Biden, Joseph R Jr

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      What Really Happened in the Midterms?

      by

      A segment of swing voters decided to back Democratic candidates in many critical races.Caitlin Ochs for The New York TimesMore than eight months later, all the data from the 2022 midterm elections is — finally — final. The two most rigorous reports, from the Pew Research Center and Catalist, are finished.And yet despite all the data, there is a piece of the midterm puzzle that still hasn’t quite been resolved: How exactly did the Democrats manage to nearly sweep every competitive House and Senate race, even though they often fared quite miserably elsewhere?The Catalist report suggested it was the turnout, finding that Democrats won “with electorates in these contests looking more like the 2020 and 2018 electorates than a typical midterm.” Pew also pointed to turnout, but with a different interpretation, writing that Republicans won control of the House “largely on the strength of higher turnout,” and found that disproportionate numbers of Biden voters and Democrats from 2018 stayed home.You might imagine ways to square the two claims, but neither report offers a clear way to reconcile these competing stories. Catalist, a Democratic data firm, doesn’t mention a word on the partisan makeup of the electorate, despite possessing the data to do so. The Pew report, meanwhile, is framed around explaining how Republicans won the House popular vote by three points — an important outcome, but one overshadowed by the Democratic hold in the Senate and the razor-thin Republican House majority.Fortunately, our data at The New York Times can help piece together what remains of the puzzle. Over the last few years via Times/Siena College polls, we’ve interviewed tens of thousands of voters nationwide and in the crucial battleground states and districts. This data can be linked to voter registration files — the backbone of both the Catalist and Pew reports — that show exactly who voted and who did not (though not whom they voted for, of course), including in the states and districts that decided the midterm election.The findings suggest that the turnout was mostly typical of a midterm election and helped Republicans nationwide, but there are good reasons to doubt whether it was as helpful to the party out of power as it had been in previous midterms.It certainly wasn’t enough to overcome what truly distinguished the 2022 midterm election: the critical sliver of voters who were repelled by specific Republican nominees, Donald J. Trump’s “stop the steal” movement and the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.At a glance, a typical midterm electorateTo some degree, every midterm leans toward the party out of power, and has an older, whiter electorate. Last November was no exception. Just consider these figures on 2022 voters nationwide:73 percent of registered Republicans (defined by whether someone is registered as a Republican or participated in a recent Republican primary) turned out in 2022, compared with 63 percent of registered Democrats. The 10-point turnout advantage meant Republicans narrowly outnumbered Democrats among 2022 voters given that there are about five percentage points more registered Democrats than registered Republicans by this measure.Just 45 percent of Black and 38 percent of Hispanic voters turned out, compared with 58 percent of non-Hispanic whites, according to data from the Census Bureau. The findings are consistent with data from voter registration files and the actual results, as we reported last fall, along with the Pew and Catalist reports, in showing a weak turnout among Black voters.Voters over 65 represented 33 percent of the electorate, according to the L2 data, compared with just 10 percent for those 18 to 29.All of these patterns are consistent with a typical midterm turnout.The size of the Republican registration advantage is almost exactly in line with the available historical data. It also aligns neatly with our pre-election estimates, which you can see for yourself in our final (and highly accurate) Times/Siena polls.And as we reported in December, this basic story holds up in the battleground states as well. Republicans outvoted Democrats everywhere, including in the very states where Democrats excelled.A hidden Democratic turnout advantage?All of this seems to add up to a stark Republican turnout advantage, powered by an older, whiter and more Republican electorate.But perhaps surprisingly, there are reasons to think the actual turnout advantage for Republican candidates might not have been nearly so large as these figures suggest.Just start with the Pew report, which found that Trump voters were four points likelier to turn out than Biden voters, 71 percent to 67 percent. That’s an important advantage, but it’s less than half the size of the 10-point Republican turnout advantage by registration. The Pew figures actually suggest the 2022 midterm electorate backed Joe Biden in 2020, even though registered Republicans outnumbered Democrats.The Times data suggests something similar. According to our estimates, 69.1 percent of Trump voters turned out compared with 66.7 percent of Biden voters — essentially the same as the Pew figures, though edging even closer to parity.These estimates are based on a statistical model that marries Times/Siena polling data and voter records (including someone’s party registration) to predict how registrants voted in the 2020 election. I’ve forced you through that wonky sentence because it means that these estimates are entirely consistent with and inclusive of all of those various Republican-friendly turnout figures offered earlier: Our estimate is that Republicans outvoted Democrats by 10 points but that Trump voters nonetheless outvoted Biden voters by only two points.Looking at the data more carefully, the source of this disparity is mostly among Democrats. The registered Democrats who stayed home in 2022 were disproportionately likely to be those who sometimes vote Republican. The Democrats who turned out, on the other hand, were especially loyal Democrats who voted for Mr. Biden in 2020. This is partly because of education — midterm voters are more highly educated — but the survey data suggests that this Democratic advantage ran a lot deeper.It’s worth being cautious about this finding. The 10-point G.O.P. turnout advantage cited earlier is essentially a fact. The possibility that the practical turnout advantage for Republican candidates might have been only a third of that or less is an estimate based on fallible survey data. It’s also dependent on accurately surveying a group of people — nonvoters — who are very difficult for pollsters to measure.But the Times and Pew data tell a very similar story, despite very different methodologies, and the accurate topline results of the pre-election surveys add additional harmony. The possibility of some kind of hidden underlying Democratic advantage in motivation is also consistent with other data points on 2022, like Democrats’ astonishing success in ultra-low-turnout special elections.Close to parity in the battlegrounds?The 2022 midterm election was not a simple election decided by a national electorate. It was unusually heterogenous, with Republicans enjoying a “red wave” in states like Florida or New York while other states, like Pennsylvania and Michigan, could be argued to have ridden a “blue wave.”As we’ll see, nowhere near all of the difference between these states can be attributed to turnout. But part of the difference was the disparate turnout, with Republicans enjoying a far larger turnout advantage than they did nationwide in states like Florida, while Democrats did better than they did nationwide in states like Pennsylvania. And since our estimates suggest that the Republican turnout advantage nationwide was fairly modest — more modest than the party registration figures suggest — the estimates also show that neither party enjoyed a significant turnout advantage in many battleground states where Democrats turned in above-average performances.In Northern battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Ohio, Biden and Trump voters turned out at nearly identical rates, according to our estimates.In contrast, Trump voters were likelier to turn out than Biden voters by around 10 percentage points or more in states like Florida and New York. In practice, this meant that the Florida electorate most likely voted for Mr. Trump by double digits, even though he carried the state by just three points in 2020.Most states, including the key Sun Belt battlegrounds like Arizona and Georgia, fell in between the Northern battlegrounds and the red-wave states like New York or Florida.A decisive advantage among swing votersThe resilient Democratic turnout in many key Northern battleground states might seem like a key that unlocks what happened in 2022, but it explains less than you might think.According to our estimates, Biden voters only narrowly outnumbered Trump voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan. But Democratic candidates for Senate and governor won in landslides that greatly exceeded Mr. Biden’s margin of victory. Similarly, Trump voters outnumbered Biden voters in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada, where Democrats posted crucial wins that assured control of the Senate.Ultimately, the Democratic performance depended on something that went far beyond turnout: A segment of swing voters decided to back Democratic candidates in many critical races.For all the talk about turnout, this is what distinguished the 2022 midterms from any other in recent memory. Looking back over 15 years, the party out of power has typically won independent voters by an average margin of 14 points, as a crucial segment of voters either has soured on the president or has acted as a check against the excesses of the party in power.This did not happen in 2022. Every major study — the exit polls, the AP/VoteCast study, the Pew study published this week — showed Democrats narrowly won self-identified independent voters, despite an unfavorable national political environment and an older, whiter group of independent voters. A post-election analysis of Times/Siena surveys adjusted to match the final vote count and the validated electorate show the same thing. It took the Democratic resilience among swing voters together with the Democratic resilience in turnout, especially in the Northern battlegrounds, to nearly allow Democrats to hold the U.S. House.In many crucial states, Democratic candidates for Senate and governor often outright excelled among swing voters, plainly winning over a sliver of voters who probably backed Mr. Trump for president in 2020 and certainly supported Republican candidates for U.S. House in 2022. This was most pronounced in the states where Republicans nominated stop-the-steal candidates or where the abortion issue was prominent, like Michigan.Democratic strength among swing voters in key states allowed the party to overcome an important turnout disadvantage in states like Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. That strength turned Pennsylvania and Michigan into landslides. And it ensured that the 2022 midterm election would not go down as an easy Republican victory, despite their takeover of the House, but would instead seem like a setback for conservatives. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats, It’s OK to Talk About Hunter Biden

      by

      If you travel in predominantly Democratic circles and want to have a really trying day, write or publicly say something unflattering but true about President Biden, a lament legible or audible beyond people who can be safely depended on to vote for him. Then brace for the furies.Observe that it’s one thing — a noble, beautiful thing — for him to give steadfast support and unconditional love to his profoundly troubled son, but that it’s another for that son to attend a state dinner days after he had cut a deal with federal prosecutors on tax and gun charges. Many of your liberal acquaintances will shush and shame you: Speak no ill of Joe Biden! That’s an unaffordable luxury. You’re playing into his MAGA adversaries’ hands.Note that Biden seems less physically peppy and verbally precise than in years past and suggest that it might be best, for him and for continued Democratic control of the White House, if he let Democrats choose a different 2024 nominee. You’ll be likened to an anchor for Fox News. You’ll be chided for age discrimination. Never mind that you’re examining his behavior, not the year on his birth certificate. You’re being counterproductive.You’ll be asked: What do Hunter Biden and diminished vim matter next to the menace of Donald Trump and a Republican Party in his lawless, nihilistic thrall? That’s a fair question — to a point. But past that point, it’s dishonest and dangerous.Dishonest because the question is often leveled at essentially Biden-friendly observers who have lavished, oh, 100 times as many words on Trump’s epic moral corruption as on Biden’s blind spots and missteps, creating zero impression of any equivalence.Dangerous because it suggests that Americans can’t be trusted to behold politicians in their full complexity — and reality in all its messiness — and distinguish unideal from unconscionable, scattered flaws from through-and-through fraudulence. I don’t see how that’s consonant with the exaltation and preservation of democracy, in which it exhibits scant trust.It also plays into the portrait of Democrats as elitists who decide what people should and shouldn’t be exposed to — what they can and can’t handle. How’s that a winning look?I believe that a victory by Trump in 2024 would be devastating beyond measure for the United States. I believe that a victory by any Republican who has indulged, parroted or promoted Trump’s fictions and assaults on democratic norms would also be a disaster. His abettors have shown their colors and disqualified themselves. And I’ve said that — and will continue to say that — repeatedly.I also believe that Biden has been a good president at a very difficult time, and that even if he’s not near peak vigor, we’d be much, much better served by the renewal of his White House lease than by a new tenant in the form of Trump or one of his de facto accomplices. Biden’s second term, like his first, would be about more than the man himself. It would be about a whole team, a set of principles, a fundamental decency, a thread of continuity, an investment in important institutions.And I believe that there’s more than ample room in all the above to talk about whether Biden is the strongest of the possible Democratic contenders to take on Trump, Ron DeSantis or whomever — although that particular conversation may soon be moot, given the ever-shrinking amount of time for those contenders to put together campaigns and for Democratic voters to assess them.Likewise, it’s possible — no, necessary — to have nuanced conversations about Biden’s and his administration’s mix of virtues and vices. If a big part of the horror of Trump is his estrangement from and perversion of truth, how is the proper or even strategic response to gild or cloak truth and declare it subservient to a desired political end?The intensity of many House Republicans’ fixation on Hunter Biden is deranged, and journalists would be wrong to chronicle every breathless inch of their descent down that rabbit hole. But we’d also be wrong to ignore Hunter Biden entirely, and Democratic partisans who urge that aren’t being realistic and are doing as much to feed suspicions as to quell them.As Peter Baker wrote in The Times last month, “In modern times, the harsh spotlight of media scrutiny has focused on Donald Nixon’s financial dealings with Howard Hughes, Billy Carter’s work as an agent for Libya, Neil Bush’s service on the board of a failed savings and loan, Roger Clinton’s drug convictions and of course the various financial and security clearance issues involving Mr. Trump’s children and son-in-law.”Baker later added: “Even some of the president’s Democratic allies have privately said there were legitimate questions about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine and China that seemed to trade on his name.”This is a strange, scary time. The leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is an indicted, twice-impeached former president who cares only for his own eminence and survival and doesn’t let a shred of civic concern, genuine patriotism or recognizable scruple dilute his solipsism. He could well take up residence in the White House again.So the temptation, given the stakes, is to bathe whichever Democrat stands in the way of that in a beatific light, to sing that person’s praises as loudly and unflaggingly as vocal cords permit. That feels like the prudent response. It feels like the ethical one.It’s neither, certainly not for those of us in the news media. It would put us in the business of creating outcomes, not chronicling events, which would be obvious to voters on top of being wrong. It would further erode our credibility, which has suffered plenty of erosion already. It would betray the fundamental purpose and real power of journalism.We do best as a profession — and all of us do best as a democracy and a society — when we hold everyone accountable, regardless of the special circumstances, and when we’re honest across the board. To act otherwise is to send the message that all is gamesmanship and that integrity is for suckers. That’s probably not how we defeat Trump. It’s more likely how he defeats us, long before and long after whatever happens in November 2024.For the Love of SentencesAdele performs in Las Vegas.Kevin Mazur/Getty Images for ADIn recognition of a time of year with much volitional long-haul air travel, David Mack mulled matters baggage-related in The Times: “I’m terrible at packing. Laughably terrible. Concerningly so. On a recent trip to Las Vegas with my boyfriend (I’m gay) and both our mothers (again, we are extremely gay) to see Adele (you get the idea), we both packed so much that you’d be forgiven for thinking we were moving there.” (Thanks to Conrad Macina of Landing, N.J., and Jean Dunn of Southbury, Conn., for spotlighting this.)Also in The Times, Jane Margolies described a growing trend of corporate office buildings trimmed with greenery that requires less maintenance: “As manicured lawns give way to meadows and borders of annuals are replaced by wild and woolly native plants, a looser, some might say messier, aesthetic is taking hold. Call it the horticultural equivalent of bedhead.” (Sally Hinson, Greer, S.C.)And Michael Kimmelman bemoaned the Sisyphean efforts to make Penn Station in Manhattan bearable: “The only thing everyone seems to know for certain is that nothing meaningful ever really happens to improve North America’s busiest and most miserable train hub, despite decades of demands and promises. Hope has long gone to die on the 6:50 to Secaucus.” (Guy Heston, Las Vegas, and David Ballard, Asbury Park, N.J.)In The Globe and Mail of Toronto, Cathal Kelly pondered the cantankerous trajectory of the tennis star Andy Murray: “In his dotage, Murray has become the guy who’s visibly counting what you’ve put down in the ‘eight items or less’ checkout line.” (Hamish Cameron, Toronto)In The Guardian, Stuart Heritage reflected on the end of the Sussexes’ deal with Spotify, for which Meghan Markle hosted “Archetypes,” a short-lived, inspiration-minded podcast on which she interviewed other prominent women: “As an entity, Harry and Meghan are only interesting for as long as they can destabilize the monarchy. Their Oprah interview did that. Their documentary did that. Harry’s book ‘Spare’ did that. ‘Archetypes’ did not do that, and as such was roughly as interesting as listening to changing-room chatter in the world’s most insufferable yoga studio.” (John Donaldson, Carlsbad, Calif.)In The Boston Globe, Scot Lehigh pondered a popular current riddle: “DeSantis must have some political skills. Saddled with qualities that evolution traditionally rewards in porcupines but not politicians, he has still managed to succeed on a state level.” (Kathie Lynch Nutting, Mashpee, Mass.)In The New Yorker, Julian Lucas profiled the trailblazing and visionary science fiction writer Samuel R. Delany, now 81: “With long white hair, heavy brows and a chest-length beard that begins halfway up his lightly melanated cheeks, Delany has the appearance of an Eastern Orthodox monk who left his cloister for a biker gang.” (Max Sinclair, DeKalb, Ill.)And in a letter to the editor in The Washington Post, a reader named Michael D. Schattman poked fun at the oddities of a now-famous plaintiff: “A fair reading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in 303 Creative v. Elenis is that the Colorado anti-discrimination law is in fact constitutional, except when applied to a business that does not wish to provide a product it does not offer to a nonexistent gay couple who are not seeking a website for an imaginary wedding of which the business owner does not approve.” (Lee Hudson, Gilboa, N.Y.)To nominate favorite bits of recent writing from The Times or other publications to be mentioned in “For the Love of Sentences,” please email me here and include your name and place of residence.On a Personal NoteStephen Speranza for The New York TimesNot all seasons are created equal. If you live in a place with a real autumn — with that football-weather nip in the air, those leaves going out in a blaze of glory — you know that it has no match. And if you live in a place with a real spring — with that sudden return of birdsong, those pink and red and purple blossoms — you know that it comes a close second.But how to rank summer and winter? Most of the people I know put winter last, and many of them misguidedly vault summer all the way to the top. For me, summer’s the bottom, and T.S. Eliot’s take on the calendar was all wrong. August is the cruelest month, barely edging out July.In the great outdoors, it’s harder to get cool in the summer than warm in the winter, when layers do the trick. And it’s getting harder all the time. Earth experienced what scientists said was probably its hottest day in modern history a week ago Monday. Then it beat that — twice — in the days just after that.The languid summer air is a soporific. And summer comes wrapped in the oppressive insistence that it’s the season of liberation, of abandon, of fun: no school, less clothing, vacations, the beach, the beach, the infernal beach. Summer is like New Year’s Eve that way. It’s decreed revelry. I like my revelry spontaneous, serendipitous and in soft, long-sleeved, flab-concealing flannel shirts.I like seasons with fewer ticks, fewer mosquitoes, less sunburn. Summer is hazardous. I’m surprised it doesn’t make everyone sign some sort of waiver.Perhaps you disagree? I hope you disagree. Because if you do, I invite you to send me, at this address, anywhere from one to four sentences arguing summer’s case. If I get enough deft, spirited responses, persuasive in their humor or eloquence, I’ll compile and share some of them in a newsletter between now and the end of this over-baked stretch of the calendar.Meantime? Apply your sunscreen. Trim your toenails (all those damned sandals and flip-flops). HAVE FUN! Summer will tolerate nothing less. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Pledges Long-Term Backing for Ukraine, but a U.S. Election Looms

      by

      Citing American politics, some NATO leaders expressed concern that Washington could waver in its support if there were a shift in power.Moments after President Biden assured Volodymyr Zelensky that he could count on United States support for as long as it took, the Ukrainian leader used the opportunity to speak not only to NATO allies but also to an audience thousands of miles away.“I understand that it’s all your money,” Mr. Zelensky said, addressing Americans directly. “You spend this money for our lives.”Despite Mr. Biden’s repeated promises of staying by Ukraine’s side in its war against Russia, questions about the shelf life of support among American people and lawmakers hung over the summit of Western allies. Even as the U.S. president was giving a long-term commitment, a group of far-right Republican lawmakers in Washington was pushing legislation that would scale back aid to Ukraine, exposing fractures in the Republican Party and raising doubts about its commitment should it capture the White House next year.The two G.O.P. candidates leading in polls, Donald J. Trump and Ron DeSantis, have also expressed reservations about maintaining the war as a priority for the United States, fueling concern among some Western allies and injecting the American electoral cycle as a major element in Ukraine’s prospects for victory.At the NATO summit, Mr. Biden was intent on addressing those doubts, vowing to continue to rally the alliance in support of Ukraine and speaking to his domestic audience back home, preparing Americans for a prolonged standoff with Russia. During a speech from Vilnius University, in the Lithuanian capital, he compared the plight of Ukraine to the Cold War struggle for freedom in Europe, a fight that had the overwhelming support of both the Democratic and Republican Parties.“We will not waver,” Mr. Biden said, a message echoed by most NATO leaders. “I mean that. Our commitment to Ukraine will not weaken.”Still, some leaders openly questioned just how long Kyiv could count on robust U.S. support.Ukraine needed to make military progress more or less “by the end of this year” because of the coming elections in the United States, President Petr Pavel of the Czech Republic warned on the first day of the summit. By next year, he suggested, there could also be “another decline of willingness to massively support Ukraine with more weapons.”The president of the Czech Republic, Petr Pavel, at the NATO summit on Tuesday. Ukraine needed to make military progress more or less “by the end of this year,” he said.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesBen Wallace, Britain’s defense minister, went so far as “providing a slight word of caution” that Ukraine should express more appreciation to allies for sending tens of billions of dollars in aid to Kyiv.“Sometimes you’ve got to persuade lawmakers on the Hill in America,” Mr. Wallace said. “You’ve got to persuade doubting politicians in other countries that, you know, that it’s worthwhile.”(In a stern reply to Mr. Wallace, Mr. Zelensky later told reporters, “He can write to me about how he wants to be thanked.”)Even as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey expressed optimism about collaborating with the United States at future NATO summits, he joked about the uncertainty of future U.S. leadership. “With the forthcoming elections, I would also like to take this opportunity to wish you the best of luck,” Mr. Erdogan told Mr. Biden, prompting the American president to laugh and reassure him that he would be meeting him again in the years ahead.But the concerns expressed by those leaders appeared to have some grounding, given Republican skepticism.“I’m of course concerned about the leadership,” said William Taylor, a former ambassador to Ukraine in the Bush and Obama administrations. “American leadership on this issue is going to be key, and it will have to continue to be bipartisan.”Mr. Biden’s aides say they believe his ability to build support for Ukraine both domestically and overseas will be one of the lasting achievements of his presidency. He has sold himself as someone who can repair the divisions deepened by his rivals, and on the campaign trail he is expected to emphasize his consensus-building in the halls of Congress and on the global stage during what he has described as an inflection point for the world.Turkey’s decision to end a block on Sweden’s entrance to NATO and Mr. Zelensky’s declaration that the summit had given Ukraine a “significant security victory” will probably help Mr. Biden’s case. But many American voters remain unconvinced, particularly about his economic record, fueling his low approval numbers.Over the past year, Mr. Biden has attempted to frame the economic hardship that comes with aiding Ukraine as a cost of defending democracy.But some support among the public has wavered at times as Americans faced soaring consumer prices and Europeans grappled with an energy crisis after cutting their reliance on Russian gas.The Consumer Price Index reported on Wednesday that U.S. inflation had cooled slightly in June, providing an assist to Mr. Biden’s pitch. Federal Reserve officials are still assessing, however, just how long the trend will last. Consumer price rises remain above the rate of increase from before the pandemic.A recent Reuters-Ipsos survey found a sharp rise in support among the American public for helping Ukraine’s effort to defend itself against Russia. The survey found that 81 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents favored supplying U.S. weapons to Ukraine. The poll also found that a large majority of Americans were more likely to support a presidential candidate who would continue to provide military aid to Kyiv.“This is a good debate to have,” Mr. Taylor, the former ambassador, said. “The American people deserve to participate in the debate about the support for Ukraine and the opposition to Russia’s invasion.”Mr. Taylor said he remained optimistic about Ukraine funding, since both the Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress have expressed support and because the proposals by the far-right flank are almost certain not to pass the House.Throughout the week, Mr. Biden and other American officials have been intent on just ensuring unity in backing for Ukraine — at the NATO summit and back home. When a Ukrainian activist pressed Jake Sullivan, Mr. Biden’s national security adviser, over the U.S. administration’s reluctance to invite Ukraine to join the alliance immediately, Mr. Sullivan reminded her that the Biden administration had provided “an enormous amount of capacity” to Kyiv.He then invoked those within U.S. borders. “The American people have sought — in watching and wanting to stand in solidarity with the brave and courageous people of Ukraine — to step up and deliver, and I think the American people do deserve a degree of gratitude from us,” he said.And in describing the war as a choice between democracy and autocratic governments — a message he has leaned on since the start of his presidency — Mr. Biden sought to convince voters that they should care about a battle on the other side of the globe.“A choice between a world defined by coercion and exploitation, where might makes right,” Mr. Biden said, “or a world where we recognize that our own success is bound to the success of others.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Energy Transition Is Underway. Fossil Fuel Workers Could Be Left Behind.

      by

      The Biden administration is trying to increase renewable energy investments in distressed regions, but some are skeptical those measures would be enough to make up for job losses.Tiffany Berger spent more than a decade working at a coal-fired power plant in Coshocton County, Ohio, eventually becoming a unit operator making about $100,000 annually.But in 2020, American Electric Power shut down the plant, and Ms. Berger struggled to find a job nearby that offered a comparable salary. She sold her house, moved in with her parents and decided to help run their farm in Newcomerstown, Ohio, about 30 minutes away.They sell some of the corn, beans and beef they harvest, but it is only enough to keep the farm running. Ms. Berger, 39, started working part time at a local fertilizer and seed company last year, making just a third of what she used to earn. She said she had “never dreamed” the plant would close.“I thought I was set to retire from there,” Ms. Berger said. “It’s a power plant. I mean, everybody needs power.”The United States is undergoing a rapid shift away from fossil fuels as new battery factories, wind and solar projects, and other clean energy investments crop up across the country. An expansive climate law that Democrats passed last year could be even more effective than Biden administration officials had estimated at reducing fossil fuel emissions. While the transition is projected to create hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs, it could be devastating for many workers and counties that have relied on coal, oil and gas for their economic stability. Estimates of the potential job losses in the coming years vary, but roughly 900,000 workers were directly employed by fossil fuel industries in 2022, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.The Biden administration is trying to mitigate the impact, mostly by providing additional tax advantages for renewable energy projects that are built in areas vulnerable to the energy transition. But some economists, climate researchers and union leaders said they are skeptical the initiatives will be enough. Beyond construction, wind and solar farms typically require few workers to operate, and new clean energy jobs might not necessarily offer comparable wages or align with the skills of laid-off workers.Coal plants have already been shutting down for years, and the nation’s coal production has fallen from its peak in the late 2000s. U.S. coal-fired generation capacity is projected to decline sharply to about 50 percent of current levels by 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration. About 41,000 workers remain in the coal mining industry, down from about 177,000 in the mid-1980s.The industry’s demise is a problem not just for its workers but also for the communities that have long relied on coal to power their tax revenue. The loss of revenue from mines, plants and workers can mean less money for schools, roads and law enforcement. A recent paper from the Aspen Institute found that from 1980 to 2019, regions exposed to the decline of coal saw long-run reductions in earnings and employment rates, greater uptake of Medicare and Medicaid benefits and substantial decreases in population, particularly among younger workers. That “leaves behind a population that is disproportionately old, sick and poor,” according to the paper.The Biden administration has promised to help those communities weather the impact, for both economic and political reasons. Failure to adequately help displaced workers could translate into the kind of populist backlash that hurt Democrats in the wake of globalization as companies shifted factories to China. Promises to restore coal jobs also helped Donald J. Trump clinch the 2016 election, securing him crucial votes in states like Pennsylvania.Federal officials have vowed to create jobs in hard-hit communities and ensure that displaced workers “benefit from the new clean energy economy” by offering developers billions in bonus tax credits to put renewable energy projects in regions dependent on fossil fuels.Tiffany Berger, who was laid off when the plant in Coshocton County was shut down, struggled to find work that offered a comparable salary. She moved in with her parents and decided to help run her family’s farm.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesIf new investments like solar farms or battery storage facilities are built in those regions, called “energy communities,” developers could get as much as 40 percent of a project’s cost covered. Businesses receiving credits for producing electricity from renewable sources could earn a 10 percent boost.The Inflation Reduction Act also set aside at least $4 billion in tax credits that could be used to build clean energy manufacturing facilities, among other projects, in regions with closed coal mines or plants, and it created a program that could guarantee up to $250 billion in loans to repurpose facilities like a shuttered power plant for clean energy uses.Brian Anderson, the executive director of the Biden administration’s interagency working group on energy communities, pointed to other federal initiatives, including increased funding for projects to reclaim abandoned mine lands and relief funds to revitalize coal communities.Still, he said that the efforts would not be enough, and that officials had limited funding to directly assist more communities.“We’re standing right at the cusp of potentially still leaving them behind again,” Mr. Anderson said.Phil Smith, the chief of staff at the United Mine Workers of America, said that the tax credits for manufacturers could help create more jobs but that $4 billion likely would not be enough to attract facilities to every region. He said he also hoped for more direct assistance for laid-off workers, but Congress did not fund those initiatives. “We think that’s still something that needs to be done,” Mr. Smith said.Gordon Hanson, the author of the Aspen Institute paper and a professor of urban policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said he worried the federal government was relying too heavily on the tax credits, in part because companies would likely be more inclined to invest in growing areas. He urged federal officials to increase unemployment benefits to distressed regions and funding for work force development programs.Even with the bonus credit, clean energy investments might not reach the hardest-hit areas because a broad swath of regions meets the federal definition of an energy community, said Daniel Raimi, a fellow at Resources for the Future.“If the intention of that provision was to specifically provide an advantage to the hardest-hit fossil fuel communities, I don’t think it’s done that,” Mr. Raimi said.Local officials have had mixed reactions to the federal efforts. Steve Henry, the judge-executive of Webster County, Ky., said he believed they could bring renewable energy investments and help attract other industries to the region. The county experienced a significant drop in tax revenue after its last mine shut down in 2019, and it now employs fewer 911 dispatchers and deputy sheriffs because officials cannot offer more competitive wages.“I think we can recover,” he said. “But it’s going to be a long recovery.”Adam O’Nan, the judge-executive of Union County, Ky., which has one coal mine left, said he thought renewable energy would bring few jobs to the area, and he doubted that a manufacturing plant would be built because of the county’s inadequate infrastructure.“It’s kind of difficult to see how it reaches down into Union County at this point,” Mr. O’Nan said. “We’re best suited for coal at the moment.”Federal and state efforts so far have done little to help workers like James Ault, 42, who was employed at an oil refinery in Contra Costa County, Calif., for 14 years before he was laid off in 2020. To keep his family afloat, he depleted his pension and withdrew most of the money from his 401(k) early.In early 2022, he moved to Roseville, Calif., to work at a power plant, but he was laid off again after four months. He worked briefly as a meal delivery driver before landing a job in February at a nearby chemical manufacturer.He now makes $17 an hour less than he did at the refinery and is barely able to cover his mortgage. Still, he said he would not return to the oil industry.“With our push away from gasoline, I feel that I would be going into an industry that is kind of dying,” Mr. Ault said. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Special Counsel Inquiries Into Trump Cost at Least $5.4 Million

      by

      The Justice Department also disclosed $616,000 in spending by the special counsel scrutinizing President Biden’s handling of classified files.The investigations into former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of government files and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election cost taxpayers about $5.4 million from November through March as the special counsel, Jack Smith, moved toward charging Mr. Trump, the Justice Department disclosed on Friday.Budgeting documents also showed that Robert K. Hur, the special counsel investigating President Biden’s handling of classified documents after he left the vice presidency, spent just under $616,000 from his appointment in January through March.And John H. Durham, who was appointed special counsel during the Trump administration to investigate the Russia inquiry, reported spending a little over $1.1 million from October 2022 to the end of March, representing the first half of the 2022-2023 fiscal year. Mr. Durham’s investigation had ended, but he was writing a final report he delivered in May.The budget disclosures covered an extraordinary period in which the Justice Department had three special counsels — prosecutors who operate with a greater degree of day-to-day autonomy than ordinary U.S. attorneys — at work. With the conclusion of Mr. Durham’s investigation, two such inquiries remain.Last month, Mr. Smith, who was appointed in November, obtained a grand jury indictment against Mr. Trump and an aide, Walt Nauta. The former president faces 31 counts of unauthorized retention of secret national-security documents and six other counts involving accusations of obstructing the investigation and causing one of his lawyers to lie to the government.Mr. Smith has also continued to investigate Mr. Trump and several of his associates over the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters. Both investigations have involved significant litigation over Mr. Trump’s attempts to block grand-jury testimony by various witnesses under attorney-client privilege.The largest line item of spending by Mr. Smith through the end of March — $2,672,783 — covered personnel compensation and expenses, according to the statement of expenditures. Most of that salary money was to reimburse the Justice Department for employees who already worked for the government and had been detailed to the special counsel’s office.Mr. Smith’s operation also paid $1,881,926 for contractual services, including litigation and investigative support and purchasing transcripts.Mr. Hur’s investigation has been much quieter. Mr. Garland appointed him in January after several classified documents were found at a former office of Mr. Biden’s in Washington and at his home in Wilmington, Del. Mr. Biden and his lawyers, who alerted the government to the discoveries and have portrayed their retention as inadvertent, have said they are cooperating with the investigation.The largest line item in Mr. Hur’s office during the two and a half months covered by the budgeting document was also personnel compensation and benefits, at $346,139. That figure indicates that his operation is significantly smaller than Mr. Smith’s, reflecting the narrower scope of his assignment.Of the three special counsels, only Mr. Durham’s office was operating for the entire six-month period covered by the budgeting documents. His largest expenditure — $544,044 — also covered employee salaries and benefits.To date, Mr. Durham has reported spending about $7.7 million in taxpayer funds since Attorney General William P. Barr gave him special counsel status in October 2020, entrenching him to continue his investigation after Mr. Trump lost the election.Mr. Durham, however, began his assignment in the spring of 2019, and the Justice Department has not disclosed what taxpayers spent on about the first 16 months of his work. That period included trips to Europe as Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham fruitlessly pursued a pro-Trump conspiracy theory that the Russia inquiry had originated in a plot by Western spy agencies.Mr. Durham also later developed two narrow cases accusing nongovernment officials of making false statements, both of which ended in acquittals. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      These 2024 Candidates Have Signed Up For Threads, Meta’s Twitter Alternative

      by

      The bulk of the G.O.P. field is there, with some notable holdouts: Donald J. Trump, the front-runner, and his top rival, Ron DeSantis.While the front-runners in the 2024 presidential race have yet to show up on Threads, the new Instagram app aimed at rivaling Twitter, many of the long-shot candidates were quick to take advantage of the platform’s rapidly growing audience.“Buckle up and join me on Threads!” Senator Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, wrote in a caption accompanying a selfie of himself and others in a car that he posted on Thursday — by that morning, the app had already been downloaded more than 30 million times, putting it on track to be the most rapidly downloaded app ever.But President Biden, former President Donald J. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida remain absent from the platform so far.And that may be just fine with Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, who told The Times’s “Hard Fork” podcast on Thursday that he does not expect Threads to become a destination for news or politics, arenas where Twitter has dominated the public discourse.“I don’t want to lean into hard news at all. I don’t think there’s much that we can or should do to discourage it on Instagram or in Threads, but I don’t think we’ll do anything to encourage it,” Mr. Mosseri said.The app, released on Wednesday, was presented as an alternative to Twitter, with which many users became disillusioned after it was purchased by Elon Musk in October.Lawyers for Twitter threatened legal action against Meta, the company that owns Instagram, Facebook and Threads, accusing it of using trade secrets from former Twitter employees to build the new platform. Mr. Musk tweeted on Thursday, “Competition is fine, cheating is not.”Mr. Trump has not been active on Twitter recently either, despite Mr. Musk’s lifting the ban that was put on Mr. Trump’s account after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The former president has instead kept his focus on Truth Social, the right-wing social network he launched in 2021.But many of the G.O.P. candidates have begun making their pitches on Threads.Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador and former governor of South Carolina, made a video compilation of her campaign events her first post on the app. “Strong and proud. Not weak and woke,” she wrote on Thursday. “That is the America I see.”Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota posted footage of his July 4 campaign appearances in New Hampshire, alongside a message on Wednesday that said he and his wife were “looking forward to continuing our time here.”And Will Hurd, a former Texas congressman, made a fund-raising pitch to viewers on Wednesday.“Welcome to Threads,” he said in a video posted on the app. “I’m looking forward to continuing the conversation here with you on the issues, my candidacy, where I’ll be and everything our campaign has going on.”Francis Suarez, the Republican mayor of Miami, and Larry Elder, a conservative talk radio host, also shared their campaign pitches on the platform, as did two candidates running in the Democratic primary: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a leading vaccine skeptic, and Marianne Williamson, a self-help author. Even Cornel West, a professor and progressive activist running as a third-party candidate, has posted.Former Vice President Mike Pence and Vivek Ramaswamy, a tech entrepreneur, also established accounts — but have yet to post.Among the holdouts: Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, both Republicans.The White House has not said whether Mr. Biden will join Threads. Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said on Thursday that the administration would “keep you all posted if we do.” More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Biden esquiva el rótulo de progresista a ultranza

      by

      A pesar de su alianza con los partidarios del derecho al aborto y los defensores LGBTQ, el presidente ha evitado hábilmente verse envuelto en batallas sobre temas sociales muy controvertidos.Hace más de una década, el presidente Joe Biden se adelantó de manera memorable a Barack Obama en cuanto al apoyo al matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, pero en un evento para recaudar fondos en junio, cerca de San Francisco, no pudo recordar las letras LGBTQ.Aunque el Partido Demócrata ha hecho que la lucha por el derecho al aborto sea central en su mensaje político, Biden se declaró como “no muy partidario del aborto” la semana pasada.En un momento en el que los partidos políticos estadounidenses intercambian disparos feroces desde las trincheras de una guerra por las políticas sociales y culturales, el mandatario se mantiene al margen.Biden, un hombre blanco de 80 años que no está muy actualizado con el lenguaje de la izquierda, ha evitado en gran medida involucrarse en las batallas contemporáneas sobre el género, el aborto y otros temas sociales muy controvertidos, incluso cuando hace cosas como albergar lo que llamó “la celebración más grande del Mes del Orgullo jamás organizada en la Casa Blanca”.Los republicanos han tratado de empujarlo hacia esa batalla, pero parecen reconocer la dificultad: cuando los candidatos presidenciales del Partido Republicano prometen ponerle fin a lo que califican burlonamente como la cultura “woke”, a menudo apuntan sus dardos no directamente a Biden sino a las grandes corporaciones como Disney y BlackRock o al enorme “Estado administrativo” del gobierno federal. Los estrategas republicanos afirman que la mayor parte del mensaje de su partido sobre el aborto y las personas transgénero está dirigido a los votantes de las primarias, mientras que en las elecciones presidenciales se considera que Biden es mucho más vulnerable en temas relacionados con la economía, el crimen y la inmigración.La protección de Biden contra los ataques culturales podría parecer improbable para un presidente que ha defendido firmemente los derechos de la comunidad LGBTQ, y que es el líder de un partido que saca ventaja de la ola de políticas sobre el aborto y un hombre que le debe su presidencia al apoyo inquebrantable de los votantes negros de las primarias demócratas.A pesar de que a lo largo de los años ha adoptado posiciones que impulsaron a los demócratas —y luego al país— a adoptar actitudes más liberales en temas sociales, Biden se ha mantenido algo distante de los elementos de su partido que podrían plantearle problemas políticos. En junio, la Casa Blanca declaró que le había prohibido la entrada a una activista transgénero que había mostrado su pecho desnudo en su evento del Mes del Orgullo.Y aunque la edad de Biden se ha convertido en una de sus principales debilidades políticas, tanto sus aliados como sus adversarios dicen que también lo protege de los ataques culturales de los republicanos.Biden celebró el Mes del Orgullo en el jardín sur de la Casa Blanca el mes pasado.Pete Marovich para The New York Times“Todo el mundo quiere hablar de la edad que tiene Joe Biden, pero la verdad es que es su edad y su experiencia lo que le permite ser quien es y le permite decir las cosas y ayudar a las personas de una manera que nadie más puede”, afirmó Henry R. Muñoz III, exdirector de finanzas del Comité Nacional Demócrata. En 2017, en la boda de Muñoz, que es gay, Biden fue el oficiante de la ceremonia.Gran parte de la lealtad hacia Biden por parte de los demócratas de la comunidad LGBTQ proviene de su respaldo en 2012 a los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo, cuando Obama todavía se oponía oficialmente a eso. La posición de Biden se consideró políticamente arriesgada en ese momento, antes de que la Corte Suprema reconociera en 2015 el derecho de las parejas del mismo sexo a casarse, pero se ha convertido en algo de lo que se jactó durante su campaña de 2020.Biden también ha estado a la vanguardia en el reconocimiento de los derechos de las personas transgénero. En su primera semana en el cargo puso fin a la medida de la era de Donald Trump de prohibir la presencia de soldados transgénero en el Ejército. En diciembre, promulgó protecciones federales para los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo.Al mismo tiempo, Biden no ha adoptado la terminología de los activistas progresistas ni se ha dejado involucrar en debates públicos que podrían dejarlo fuera de la corriente política tradicional. El jueves, después del importante fallo de la Corte Suprema que puso fin a la acción afirmativa en las admisiones universitarias, una periodista le preguntó: “¿Esta es una corte rebelde?”Tras una breve pausa para pensar, Biden respondió: “Esta no es una corte normal”.Biden tampoco recuerda las palabras que la mayoría de los políticos estadounidenses utilizan para describir a la comunidad LGBTQ. En el evento de recaudación de fondos cerca de San Francisco el mes pasado, Biden lamentó la decisión de la Corte Suprema que el año pasado puso fin al derecho nacional al aborto y sugirió que ahora el objetivo de la corte serían los derechos de la comunidad gay.Manifestantes pro-LGBTQ protestaban ante una reunión del grupo conservador Moms for Liberty el viernes en Filadelfia.Haiyun Jiang para The New York TimesParafraseando a dos de los jueces conservadores, Biden afirmó: “No hay ningún derecho constitucional en las leyes para H, B… disculpen, para los gays, lesbianas, ya saben, para todo, todo el grupo. No hay protección constitucional”.Durante una parada en la Feria Estatal de Iowa durante su campaña de 2020, un agitador conservador que seguía a los candidatos presidenciales demócratas le preguntó a Biden: “¿Cuántos géneros existen?”.Biden respondió: “Hay al menos tres. No intentes jugar conmigo, chico”.Luego, tal vez sin darse cuenta de que su inquisidor era un activista de derecha, Biden agregó: “Por cierto, el primero en declararse a favor del matrimonio fui yo”.Sarah McBride, una senadora del estado de Delaware que recientemente comenzó una campaña para convertirse en el primer miembro transgénero del Congreso, afirmó que el lenguaje de Biden le había permitido solidificar a los demócratas en una agenda social progresista y “llegar a comunidades y grupos demográficos que aún no están completamente en la coalición”.“No se deja atrapar por una retórica que no sea comprensible para un votante intermedio”, afirmó McBride.McBride también señaló que la edad de Biden es útil para defender los argumentos de los demócratas sobre temas sociales sin alienar a los votantes escépticos.“Su experiencia le permite decir cosas que creo que se escucharían como más radicales si las dijera un político más joven”, afirmó McBride.Como la mayoría de los estadounidenses han aceptado el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, los conservadores sociales han hecho de la oposición a los derechos de las personas transgénero un pilar de su política. Además, los republicanos que se postulan para remplazar a Biden tienden a centrarse en animar a los votantes de las primarias republicanas en vez de intentar convertir al presidente en un villano.“Es difícil retratar a un hombre blanco de 80 años como un férreo guerrero concienciado”, dijo Whit Ayres, encuestador de los candidatos republicanos desde hace mucho tiempo.El gobernador de Florida, Ron DeSantis, es quizás el principal proveedor del mensaje antiprogresista de los republicanos, lanzando improperios tanto en internet como en discursos. El último viernes de julio, su campaña incluso tachó a Trump de ser demasiado liberal en temas LGBTQ en un video controversial publicado en Twitter.En un mitin celebrado en junio en Tulsa, Oklahoma, DeSantis describió cómo se le acercaban veteranos militares que no querían que sus hijos y nietos se alistaran en las fuerzas armadas debido a los cambios políticos liberales instituidos por los demócratas, aunque el gobernador culpó a Obama tanto como a Biden.“Un ejército progre no será un ejército fuerte”, dijo DeSantis. “Hay que eliminar la politización. Y, en el primer día, arrancaremos todas las políticas de Obama-Biden para volver progre a las fuerzas armadas”.Biden nunca se ha presentado como un guerrero cultural de izquierda. Católico, hace mucho tiempo ha sido cauteloso con lanzarse de cabeza a las disputas por el derecho al aborto. Incluso cuando su campaña y su partido se preparan para hacer de su apuesta a la reelección un referendo sobre los esfuerzos republicanos para restringir aún más el aborto, Biden proclamó ante una multitud de donantes en los suburbios de Washington que él mismo no estaba muy ansioso por hacerlo.“¿Saben?, soy católico practicante”, dijo Biden la semana pasada. “No soy muy partidario del aborto. Pero ¿saben qué? Roe contra Wade estaba en lo correcto”.Durante mucho tiempo esa postura ha causado cierta consternación entre los demócratas. Hubo que esperar hasta junio de 2019, semanas después de comenzar su campaña de 2020 y bajo la inmensa presión de los aliados de su partido, para que Biden renunciara a su apoyo de larga data a la prohibición de la financiación federal de los abortos.Renee Bracey Sherman, fundadora de We Testify, un grupo que comparte historias de mujeres que han abortado, dijo que Biden tendría que adoptar una posición más enérgica a favor del derecho al aborto para animar a los votantes liberales en 2024. Sugirió que, de la misma manera que Biden recibe a equipos deportivos de campeonato en la Casa Blanca, debería invitar a mujeres que han abortado para vayan y cuenten sus historias.“Las elecciones de mitad de mandato muestran que los estadounidenses están con el aborto”, dijo Bracey Sherman. “El aborto tiene un índice de aprobación más alto que él. Debería subirse a la ola del aborto”.Kristi Eaton More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Kennedy, Christie and the Supreme Court: Are They Changing the Race?

      by

      A painful ruling from the court can sometimes free a party from an unpopular stance.A recent Supreme Court decision won’t necessarily hurt Democrats politically. J. Scott Applewhite/Associated PressWhen I returned from a trip to China almost exactly eight years ago, I found my inbox full of requests from editors to write about two huge stories that unfolded while I was gone: the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage and the emergence of a surprising candidate who entered the race after my departure, Donald J. Trump.Needless to say, my inbox this week after a couple of weeks off in the Pacific Northwest does not have nearly as many requests as it did in the wake of the Obergefell decision and Mr. Trump’s trip down the escalator. But the requests I do have nonetheless center on a similar set of topics: a major Supreme Court decision, this time to end affirmative action programs, and two upstart candidates who weren’t receiving a lot of attention before I left, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Chris Christie.Court gives Democrats some coverAs I wrote at the time, the Supreme Court’s decision to make same-sex marriage a fundamental right was probably politically advantageous for Republicans. Yes, the court decision was popular and the Republican position on same-sex marriage was increasingly unpopular, but that’s precisely why that decision did them a favor: It all but removed the issue from political discourse, freeing Republicans from an issue that might have otherwise hobbled them.In theory, something similar can be said for the court’s affirmative action ruling, but this time with the decision helping Democrats. Here again, the court is taking a popular position that potentially frees a political party — this time the Democrats — from an issue that could hurt it, including with the fast-growing group of Asian American voters.It’s worth noting that this would be nothing like how the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade helped Democrats. Then, the court ruling sparked a backlash that energized liberals and gave Democrats a new campaign issue with appeal to the base and moderates alike. If the most recent case were to help Democrats, it would do so in nearly the opposite manner: To take advantage of the ruling politically, Democrats might need to stop talking about it.It was fairly easy for Republican elites to stop talking about same-sex marriage in 2015, as many were already keen to move on from a losing political fight. It is not as obvious that Democratic elites are keen to move away from the fight over affirmative action or whether they even can, given their base’s passion for racial equality.About those other candidatesObviously, any analogy between the first few weeks of Mr. Trump’s campaign and the slow emergence of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Christie will be much more strained. For one, Mr. Christie and Mr. Kennedy were already making ripples in the race when I left, and I did think I might need to write about them at some point. In contrast, Mr. Trump couldn’t have been further from my mind in mid-June 2015. Upon hearing about his bid on my return, I thought he might fade so quickly that I would never even have to write about him. Whatever you think about Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Christie, there’s not much reason to think they simply might go “pop.”Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Christie don’t have much in common — other than their unequivocally low chance of actually winning — but they have, in their own ways, become factors in the race simply by being the best or even only vessel for expressing explicit opposition to their party’s front-runners, Joe Biden and Mr. Trump.Chris Christie has been direct in his criticism of Donald Trump.John Tully for The New York TimesUsually, willingness to oppose a front-runner isn’t enough to distinguish an aspiring candidate. This year, it is. No current or former elected official has challenged the incumbent president thus far in the Democratic primary. And while many prominent Republicans appear willing to enter the race against Mr. Trump, few appear willing to directly, forcefully and consistently attack him. When they do attack him — as Ron DeSantis recently did for supporting L.G.B.T.Q. people a decade ago — it’s often from the right, and not on the issues that animate the base of any hypothetical not-Trump coalition: relatively moderate, highly educated Republicans.Of the two, Mr. Christie is probably the one who is most effectively fulfilling this demand for direct opposition to the front-runner. There may not be a large constituency for anti-Trump campaigning, but it exists and Mr. Christie is feeding it what it wants. Just as important, directly attacking Mr. Trump ensures a steady diet of media coverage.All of this makes Mr. Christie a classic factional candidate, the kind that doesn’t usually win presidential nominations but can nonetheless play an important role in the outcome of the campaign. If he gains the allegiance of those outright opposed to Mr. Trump, he’ll deny an essential not-Trump voting bloc to another Republican who might have broader appeal throughout the party — say, Mr. DeSantis. This is most likely to play out in New Hampshire, where fragmentary survey data (often from Republican-aligned firms) shows Mr. Christie creeping up into the mid-to-high single digits.Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of vaccination.Ryan David Brown for The New York TimesMr. Kennedy is a more complicated case. With the help of a famous family name, he’s nudged ahead of Marianne Williamson for the minor distinction of being Mr. Biden’s top rival in Democratic primary polls. On average, Mr. Kennedy polls in the mid-teens, with some surveys still showing him in the single digits and one poll showing him above 20 percent. That’s more than Mr. Christie can say.But unlike Mr. Christie, Mr. Kennedy is not exactly feeding Biden skeptics what they want. Instead, he’s advancing conspiracy theories, appearing on right-wing media and earning praise from conservative figures. And unlike Mr. Trump, whose most ardent opposition is probably toward the center, Mr. Biden is probably most vulnerable to a challenge from the ideological left. This is not what Mr. Kennedy is offering, and it’s reflected in the polls. While Times/Siena polling last summer showed Mr. Biden most vulnerable among “very liberal” voters and on progressive issues, Mr. Kennedy actually fares much better among self-described moderates than liberals. He doesn’t clearly fare better among younger Democrats than older ones, despite Mr. Biden’s longstanding weakness among the younger group.It’s too early to say whether Mr. Kennedy’s modest foothold among moderate and conservative Democrats reflects a constituency for anti-modernist, anti-establishment liberalism, or whether Mr. Kennedy’s family name is simply getting him farther among less engaged Democrats, who are likelier to identify as moderate. Either way, his ability to play an important role in the race is limited by embracing conservatives and conspiratorial positions, even if he may continue to earn modest support in the race because of the absence of another prominent not-Biden option. More