000 students, while the state has lost roughly 1.5 million jobs and unemployment remains at 8.3 percent, one of the highest rates in the country.“There’s a lot of frustration and rising anger on a variety of issues — jobs are leaving, homelessness is rising, so many parents across the state are furious,” said Kevin Faulconer, the former mayor of San Diego and a Republican candidate for governor, who has made the slow reopening of public schools a central theme of his case against Mr. Newsom. “I strongly believe that voters are looking for someone with common sense.”As a political force, Mr. Newsom has always been more inevitable than loved, a rich San Franciscan who has steadily climbed from political office to office and enjoyed long ties to Mr. Brown and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly two to one in California, and Mr. Newsom easily won the open governor’s seat in 2018.Democrats still have a narrow window to block the recall, by convincing enough voters who signed the petition to withdraw their support, but even Mr. Newsom’s aides have called that outcome unlikely. The Legislature’s joint budget committee will also have to sign off on a California Department of Finance report on the cost of the special election, which Mr. Newsom’s supporters estimate could be $100 million or more.If those hurdles are cleared, as is widely expected, the recall would present Mr. Newsom with more political challenges and scrutiny than he has ever faced. Over the winter, the recall supporters were already capitalizing on his every move.As schoolchildren struggled with online instruction, the supporters accused Mr. Newsom of coddling teachers’ unions. As small businesses withered, they pointed to Mr. Newsom’s success as a wine merchant. When Mr. Newsom implied that his own children were being schooled virtually and it turned out that their private school had actually resumed in-person classes, his critics heckled his daily livestreams, accusing him online of French Laundry-style elitism.Mr. Newsom has dispensed state coronavirus relief worth $7.6 billion and rolled out more than 29 million vaccine doses.Damian Dovarganes/Associated PressNor was he helped by a wave of fraud in the state’s pandemic unemployment insurance program in which death row inmates and international identity theft rings stole an estimated $11 billion to $30 billion. Or by a string of high-profile political vacancies that forced him to choose appointees from his own party’s competing political factions.The recall effort needed only to tap a portion of the six million Californians who voted to re-elect Donald J. Trump — more Trump voters than even in Texas — to meet the signature qualifications. But actually recalling Mr. Newsom will prove far harder.If the blue line of the Democratic Party holds for the governor, the pro-Trump Republican base would be easily outnumbered, and Mr. Newsom has been able to keep Democratic rivals off the recall ballot. The ultimate test would be turning out his voters, which would require not only the help but also the enthusiasm of critical constituencies such as organized labor.Polls show a solid majority of support for Mr. Newsom, though some surveys indicate his standing may be soft among Latino voters. And some policies, such as a recent vow to gradually ban new fracking permits, have already put him on a collision course with unions that view the state’s fossil fuel industry through the lens of the higher-paying jobs it offers.“California’s politics are far left, but the state is predominantly blue-collar,” said Erin Lehane, a Sacramento political consultant who works with unions. “Those working families — those essential workers who have been out there this whole crazy year — will decide the vote in this recall.”Recall attempts are a political pastime in California, which, as a result of Progressive Era reforms passed in 1911, has some of the nation’s most generous rules for removing public officials from office. But initiatives to recall governors rarely manage to gather the support needed to make it onto a ballot.California is enormous, with a population of nearly 40 million, and the funds and effort required to campaign statewide tend to thwart all but the most moneyed and determined critics. Only one other California governor, Gray Davis, has ever faced a recall election, which he lost to Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003. That initiative struggled until Representative Darrell Issa, who had hoped to replace Mr. Davis, donated $2 million to the campaign.Arnold Schwarzenegger, center right, replaced Gray Davis as California’s governor in a recall election in 2003.Monica Almeida/The New York TimesMr. Newsom was a target almost from the moment of his election. Three groups had made five recall attempts against him by the time his critics began the current campaign. Their initial complaints were ideological. The lead proponent of this recall bid, a retired Republican sheriff’s sergeant named Orrin Heatlie, took issue with the governor’s policies on the death penalty and immigration.For a recall to qualify for the ballot, critics needed to gather valid signatures from 12 percent of the voters in the last election for governor. None of the petitions against Mr. Newsom came remotely close to that threshold until Judge James P. Arguelles — at that pivotal November hearing in Sacramento Superior Court — gave Mr. Heatlie and his California Patriot Coalition an extra four months to pass petitions.“This was the sixth recall attempt,” said Nathan Click, a former spokesman for the governor who is now helping run the campaign to defend him. “Elections are about money and time. They would not have raised the money to get the signatures they did if the judge hadn’t given them that extension. Without the time piece of this, there’s no recall.”As the recall has become nightly grist on talk radio and conservative cable news shows, Mr. Newsom has gone on the offensive, guided by the veteran Democratic strategist Ace Smith, who has handled past campaigns for Vice President Kamala Harris and Mr. Brown.In March, Mr. Newsom delivered his State of the State address, a usually bland affair, with an empty Dodger Stadium as his backdrop, blasting the recall effort as a power grab by right-wing extremists trying to game the political system. And he has been touting his own successes. A shelter-in-place order issued early in the pandemic initially kept case rates remarkably low, and a program that leveraged federal money to provide quarantine space in motels for homeless people now offers thousands of Californians permanent supportive housing.When Mr. Newsom gave the State of the State address from an empty Dodger Stadium last month, he blasted the recall effort as a power grab by right-wing extremists.Etienne Laurent/EPA, via ShutterstockHelped by a Democratic White House and a multibillion-dollar state surplus — a result of the state’s heavy reliance on the kind of high-income earners whose jobs were generally untouched by the pandemic — he has dispensed state coronavirus relief worth $7.6 billion, rolled out more than 29 million vaccine doses and recalibrated health guidelines to prod teachers back into classrooms.“Governor Newsom thinks time is his best friend,” said Joe Rodota, who worked as an aide to the former Republican governors Pete Wilson and Mr. Schwarzenegger. “Ultimately all recalls are self-inflicted, that’s the history. These things don’t go anywhere unless there’s gasoline that has been poured on the sidewalk personally.”Already, the state is recovering, as are Mr. Newsom’s approval ratings. A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that about 56 percent of likely voters in the state do not support the recall. Unemployment, while high, has fallen steadily, Disneyland is set to reopen on Friday and the rate of new coronavirus cases in California is among the nation’s lowest.Meanwhile, his allies, including those in the Biden administration, have managed to keep Democrats in line — a feat that Mr. Davis was unable to pull off. Some influential Republicans, too, are remaining on the sideline. Mr. Schwarzenegger has said he will remain neutral.“We have 40 million people in this state,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said last week in an interview. “I think they’re smart enough to figure out which direction to go. And how far they want to go — is this just going to be a threat? ‘Get your act together and we’re going to back off?’”If so, he added, the recall proponents “were, in a way, very successful — because he definitely got more engaged in the last few months.” More