Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Behind the Tactical Gains Against Iran, a Longer-Term Worry

      by

      Experts inside and outside the Biden administration fear that Iran may conclude it has only one defense left: racing for an atomic weapon.When Israeli fighter jets roared off the runways on Friday night, on a thousand-mile run to Iran, they headed for two major sets of targets: the air defenses that protect Tehran, including Iran’s leadership, and the giant fuel mixers that make propellant for Iran’s missile fleet.Israel’s military leaders, in calls with Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and other senior American officials, had concluded that taking out the air defenses would make Iran’s leaders fearful that Tehran itself could not be defended. That feeling of vulnerability was already high, after Israel decimated the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah, Tehran’s proxy forces that could strike Israel, over the past month.The surprise element for the Iranians was a set of strikes that hit a dozen or so fuel mixers, and took out the air defenses that protected several critical oil and petrochemical refineries, according to a senior U.S. official and two Israeli defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning.Without the capability to mix fuel, Iran cannot produce more of the type of ballistic missiles that its forces fired on Israel on Oct. 1, the immediate provocation for Israel’s strike. And it could take more than a year to replace them from Chinese and other suppliers.By Saturday, American and Israeli officials were claiming a major success, but lurking behind the satisfaction with the tactical gains lies a longer-term worry. With Iran’s Russian-produced air defenses in smoldering piles, many fear the Iranian leaders may conclude they have only one defense left: racing for an atomic weapon.That is just what American strategists have been desperately trying to avoid for a quarter-century, using sabotage, cyberattacks and diplomacy to keep Tehran from crossing the threshold to become a full nuclear-armed power.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Joseph J. Ellis: The Ideals of the Founders Are on the Ballot

      by

      The jury remains out on the verdict of the American electorate. While historians are virtually omniscient at predicting the past, we are not much better than most observers at predicting the future.Two predictions are, however, reasonably obvious: first, that Donald Trump will struggle to accept the verdict if he loses; second, that Kamala Harris will almost certainly win the popular vote, but could lose the election because of that strange American contraption called the Electoral College.More broadly, a longstanding American dilemma is on the ballot. Are a majority of American voters prepared to accept and even embrace the fact that we are a multiracial society — in effect, that Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream has become reality? Ms. Harris’s supporters are betting that we are. Mr. Trump’s supporters are betting that we are not.The founding fathers did not think about the popular vote and electoral college vote the way we do. Yet that disjunction looms over this election.There is also a gender dimension to our American dilemma that further complicates the outcome. Do we fully and finally believe the last six words of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, “with liberty and justice for all”? Even more than Barack Obama, Ms. Harris puts that question to the acid test. And polls will not provide a reliable answer, because many white and Black men will not reveal their deeper motives, even to themselves. Namely, that they cannot vote for a woman.As we prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence, the idea of human equality pronounced at the American founding will be front and center. We will be bombarded with Jefferson’s lyrical tribute to human equality. But we will also hear about the reality of racial and gender prejudice embraced by several prominent founders and the vast majority of American citizenry over which they presided.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      A Classical Music Discovery

      by

      An unknown waltz by Chopin has been found. As The Times’s classical music reporter, I don’t often get “news” from long-dead composers.But I recently learned that an unknown waltz by the eminent composer Chopin, written nearly 200 years ago, had been discovered in the vault of the Morgan Library & Museum in New York. It was unearthed in a collection of memorabilia, alongside postcards signed by Picasso and letters from Brahms and Tchaikovsky.We published our exclusive story on the discovery today. And here’s a special treat: The superstar pianist Lang Lang recorded the waltz for The Times. You can watch his performance here.The story of the long-lost waltz starts at the Morgan on a late-spring day, when the curator and composer Robinson McClellan came across an unusual musical manuscript. The piece was moody and melancholic, and a conspicuous name was written across the top: Chopin.McClellan took a photo on his iPhone so he could play the piece back at home on his electric piano. He also sent a photo to Jeffrey Kallberg, a Chopin scholar at the University of Pennsylvania.“My jaw dropped,” Kallberg told me. “I knew I had never seen this before.”In September, the Morgan’s experts invited me to view the manuscript, which they had authenticated by analyzing the paper, ink and musical style. It was much smaller than I had imagined — a pockmarked scrap about the size of an index card. Chopin had famously tiny penmanship, and he packed a lot into this little piece.As an amateur pianist, I grew up adoring Chopin’s music. His waltzes, nocturnes, ballades and mazurkas are a dreamy realm of nostalgia, longing, suffering and bliss. He is still one of music’s most beloved figures. (His heart, pickled in a jar of alcohol, is encased in a church in Warsaw.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times Endorsement Calls Are Self-Sabotage

      by

      I can think of some compelling reasons that leading independent newspapers should not be in the business of endorsing candidates for president.Unfortunately, the acts of self-sabotage by The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times do not reflect any of them. And so one more bulwark against autocracy erodes.The owners of both papers took as long as possible to reveal what they had already concluded: For the first time in years — since 2004 for The Los Angeles Times and 1988 for The Post — each would refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate. This inspired Donald Trump’s campaign to whoop that even Vice President Kamala Harris’s “fellow Californians know she’s not up for the job.” The Times’s editorial editor, Mariel Garza, resigned and said the decision made the organization look “craven and hypocritical.” Others followed.The Post’s endorsement of Ms. Harris had reportedly already been drafted, only to be shelved on the orders of its owner, Amazon’s founder, Mr. Bezos. But it fell to the paper’s publisher, William Lewis, to announce the decision, saying, “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.” Its editorial editor, David Shipley, in the face of his mutinous editorial board, said he owned the outcome, which he called a way of creating “independent space” for voters to make up their own minds.I’m not worried that Post and Los Angeles Times readers will have trouble deciding how to vote. I’m worried they’ll have trouble deciding whom to trust.Both papers are owned by billionaires — Patrick Soon-Shiong at The Times and Mr. Bezos at The Post — and it is this grim similarity that raises alarms, especially in the case of The Post, whose “Democracy dies in darkness” motto now moans like an epitaph. Rightly or wrongly, readers will reasonably conclude The Post backed off an endorsement of Ms. Harris to protect the owner’s business interests. Those interests are vast, spread across commerce, the military and, increasingly, the frothing frontiers of artificial intelligence. How now can readers trust The Post’s often excellent news coverage of those topics, which are core to its mission? It did not help the paper’s credibility when, on the day the nonendorsement was announced, Mr. Trump was spotted greeting executives of Mr. Bezos’ Blue Origin space company in Austin, Texas.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Sunday Read: ‘How Everyone Got Lost in Netflix’s Endless Library’

      by

      Emma Kehlbeck and Catherine Anderson and Listen and follow ‘The Daily’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube | iHeartRadioIf you take a journey deep within Netflix’s furthest recesses — burrow past Binge-worthy TV Dramas and 1980s Action Thrillers, take a left at Because You Watched the Lego Batman Movie, keep going past Fright Night — you will eventually find your way to the platform’s core, the forgotten layers of content fossilized by the pressure from the accreted layers above.Netflix’s vast library changed the business of television — in part by making a better product and showing the rest of the industry that it had to follow suit — but it also changed the very nature of television.There are a lot of ways to listen to “The Daily.” Here’s how.We want to hear from you. Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at thedaily@nytimes.com. Follow Michael Barbaro on X: @mikiebarb. And if you’re interested in advertising with “The Daily,” write to us at thedaily-ads@nytimes.com.Additional production for The Sunday Read was contributed by Isabella Anderson, Anna Diamond, Sarah Diamond, Elena Hecht, Emma Kehlbeck, Tanya Pérez, Frannie Carr Toth and Krish Seenivasan. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      For First Time in Decades, Japan Votes in a Knife-Edge Election

      by

      The Japanese electorate seemed poised to punish the Liberal Democrats, even if it does not go so far as to hand power to the opposition.Japanese voters are not accustomed to nail-biter elections.But as the country holds parliamentary elections on Sunday, the party that has governed Japan for all but four years since 1955 is facing the possibility that it could lose its majority in the body’s lower chamber, the House of Representatives.Just one month after a leadership vote by the conservative Liberal Democratic Party anointed Shigeru Ishiba as the new prime minister, the party entered the election under considerable pressure from a public angered by a long-simmering political finance scandal, rising inflation and the burdens of raising families.That does not necessarily mean that Japanese voters are ready to hand the government to a divided and enfeebled political opposition, which last won a general election 15 years ago. Analysts said it was likely that the incumbent party would either eke out just enough seats to retain parliamentary power or would be forced to bring on new coalition partners to remain in charge.“What is most interesting about this election is its uncertainty,” said Masaru Kohno, a political scientist at Waseda University in Tokyo.Unlike in other countries, where the electorate is divided over ideology and vastly different policy platforms, Japanese voters are frustrated by a sense that all options are uninspiring and that the governing party has grown complacent.On the eve of the election, Mr. Ishiba stopped at a rally for a Liberal Democratic candidate near the Tokyo Dome, a baseball stadium in the northern part of the city. Acknowledging the instability in his party, he appealed to the undecided voters standing in the crowd of about 500 that had gathered on the edge of a playground.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Michelle Obama Makes a Searing Appeal to Men: ‘Take Our Lives Seriously’

      by

      Michelle Obama issued an impassioned plea to American voters on Saturday — and, in particular, American men — anchored in a searing and intimate depiction of women’s bodies and reproductive health, and what she described as the life-or-death stakes of returning former President Donald J. Trump to power.In her first appearance on the campaign trail during this election, Mrs. Obama, long reluctant to engage in the political arena, described the far-reaching consequences of the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion, in the concrete terms of personal tragedy.“If your wife is shivering and bleeding on the operating room table during a routine delivery gone bad, her pressure dropping as she loses more and more blood, or some unforeseen infection spreads and her doctors aren’t sure if they can act, you will be the one praying that it’s not too late,” Mrs. Obama said. “You will be the one pleading for somebody, anybody, to do something.”And while she acknowledged the anger that many Americans feel about the “slow pace of change” in the country, she warned: “If we don’t get this election right, your wife, your daughter, your mother, we as women, will become collateral damage to your rage.”Michelle Obama, the former first lady, spoke about the potential risks to women’s health care in frank language. “If we don’t get this election right, your wife, your daughter, your mother, we as women, will become collateral damage to your rage.”Emily Elconin for The New York TimesMrs. Obama’s words — at a rally in Michigan where she introduced Vice President Kamala Harris — amounted to an extraordinary centering of women’s bodies and their private experiences in an American presidential election. She discussed menstrual cramps and hot flashes, describing the shame and uncertainty girls and women feel about their bodies. She told women they should demand to be treated as more than “baby-making vessels.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ‘This Is Real’: Excerpts From Michelle Obama’s Speech on the Election

      by

      Michelle Obama made the case for Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday night in Kalamazoo, Mich., with a striking speech about the consequences that the election will have for women’s bodies and reproductive health.Here are excerpts:“Do not put our lives in the hands of politicians, mostly men.”“I want folks to understand the chilling effect, not just on critical abortion care, but on the entirety of women’s health — all of it. There are good reasons why so many women and physicians are horrified by what’s happened since Donald Trump’s justices overturned Roe v Wade. We’re seeing women scrambling across state lines to get the care they need.”“This is real. So, do you think Donald Trump is thinking about the consequences for the millions of women who will be living in medical deserts? Does anyone think he has the emotional maturity and foresight to come up with a plan to protect us? Y’all, we are teetering on the edge.”“And this will not just affect women, it will affect you and your sons. The devastating consequences of teen pregnancy won’t just be borne by young girls, but also by the young men who are the fathers. They, too, will have their dreams of going to college, their entire future is totally upended by an unwanted pregnancy.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More