Biden, Joseph R Jr

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ‘A Stirring of Democratic Hearts’: Three Writers Discuss a Transformed Midterm Landscape

      by

      Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted an online conversation with Molly Jong-Fast, the writer of the “Wait, What?” newsletter for The Atlantic, and Doug Sosnik, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, to discuss whether the Democrats have shifted the narrative of the midterm elections.FRANK BRUNI: Doug, Molly, an apology — because we’re doing this in cyberspace rather than a physical place, I cannot offer you any refreshments, which is a shame, because I do a killer crudité.MOLLY JONG-FAST: The case of Dr. Oz is baffling. I continue to be completely in awe of how bad he is at this.DOUG SOSNIK: He is a terrible candidate, but he is really just one of many right-wing and unqualified candidates running for the Senate and governor. Herschel Walker in Georgia and most of the Republican ticket in Arizona are probably even more unqualified.BRUNI: Let’s pivot from roughage to the rough-and-tumble of the midterms. There’s a stirring of Democratic hearts, a blooming of Democratic hopes, a belief that falling gas prices, key legislative accomplishments and concern about abortion rights equal a reprieve from the kind of midterm debacle that Democrats feared just a month or two ago.Doug, do you now envision Democrats doing much better than we once thought possible?SOSNIK: I do. Up until the start of the primaries and the Dobbs decision overturning Roe, this looked like a classic midterm election in which the party in power gets shellacked. It has happened in the past four midterm elections.BRUNI: Is it possible we’re reading too much into the abortion factor?JONG-FAST: No, abortion is a much bigger deal than any of the pundit class realizes. Because abortion isn’t just about abortion.BRUNI: Doug, do you agree?SOSNIK: I am increasingly nervous about making predictions, but I do feel safe in saying that this issue will increase in importance as more people see the real-life implications of the Roe decision. So, yes, I agree that it will impact the midterms. But it will actually take on even more importance in 2024 and beyond.JONG-FAST: One of the biggest things we’ve seen since the Dobbs decision is doctors terrified to treat women who are having gynecological complications. In 1973, one of the reasons Roe was decided so broadly was because some doctors didn’t feel safe treating women. We’re having a messy return to that, which is a nightmare for the right.SOSNIK: For decades, the getting-candidates-elected wing of the Republican Party — which means people like Mitch McConnell — has had a free ride with the issue of abortion. They have been able to use it to seed their base but have not been forced to pay a political price. With the overturning of Roe, that has all changed. And polling shows that a majority of Americans don’t agree with their extreme positions.JONG-FAST: I also think a lot of suburban women are really, really mad, and people who don’t care about politics at all are furious. Remember the whole news cycle devoted to the 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio having to go out of state for an abortion. Roe is seismic.BRUNI: I noticed that in an NBC News poll released last week, abortion wasn’t one of the top five answers when voters were asked about the most important issue facing the country. Fascinatingly — and to me, hearteningly — more voters chose threats to democracy than the cost of living or jobs and the economy. Do you think that could truly be a motivating, consequential factor in the midterms? Or do you think abortion will still make the bigger difference?SOSNIK: There are two issues in midterms: turnout and persuasion. I am quite confident that the abortion issue will motivate people to vote. The NBC poll shows that Democrats have closed the enthusiasm gap for voting to two points, which since March is a 15-point improvement. And for persuasion, those suburban women swing voters will be motivated by this issue to not only vote but to vote against the Republicans.BRUNI: Is this election really going to be all about turnout, or will swing voters matter just as much? And which groups of Democratic voters are you most worried won’t, in the end, turn out to the extent that they should?SOSNIK: Yes, this midterm will be primarily about turnout. For Democrats, I would start by worrying about young people turning out, which was no doubt on the administration’s mind when it released a plan on Wednesday to forgive student loans.There is also a pretty sizable group of Democrats who have soured on President Biden. They are critical for the Democrats to turn out.BRUNI: Molly, Doug just mentioned President Biden’s announcement that he was forgiving some college debt for some Americans. Is that decision likely to be a net positive for the party, drawing grateful voters to the polls, or a net negative, alienating some Democrats — and energizing many Republicans — who think he’s being fiscally profligate and playing favorites?JONG-FAST: I grew up extremely privileged and for years grappled with the issue of fairness. In my mind, $10,000 was the floor for debt forgiveness. I am particularly pleased with the $20,000 for Pell grant recipients who qualify. I never thought America was a fair country, and it’s become increasingly unfair. Biden was elected with this promise, and he’s keeping it. I think that should help turn out the base.SOSNIK: Student loan forgiveness is a Rorschach test for voters. If you believe in government and a progressive agenda, it is great news. If you think that the Democrats are a bunch of big spenders and worried about the elites — the 38 percent of the country that gets a four-year college degree — then it will work against them.BRUNI: Will former President Donald Trump’s feud with the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. after the Mar-a-Lago search boost Republican turnout and work to the party’s advantage?JONG-FAST: Trump has been fighting with parts of the government for years. I’m not sure how fresh that narrative is. The people who are Trump’s people will continue to be Trump’s people, but much of this persecution-complex narrative is old.SOSNIK: The F.B.I. raid goes with several other items — Jan. 6, Roe, the Trump-endorsed right-wing nominees — that are driving this to be what I’d call a choice election.There have been only two elections since World War II when the incumbent party did not lose House seats in the midterms — 1998 and 2002 — 2002 was an outlier, since it was really a reaction to 9/11.Nineteen ninety-eight was a choice election: We were in the middle of impeachment when the country largely felt that the Republicans were overreaching; 2022 could be only the second choice midterm election since World War II.BRUNI: Democratic hopes focus on keeping control of the Senate or even expanding their majority there. Is the House a lost cause?JONG-FAST: The result of the special election in New York’s 19th Congressional District on Tuesday — widely considered a bellwether contest for control of the House in November, and in which the Democrat, Pat Ryan, beat a well-known, favored Republican, Marc Molinaro, by two points — makes people think that it is possible for Democrats to keep the House.I know that Democrats have about dozens of fewer safe seats than Republicans. And they hold a very slim majority — Republicans need to pick up a net of five seats to regain the majority. But I still think it’s possible Democrats hold the House.SOSNIK: It will be very difficult for the Democrats to hold the House. They have one of the narrowest margins in the House since the late-19th century. Because of reapportionment and redistricting, the Republicans have a much more favorable battlefield. There are now, in the new map, 16 seats held by Democrats in districts that would have likely voted for Trump. Expecting a bad cycle, over 30 Democrats in the House announced that they would retire.The Cook Report has the Republicans already picking up a net of seven seats, with the majority of the remaining competitive races held by Democrats.BRUNI: I’m going to list Democratic candidates in high-profile Senate races in purple or reddish states that aren’t incontrovertibly hostile terrain for the party. For each candidate, tell me if you think victory is probable, possible or improbable. Be bold.John Fetterman, Pennsylvania.SOSNIK: Probable.JONG-FAST: Probable.BRUNI: Raphael Warnock, Georgia.SOSNIK: Probable.JONG-FAST: Probable.BRUNI: Cheri Beasley, North Carolina.SOSNIK: Possible.JONG-FAST: Possible.BRUNI: Val Demings, Florida.SOSNIK: Possible.JONG-FAST: Ugh, Florida.BRUNI: Mark Kelly, Arizona.SOSNIK: Probable.JONG-FAST: Probable.BRUNI: Mandela Barnes, Wisconsin.SOSNIK: Possible.JONG-FAST: Probable.BRUNI: Tim Ryan, Ohio.SOSNIK: Possible.JONG-FAST: Possible.BRUNI: Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada.SOSNIK: Possible.JONG-FAST: Probable.BRUNI: ​​ Name a Democratic candidate this cycle — for Senate, House or governor — who has most positively surprised and impressed you, and tell me why.JONG-FAST: Fetterman is really good at this, and so is his wife. Ryan has been really good. I think Mandela Barnes is really smart. I’ve interviewed all of those guys for my podcast and thought they were just really good at messaging in a way Democrats are historically not. Val Demings is a once-in-a-lifetime politician, but Florida is Florida.SOSNIK: Tim Ryan. I don’t know if he can win, but he has proved that a Democrat can be competitive in a state that I now consider a Republican stronghold.BRUNI: OK, let’s do a lightning round of final questions. For starters, the Biden presidency so far, rated on a scale of 1 (big disappointment) to 5 (big success), with a sentence or less justifying your rating.JONG-FAST: Four. I wasn’t a Biden person, but he’s quietly gotten a lot done, more than I thought he could.SOSNIK: Four. They have accomplished a lot under very difficult circumstances.BRUNI: The percentage chance that Biden runs for a second term?JONG-FAST: Fifty percent.SOSNIK: Twenty-five percent.BRUNI: If Biden doesn’t run and there’s a Democratic primary, name someone other than or in addition to Kamala Harris whom you’d like to see enter the fray, and tell me in a phrase why.JONG-FAST: I hate this question. I want to move to a pineapple under the sea.SOSNIK: Sherrod Brown. He is an authentic person who understands the pulse of this country.JONG-FAST: I also like Sherrod Brown.BRUNI: What’s the one issue you think is being most shortchanged, not just in discussions about the midterms but in our political discussions generally?JONG-FAST: The Supreme Court. If Democrats keep the House and the Senate, Biden is still going to have to deal with the wildly out-of-step courts. He will hate doing that, but he’s going to have to.SOSNIK: I agree with Molly. On a broader level, we have just completed a realignment in American politics where class, more than race, is driving our politics.BRUNI: Last but by no means least, you must spend either an hour over crudité with the noted gourmand Mehmet Oz or an hour gardening with the noted environmentalist Herschel Walker. What do you choose, and briefly, why?JONG-FAST: I’m a terrible hypochondriac, and Oz was an extremely good surgeon. I would spend an hour with him talking about all my medical anxieties. Does this mole look like anything?SOSNIK: The fact that you are raising that question tells you how bad the candidate recruitment has been for the Republicans this cycle.Other than carrying a football and not getting tackled, Walker has not accomplished much in his life, and his pattern of personal behavior shows him to be unfit to hold elected office.BRUNI: Well, I once spent hours with Oz for a profile and watched him do open-heart surgery, so I’m pulling weeds with Walker, just out of curiosity. And for the fresh air.Frank Bruni (@FrankBruni) is a professor of public policy at Duke, the author of the book “The Beauty of Dusk” and a contributing Opinion writer. He writes a weekly email newsletter and can be found on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) writes the “Wait, What?” newsletter for The Atlantic. Doug Sosnik was a senior adviser in President Bill Clinton’s White House from 1994 to 2000 and is a counselor to the Brunswick Group.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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 38 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Debt Relief

      by

      The president’s plan focuses on less affluent student borrowers.Fewer than 40 percent of Americans graduate from a four-year college, and these college graduates fare far better than nongraduates on a wide range of measures. College graduates earn much more on average; are less likely to endure unemployment; are more likely to marry; are healthier; live longer; and express greater satisfaction with their lives. These gaps have generally grown in recent decades.As a result, many economists have expressed skepticism about the idea of universal student-loan forgiveness. It resembles a tax cut that flows mostly to the affluent: Americans who attend and graduate college tend to come from the top half of the income distribution and tend to remain there later in life. College graduates are also disproportionately white and Asian.“Education debt,” as Sandy Baum and Victoria Lee have written for the Urban Institute, “is disproportionately concentrated among the well-off.”But the idea of loan forgiveness has nonetheless taken off on the political left. As Democrats have increasingly become the party of college graduates living in expensive metropolitan areas — and as the cost of college has continued rising, while income growth for many millennials has been disappointing — loan forgiveness has obvious appeal.These crosscurrents put President Biden and his aides in an awkward position. Biden fashions himself as a working-class Democrat. (He is the party’s first presidential nominee without an Ivy League degree since Walter Mondale.) He did not initially campaign on a sweeping plan of college debt relief, adding it to his agenda only after he defeated more liberal candidates in the primaries, as a way to reach out to their supporters.Yesterday, after months of behind-the-scenes work and internal debate, Biden finally announced his plan for loan forgiveness. And it is an attempt to find a middle ground.A graduation in New Jersey.Seth Wenig/Associated Press‘The worst of both’By definition, the plan will not help the many Americans who do not go to college. But its benefits are targeted at lower-income college graduates and dropouts, especially those who grew up in lower-income families. Compared with other potential debt-forgiveness plans, Biden’s version is much more focused on middle-class and lower-income households.It is restricted to individuals making less than $125,000 (or households making less than $250,000), which will exclude very high earners at law firms, in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. For anybody under this income threshold, the plan will forgive up to $10,000 in debt. For somebody who received Pell Grants in college — a federal program focused on lower-income families — the plan may forgive an additional $10,000.More broadly, Biden also said he wanted to enact a new rule to restrict future payments on college loans to no more than 5 percent of a borrower’s discretionary income, down from between 10 percent and 15 percent now.(My colleagues Ron Lieber and Tara Siegel Bernard have written a Q. and A. that is full of useful information about the plan.)The emphasis of Biden’s plan partly reflects academic research that has found that the people who struggle the most to repay their loans don’t fit a common perception. They are less likely to be baristas with six figures in debt and a graduate degree than blue-collar workers who have a smaller amount of unpaid loans but never graduated college. That worker, Biden said yesterday, has the “worst of both worlds — debt and no degree.”A study by Judith Scott-Clayton of Columbia University found that the loan-default rate for borrowers without any degree was 40 percent. For those with a bachelor’s degree, it was less than 8 percent.The details of Biden’s plan mean that it targets the people most likely to default, rather than the caricature of them. “$10k will forgive ALL the debt of many millions of borrowers,” Susan Dynarski, a Harvard University economist — and herself a first-generation college graduate — tweeted yesterday. As an example, she cited “those who went to community college for a semester or two.”There is still some uncertainty about whether the plan will be implemented. Biden is enacting it through executive action because it seems to lack the support to pass in Congress, and opponents may challenge it in court.“Let the lawsuits begin over presidential authority,” Robert Kelchen of the University of Tennessee predicted. “I wouldn’t count on forgiveness happening for a while, and it may go to the Supreme Court.”More commentary“Thoughtful people disagree on student loan forgiveness,” Arindrajit Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, wrote on Twitter. He praised the plan as a form of “disaster relief” that addressed the struggles of younger workers during the decade-plus since the Great Recession began.Matthew Chingos of the Urban Institute has noted that the income cap increases the share of debt forgiveness that flows to Black borrowers.Susan Dynarski told me she was “thumbs up” on the plan but wished people did not need to apply for forgiveness, because some would fail to do so. The government has the data it needs to cancel debt automatically, she said.Progressive groups were mostly supportive of the plan. Indivisible called it a “bold move to improve the lives of working people.”Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, said: “Biden’s student loan socialism is a slap in the face to every family who sacrificed to save for college, every graduate who paid their debt and every American who chose a certain career path or volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces in order to avoid taking on debt.”Democrats in competitive elections had mixed reactions. Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia called for even more debt relief. Representative Tim Ryan, running for an Ohio Senate seat, criticized the plan: “Instead of forgiving student loans for six-figure earners, we should be working to level the playing field for all Americans.”THE LATEST NEWSPoliticsSince the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Democrats have made steady gains in midterm polls. Party leaders are beginning to believe they can keep control of Congress.In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis took the unusual step of endorsing 30 candidates in county-level school board races. At least 20 of them won.InternationalThe New York TimesHere’s how China could blockade Taiwan, cutting off the island in its campaign to take control of it.A Russian missile killed at least 22 people at a train station as Ukraine celebrated its Independence Day.Hungary fired two top weather officials after an inaccurate forecast led the government to postpone holiday fireworks.Other Big StoriesCalifornia will ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, a move that could accelerate the global transition to electric vehicles.The school board in Uvalde, Texas, fired the police chief who led the response to the May 24 shooting.A jury awarded Vanessa Bryant $16 million in her lawsuit over photos of the helicopter crash that killed her husband, Kobe Bryant, and daughter Gianna.Artificial intelligence is making remarkable strides. The Times’s Kevin Roose asks what it will mean when computers can write and create art.Mack Rutherford, 17, became the youngest pilot to complete a solo flight around the world in a small plane.OpinionsLong Covid sufferers are running out of savings, treatment options and hope, Zeynep Tufekci writes.“Managed retreat” is needed to avoid the worst of climate change. But even after a disaster, many residents don’t want to move, say Anna Rhodes and Max Besbris.More women should coach boys’ sports, Abby Braiman writes in The Washington Post.MORNING READSJeanne Bédard and Jessica Gagnon, Montreal, 2015.Look-alikes: Your doppelgänger is out there.‘The big one’: Here’s the story behind New York City’s bizarre nuclear attack P.S.A.Treasure hunting: Choosy shoppers are bypassing Brooklyn for the Newburgh Vintage Emporium.Not that Robby Thomson: The manager who’s often asked to sign someone else’s baseball card.Touchy-feely: When your boss is crying, but you’re the one being laid off.A Times classic: How to age well.Advice from Wirecutter: Great gifts for cat and dog lovers.Lives Lived: Known for his larger-than-life personality and his Vietnam War photographs, Tim Page was a model for the crazed photographer played by Dennis Hopper in “Apocalypse Now.” Page died at 78.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICAn ominous injury: Chet Holmgren, the No. 2 pick in the 2022 N.B.A. Draft, is feared to have torn ligaments in his foot at a pro-am game last week in Seattle. Have we seen the end of N.B.A. players showing up at unofficial summer tuneup events?A new era for the P.G.A. Tour: Golf’s primary governing body announced sweeping changes to drastically increase pay and, likely, star power throughout the season. The moves come shortly after LIV Golf, the Saudi-backed rebel circuit, wooed top players with eye-popping guaranteed contracts. Welp.Who won the Kevin Durant saga? The Brooklyn Nets superstar himself doesn’t look great after his trade request went unfulfilled. But now fans face a must-watch reality of Durant, Kyrie Irving and Ben Simmons (finally) playing together. The intrigue countdown clock is set.ARTS AND IDEAS Gerry Kulzer in 2020 when he temporarily filled in as a butter sculptor.Becky Church/Midwest DairyGrade AA artThere’s been a changing of the guard in Minnesota. When the state fair opens today, Gerry Kulzer will be the official butter sculptor, taking over for a predecessor who held the role for 50 years.A sculptor has carved blocks of butter into busts of the finalists in the fair’s dairy pageant since the 1960s. (The contest’s winner earns the title Princess Kay of the Milky Way.) Kulzer, an art teacher who usually works with clay, understands that his new medium will not be easy. “To capture a person’s likeness is really tough,” he said. “Especially when you’re in a 40-degree refrigerator.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookCon Poulos for The New York TimesThis yogurt-marinated grilled chicken is inspired by Turkish chicken kebabs.What to Read“Diary of a Misfit,” a memoir by Casey Parks, pieces together the elusive queer history of a musician in the Deep South.ComedyAfter 15 years of experimental stand-up, Kate Berlant’s solo show is a departure.Now Time to PlayThe pangrams from yesterday’s Spelling Bee were kitchen, kitchenette and thicken. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: ___ Jenner, most-followed woman on Instagram (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. The latest “The New York Times Presents,” available on Hulu, is about an influential doctor who spreads Covid misinformation.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about the death of Daria Dugina. “Popcast” is about Rage Against the Machine’s return.Matthew Cullen, Natasha Frost, Lauren Hard, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      In N.Y. Primaries, a Fight for the Democratic Party’s Future

      by

      The party’s more moderate establishment declared victory, but a closer look reveals the battle for the soul of the party will grind on.Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, a moderate Democrat from New York City’s northern suburbs, saw a clear-cut lesson in his lopsided primary victory Tuesday night over one of his home state’s brightest left-wing stars.“Tonight, mainstream won,” Mr. Maloney, who also leads House Democrat campaign committee, declared afterward. “Common sense won.”The 30-point margin appeared to be a sharp rebuke to the party’s left flank, which had tried to make the race a referendum on Mr. Maloney’s brand of leadership in Washington. A second, narrower win by another moderate Democrat, Daniel Goldman, in one of the city’s most liberal House districts prompted more hand-wringing among some progressives.But as New York’s tumultuous primary season came to a close on Tuesday, a survey of contests across the state shows a more nuanced picture. Four summers after Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s surprise victory ignited Democrats’ left flank and positioned New York at the center of a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party, the battle has entered a new phase. But it is far from abating.Mostly gone this year were shocking upsets by little-known left-leaning insurgents like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and a gaggle of challengers in Albany. They dislodged an entrenched block of conservative Democrats controlling the State Senate in 2018. Representative Jamaal Bowman defeated a powerful committee chairman in 2020. Those contests made the political left appear ascendant.Kristen Gonzalez, a State Senate candidate supported by the Democratic Socialists of America, won her primary race in a district in Brooklyn and Queens.Janice Chung for The New York TimesTwo years later, though, the tension within the party appears likely to grind on, as progressives struggle to marshal voters into movements as they did during the Trump presidency. At the same time, the party’s establishment wing has regained its footing after President Biden and Mayor Eric Adams, avowed moderates, won the White House and City Hall.“We are past that political and electoral moment,” said Sochie Nnaemeka, the director of New York’s liberal Working Families Party, said of the rapid gains of past election cycles. “The headwinds are a real amount of voter fatigue, economic malaise and just the pressures of everyday life.”Ms. Nnaemeka and her allies still found reason to celebrate on Tuesday though, particularly over state-level contests. Kristen Gonzalez, a tech worker supported by the Democratic Socialists of America, won a marquee Brooklyn-Queens State Senate race over Elizabeth Crowley, despite Mayor Adams and outside special interests openly campaigning against her.“Today, we really proved that socialism wins,” Ms. Gonzalez told jubilant supporters after her win.As moderates backed by well-financed outside groups and well-known leaders like Mr. Adams sought to oust them, progressives also successfully defended key seats won in recent election cycles.Among them were Jabari Brisport, a member of the Democratic Socialists, and Gustavo Rivera, another progressive state senator targeted by Mr. Adams. Mr. Bowman, whose district had been substantially redrawn in this year’s redistricting process, also survived.“We had some really good wins,” Ms. Nnaemeka added. “Despite the headwinds, despite the dark money, despite the redistricting chaos, we sent some of the hardest working champions of the left back to the State Senate to complete the work the federal government isn’t doing right now.”But in many of the most recognizable races, there were clear signs that those wins had limits.Mr. Maloney provided moderates with their most resonant victory, defeating Alessandra Biaggi, a progressive state senator who was part of the 2018 insurgency, by a two-to-one margin. This time, she had the vocal backing of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. She fiercely critiqued Mr. Maloney as “a selfish corporate Democrat with no integrity.”Alessandra Biaggi mounted an aggressive challenge to Mr. Maloney from the left.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesBut she was drowned out by a flood of outside spending that came to Mr. Maloney’s aid, with attacks centered on her harsh past criticisms of the police. She struggled to quickly introduce herself to voters in a district she had never run in before. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Bill Clinton also openly lent their support to the congressman.In the race for an open Democratic seat in New York City, Mr. Goldman, a former federal prosecutor, beat out three progressive stars in some of the city’s most liberal enclaves. All had once enjoyed the backing of the Working Families Party. And former Representative Max Rose, an avowed centrist attempting to make a comeback on Staten Island, handily turned back a primary challenger championed by activists.The outcomes — along with Gov. Kathy Hochul’s yawning primary victory in June over a left-aligned challenger, Jumaane Williams — left leaders of the party’s more moderate wing crowing over what they see as a more pragmatic mood among the electorate in the aftermath of the Trump presidency. More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Political Warheads Just Keep Exploding

      by

      Gail Collins: Welcome back from your trip to Greenland, Bret. Dying to hear your impressions. Was it beautiful? Was it … melting?Bret Stephens: Greenland is a bit like a James Joyce novel: formidable and largely impenetrable. And the ice is definitely melting up there — which I’ll get to in the long feature I’m writing about the trip.Gail: Been looking forward to that since you left.Bret: But we’ve missed so much since our last conversation! The Joe Biden comeback. The Mar-a-Lago blowback. The Liz Cheney takedown. Where should we start?Gail: Let’s begin with Biden. I’ll admit that the Inflation Reduction Act was perhaps not the perfect name for his bill, but what a moment for his presidency! First time the country’s ever taken a big, serious step toward combating global warming. And for once, I can imagine future generations looking back on what we’ve done and cheering.Bret: I agree that the bill is misnamed. It probably would have been better called the West Virginia Special Perks Act, after all the goodies Joe Manchin stuffed into it for his home state, or the Elon Musk Additional Enrichment Act, given all the tax rebates for buying electric vehicles. On top of that, I doubt that history will look back on the legislation as some kind of turning point in addressing climate change, given that China emits more than twice the carbon dioxide that the United States does.But Biden — or maybe I should say Chuck Schumer — has certainly rallied his party and given it a sense of accomplishment before the midterms. On the other hand, there’s the raid on Mar-a-Lago, which struck me as really, really ill-advised. Tell me I’m wrong.Gail: Well, I sorta hated that it created so many headlines during a week when Biden should have been getting all the attention for his accomplishments. And I know Donald Trump is getting a lot of sympathy from his fans. But, hey, if he’s been sitting on top of secret documents, possibly including some having to do with, um, nuclear weaponry, I want the country to know about it.Bret: We obviously have to withhold judgment till we know more, but color me skeptical on the claim about nuclear weaponry.Gail: Understood. But while I am not yet quite prepared to envision our former president somehow selling our secrets to foreign governments, in this case it’s not so totally inconceivable that you wouldn’t want the feds to move quickly.Bret: Gail, do you remember the line from “Raising Arizona,” when Nicolas Cage says to Holly Hunter, “There’s what’s right and there’s what’s right, and never the twain shall meet”? That seems like a pretty good description of Merrick Garland’s predicament.Gail: Love it when you do those quotes.Bret: On one hand, Trump continued to prevaricate and resist repeated requests to return the documents, in flagrant disregard for the rule of law. On the other, as a result of the search he’s consolidated support among Republicans who seemed to be drifting away just a few weeks ago. He’s turned the media spotlight away from Biden and back to himself. He’s created a new field of theories and conspiracies about what the government was really after.In short, Garland gave Trump precisely what he wanted. And if the Justice Department can’t show that Trump was hiding something truly sensitive or explosive — like, proof that he was in direct personal contact with the Oath Keepers before Jan. 6 — I fear Garland’s going to emerge the loser from this encounter.Gail: When in doubt, my all-purpose rule in understanding things Trump is to follow the stupendous Maggie Haberman, one of our great White House correspondents. Her analysis covers several possible explanations for the document-piling, all of them based on general stupidity. Maybe he wanted them as extremely high-end mementos. Maybe it’s his habit of hoarding papers. Or just his cosmic view of the world, that “everything he touches belongs to him,” as a lawyer Maggie talked to put it.Bret: With Trump, the line between the shambolic and the sinister is often blurred. His entire being is like Inspector Clouseau doing an impression of Jack Nicholson in “The Shining,” or maybe vice versa.Gail: But whatever the motive, we can’t allow him to set this kind of precedent for handling presidential documents.Bret: I’m all for returning government documents to their rightful place, but if this helps return Trump to the White House I’d say it’s a bad bargain.Gail: We’ll see what happens next. Meanwhile, there’s another big political saga underway. Liz Cheney lost her primary, as everybody expected. What’s next for her? More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Should Biden Announce That He Won’t Run Again?

      by

      More from our inbox:Solving New York City’s Housing ShortageSolace at the Beach Pool photo by Evan VucciTo the Editor:Re “Hey, Joe, Don’t Give It a Go,” by Maureen Dowd (column, Aug. 7):I can’t agree with Ms. Dowd that President Biden should declare himself a lame duck to protect his legacy. I can’t think of anything more out of his character than that. He doesn’t do things for himself. The nation’s well-being, not his legacy, is his central concern.Ms. Dowd begins by speaking of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who “missed the moment to leave the stage,” and suggests that Mr. Biden’s time has come to leave. Good lord, he hasn’t even completed two full years in office yet. He has things to do and a nation to serve and protect. Just imagine how luckless he would be if he tried to do that as a lame duck.There’s time for him to leave, but this isn’t it. Maybe in the primaries, but maybe not.Roger CarlstromYakima, Wash.To the Editor:The Biden interregnum will be well remembered for bringing decency and sanity back to the Oval Office. He has come to be that “calming force for a country desperately in need of calming.” However, running for a second term at age 81 ignores the infirmities of age.If he should choose not to run again he would not become irrelevant; he would become a revered elder statesman who lived out his last hurrah on his own terms with renewed dedication and admirable resilience as manifested in his long career of public service. I am reminded of a quote from Orson Welles, who once said, “If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop the story.”Precision timing turns on recognizing the arc of one’s story and heeding the foreshadowed warnings with grace and knowing acceptance.Barbara Allen KenneyPaso Robles, Calif.To the Editor:The insistent chants for President Biden to announce that he will not run for a second term because he will be too old in 2024 is ageism pure and simple.If the “old dude in the aviators has shown he can get things done, often with bipartisan support,” as Maureen Dowd states, why not let him continue trying?Even if Mr. Biden is having second thoughts about re-election, why should he declare himself a lame duck president before it is necessary to do so? Does Ms. Dowd seriously believe that if he takes himself out of the running that “over the next two years he could get more of what he wants and then step aside?” Why don’t we ask the Republicans if they will cooperate?Mr. Biden has shown patience and perseverance. It comes with age and experience. Let us not sideline an old man just yet just because the cry is for “new blood.”Let Mr. Biden decide if and when to declare his candidacy.Eleanor M. ImperatoManhasset, N.Y.To the Editor:Thank you, Maureen Dowd, for saying what needs to be said. President Biden, I have been a longtime supporter and fan. What better opportunity for you to prove you’re not driven by ego but by principle? There is much still for you to accomplish. Make the most of this time. Show the American people a president who, untainted by political aspirations, is making decisions solely based on what’s best for the country.Diane LoveNew YorkTo the Editor:OK, let’s just say for the sake of argument that Maureen Dowd is right and Joe Biden shouldn’t run again. Then who do the Democrats have? We need somebody not just competent and visionary, but electable. That was my reasoning for voting for Mr. Biden in 2020.The Republicans obviously have Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis champing at the bit. I don’t think either of them would have a problem energizing the base.So if not Joe, who do we have?Dylan TaylorPhiladelphiaTo the Editor:Maureen Dowd has written what had to be said. Joe Biden must not run again, and he now has the perfect excuse to make his exit.Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a great example of overstaying one’s welcome. If only she’d retired when she had the best excuse in the world — her failing health — we might not today be living with this dystopian Supreme Court. Dear, dear President Biden: Please remember this and think of the scary consequences of your losing in 2024.It’s time for a younger candidate to take the reins of the Democratic Party. But he or she will need a couple of years to get his message out, and that means that Mr. Biden must announce now that he plans to be a one-term president.I love you, Joe, but you’ve given your all for the party, and it’s time to go.Clare ChristiansenOak Harbor, Wash.Solving New York City’s Housing ShortageTaylor Sicko moved out of New York City during the pandemic after she lost her job and was unable to afford rent. She has a new, remote job — based in New York — but she doesn’t want to move back.Rachel Woolf for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Rising Rents, and No Cure on Horizon” (Business, Aug. 2):Your excellent story rightly diagnoses a major crisis facing the city — a decades-long failure to build enough housing to meet demand — but understates the responsibility that some local elected officials and anti-development activists bear for allowing it to spiral out of control.As noted, the city has committed a record $22 billion for housing — far more than any other city in the country. But all the money in the world won’t build the number of homes we need if local elected officials continue to block zoning changes that add additional density in their districts and NIMBY groups file frivolous lawsuits that delay new construction year after year.The City Council should work with the mayor to implement common-sense zoning changes and embrace opportunities to build new housing in their neighborhoods. Survey after survey has shown that the vast majority of New Yorkers are desperate for more affordable housing that will allow them and their children to stay in the city, and to assure we can retain the talented, diverse work force that makes the city the greatest in the world. It is time we made their wish a reality.Carl WeisbrodNew YorkThe writer is former chairman of the New York City Planning Commission.To the Editor:While elected officials are fighting tooth and nail to rezone neighborhoods, thousands of unoccupied rent-stabilized units sit vacant in New York City. Once a rent-stabilized unit becomes vacant, landlords are not required to rent out unoccupied rent-stabilized units to new tenants. Landlords are often incentivized to warehouse vacant rent-stabilized units, decreasing the availability of affordable housing in New York City.In the current housing market, applicants are entering rental bidding wars for market-rate units while vacant rent-stabilized units sprinkled across the five boroughs collect dust.Dena RosmanNew YorkSolace at the Beach To the Editor:Re “The Joys of Swimming While Fat,” by Phoebe Wahl (Op-Art, Aug. 13):Thank you so much for publishing a graphic depiction of a fat mommy who “risks” showing her body, her “redness and chafing and sweat” at the beach. She finds solace and peace swimming where she feels totally herself. Her struggles with internalized shame float away. No small feat!I can’t wait to share this with my life issues group for women who binge eat as a survival skill. Well put, Ms. Wahl. As women we need to stand up to “the burdens of patriarchy and society’s judgments” all the time!Arden Greenspan GoldbergNew YorkThe writer, a licensed clinical social worker, is a certified eating disorder specialist. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      There Is No Happy Ending to America’s Trump Problem

      by

      Debate about the search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence has settled into well-worn grooves. Mr. Trump and many Republicans have denounced the act as illegitimate. Attorney General Merrick Garland is staying mostly mum. And Democrats are struggling to contain their enthusiasm.Liberal excitement is understandable. Mr. Trump faces potential legal jeopardy from the Jan. 6 investigation in Congress and the Mar-a-Lago search. They anticipate fulfilling a dream going back to the earliest days of the Trump administration: to see him frog-marched to jail before the country and the world.But this is a fantasy. There is no scenario following from the present that culminates in a happy ending for anyone, even for Democrats.Down one path is the prosecution of the former president. This would be a Democratic administration putting the previous occupant of the White House, the ostensible head of the Republican Party and the current favorite to be the G.O.P. presidential nominee in 2024, on trial. That would set an incredibly dangerous precedent. Imagine, each time the presidency is handed from one party to the other, an investigation by the new administration’s Justice Department leads toward the investigation and possible indictment of its predecessor.Some will say that Mr. Trump nonetheless deserves it — and he does. If Mr. Garland does not press charges against him for Jan. 6 or the potential mishandling of classified government documents, Mr. Trump will have learned that becoming president has effectively immunized him from prosecution. That means the country would be facing a potential second term for Mr. Trump in which he is convinced that he can do whatever he wants with complete impunity.That seems to point to the need to push forward with a case, despite the risk of turning it into a regular occurrence. As many of Mr. Trump’s detractors argue, the rule of law demands it — and failing to fulfill that demand could end up being extremely dangerous.But we’ve been through a version of the turbulent Trump experience before. During the Trump years, the system passed its stress test. We have reason to think it would do so again, especially with reforms to the Electoral Count Act likely to pass during the lame duck session following the upcoming midterm elections, if not before. Having to combat an emboldened Mr. Trump or another bad actor would certainly be unnerving and risky. But the alternatives would be too.We caught a glimpse of those alternative risks as soon as the Mar-a-Lago raid was announced. Within hours, leading Republicans had issued inflammatory statements, and these statements would likely grow louder and more incendiary through any trial, both from Mr. Trump himself and from members of his party and its media rabble-rousers. (Though at a federal judge’s order a redacted version of the warrant affidavit may soon be released, so Mr. Trump and the rest of his party would have to contend with the government’s actual justification of the raid itself.)If the matter culminates in an indictment and trial of Mr. Trump, the Republican argument would be more of what we heard day in and day out through his administration. His defenders would claim that every person ostensibly committed to the dispassionate upholding of the rule of law is in fact motivated by rank partisanship and a drive to self-aggrandizement. This would be directed at the attorney general, the F.B.I., the Justice Department and other branches of the so-called deep state. The spectacle would be corrosive, in effect convincing most Republican voters that appeals to the rule of law are invariably a sham.But the nightmare wouldn’t stop there. What if Mr. Trump declares another run for the presidency just as he’s indicted and treats the trial as a circus illustrating the power of the Washington swamp and the need to put Republicans back in charge to drain it? It would be a risible claim, but potentially a politically effective one. And he might well continue this campaign even if convicted, possibly running for president from a jail cell. It would be Mr. Trump versus the System. He would be reviving an old American archetype: the folk-hero outlaw who takes on and seeks to take down the powerful in the name of the people.We wouldn’t even avoid potentially calamitous consequences if Mr. Trump somehow ended up barred from running or his party opted for another candidate to be its nominee in 2024 — say, Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida. How long do you think it would take for a freshly inaugurated President DeSantis to pardon a convicted and jailed Donald Trump? Hours? Minutes? And that move would probably be combined with a promise to investigate and indict Joe Biden for the various “crimes” he allegedly committed in office.The instinct of Democrats is to angrily dismiss such concerns. But that doesn’t mean these consequences wouldn’t happen. Even if Mr. Garland’s motives and methods are models of judiciousness and restraint, the act of an attorney general of one party seeking to indict and convict a former and possibly future president of the other party is the ringing of a bell that cannot be unrung. It is guaranteed to be undertaken again, regardless of whether present and future accusations are justified.As we’ve seen over and over again since Mr. Trump won the presidency, our system of governance presumes a certain base level of public spiritedness — at the level of the presidency, in Congress and in the electorate at large. When that is lacking — when an aspersive figure is elected, when he maintains strong popular support within his party and when that party remains electorally viable — high-minded efforts to act as antibodies defending the body politic from the spread of infection can end up doing enduring harm to the patient. Think of all those times during the Trump presidency when well-meaning sources inside and outside the administration ended up undermining their own credibility by hyping threats and overpromising evidence of wrongdoing and criminality.That’s why it’s imperative we set aside the Plan A of prosecuting Mr. Trump. In its place, we should embrace a Plan B that defers the dream of a post-presidential perp walk in favor of allowing the political process to run its course. If Mr. Trump is the G.O.P. nominee again in 2024, Democrats will have no choice but to defeat him yet again, hopefully by an even larger margin than they did last time.Mr. Trump himself and his most devoted supporters will be no more likely to accept that outcome than they were after the 2020 election. The bigger the margin of his loss, the harder it will be for Mr. Trump to avoid looking like a loser, which is the outcome he dreads more than anything — and one that would be most likely to loosen his grip on his party.There is an obvious risk: If Mr. Trump runs again, he might win. But that’s a risk we can’t avoid — which is why we may well have found ourselves in a situation with no unambivalently good options.Damon Linker, a former columnist at The Week, writes the newsletter “Eyes on the Right” and is a senior fellow in the Open Society Project at the Niskanen Center.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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Marcy Kaptur, a Veteran Democrat, Breaks with Biden in New TV Ad

      by

      Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, the second-most tenured woman in congressional history, has released a new television ad explicitly breaking with President Biden, the most prominent Democrat to do so, as she seeks re-election in a Toledo-area seat that was redrawn to be sharply more Republican.Ms. Kaptur, who was first elected in 1982, criticized Mr. Biden in the ad over “letting Ohio solar manufacturers be undercut by China” and ended it with an attempt to cast her identity as independent from his.“Marcy Kaptur: She doesn’t work for Joe Biden; she works for you,” the ad concludes. “I’m Marcy Kaptur and I approve this message.”The remapping of districts in Ohio made Ms. Kaptur’s seat substantially more red this year by taking away parts of the Cleveland suburbs and exchanging them for a western swath of the state that reaches toward the Indiana border. The result turned the district from one that Mr. Biden easily won in 2020 to one that former President Donald J. Trump would have carried that year.Still, the ad from Ms. Kaptur is a relative surprise. She appeared with Mr. Biden only a few weeks ago, greeting him at an airport in Cleveland where photos appear to show the president kissing her hand on the tarmac.Mr. Biden greeting Ms. Kaptur in Cleveland in July.Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn response to her new ad, Republicans were already recirculating video of Ms. Kaptur campaigning for Mr. Biden in 2020 and declaring, “It will be my honor to not just vote for Joe Biden but to work for him.”The ad signals how important the political makeup of a district is, as it is increasingly rare for a lawmaker to hold a seat in an area that the opposing party’s presidential candidate won.Ohio has steadily trended Republican ever since Mr. Trump won the state in 2016. In 2020, the perennial presidential battleground had become a distinctively second-tier swing state. Mr. Trump succeeded in part by making inroads with the kind of union constituency that has always been a key part of Ms. Kaptur’s base.In her new ad, Ms. Kaptur says that while she has been “fighting back” against Mr. Biden, she has also been “working with Republican Rob Portman,” the state’s retiring senator.At least one other incumbent congressional Democrat has aired an ad distancing himself from Mr. Biden: Representative Jared Golden of Maine, who in 2020 won the most pro-Trump House seat of any Democrat in the nation. He aired an ad earlier this month positioning himself as an “independent voice” and saying he had voted against “trillions of dollars of President Biden’s agenda because I knew it would make inflation worse.”The leading House Republican super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, announced a new ad on Friday linking Mr. Golden to Mr. Biden, saying he “cast one of the deciding votes for Biden’s new massive spending bill.”Democrats are seeking to boost Mr. Biden’s image after the recent signing of the Inflation Reduction Act, with the Democratic National Committee being the latest to announce an ad buy highlighting parts of the package.In Ms. Kaptur’s ad, she also calls her opponent, J.R. Majewski, out by name and labels him an “extremist.”Mr. Majewski, an Air Force veteran, was a surprise primary winner in May who first garnered attention after turning his lawn into a 19,000-square foot “Trump 2020” sign. He said he was proud of going to Washington on the day of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but added, “I didn’t do anything illegal. Unfortunately, there were some that did.” He has spread the baseless theory that the attack was “driven by the F.B.I. and it was a stage show.”Mr. Majewski has also expressed interest in the Qanon conspiracy theory, which espouses falsely that there is a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles controlling the government.The Cook Political Report rates the Ohio contest as a tossup. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Think the Economy Is Hard to Predict? Try the Midterms.

      by

      The overturning of political norms is testing the limits of an established and generally dependable forecasting model that relies solely on economics.Based on the economy alone, Democrats face a big problem in the midterm elections.Inflation has been extremely high and economic growth has been weak or even negative. That is a toxic political combination — bad enough for the Democrats to lose the House of Representatives by a substantial margin.That, at least, is the forecast of an econometric model run by Ray Fair, a Yale economist. He has used purely economic variables to track and predict elections in real time since 1978, with fairly good results, which he shares with his students and which are available on his website for anyone who wants to examine the work.The party in power always starts off with a handicap in midterm elections, and a bad economy makes matters worse, Professor Fair said in an interview. “At the moment, the Democrats definitely have an uphill climb.”Yet Professor Fair acknowledges that his model can’t capture everything that is going on in the country.While his analysis shows that the Democrats have fallen into an increasingly deep hole as the year has gone on, prediction markets and public opinion polls are more upbeat for the Democrats right now, and show a surge that began in late June.Eric Zitzewitz, a Dartmouth professor who has studied prediction markets extensively, says the improved odds for the Democrats may be linked to an important development beyond the economy: the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.The power of the economyNo one would question whether economic conditions have a major influence on politics.But Professor Fair’s work goes further than that. In his book “Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things,” and in a series of papers and online demonstrations, he has shown that the economy is so powerful that it explains the broad outcome of most national elections since 1916. His relentlessly economic approach does not include any consideration whatsoever of the staples of conventional political analysis: the transcendent issues of the day, the personalities of the candidates or the tactics employed by their campaigns.This year, as high inflation has persisted and economic growth has slowed, he finds that the electoral prospects for the Democrats have worsened. Based on data through July, he estimates that Democrats will get only 46.70 percent of the raw national vote for congressional candidates in November.How this projection translates into results for individual congressional seats is beyond the scope of Professor Fair’s grand experiment.“That’s not what this model is built to do,” he said. “I leave that to the political scientists. But I think the model is showing that, because of the economy, the odds aren’t good for the Democrats holding the House of Representatives.”More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsLiz Cheney’s Lopsided Loss: The Republican congresswoman’s defeat in Wyoming exposed the degree to which former President Donald J. Trump still controls the party’s present — and its near future.2024 Hint: Hours after her loss, Ms. Cheney acknowledged that she was “thinking” about a White House bid. But her mission to thwart Donald J. Trump presents challenges.The ‘Impeachment 10’: With Ms. Cheney’s defeat, only two of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump remain.Alaska Races: Senator Lisa Murkowski and Sarah Palin appeared to be on divergent paths following contests that offered a glimpse at the state’s independent streak.Something missingYet, as Professor Fair readily acknowledges, his model’s single-minded exclusion of noneconomic factors inevitably misses some important things.In the 2016 presidential election, for example, it projected that Hillary Clinton would lose the popular vote to Donald J. Trump. She won the popular vote but lost the presidency in the Electoral College.“It’s possible,” he said, “that some of that was Trump’s personality, and that the model couldn’t pick that up.”Something similar may have happened in 2020. The model estimated that Joseph R. Biden Jr. would receive only 47.9 percent of the popular vote but he actually got 52.27 percent. In both cases, Professor Fair said, “Trump did not do as well as he was predicted to do by the model.”The model’s singular focus may be unable to adequately account for what Professor Fair calls “the Trump effect.” That shorthand encompasses the array of norm-shattering behaviors and issues associated with President Trump and his adherents, including the Jan. 6 insurrection; Mr. Trump’s denial of President Biden’s election win in 2020; and the decision of the Supreme Court, with three Trump appointees, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had been the law of the land for 50 years.What prediction markets sayIn theory, the prices in perfectly efficient markets synthesize the knowledge of each participant, making them better at assessing complicated issues than any individual can. But perfect conditions don’t exist for any market on earth and certainly not for prediction markets. Still, Professor Zitzewitz says these markets are highly informative.He pointed out that as recently as June 23, PredictIt, a leading prediction market, gave the Republican Party a 76 percent chance of taking the House of Representatives and the Senate from the Democrats in November.But the next day, June 24, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. By June 30, the probability of a Republican sweep, calculated from bets placed on the PredictIt site, dropped to 60 percent. They were down to 39 percent on Thursday, with a higher probability, 47 percent, given to a different outcome: Democratic control of the Senate and a Republican victory in the House.Public opinion polls appear to have moved in a similar direction. The average of the polls tracked by Real Clear Markets has shifted from total Republican dominance to a virtual dead heat in the generic congressional ballot. On the other hand, Mr. Biden’s job rating in those polls is still awful, with nearly 16 percent more people disapproving of his performance than approving of it.Did the Supreme Court ruling shift the odds for the midterms? Did the Jan. 6 hearings swing public opinion? Has a string of legislative victories added luster to the Biden aura and moved some voters toward Democrats?It’s impossible to prove cause and effect for any of these things.Economic anomaliesIt is conceivable that the unique economic situation is muddling the projections in Professor Fair’s model.Gross domestic product and the inflation rate are the only economic factors the model uses, and may not be adequate for analyzing the state of the economy now, with the pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine causing disruptions around the globe. Both the G.D.P. and inflation numbers for the United States are bleak and the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates, giving rise to speculation that the country is heading into a recession or is already in one.But other metrics, like gross domestic income and the unemployment rate, have been more positive. If the economy turns out to be in better shape than the core G.D.P. and inflation data indicate, the vote projections for the incumbent Democrats would improve, and they would worsen for the Republicans.Then again, Professor Fair said, “The economy and the political situation are always unique.”Reality is recalcitrant. Human behavior never fits entirely into any model or market yet invented.It’s worth knowing as much as you can about the underlying factors, but they come down to people. I find that reassuring.In the end, elections depend on the voters coming out and the public as a whole respecting the results. Astonishingly, in 2022, that basic civics lesson needs reinforcement. The legitimacy of the 2020 election is still under attack.So, remember, whatever the models, the markets, the polls, the pundits or the candidates say, the future is in your hands. When Election Day comes around, it’s more important than ever to get out and vote, and to make sure your vote counts. More