Elections

President-elect Joe Biden said he was not afraid to take the oath of office outside on 20 January following the violent riots at the US Capitol. Speaking after receiving his second Covid-19 vaccination, the 78-year-old added the focus now was on holding those who engaged in the riot to account
Acting US homeland security secretary Chad Wolf resigns – live More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyImpeach Trump AgainIt is a dark day for the nation when the president’s behavior forces Congress to hold him accountable.The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.Jan. 11, 2021, 7:03 p.m. ETCredit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesPresident Trump’s efforts to remain in office in defiance of democracy cannot be allowed to go unanswered, lest they invite more lawlessness from this president or those who follow.The attack on the Capitol on Wednesday was not a spontaneous eruption of violence. It was the culmination of a campaign waged by the president of the United States and his allies in Congress and the right-wing media to overturn the results of a free and fair election that began even before the ballots began to be counted on Election Day.That campaign involved a barrage of lies about the integrity of the voting process from the president, his allies and other elected Republicans. It included farcical legal challenges that were laughed out of court even as they sowed doubt in the minds of a majority of Republicans about whether Joe Biden won fairly. It involved the president and his allies strong-arming state election officials to change the vote count outright. When it all failed, the president held a rally on the National Mall and sent the angry crowd to march on the Capitol and stop Congress from declaring Mr. Biden the winner of the presidency. The riot came at the cost of at least five lives and shook the confidence of the nation and the world in the stability of American democracy.Each of these efforts amounts to an unprecedented assault on the rule of law. Taken together, they constitute a crime so brazen that it demands the highest form of accountability that the legislature can deliver. As regrettable as this moment is for the nation, there is no other option but to vote to impeach the president for a second time.Mr. Trump began undermining November’s election before the first vote was cast. Throughout the spring and summer, as the pandemic forced states to be more flexible with mail and absentee voting, he claimed repeatedly and without evidence that mail-in balloting would be rife with fraud.Then, after it was clear Mr. Biden was the victor, and after weeks of public and private attempts to get states to change their vote totals and deliver him a second term, the president encouraged his supporters to converge on Washington on Jan. 6. (“Be there, will be wild!” he tweeted.) Tens of thousands of them, from all over the country, answered his call.Mr. Trump took to the stage and gave perhaps the most un-American speech ever uttered by a president.“We will not take it anymore,” Mr. Trump told the crowd. “We will stop the steal.”“States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify,” Mr. Trump said to cheers. “They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president.”“Fight for Trump!” the crowd bellowed.Mr. Trump said that he’d just spoken to the vice president, who was due to oversee the ceremonial counting of electoral votes. “I said: ‘Mike, that doesn’t take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing — that takes courage.’ And then we’re stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot, and we have to live with that for four more years. We’re just not going to let that happen.”“We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down,” Mr. Trump said, “to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.” He continued: “Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.”“We fight. We fight like hell,” the president said. “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”With that, the crowd struck off and some of the president’s loyalists stormed the Capitol.The charges against Mr. Trump are clear: inciting an insurrection. The House could give him fair consideration without the lengthy hearings it required to impeach him in December 2019 after he strong-armed the Ukrainian president. The evidence now is not secondhand accounts of meetings and phone calls. The offenses occurred in public for weeks and then live on national television.Significant support from Republicans would be necessary to achieve the two-thirds majority in the Senate required for a conviction. But the deadly attack on Congress finally seems to have shaken some of them from their reflexive backing of the president who incited it. Senators were driven out of their own chamber, and into hiding, while they were in the middle of performing their constitutional duty of counting the electoral votes.Mr. Trump may not have called directly for this behavior, but there is no question that he encouraged it and then refused for hours to condemn it, even as the whole world watched in horror. When he finally asked for rioters to stop and go home, he continued to claim the election had been stolen.So far, among Republicans, only Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who described the president’s behavior as “wicked,” has said he would consider impeachment. Others are said to be privately discussing voting for it. Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania have called on the president to resign. If Republican senators refuse to convict Mr. Trump, they would go on the record — for their constituents to see and reconcile — defending a man who was happy to put their lives, and the nation’s democratic future, at risk for nothing but his own quest to hold on to power.The arguments against impeachment — that it could actually sow more division or further embolden Mr. Trump and his allies politically, that it could distract from Mr. Biden’s agenda in his first several weeks in office, that the Senate may ultimately fail to convict — are worth considering. There could be more unrest and even violence. In many ways, it would be easier to let Mr. Trump leave office and attempt to consign the storming of the Capitol to the past.But, ultimately, there can be no republic if leaders foment a violent overthrow of the government if they lose an election.Mr. Trump is not the only person at fault. Many Republican lawmakers riled up his supporters for weeks with false claims of election rigging and continued to object to the electoral vote even after the attack. The 14th Amendment bars from office any federal or state lawmaker who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to those who have. Congressional leaders will need to reckon with which of their colleagues require censure for their actions, and perhaps even expulsion.Any and all rioters who broke laws on Wednesday need to be identified and prosecuted. Attempting insurrection is as serious a crime as there is in a self-governing republic. As more of the rioters are arrested, it will also be essential to get to the bottom of how they were allowed to wreak havoc and yet, for the most part, walk away unscathed. That will require investigations by both Congress and the Justice Department.Yet it can’t be lost that the violence on Wednesday was the nadir of a coordinated, relentless campaign to cast doubt on the strength of American democracy. In the end, the driving force behind the lies, the chaos and the bloodshed of the past few days and weeks is Mr. Trump. As long as he is not held fully to account, any future chief executive might feel equally unbound by a lawless precedent.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the RaceAndrew Yang’s Candidacy5 TakeawaysWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAfter Rivals Pounce, Yang Explains His Family’s Escape From New YorkAndrew Yang said that his family decided to leave the city during the pandemic in part to help his autistic son “adapt to our new normal.”Andrew Yang’s initial explanation of why he left New York City for the Hudson Valley was criticized as insensitive.Credit…Jordan Gale for The New York TimesJan. 11, 2021Updated 7:08 p.m. ETAndrew Yang could be days away from declaring himself a New York City mayoral candidate, but he’s already found himself on the defensive over his decision to spend significant parts of the pandemic in the Hudson Valley.In an article published Monday in The New York Times, Mr. Yang addressed his decision to spend time during the pandemic outside of New York City in a tone that struck some political observers as discordant for anyone hoping to lead a city grappling with catastrophic loss fueled by the pandemic.The moment offered a preview of the challenges that may await Mr. Yang, a former presidential candidate who would be the most prominent figure in the race, but who is a newcomer to the unforgiving landscape and scrutiny of New York City politics.“Can you imagine trying to have two kids on virtual school in a two-bedroom apartment, and then trying to do work yourself?” Mr. Yang said in the initial interview.“Yes, actually I can,” Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller and a mayoral contender, responded on Twitter, in a reference to his own two young children.Indeed, Mr. Yang’s remarks shattered the sense of relative comity in the mayoral field, at a time when many candidates hope to be broadly acceptable to their opponents’ supporters ahead of ranked-choice voting to decide the June primary. A torrent of barely veiled criticism played out on Twitter.“I spent all of 2020 in NYC, living with THREE generations under one roof, AND running a campaign from home,” Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, wrote on Twitter.Maya Wiley, the former MSNBC analyst and counsel for Mayor Bill de Blasio, posted a video of eerily empty streets, save for the sirens, a scene familiar to New Yorkers who were in the city in the spring. And the Brooklyn borough president, Eric Adams, another mayoral contender, said that “at this pivotal moment in our city’s history, we deserve better than out-of-touch politicians.”Mr. Yang was in New York last spring as the city shut down, he has said, and he has been back and forth between the city and the Hudson Valley since. But he also allowed that he spent “more time upstate than in the city over the last number of months” as he also spent time as a presidential and Senate campaign surrogate.In a statement Monday afternoon, Mr. Yang sought to give more personal context around the decision to spend significant time in New Paltz, N.Y., rather than his apartment in Hell’s Kitchen. He has signaled that his campaign would center on anti-poverty themes, and he nodded to that ambition as he alluded to the charitable and nonprofit work he has done in the city.“Every New York parent has struggled with educating our children in a time of Covid,” he said. After schools shut down, “we took our two kids, including my autistic son, to upstate New York to help him adapt to our new normal. Evelyn and I know how lucky we are to have that option, which is why I’ve committed the past several years of my life to lifting up working families and eliminating poverty.”Mr. Yang is hardly the only New Yorker to spend time outside the city over the last year. Some wealthier New Yorkers who had the option to leave did so, at least temporarily; the vast majority of city residents remained.Nor is he the only possible mayor to have a home outside the city. The former mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, for instance, spent many weekends at a waterfront estate in Bermuda.But a number of seasoned New York political figures signaled that Mr. Yang’s living arrangement over the last year may give voters pause.“We all stayed here and fought for New York,” said the Manhattan borough president, Gale Brewer. “The people I respect are the people who stayed here.”Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime Democratic consultant, added, “This is not an auspicious beginning to an upset mayoral race. He’s upset people as opposed to winning an upset mayoral race.”Leah D. Daughtry, a veteran Democratic Party strategist with close ties to New York politics, said she did not believe his remarks or his location last year were “disqualifying” — but they do create a “larger hurdle.”“Anybody who’s running for mayor, no matter their name recognition, is going to have to demonstrate to people that they understand the problems of folks” in the five boroughs, she said. “It’s not like anyplace else.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyU.S. Imposes Sanctions on Ukrainians Linked to Giuliani for Election DisinformationThe Treasury Department accused seven Ukrainians of working with a Russian agent “to spread misleading and unsubstantiated allegations” about President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.During the 2020 campaign, Rudolph W. Giuliani arranged meetings with Ukrainians claiming to have damaging information about the Bidens.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesKenneth P. Vogel and Jan. 11, 2021Updated 5:31 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The Trump administration imposed sanctions on Monday against seven Ukrainians — including two who assisted President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani — for being part of what it called “a Russia-linked foreign influence network” that spread “fraudulent and unsubstantiated allegations” about President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. during the 2020 campaign.Mr. Giuliani relied on two of the Ukrainians who were penalized — Andrii Telizhenko and Kostiantyn H. Kulyk — as he sought to gather damaging information and force government investigations into Mr. Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, related to Ukraine. That effort, which had the president’s backing, led to Mr. Trump’s impeachment in 2019 by the House of Representatives.The sanctions announced on Monday stemmed from the Ukrainians’ work with Andriy Derkach, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, who was the target of sanctions by the Treasury Department last year and was accused of being a Russian agent and spreading disinformation about Mr. Biden. Mr. Derkach had met with Mr. Giuliani in 2019.The Ukrainians penalized on Monday were accused in a statement released by the Treasury Department of helping Mr. Derkach “spread misleading and unsubstantiated allegations that current and former U.S. officials engaged in corruption, money laundering and unlawful political influence in Ukraine.”The targets of the sanctions also included four media companies that the Treasury Department said were affiliated with Mr. Derkach and were involved in his efforts to spread disinformation.The sanctions are the latest in a series of steps taken by the Treasury Department over the past few years to punish people and groups that it accused of involvement in Russia-linked election interference, even as Mr. Trump, an intended beneficiary of the interference, has continued to downplay Russia’s role.“Russian disinformation campaigns targeting American citizens are a threat to our democracy,” Steven T. Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said in the statement. “The United States will continue to aggressively defend the integrity of our election systems and processes.”Kostiantyn H. Kulyk was sanctioned by the Treasury Department on Monday.Credit…Viacheslav Ratynskyi/ReutersMr. Kulyk had worked in the office of Ukraine’s national prosecutor, where he helped lead an investigation into a Ukrainian oligarch who owned a gas company that had paid Hunter Biden as a board member when his father was serving as vice president and overseeing American relations with Ukraine. Mr. Kulyk discussed the subject with Mr. Giuliani, who was pushing the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation into the Bidens to damage the former vice president’s presidential campaign.Mr. Kulyk, who has since been fired from the prosecutors’ office, was accused by the Treasury Department on Monday of forming “an alliance with Derkach to spread false accusations of international corruption.”Mr. Telizhenko, a political consultant and former official in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, provided information to Senate Republicans for a report on the Bidens’ work in Ukraine, which was released weeks before Election Day in an apparent effort to damage the Biden campaign. The report found no evidence of improper influence or wrongdoing by the former vice president.Mr. Telizhenko assisted Mr. Giuliani during the 2020 campaign, arranging meetings with Ukrainians claiming to have damaging information about the Bidens. Mr. Telizhenko helped plan a trip for Mr. Giuliani to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, in December 2019, during which Mr. Giuliani met with Mr. Derkach and recorded interviews with him and others that aired on Mr. Giuliani’s podcast and a special on the pro-Trump cable channel One America News Network.The Treasury Department seemed to allude to this trip in explaining its sanctions of Mr. Telizhenko, noting in its statement that he “orchestrated meetings between Derkach and U.S. persons to help propagate false claims concerning corruption in Ukraine.” The statement did not explicitly name Mr. Giuliani or the Bidens, but it asserted that the sanctioned Ukrainians “leveraged U.S. media, U.S.-based social media platforms and influential U.S. persons” in their efforts to spread damaging allegations.”I will continue to fight for the truth no matter what lies are spread against me, as God is where the truth is,” Mr. Telizhenko said in an emailed statement on Monday. “I stood and will stand with President Donald J. Trump.”Mr. Giuliani did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.After the sanctions against Mr. Derkach were announced in September, Mr. Giuliani said in an interview that he “didn’t do much investigation” of Mr. Derkach but had “no reason to believe he is a Russian agent.”Andrii Telizhenko and Mr. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, posed for a photograph during a meeting in Ukraine in December 2019.Credit…Andrii Telizhenko/ReutersIn the interview, Mr. Giuliani said he knew Mr. Telizhenko “a lot better than I know Derkach,” adding he “looked into” Mr. Telizhenko “very carefully. I mean, look, I’m not a genius, but I would be shocked if he’s anything like a Russian agent.” He added: “I would vouch for very few Ukrainians. I’d come pretty close to vouching for him. I’m not sure I would completely vouch for him, but pretty close.”The sanctions against Mr. Derkach stemmed from his release of audio recordings of Mr. Biden talking to Petro O. Poroshenko, the former president of Ukraine. Mr. Trump promoted some of the material released by Mr. Derkach, who claimed the recordings revealed corruption, though the conversations were mostly unremarkable.Other Ukrainians targeted on Monday were accused of assisting in the efforts related to the recordings.Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a former Ukrainian lawmaker and ally of Mr. Poroshenko, was accused by the Treasury Department of providing the recordings to Mr. Derkach. Mr. Onyshchenko fled Ukraine in 2016 after being accused of fraud and money laundering.Oleksandr Dubinsky, a current member of the Ukrainian Parliament, was designated by the Treasury Department for joining Mr. Derkach in news conferences that highlighted the recordings. The Treasury Department said the news conferences were “designed to perpetuate” false narratives against “U.S. presidential candidates and their families.”Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement on Monday that the Ukrainian officials facing sanctions “have made repeated public statements advancing malicious narratives that U.S. government officials have engaged in corrupt dealings in Ukraine.” He added, “These efforts and narratives are consistent with or in support of Derkach’s objectives to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election.”Two of the media companies that were punished — including NabuLeaks, which posted the recordings of Mr. Biden and Mr. Poroshenko — are owned or controlled by Mr. Derkach. The other two, Only News and Skeptik TOV, are owned by Mr. Derkach’s media manager Petro Zhuravel, who was also penalized by the Treasury Department on Monday.A number of Mr. Derkach’s allies were also targeted. They include Dmytro Kovalchuk, a member of his media team, and Anton Simonenko, a close associate who helped Mr. Derkach hide financial assets, according to the Treasury Department.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyBanks Halt Political Donations After Pro-Trump Mob Storms Capitol: Live UpdatesCitigroup, Goldman Sachs and others pause their political contributions.Jan. 11, 2021, 8:49 a.m. ETJan. 11, 2021, 8:49 a.m. ETJPMorgan Chase is halting all political donations from its PAC for six months.Credit…Justin Lane/EPA, via ShutterstockBig businesses often donate to both political parties and say that their support is tied to narrow issues of specific interest to their industries. That became increasingly fraught last week, after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and some Republican lawmakers tried to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win in the presidential election.A flurry of companies have since reviewed political giving via their corporate political action committees, according to the DealBook newsletter.Some big banks are pausing all political donations:Goldman Sachs is freezing donations through its PAC and will conduct “a thorough assessment of how people acted during this period,” a spokesman, Jake Siewert, told DealBook.JPMorgan Chase is halting donations through its PAC for six months. “There will be plenty of time for campaigning later,” said Peter Scher, the bank’s head of corporate responsibility.Citigroup is postponing all campaign contributions for a quarter. “We want you to be assured that we will not support candidates who do not respect the rule of law,” Candi Wolff, the bank’s head of government affairs, wrote in an internal memo.Other banks, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo, said they would review their corporate contribution strategy.Some companies are pausing donations to specific politicians. Marriott said it would pause donations from its PAC “to those who voted against certification of the election,” a spokeswoman told DealBook. She did not say how long the break would last or how the bank would decide when to resume.Blue Cross Blue Shield, Boston Scientific and Commerce Bancshares are taking a similar, targeted approach to donation freezes. The newsletter Popular Information is tracking the responses of these and other companies that donated to lawmakers who challenged the election result.The suspensions coincide with the first quarter after a presidential election, which is typically light on fund-raising anyway. Efforts by some companies to pause PAC donations to all lawmakers — those who voted to uphold the election as well as those who sought to overturn it — are raising eyebrows. And companies can still give to “dark money” groups that don’t disclose their donors but often raise far more money than corporate PACs.In other fallout, the P.G.A. of America said it would no longer hold its signature championship at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J.; the social app Parler, popular among conservatives as an alternative to Twitter, went dark this morning after Amazon cut it off from computing services; the payment processor Stripe banned the Trump campaign from using its services; YouTube blocked Steve Bannon’s podcast channel; and the debate continues over tech giants’ influence over public speech.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySwayInside the Billion-Dollar War Against Right-Wing ConspiracistsJohn Poulos is the C.E.O. of Dominion Voting Systems. His $1.3 billion suit against an ex-Trump lawyer might be the “first step” in a powerful fight against actual fake news.Hosted by Kara SwisherMore episodes ofSwayJanuary 11, 2021  •  More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCan Andrew Yang Make It in New York City Politics?Mr. Yang has name recognition, fund-raising ability and some different ideas on how to run a government. How will that play in a city ravaged by the pandemic?Andrew Yang, who dropped out of the presidential race in February, will face scrutiny of his experience, views and basic knowledge of New York City if he runs for mayor.Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesJan. 11, 2021Updated 9:41 a.m. ETIn the last few months, the man who would be New York’s most famous mayoral candidate acted like anything but one.He spent more time barnstorming Georgia than he did the five boroughs. He openly contemplated cabinet roles and lobbied Washington lawmakers around stimulus relief. And he often made television appearances from his weekend home in the Hudson Valley rather than from his apartment in Hell’s Kitchen.Andrew Yang has a habit of practicing politics in unexpected ways.He began the presidential race as an unknown candidate and stayed relevant longer than more accomplished politicians did, building an ardent fan base through his quirky style, warnings about automation and championing of a universal basic income. He now turns to the New York City mayor’s race with significant name recognition, a vivid social media presence and a demonstrated ability to raise money.But he is still every bit the unorthodox contender, and that approach offers Mr. Yang both opportunities and monumental challenges in the race to lead New York out of a pandemic-fueled crisis. His candidacy — which may be officially announced as early as this week — would offer a clear test of whether New Yorkers want a splashy but inexperienced contender with bold ideas for navigating the city’s recovery, or whether a mood of citywide emergency propels a more familiar local figure with a traditional governing background.Mr. Yang, who most recently has been a CNN commentator, nonprofit founder, campaign surrogate and podcast host, embraces being a political outsider in a city where he has lived for 24 years — indeed, he has never voted for mayor, the office he is poised to seek.Now, he is betting that he would instantly inject a dose of star power into a muddled, crowded field, and that his pledges to be an ambitiously anti-poverty candidate would resonate in an economically ravaged city.But he is also sure to face scrutiny and pressure of a wholly different magnitude than he ever confronted as a genial presidential candidate who dropped out last February, as voters, rivals and the news media dissect his experience, views and basic knowledge of the city.“If someone’s looking for a candidate who has spent the last couple decades steeped in city government, like, I will likely not be their candidate,” Mr. Yang said in a Friday morning interview from his weekend home in New Paltz, N.Y., about 80 miles outside Manhattan.Mr. Yang, left, began the presidential race as an unknown candidate and stayed relevant longer than more accomplished politicians.Credit…Brittainy Newman/The New York TimesDetailing the public health and economic challenges facing New York, he continued, “If you look at that situation and say, ‘Hey, city government has been working great for us, and we need someone who has been a part of the firmament for X number of years,’ I would disagree with that assessment.”Mr. Yang grew up in Schenectady, N.Y. and Westchester County, attended Columbia Law School and stayed in New York City afterward, working, raising two young children and maintaining fond memories of Mayor Ed Koch from his suburban childhood.He has a slate of ideas for revitalizing a city reeling from the pandemic, proposing “the biggest implementation” of a basic income in the country, addressing broadband internet access and urging the establishment of a “people’s bank of New York” to assist struggling New Yorkers. Some operatives and lawmakers doubt the feasibility of his vision, and Mr. Yang, a neophyte when it comes to city political battles, will need to explain how he would achieve such sweeping goals given the city’s staggering financial challenges.Although he has never run for office in New York, Mr. Yang’s presidential bid showcased his fund-raising ability, especially among small-dollar donors. He has a larger national network than typical mayoral candidates, and intends to announce Martin Luther King III as a co-chair of the campaign, Mr. King confirmed.Mr. Yang has also enlisted the prominent New York operatives Bradley Tusk and Chris Coffey, and has been in touch with New York political figures including members of the congressional delegation; the City Council speaker, Corey Johnson; the city’s public advocate, Jumaane Williams; the Queens borough president, Donovan Richards Jr.; as well as union leaders, legislators and stakeholders like the Rev. Al Sharpton.But for much of his career — he has a mixed record of success in the nonprofit and start-up worlds — he has plainly been absent from New York politics.“Is he a New Yorker? I don’t even know,” said Kathryn S. Wylde, who leads the Partnership for New York City, an influential business organization. “I’ve never run into him as a New Yorker.”Asked about the most important thing he has done to understand the challenges facing New York and prepare for the mayoral contest after exiting the presidential stage, Mr. Yang cited the experience he and his family had of being in the city as it shut down amid the pandemic.But Mr. Yang, the father of a son with autism, also acknowledged that he has not remained in New York full time since then, which Politico reported on Friday.“We’ve spent more time upstate than in the city over the last number of months, but I also spent time in Georgia, as you know, I spent time in Pennsylvania campaigning for Joe and Kamala,” he said.Noting the challenges of fulfilling his CNN obligations from his apartment, he continued, “We live in a two-bedroom apartment in Manhattan. And so, like, can you imagine trying to have two kids on virtual school in a two-bedroom apartment, and then trying to do work yourself?”Mr. Yang in Pennsylvania campaigning for the Biden-Harris ticket in November. He also spent time in Georgia to try to help flip the Senate: “Most New Yorkers would be very excited about those goals,” he said.Credit…Associated PressIn fact, many New Yorkers have experienced just that dynamic, or far more challenging circumstances. Asked to respond to voters who expect their future mayor to have stayed in the city in its darkest moments, Mr. Yang suggested that his location was not relevant to his work at the time, and that New Yorkers would prioritize plans to move the city forward.“I was very focused on helping Joe and Kamala win, and then helping flip the Senate,” he said, though Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign was not especially fast-paced during the early days of the pandemic. “Most New Yorkers would be very excited about those goals, and are fairly indifferent to where I was doing that work from.”Mr. Yang’s allies hope that some of his strengths at the national level will translate in New York.During his presidential run, Mr. Yang connected with younger people, but the youth vote has not traditionally been influential in New York mayoral primaries. His candidacy will test whether he can bring more young people into the process, though he already has significant competition for the support of young progressive voters in particular.He demonstrated little traction with Black or Hispanic voters last year, but hopes that his universal basic income proposal will help him resonate across a range of communities of color, which were disproportionately hard-hit by the pandemic.That is an untested calculation in a diverse field that includes a number of candidates with much deeper ties to those communities and records of working on behalf of those voters. Mr. Yang may face an uphill battle in introducing himself as a New Yorker who understands the intricacies of the challenges at hand.Yet despite his untraditional background — and in some ways, because of it — he also possesses a set of political assets that may make him formidable.His signature issue, universal basic income, has growing political resonance as millions of Americans face unemployment, and the government cuts stimulus checks.“No elected official in the country has done more to shine a spotlight on the need for a basic income than Andrew Yang,” said Representative Ritchie Torres, who was recently elected to represent the South Bronx, adding that Mr. Yang was on a “very short list” of candidates whom he was considering endorsing.Mr. Yang also generates enthusiasm with a base of devoted fans that rivals may struggle to match in the sprint to the June Democratic primary.“There’s been a lack, I think, of excitement in this mayoral race,” said Assemblyman Ron Kim of Flushing, Queens, who recently dined on Korean barbecue with Mr. Yang in the area. “When Andrew was walking around, I saw an element of excitement.”Mr. Yang, the son of Taiwanese immigrants, would make history as New York’s first Asian-American mayor. Mr. Kim said he expected that Mr. Yang would connect with many Asian-American voters in New York, a constituency that has demonstrated growing political power across the country.In addition to meeting with New York elected officials and endorsing a number of them last year, Mr. Yang has engaged in some local philanthropic work in recent months.Representative Ritchie Torres, who represents the South Bronx, said Mr. Yang was on a “very short list” of candidates whom he was considering endorsing.Credit…Dave Sanders for The New York TimesHe launched Humanity Forward, a nonprofit organization that promotes direct cash relief, including to New Yorkers. For example, the organization promised $1 million in emergency cash relief to families in the Bronx. Justine Zinkin, the chief executive of Neighborhood Trust Financial Partners, which received that grant, confirmed the disbursement of $1,000 each to 1,000 Bronx residents.But in his own telling, Mr. Yang has primarily been focused on national obligations until recently. He said he did not begin to focus in earnest on a mayoral run until after the November election.Even then, he spent much of his time in Georgia. Mr. Yang argued that his efforts to help flip control of the Senate to the Democrats were significant for New York, citing the critical need for federal assistance for the struggling city.And it was in Georgia that he spent time with at least one of his future co-chairs of his expected mayoral campaign: Mr. King, the eldest son of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a human-rights activist, who cited Mr. Yang’s focus on the poor as especially compelling.But some New Yorkers said his time in Georgia has little relevance to his presumed next job as mayoral candidate.“Good for him as a human, but it wouldn’t be how I would use my time if I were running for mayor and the race were in six months,” said Eric Phillips, formerly a spokesman for Mayor Bill de Blasio. “He’s certainly done nothing that I’ve seen that demonstrates a command for city issues or the kind of really difficult decision-making that’s involved in managing 325,000 people and $90 billion. He hasn’t been involved in the civic fabric of the city.”News that he has not even voted for mayor also stunned some New Yorkers.Asked to explain that record, Mr. Yang acknowledged that in the past he may have taken city government “somewhat for granted.”“Right now we’re facing an historic crisis,” he said, adding that many New Yorkers “right now are engaging in different ways.”He promised that in the coming weeks, he would be accessible to his hometown.“Anyone who wants to talk to Andrew Yang in the days to come, like, I want to talk to them,” he said.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyLies, Damn Lies, and GeorgiaThe election of Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff is a clear message: The South truly is changing.Contributing Opinion WriterJan. 11, 2021A public art installation in Atlanta.Credit…Damon Winter/The New York TimesNASHVILLE — It’s impossible not to notice how many members of Congress who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election were white Southerners — more than half the legislators who professed to believe Donald Trump’s lie that the election was stolen are people who represent the American South. Even after his supporters, egged on by the president himself, staged a violent insurrection inside the United States Capitol, these craven, feckless legislators would not vote to certify the results of an election that has survived the scrutiny of more than 60 baseless challenges in various courts.Others, including my own state’s two senators, entered the Senate chamber on Jan. 6 fully intending to join them but were moved by the violent attack on the Capitol to reverse course. “These actions at the US Capitol by protestors are truly despicable and unacceptable,” tweeted Marsha Blackburn, a Republican senator from Tennessee. “I condemn them in the strongest possible terms. We are a nation of laws.”We are also a nation of free and fair elections, but somehow Ms. Blackburn had managed to ignore that necessary part of our democratic compact. She was not alone in her tardy about-face. All across the Southern states, politicians scrambled to reassert their own faith in the rule of law after publicly flouting it for weeks — or years, depending on when you start counting.Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, belatedly recognizing the nature of his own constituency, called the insurrectionists “terrorists, not patriots.”“Violence is abhorrent and I strongly condemn today’s attacks on our Capitol,” tweeted Senator Kelly Loeffler, Republican of Georgia, who had just spent two months running for re-election while simultaneously joining the president in insisting that the election was rigged.With such elected “leaders” representing this region — and with the insurrectionists parading through our nation’s Capitol carrying Confederate battle flags and other symbols of white supremacy — it’s not surprising that so many people outside the South seem to believe that the voters who support Marsha Blackburn, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Loeffler, not even to mention Donald Trump, are the only people who live here.All I can say is thank God for Georgia.In the runoff elections last week, the good people of Georgia sent two Democrats to Washington, D.C.: the Rev. Dr. Raphael Warnock, the pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once served as a co-pastor, and Jon Ossoff, a Jewish film executive who ran for Senate with the blessing of John Lewis, the civil rights activist and longtime member of Congress who passed away in July. In electing them, Georgia delivered the Senate to Democrats and at the same time offered a clear illustration of something Southerners, liberal and conservative alike, have known for years: The American South in the midst of profound change.This is not a story of 21st century carpetbaggers moving to the South to take advantage of our cheap cost of living and then blowing up our longstanding election patterns, an argument I’ve heard from more than one conservative Southerner.Partly, as other writers have noted, what is changing in the South is the demographic makeup. Urban and suburban voters, and the residents of college towns, are more apt to be progressive, and that’s true whether they’re homegrown or new residents. Every red state in the region has them. Think of Memphis and Nashville. Think of Chapel Hill and Birmingham and Louisville and New Orleans and Austin. As small towns dry up and jobs in the countryside disappear, it only stands to reason that these ever-growing cities and their suburbs will eventually loosen the stranglehold that rural voters have always had over elections in the South — at least in statewide elections, where gerrymandered districts don’t matter.But Republicans still hold the power in almost all Southern state legislatures (Virginia’s is the exception, and only since 2019), and they will continue to do everything possible to make it harder for Democrats to vote. In Georgia, state legislators are already eyeing new ways to avoid a repeat of the elections that turned Georgia blue. Consequently, change in the South may always be of the two-steps-forward-one-step-back variety.Which brings us to the other major explanation for why the South is changing: Liberals and progressives keep fighting back. Stacey Abrams is the face of this fight, and she is rightly credited with flipping Georgia two years after unapologetic voter-suppression tactics ended her own hopes of serving as governor. But the New Georgia Project, the mighty voter-outreach organization that Ms. Abrams and her colleagues have built to register new voters and persuade long disenfranchised Black and brown voters not to give up on the democratic process, has analogues across the South. These efforts may be less visible than Ms. Abrams’s, and some of them are still embryonic, but they are growing.That’s why Democrats down here haven’t completely lost heart, despite consistently losing elections to Republicans on one side and despite being chastised by liberals outside the South on the other. (“Everyday Democrats need to see beyond the electoral map to acknowledge the folks pushing for liberal ideas even in the reddest of areas,” the Kentucky novelist Silas House notes in a new essay for The Atlantic. “If they don’t, the cultural divide will grow only wider.”)In addition to voting demographics and voter outreach, a small but not inconsequential explanation for the changing political landscape of the South is that Donald Trump has finally inspired a change of heart in plenty of white Southerners. You won’t find them waving banners at political rallies or posting diatribes on social media, but they are here.Many of them sat out the last election, true, but others quietly, bravely cast their votes for Democrats, often for the first time in their lives, because this president has made them see how thin the veneer of democracy really is in today’s Republican Party. It isn’t easy for them to defy their entire family or their entire church to vote for candidates who stand for fairness and inclusion, but they did it in 2020, and already in 2021, and I believe that their numbers will continue to grow.I hope you’ll remember them, and all the passionate liberal activists here, too, the next time you see a sea of red on an election map. I hope you’ll remember them the next time a Southern statehouse passes another law that constrains the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. citizens or guts public education or makes it harder to choose an abortion but easier to buy a gun. I hope you’ll look beyond the headlines to what is also happening here, often at great risk to those who are making it happen. Because Georgia is the clearest proof yet that this is not our grandfather’s Southland anymore. And it will never be again.Margaret Renkl is a contributing opinion writer who covers flora, fauna, politics and culture in the American South. She is the author of the book “Late Migrations: A Natural History of Love and Loss.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More