Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Plan B for Democrats Living in Red States

      by

      BOZEMAN, Mont. — Before we get to the point, keep in mind that during Montana’s recent primary election, in the Second Congressional District race in Garfield County — a stretch of eastern badlands and prairie nearly the size of Connecticut — 14 Democrats voted. Then again, maybe that is the point.After the 2020 census, Montana regained the second House seat it lost 30 years ago. Here in the western mountains where I live, the First District could be competitive for Democrats if the college towns and Indian reservations can outflank clumps of Trumpists and armed Christian separatists. But when I asked Dorothy Bradley — a Democratic icon since she got elected to the state legislature as a 23-year-old in 1970 — about the Second District, she replied point blank, “A Democrat can’t win in eastern Montana.”She is, however, floating a Plan B. In April, Ms. Bradley invited to the Capitol in Helena her opponent in the 1992 gubernatorial race, Marc Racicot, the two-term governor and former chair of the Republican National Committee. In the contest for the House seat in the eastern district, they endorsed an independent, Gary Buchanan, who is running against Montana’s current at-large representative, Republican Matt Rosendale. The Bradley-Racicot endorsement was a singular milestone in Montana politics, as if the C.E.O.s of Pepsi and Coke called a truce to sell some Dr. Pepper.President Biden’s plea to rational Republicans and independents to vote for Democrats in the midterms, as a ploy to root out authoritarian Republican extremists, could persuade the already persuadable. But winning the popular and electoral votes in 2020 does not change the fact that he lost in about 2,500 of the nation’s 3,000 or so counties. While the Republican Party spurns observable reality, the Democratic Party has alienated most of the continent (which is also unrealistic in a republic if governing is the goal). In landscapes where, as former Senator Conrad Burns described eastern Montana, there is “a lot of dirt between light bulbs,” defending pluralist democracy might require a pluralist task force. Realistic Democrats allying with Republican defectors and the unaffiliated to elect civic-minded independents could look like the bipartisan coalition backing Mr. Buchanan and an experiment south of here in Utah.The Utah Democratic Party decided not to field a U.S. Senate candidate and instead endorsed the independent Evan McMullin, a former C.I.A. officer who ran for president in 2016, to oppose Mike Lee, who initially supported Donald Trump’s claims of a stolen election. That was a stirring, patriotic feat. Still, what did they have to lose? The last Democrat to win the Senate in Utah was born in 1911 and lost to Orrin Hatch in 1976.These independents overlap in ways that could be instructive in future races — levelheaded centrists with establishment support and a sense of place running against mortifying Republican oddballs in regions where Democrats are pariahs. And while Mr. Buchanan has raised about twice as much money as his Democratic opponent, the fact that Mr. McMullin doesn’t have a Democrat to contend with has helped propel him to a statistical tie with Senator Lee, according to a Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll.No responsible American can vote for congressional Republicans — with few exceptions, like Senator Lisa Murkowski — for the foreseeable future because of the threat that party poses to orderly elections. Montana’s Representative Rosendale, who voted against certifying the 2020 election results, personifies that threat.Mr. Buchanan, who owns an investment advisory firm in Billings, made a last-minute decision to run for the House after Mr. Rosendale voted against a bipartisan resolution titled “Supporting the People of Ukraine.”How do you know if your representative is not the least bit representative? When the House votes 426-3, and yours is among the three.Mr. Buchanan described that vote as the moment “when embarrassment became shame.” It’s worth noting that our right-wing governor, Greg Gianforte, was so offended by the invasion, he started immediately divesting the state’s Russian assets, proclaiming, “Montana stands with Ukraine.” It’s such a near-unanimous position that even I will stand with my journalist-clobbering governor, though I will be 10 yards away wearing my dad’s welding helmet.Pondering Representative Rosendale’s peculiar record (he was also in the minority when the House voted 394-18 to support Sweden and Finland joining NATO), Mr. Racicot summarized his disapproval: “These aren’t necessarily moral judgments. These are almost mathematical judgments.”Though I voted for Dorothy Bradley in 1992, I do find Mr. Racicot, as a former R.N.C. chair who publicly endorsed Joe Biden for president, to be a reliable sherpa in ascending to the ideal of country above party.“I don’t care about the things that are debatable, that thoughtful people can argue about and come to different conclusions,” he told me. “What I care about is betraying the country and betraying the democracy.” Because of fidelity to the Constitution, he argues that “a lot of people are to the point where they can finally say: ‘You know what, I’m not a Democrat first. I’m not a Republican first.’”A man in a bar recently asked Mr. Buchanan if he’s an F.B.I. agent or a Mormon. He looks like he served as Montana’s first Department of Commerce director in the early 1980s. Sounds dull, yet those were desperate years, when much of the old Montana up and died — the Butte copper mine, the Great Falls refinery and the Anaconda smelter shut down, and the farm crisis incited hundreds of farmers in Montana and the Midwest to take their own lives. Mr. Buchanan oversaw “Build Montana,” a program focused on beefing up what’s now the economic pillar of tourism. He created the still ubiquitous “Made in Montana” label to promote homegrown products, a marketing ploy I fall for every time I face life’s jelly and jam dilemmas. Endangered fossil fuel towns might appreciate his experience with tough transitions. And his fealty to the right to privacy in the Montana Constitution, which guarantees abortion rights (for now), provides an alternative to Representative Rosendale’s rigid opposition.Mr. Buchanan told me that when he’s out campaigning in the eastern district, he meets Montanans who have never heard of the category of independent, but they instantly see themselves in that word. More than 40 percent of Americans identify as independents, according to a Gallup poll — the biggest bloc in the country, outnumbering either party. That figure should shame both parties’ leaders into deep self-reflection.When I saw photos of Mr. Racicot and Ms. Bradley standing beside Mr. Buchanan for endorsement, my first reaction was relief that there might be a plausible home remedy to Representative Rosendale and his ilk. Last month, in Livingston, I noticed about a dozen Buchanan yard signs and zero for his major party opponents. I know hardcore liberals in Helena and the Shields Valley who plan to vote for him.While I wish I could reach a comforting conclusion about the improvised communities bucking up these western independents for the greater good, partisans putting aside heartfelt differences is not necessarily a sign of hope but a warning that the two-party system has failed them. Congress is supposed to compromise, not voters.Sarah Vowell is the author of, among other books, “Lafayette in the Somewhat United States” and the producer of an oral history of the Montana Constitutional Convention of 1972.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

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Online Fund-Raising Was Supposed to Save Politics. Instead, It’s Dragging Us to Hell.

      by

      In late 2003 the spirit of revolution was in the air and on our Yahoo browsers. Shock and awe had given way to the long slog of war. And the internet was allowing supporters of politicians to use new tools such as “the Web log, or ‘blog’” to plot together in real time.Amid this upheaval, Howard Dean’s presidential campaign saw an opportunity. It could leverage these new tools to raise money by channeling the “netroots” anger at the Republican president and the bipartisan establishment that got us into the quagmire in Iraq. Through this online community building, it brought in a record $14.8 million in a single quarter.Mr. Dean wasn’t the first to use online fund-raising in presidential politics. John McCain’s upstart campaign had leveraged it to a less prodigious degree in 2000. “McCain Gets Big Payoff on Web Site” was this paper’s headline a few days after his surprise New Hampshire win: He had brought in nearly a million dollars in “e-donations” in just two days.Mr. McCain and Mr. Dean both lost — but good-government types, the media and many regular Americans viewed this new funding mechanism and the little-d democratization of campaign finance as a way to challenge, and hopefully overtake, the corrupted status quo. “We really give people a lot of power, and other campaigns are scared to do that,” said Zephyr Teachout, the Dean campaign’s director of online organization, at the time.The dreams of an idealistic outsider disrupting the existing order quickly came to fruition in 2008 when Barack Obama upended the Clinton machine, then beat Mr. McCain at his own game with an unprecedented money bomb leveraging what the journalist Sasha Issenberg has called “the victory lab.”The overwhelmingly positive narrative about the power of small-dollar online fund-raising began to congeal: Grass-roots fund-raising is pure and good. Big-dollar donations from corporate cronies are suspect. This is what democracy looks like!!!As it turned out, grass-roots fund-raising is also what ending democracy looks like. As with any other mass movement, people-powered campaigns followed the standard Hofferian trajectory: beginning as a cause, turning into a business and becoming a racket. Our online fund-raising system is not only enriching scam artists, clogging our inboxes and inflaming the electorate; it is also empowering our politics’ most nefarious actors.It is how Donald Trump and his cast of clueless coupsters raised nine figures to “stop the steal” that they had fabricated to try to stay in power. It is one way our most extreme candidates dominate the conversation and gain power in our political system. It has redirected money from politicians who work to find compromises that might just help people, diverting it instead to those who either have no chance to win or, worse yet, can win and want to undermine that work for their own ends. And it’s hard to imagine how we can stop it.A warning of the hellscape to come took place in late 2009, when a little-known South Carolina congressman named Joe Wilson raised well over $2 million after he shouted “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during a health care address to a joint session of Congress. At first, the fallout from this incident transpired in a standard before-times fashion. Mr. Wilson, a mild-mannered Southerner, apologized to Mr. Obama for the outburst.But after the Democratic-controlled Congress censured him anyway, Mr. Wilson’s campaign team pressed the advantage. As CNN’s Peter Hamby reported at the time, it “bulked up to seize the fund-raising opportunity” and in the weeks that followed, Mr. Wilson retained a “new media strategist,” “uploaded fund-raising pleas to YouTube” and purchased banner ad space on The Drudge Report. The result: In just 12 days he collected more money than he spent during his entire previous campaign.This moment of proto-lib-owning virality offered a playbook for a new generation of political performance artists who were more native to these tools than Mr. Wilson and cared not at all about manners or the media elite’s opinion. They learned that they could raise money and gain influence not through the long slog of relationship and coalition building in Washington but instantaneously by being jerks on the internet and calling out their voters’ enemy du jour in the most ostentatious manner they could summon.It’s created a perverse incentive structure, empowering the congressional shock jocks at the expense of actual legislators. Meanwhile, a series of court decisions supercharged political fund-raising generally. The new no-limits era allowed big donors to maximize huge contributions to political committees and blasted billions in dark money through the system, continually raising the stakes of each fund-raising deadline.The elevation of the small-dollar donor has created other nightmarish unintended consequences, however. Democratic candidates with no hope of winning are raising ungodly sums from online liberals drawn to their flashy videos and clever slams. This is particularly the case when said candidates are running against notably loathed Republicans. In 2020, this meant Jaime Harrison, the current Democratic National Committee chairman, raised a record-breaking $131 million in his campaign against Senator Lindsey Graham, despite the fact that Mr. Harrison lost by double digits and never really had a prayer.The story was similar for Amy McGrath, who ran against Senator Mitch McConnell, and Randy “Ironstache” Bryce, who got shaved clean by Bryan Steil. The lesson remains unlearned: This year Marcus Flowers has raised $10 million in his assuredly hopeless race against Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene — double the receipts of more competitive races. Added together, hundreds of millions of dollars are being pumped into hopeless hype candidates. At a minimum, that money could be used more efficiently by the Democratic Party. But that entire way of thinking might be a reflection of broken politics brain. Aren’t there myriad better uses for all that altruism than pumping out hokey attack ads?As the social media outrage fund-raising model began to come into form, the political parties began to professionalize their grass-roots outreach using email and then text messages. Gone was the decentralized model Mr. Dean had road-tested, whereby supporters organized among themselves, recruiting neighbors and message board friends toward a common cause. By the 2010s, that was displaced by centralized, beta-tested boiler rooms that used powerful digital tools to prey on people’s emotions. The result is very little message variation within the party coalitions. We’ve seen a few exceptions, most notably Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign. But overall, it’s a race to the bottom to inflame a party’s own voters with the most intensity and frequency.To get a sense of just how noxious and stupid the material is that reaches America’s inboxes, I like to peruse The Archive of Political Emails’ The Firehose from time to time. A colleague of mine engineered the site for archival purposes, signing up for various lists and funneling them to the same place. You won’t be surprised to find out that The Firehose is largely devoid of that community-minded hopey-changey stuff that we were promised in the aughts. Instead it’s peppered with conspiracies, fearmongering, hyperbole, flat-out lies, gimmickry, rage fuel and a meme or two that I admit will get me to chuckle from time to time. (We all have our weaknesses.)Can we ever know the full effect that years of emails, texts, Facebook ads and viral Twitter ads with doom-driven fund-raising appeals have had on the average voter’s conception of the country and politics? How those stimuli may have contributed to the radicalization of their recipients, especially those who aren’t in on the joke (a nihilistic campaign politics trope in which the strategists make arguments they know are phony)?This part is a deep, bipartisan problem. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee might be the longest-running offender when it comes to sending apocalyptic, wheels-off messages demanding voters’ money. It has even been chastised from within its own ranks — to little effect.There is also the more direct grift. Last year I wrote about how the National Republican Congressional Committee’s donation form used a prechecked box scheme, which automatically doubled the dollar amount and made it recurring. A warning aggressively threatened donors if they unchecked the box. Similar tactics resulted in the Trump campaign’s having to return $122 million to supporters who had been duped and, in some cases, financially devastated. If the old fund-raising system was transactional, this new one is dominated by the eternal and emotionally toxic hunt for the small donor.As gross and unethical as those tactics are, the greatest threat resulting from all of this is how the very politicians who are refusing to abide by the results of democratic elections are often being funded: by the once vaunted online donor, even if this one just wants to watch the whole system burn.Senator Josh Hawley raised around $3 million in the first quarter of 2021, mostly after he was pictured giving a salute to the rioters about to storm the Capitol. He’s even merchandising this asininity. Most of the Republican leadership has fund-raised on Mr. Trump’s conspiracy-addled social media site. Rank-and-file voters who preferred candidates who promised to decertify the last election or who might certify the next one only if they get their preferred winner (or both) helped fund those candidates in Republican primaries this year.Many of these candidates have struggled to raise what is required for the general elections, in part because Mr. Trump is sucking up nine figures for his PACs, at least one of which spent copiously on legal fees this summer while spending little on supporting Republican candidates. But some wild-eyed insurrectionists might get swept into office during an election cycle in which Republicans perform well, and that is dangerous enough.Maybe, then, given the results of our two-decade experiment in people-powered politics, we might temper rhetoric that glorifies the mighty grass-roots dollar. And reflect on how we might reform our financing system to disincentivize the crazy-making. Empowering the little guy and draining the swamp sounds nice and all, but as it turns out, there is something to be said for a little gatekeeping.And if you don’t believe me, the O.G. disrupter basically admitted as much.Last week I called Mr. Dean to ask him to reflect on the devolution of the netroots model that seemed to offer so much hope for doe-eyed reformers two decades ago.“At the time, it was a way that a young generation could start pushing their way up by using technology,” he said, “and it was incredible.”“But now that technology has been abused,” he continued. “The right-wingers are using it in service of fascism.” He added, “And I just send all my fund-raising emails to junk.”Tim Miller, a writer at The Bulwark, is the author of “Why We Did It: A Travelogue From the Republican Road to Hell.”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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How a Christian Cellphone Company Became a Rising Force in Texas Politics

      by

      GRAPEVINE, Texas — Ahead of what would usually be a sleepy spring school board election, a mass of fliers appeared on doorsteps in the Fort Worth suburbs, warning of rampant “wokeness” and “sexually explicit books” in schools, and urging changes in leadership.The fliers were part of a broad effort to shift the ideological direction of school boards in a politically crucial corner of Texas, made possible by a campaign infusion of more than $420,000 from an unlikely source: a local cellphone provider whose mission, it says, is communicating conservative Christian values.All 11 candidates backed by the company, Patriot Mobile, won their races across four school districts, including the one in Grapevine, Texas, a conservative town where the company is based and where highly rated schools are the main draw for families. In August, the board approved new policies limiting support for transgender students, clamping down on books deemed inappropriate and putting in place new rules that made it possible to be elected to the school board even without a majority of votes.The entry of a Texas cellphone company into the national tug of war over schools is part of a far more sweeping battle over the future of Texas being waged in the suburbs north of Dallas and Fort Worth.The company’s efforts have been seen as a model by Republican candidates and conservative activists, who have sought to harness parental anger over public schools as a means of holding onto suburban areas, a fight that could determine the future of the country’s largest red state.“If we lose Tarrant County, we lose Texas,” Jenny Story, Patriot Mobile’s chief operating officer, said. “If we lose Texas, we lose the country.”Glen Whitley, the top executive in Tarrant County, Texas, recognizes the rising political clout of Patriot Mobile in his part of the state. Emil Lippe for The New York TimesGlen Whitley, the top executive in Tarrant County, said the company has become an important player in politics in this part of the state. “They’ve been successful in taking over the school board in Grapevine-Colleyville, in Keller and Southlake,” Mr. Whitley, a Republican, said. He said the company appeared to be setting its sights next on city council races next year.“They’re coming after Fort Worth,” Mr. Whitley said.Patriot Mobile representatives are a frequent presence on the conservative political circuit across the country, taking praise from Steve Bannon at the Conservative Political Action Conference, buying tables at nonprofit fund-raisers and meeting with candidates from inside and outside of Texas.Modeled after a progressive, California-based cellphone provider founded in the 1980s, the company unabashedly embraces its partisan agenda, donating money to anti-abortion and other conservative causes. Lately, it has begun spending money on behalf of Republican political candidates.Peter Barnes, who helped start Credo Mobile, the California cellphone company that funded progressive causes, said he long expected that other firms would follow a similar path.“The business model is pretty simple and we expected that something similar would emerge on the right,” he said of the plan for channeling profits into politics. “But it didn’t — until now.”In North Texas, Patriot Mobile’s political spending has supported digital advertising, door hangers and campaign mailers as well as get-out-the-vote efforts on behalf of its chosen candidates.Patriot Mobile openly embraces its partisan agenda, donating money to anti-abortion and other conservative causes. Emil Lippe for The New York TimesIts political activism has already changed things on the ground in Grapevine, where the nine-year-old company is based. The new policies on books and transgender issues passed 4-to-3, with the two Patriot Mobile-backed candidates making the difference.More on U.S. Schools and EducationDrop-Off Outfits: As children return to the classroom, parents with a passion for style are looking for ways to feel some sense of chic along the way to school.Turning to the Sun: Public schools are increasingly using savings from solar energy to upgrade facilities, help their communities and give teachers raises — often with no cost to taxpayers.High School Football: Supply chain problems have slowed helmet manufacturing, leaving coaches around the country scrambling to find protective gear for their teams.Teacher Shortage: While the pandemic has created an urgent search for teachers in some areas, not every district is suffering from shortages. Here are the factors in play.An array of high school students in this increasingly diverse area responded with a walkout from class, led by transgender and nonbinary students. Parents opposed to the changes have begun meeting to figure out their own response.In Grapevine’s harvest-and-wine-themed downtown, where upscale coffee shops and restaurants can be found near displays of “Ultra MAGA” sweatshirts, Patriot Mobile is headquartered in a cluster of offices unmarked from the outside.The company’s logo adorns a conference room where Senator Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael, leads a packed Bible study every Tuesday. Along one cubicle hangs a Texas flag with silhouettes of assault rifles and the words “Come and Take It,” in a nod to a well-known slogan from the Texas revolution.“We just said, ‘Look, we’re going to put God first,’” said Glenn Story, the founder and chief executive, sitting in his office on a recent afternoon, a guitar signed by Donald Trump Jr. hanging on the wall. “Which is why I haven’t erased that from the board,” he said, pointing to a list of core values written on a whiteboard, beginning with “Missionaries vs. Mercenaries.”Under Glenn Story, the chief executive, Patriot Mobile has become a growing influence in communicating conservative Christian values in Texas. Emil Lippe for The New York Times“Our mission is to support our God-given Constitutional rights,” said Ms. Story, the chief operating officer and Mr. Story’s wife.“And to honor God, always,” said Leigh Wambsganss, a vice president at the company who also heads the political action committee, Patriot Mobile Action, founded by the company’s executives.Corporations donate regularly to state and local political campaigns, but a regional company, founded with a partisan mission and willing to spend money in backyard races, is unusual. School boards across the country are increasingly becoming political battlegrounds, attracting larger sums of money and national groups into what had once been largely invisible local contests.Patriot Mobile’s political activities are focused on suburban Tarrant County, north of Fort Worth, in large part because the county has been trending blue, narrowly carried by President Biden in 2020 and by the former Democratic congressman and current candidate for governor, Beto O’Rourke, during his 2018 Senate run.Long a bastion of well-regarded schools, conservative churches and largely well-off, white neighborhoods, the area nurtured strong Tea Party groups during the Obama administration and, more recently, those that supported a Republican primary challenger to the right of Gov. Greg Abbott. It has a reputation, among some in the party, as a hotbed for hard-right politics.Downtown Grapevine, Texas, is where Patriot Mobile has its headquarters. Emil Lippe for The New York TimesThe new policies voted on in the Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District have divided parents and raised concern among some teachers, some of whom said they feared becoming targets of the new school board.One of the new board members suggested as much during a Republican forum over the summer, saying the board had a “list” of teachers who she believed were activists promoting progressive ideas about race and equity.“They are just poison and they are taking our schools down,” the board member, Tammy Nakamura, said.Some teachers have begun removing books from their classrooms rather than abide by new rules that require titles to be posted online so that they can be publicly reviewed. The district canceled its annual Scholastic book fair after previous concerns about books that were “mis-merchandised” and were not age-appropriate, a district spokeswoman said.“You now have the school board approving library books, and I feel that is completely micromanaging the administration,” said Jorge Rodríguez, a school board member who voted against the new policies, adding that more than a quarter of the district’s 14,000 students were economically disadvantaged. “We’re here to educate kids and this is not helping.”The top spokesman for the district resigned a few months after being hired, citing the “divisive” atmosphere. The district’s superintendent said recently that he planned to retire at the end of the school year.A neighborhood in Grapevine. New policies in the school district there have divided parents. Emil Lippe for The New York Times“I’ve always been a staunch conservative,” said Christy Horne, a parent whose two children go to elementary school in the district. But the attacks on teachers were too much for her, Ms. Horne said. “It got personal.”But for Mario Cordova, another parent in the district, the new school board leadership has rightly given more control over curriculum and reading material to parents, many of whom were dismayed by what they saw their children learning in remote schooling during the pandemic.“Parents across the district voted for a change on the board last May and are happy to see them follow through,” Mr. Cordova wrote in an email. Opponents of the changes are “crying wolf,” he added. “This crowd has convinced themselves they cannot teach children without incessant conversations about sex and gender.”For many parents and teachers, an early sign that their schools had become a political battleground came last year with complaints over the first Black high school principal at Colleyville Heritage High School.Some parents contended that the principal, Dr. James Whitfield, had been promoting “critical race theory” and were rankled by an email he sent, days after the death of George Floyd, expressing solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters and a desire to create greater equity.“He’s going to start a diversity advisory committee? At our school? He’s going to say that Black Lives Matter?” said Dr. Whitfield, describing the reaction he encountered. The fight made national headlines and the district eventually reached a settlement with Dr. Whitfield that included his departure as principal.The district superintendent has said the decision was not about race.The fight over comments that Dr. James Whitfield made supporting Black Lives Matter protesters when he was principal of Colleyville Heritage High School made national headlines. Emil Lippe for The New York TimesA few months after Dr. Whitfield’s departure, opponents of a diversity plan in neighboring Southlake won control of the local school board, with help from a political action committee, Southlake Families. One of the founders was Ms. Wambsganss, a parent in Southlake schools and a former television news anchor. Another was Tim O’Hare, who is the Republican nominee in November’s election to lead Tarrant County.Parents both in Southlake and in Grapevine-Colleyville have been offended by the sexual content, including explicit descriptions of sexual activity, in some books offered to students, as well as certain discussions of gender and race, said Ms. Wambsganss, now at Patriot Mobile.“Parents do not believe that gender issues should be discussed in K through 12,” she said. “Especially Christian parents do not want multiple genders discussed with their children by someone who is not their parents.”She added: “I always say, it’s not about homosexuality. It’s not about heterosexuality. Stop sexualizing kids in either of those arenas.”The victories by Patriot Mobile-backed candidates surprised some parents who did not agree with the new direction in the district.On a recent morning, a dozen of those parents and community members gathered at the local botanical garden. For many, it was the first time they had met after finding one another through one of the many proliferating Facebook pages dedicated to the school district conflicts.“I ask myself every day, what did I bring my children into,” said Katherine Parks, who moved to the area from France.Marceline, a student at Grapevine High School, helped organize a walkout.Emil Lippe for The New York Times“We were Swift Boated by these people,” said Tom Hart, a Republican former city councilman in Colleyville, referring to the political attacks that helped sink John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004. “We cannot combat $400,000 in funding from the outside.”As parents met to strategize, some students at Grapevine High School, where the Gay-Straight Alliance club was shuttered for lack of a faculty sponsor, have already begun to find ways to protest. A student started a book club for reading banned books. A group of friends organized a walkout.“We can find solidarity, and we can find safety in each other,” said Marceline, who asked that only their first name be used out of concern for possible reprisals. “Because we cannot trust the adults.”About 100 students joined in the walkout. No similar protest has taken place at nearby Colleyville Heritage High School, and for many students, the beginning of the school year has proceeded, more or less, as it always has.In Grapevine, books and the discussion of gender and race continue to be hotly debated topics.Emil Lippe for The New York Times More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Brazil’s Election on Sunday Showed That “Bolsonarismo” Is Here to Stay

      by

      The stark rebuke to the reactionary government of Jair Bolsonaro, predicted by the polls and desired by millions, didn’t come to pass. Brazil is on edge.It wasn’t all bad. In Sunday’s presidential election, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the center-left former union leader who governed Brazil ably from 2003 to 2011, took roughly 48 percent of the vote, a healthy performance within the final polls’ margin of error. But Mr. Bolsonaro exceeded his presumed ceiling, taking 43 percent — far above previous predictions — and setting up what will most likely be a closer than expected runoff on Oct. 30. What’s more, several of Mr. Bolsonaro’s former cabinet ministers and allies across the country rode his coattails to success in local elections.The results showed beyond any doubt that Mr. Bolsonaro is no accident of history. It might have been possible to dismiss his surprising election four years ago, when he rose to power on a wave of widespread anti-left sentiment, as a fluke. No longer. Underlying his vague appeals to “God, fatherland and family” is a bedrock of support, spread across the country and encompassing a wide cross-section of society. Irrespective of the result at the end of the month, the spirits Mr. Bolsonaro animated and the politics he cultivated are here to stay.Mr. Bolsonaro’s beginnings in Brazilian politics were ignominious. An army captain, he first came to national attention in the mid-1980s as the armed forces were beginning a tactical retreat from political life after two decades of military rule. A leading newsmagazine revealed that Mr. Bolsonaro, resentful about poor remuneration, was planning to bomb a barracks in Rio de Janeiro. The goal, he told the reporter with remarkable directness, was to embarrass the unpopular army minister.After a flurry of publicity and an internal investigation in which Mr. Bolsonaro appeared to threaten the journalist for testifying against him, the incident was largely forgotten. But the macho bluster was typical of Mr. Bolsonaro, a lackluster soldier whose outsize political ambitions often rubbed senior military figures the wrong way. Even so, his military background proved electorally useful. In 1988, after the restoration of Brazilian democracy, he began a political career as a representative of the interests and perspectives of the military Everyman.Over time, his appeals assumed a more general right-wing tenor, embracing the conservative thrust if not the theology of evangelical Christianity. Mr. Bolsonaro’s politics — a medley of bigotry, authoritarianism, religious moralism, neoliberalism and freewheeling conspiracy theorization — were largely sidelined in the wake of military rule. But 13 years of progressive Workers’ Party governments gave rise to discontent on the right. To figures there, the left’s repeated electoral victories smacked of foul play and discredited the very notion of democracy itself. At the head of this charge, possessed of inimitable ideological bombast, was Mr. Bolsonaro. In Latin America’s biggest democracy, he now speaks for tens of millions.Sunday underscored this sorry state of affairs. Mr. Bolsonaro’s endorsed candidates overperformed everywhere, claiming major victories against candidates backed by Mr. da Silva in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Indeed, the first round of voting suggests not only that the political project that prevailed in 2018 — in a word, “Bolsonarismo” — is alive and well but also that it has room to grow. Considering Mr. Bolsonaro’s disastrous handling of Covid-19, his consistent threats to Brazilian democracy and the rash of corruption scandals surrounding him and his family, this is a grim prospect.Yet not an inexplicable one. Though there’s a lot we don’t know — the census, delayed by the pandemic and institutional sabotage, is over a decade old — some things are clear. While Mr. Bolsonaro retained his overwhelming advantage in the western and northwestern parts of the country, the most striking aspect of the election was how cleanly it fell along established lines of regional support. In the southeast, a traditional bastion of conservative politics, Mr. Bolsonaro prospered. In the northeast, a redoubt for the Workers’ Party, Mr. da Silva excelled. Mr. Bolsonaro’s success has been to retain and extend the traditional conservative base of support, enthusing it with his bitter denunciations of progressives, the justice system, journalists and international institutions.Yet for all of Mr. Bolsonaro’s show of strength, the most likely outcome remains a victory for Mr. da Silva. After all, no runner-up in the first round of voting has ever won the second. The candidates who finished third and fourth — the center-right Simone Tebet and the center-left Ciro Gomes — will probably support Mr. da Silva, too. The former president’s relish for campaigning, evident in an upbeat message he wrote on Twitter once the results were clear, is another advantage. Four weeks in campaign mode should suit him well.But extending the campaign is a dangerous proposition. Mr. Bolsonaro’s supporters have already engaged in numerous acts of violence against Mr. da Silva’s supporters. It would not be surprising if “Bolsonarismo,” a movement rooted in violent rhetoric, claims more lives before Oct. 30. Meanwhile, President Bolsonaro, gifted time and greater credibility by his surprising success, can continue plotting against Brazilian democracy.Several hurdles remain in the way of a power grab by Mr. Bolsonaro. But he has just cleared a major one.Andre Pagliarini (@apagliar) is an assistant professor of history at Hampden-Sydney College, a fellow at the Washington Brazil Office and a columnist at The Brazilian Report.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

    • 25 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Balancing Extremes

      by

      The Federal Reserve is trying to tame inflation without wrecking the economy.America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, is trying to strike a delicate balance: It has to take steps to slow down the economy to bring inflation under control — but it wants to do so without causing a severe recession.The predicament is unusual for a government agency. Typically, public officials talk about stimulating the economy and creating more jobs.The Fed is trying to do the opposite. Under its dual mandate from Congress, the Fed tries to keep unemployment low and prices relatively stable. Yet those two goals are sometimes in conflict: A strong economy can lead to more jobs but quickly rising prices, while a sluggish economy can lead to fewer jobs but slower price increases. The Fed aims to balance those extremes.But as the Fed has moved to slow down the economy, some experts have worried that it’s going too far, risking unnecessary economic pain. The Fed’s defenders, meanwhile, say the central bank is acting wisely — and may even need to go further than it has to tame rising prices.Today’s newsletter will explain both sides of the debate and the potential dangers to the economy if the Fed does too much or too little to bring down inflation.The case for cautionExperts arguing for caution worry that the Fed has already done enough to ease inflation, even if the effects are not clear yet, and that any more action could backfire.The Fed’s attempts to cool the labor market illustrate the potential risk.The jobs market is one of the major drivers of inflation today, said Jason Furman, an economist at Harvard University. Many employers have raised wages to compete for hires; there are more job vacancies than there are available workers. But someone has to pay for the higher wages, and employers have passed those costs on to consumers by charging higher prices, fueling inflation.In response, the Fed has raised interest rates five times this year to increase the cost of borrowing money. The goal: More expensive loans will result in less investment, then less business expansion, then fewer jobs, then lower pay, then less inflation.There are hints that the Fed’s moves are working. For example, stock markets have declined as the Fed has raised interest rates — partly a signal that investors expect the economy to cool off, just as the Fed wants. “Markets going down is not an indictment of the Fed’s policy,” my colleague Jeanna Smialek, who covers the economy, told me. “Markets going down is the Fed’s policy.”But the rest of the intended chain of reaction, from less investment to less inflation, will take time to work through the economy. The Fed’s interest rate hikes may have done enough, but the full effects aren’t visible yet.Some experts worry the Fed will not wait long enough to see the full effects of its previous actions before it takes more aggressive steps. That could lead to more harm to the economy than necessary. “The risk that the Fed is moving too slowly to contain inflation has declined, while the risk that high interest rates will cause severe economic damage has gone up — a lot,” Paul Krugman, the economist and Times columnist, wrote last week.The case for moreOn the other side, there’s the risk of the Fed doing too little.We have seen the consequences. The Fed, believing inflation would be temporary, was slow to raise interest rates last year. That probably exacerbated the rising prices we’re dealing with now.But things could get worse. The longer inflation goes on, the likelier it is to become entrenched. For example, if businesses expect costs to keep rising, they will set prices higher in anticipation — leading to a vicious cycle of increasing costs and prices.Longer bouts of inflation are also more likely to result in stagflation, when inflation is high and economic growth slows. In such a situation, people have a harder time finding a job and the pay they can get quickly loses value. The U.S. endured stagflation in the 1970s; Europe is facing it now as prices rise and the continent’s economy stumbles.Entrenchment and stagflation could force the Fed to act even more drastically, with grave side effects. It has happened before: In the 1970s and ’80s, the Fed raised interest rates so dramatically and so quickly that the unemployment rate spiked to more than 10 percent.By acting aggressively now, the Fed hopes to avoid such harsh measures — and produce a “soft landing” that reduces inflation without wrecking the economy.The central bank’s record suggests it could pull off the feat, Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice chairman, argued in The Wall Street Journal: The Fed achieved a soft landing or came close in six of 11 attempts over the past six decades. “Landing the economy softly is a tall order, but success is not unthinkable,” Blinder wrote.Related:Stocks rose yesterday for the second straight day, while Amazon became the latest large company to announce a slowdown in hiring.America’s gross national debt yesterday exceeded $31 trillion for the first time.THE LATEST NEWSWar in UkraineSource: Institute for the Study of War | By Marco Hernandez and Josh HolderUkrainian troops expelled Russian forces from a key town in Kherson Province, pushing farther into Russian-controlled territory by attacking several places at once.Russian forces are outnumbered in Kherson, according to pro-Kremlin bloggers.Russians are fleeing to countries like Kyrgyzstan to avoid the military draft.President Biden spoke with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, and pledged to send four more of the mobile rocket launchers known as HIMARS.PoliticsIn oral arguments, the Supreme Court justices suggested that they might uphold Alabama’s congressional map but not profoundly limit the Voting Rights Act.Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to let a special master review documents seized from Mar-a-Lago.Doctors and midwives in blue states are working to get abortion pills to red states, setting up a legal clash.InternationalMumbai and the monsoon.Saumya Khandelwal for The New York TimesSouth Asia’s monsoon season is becoming more violent.Protests in Iran over a young woman’s death entered a third week. Women are at the forefront.He was a die-hard soccer fan. She was a chatty aerobics lover. Both perished in an Indonesian stadium.New vaccines are raising hopes of eradicating malaria.Other Big StoriesElon Musk proposed buying Twitter for the price he agreed to in April, after months of trying to back out of the deal.Micron will build a computer chip factory in upstate New York, a sign that government spending on semiconductors is bringing private investment.Days after Hurricane Ian pummeled Florida, many residents face homelessness.The scientists Carolyn Bertozzi, Morten Meldal and Barry Sharpless won the Nobel Prize for their work in “click chemistry.”OpinionsVladimir Putin’s nuclear threats heighten the danger that miscalculation will cause annihilation, Michael Dobbs argues.More school funding is one solution to the male resentment fueling right-wing politics, Michelle Goldberg says.MORNING READSIndigenous Alaskans’ freezers hold a winter’s worth of food.Katie Basile for The New York Times Cold storage: In rural Alaska, the stand-alone freezer is everything.“Beavis and Butt-Head”: The ’90s cartoon that mattered.Academia: Students were failing organic chemistry. Was the professor to blame?A Times classic: Sarah Paulson opens up.Advice from Wirecutter: Party favors for a kid’s birthday.Lives Lived: Loretta Lynn built her stardom not only on her Grammy-winning country music but also on her image as a symbol of rural pride. She died at 90.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICJudge stands alone: With his record-breaking 62nd home run last night, one can argue Aaron Judge’s 2022 season is definitively better than Roger Maris’s 1961 campaign. Relive all 62 home runs here.N.W.S.L. fallout continues: Players are “horrified and heartbroken” after the release of the Sally Yates report, according to the U.S. women’s national team and Portland Thorns star Becky Sauerbrunn, who called for the removal of top executives involved in the ongoing women’s soccer crisis.2023 N.B.A. champs? A survey of the league’s general managers revealed the Milwaukee Bucks as favorites, but familiar contenders also got some votes in what may be an open field for the 2023 title. M.V.P. favorite: Mavericks superstar Luka Doncic.ARTS AND IDEAS Jimmy Smits on the set of “East New York.”George Etheredge for The New York TimesA new era for cop showsAfter the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, public confidence in policing reached a record low. Police officers’ roles on television changed, too: Some shows like the ride-along reality program “Cops,” criticized as “copaganda,” were taken off the air or rewritten.Two years later, the police drama has survived. Eighteen crime-related programs are slated for prime-time slots in the coming months. But there are signs that the genre has evolved in response to public opinion, delivering more nuanced portrayals of law enforcement.Series like “East New York” aim to explore the complexity of policing, raising the question of whether cop shows can answer calls for change without losing the viewers that have kept them popular.Related: A history of the police procedural, in six shows.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookCraig Lee for The New York TimesFeed a crowd with overnight French toast.What to Read“Waging a Good War” examines the civil rights movement through military history.What to WatchA diverse intern class has arrived in the 19th season of “Grey’s Anatomy.”Late NightThe hosts joked about Herschel Walker, who denied paying for a former girlfriend’s abortion.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was mooching. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Home for birds (six 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. — GermanP.S. Listen to the trailer for “Hard Fork,” a new Times podcast that explores tech’s wild frontier.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about the floods in Pakistan. On “The Argument,” Andrew Yang and David Jolly make the case for a third political party.Matthew Cullen, Natasha Frost, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick 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

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Election Software Executive Arrested on Suspicion of Theft

      by

      The executive, Eugene Yu, and his firm, Konnech, have been a focus of attention among election deniers.The top executive of an elections technology company that has been the focus of attention among election deniers was arrested by Los Angeles County officials in connection with an investigation into the possible theft of personal information about poll workers, the county said on Tuesday.Eugene Yu, the founder and chief executive of Konnech, the technology company, was taken into custody on suspicion of theft, the Los Angeles County district attorney, George Gascón, said in a statement.Konnech, which is based in Michigan, develops software to manage election logistics, like scheduling poll workers. Los Angeles County is among its customers.The company has been accused by groups challenging the validity of the 2020 presidential election with storing information about poll workers on servers in China. The company has repeatedly denied keeping data outside the United States, including in recent statements to The New York Times.Mr. Gascón’s office said its investigators had found data stored in China. Holding the data there would violate Konnech’s contract with the county.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Trouble for Nevada Democrats: The state has long been vital to the party’s hold on the West. Now, Democrats are facing potential losses up and down the ballot.Democrats’ House Chances: Democrats are not favored to win the House, but the notion of retaining the chamber is not as far-fetched as it once was, ​​writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.Latino Voters: A recent Times/Siena poll found Democrats faring far worse than they have in the past with Hispanic voters. “The Daily” looks at what the poll reveals about this key voting bloc.Michigan Governor’s Race: Tudor Dixon, the G.O.P. nominee who has ground to make up in her contest against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, is pursuing a hazardous strategy in the narrowly divided swing state: embracing former President Donald J. Trump.The county released few other details about its investigation. But it said in its statement that the charges related only to data about poll workers — and that “the alleged conduct had no impact on the tabulation of votes and did not alter election results.”“Data breaches are an ongoing threat to our digital way of life,” the district attorney’s office said in the statement. “When we entrust a company to hold our confidential data, they must be willing and able to protect our personal identifying information from theft. Otherwise, we are all victims.”In a statement, a spokesman for Konnech said that the company was trying to learn the details “of what we believe to be Mr. Yu’s wrongful detention,” and that it stood by statements it made in a lawsuit against election deniers who had accused the company of wrongdoing.“Any L.A. County poll worker data that Konnech may have possessed was provided to it by L.A. County and therefore could not have been ‘stolen’ as suggested,” the spokesman said.The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said in an emailed statement that it had cause to believe that personal information on election workers was “criminally mishandled.” It was seeking to extradite Mr. Yu, who lives in Michigan, to Los Angeles.Konnech came under scrutiny this year by several election deniers, including a founder of True the Vote, a nonprofit that says it is devoted to uncovering election fraud. True the Vote said its team had downloaded personal information on 1.8 million American poll workers from a server owned by Konnech and hosted in China. It said it obtained the data by using the server’s default password, which it said was “password,” according to online accounts from people who attended a conference about voter fraud where the claims were made. The group provided no evidence that it had downloaded the data, saying that it had given the information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.The claims quickly spread online, with some advocates raising concerns about China’s influence on America’s election system.Claims about Konnech reached Dekalb County in Georgia, which was close to signing a contract with the company. The county’s Republican Party chairwoman, Marci McCarthy, raised concerns during a public comment period at the county’s elections board meeting on Sept. 8, questioning where the company stored and secured its data.Konnech rebutted the claims, telling The New York Times that it had records on fewer than 240,000 workers at the time and that it had detected no data breach. Konnech owned a subsidiary in China that developed and tested software. The company said programmers there always used “dummy” test data. The subsidiary was closed in 2021.Last month, Konnech sued True the Vote and Catherine Engelbrecht, its founder, as well as Gregg Phillips, an election denier who often works with the group. Konnech claimed the group had engaged in defamation, theft and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — which made it illegal to access a computer without authorization — among other charges.The judge in the case granted Konnech’s request for an emergency restraining order, which required True the Vote to disclose who had allegedly gained access to Konnech’s data. True the Vote released the name in a sealed court filing. “The organization is profoundly grateful to the Los Angeles district attorney’s office for their thorough work and rapid action in this matter,” the group said in a statement.The Los Angeles district attorney’s office said it was unaware of True the Vote’s investigation and said it had no input on the county’s investigation. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Una contienda de infarto’: Bolsonaro, Lula da Silva y Brasil tienen 4 semanas trepidantes

      by

      El presidente Jair Bolsonaro parecía condenado al fracaso de cara a la primera ronda de las elecciones. Pero ahora, rumbo al balotaje, el mandatario de derecha tiene un camino a la reelección.RÍO DE JANEIRO — La madrugada del lunes, el presidente de Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro, se fue a dormir reivindicado. Los resultados electorales de la noche habían demostrado, tal como él lo había afirmado, que las encuestas subestimaban enormemente la fuerza de su movimiento de derecha.Horas más tarde, despertó con un nuevo desafío: ¿cómo obtener millones de votos más en solo cuatro semanas?El 30 de octubre, Bolsonaro se enfrentará a un contrincante de izquierda, el expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, en una segunda vuelta electoral para liderar al país más grande de América Latina.Ahora la contienda —un enfrentamiento entre los dos mayores pesos pesados de la política brasileña— podría inclinarse hacia cualquiera de los dos lados y promete prolongar lo que ya ha sido una dura batalla que ha polarizado al país y puesto a prueba la fortaleza de su democracia.“Lula sigue siendo el favorito, pero uno se puede imaginar totalmente que esto se convierta en una victoria de Bolsonaro”, dijo Oliver Stuenkel, un politólogo brasileño. “Si se suman todos los números de los candidatos de partidos pequeños, hay suficientes votos por ahí”.Da Silva, conocido universalmente como Lula, terminó en primer lugar el domingo, con el 48,4 por ciento de los votos, frente al 43,2 por ciento de Bolsonaro. De este modo, Da Silva se quedó a 1,85 millones de votos del 50 por ciento que necesitaba para una victoria rotunda en la primera vuelta, mientras que Bolsonaro se quedó a ocho millones de votos.Lo que ahora hace que la contienda sea impredecible es que muchos otros votos parecen estar en juego. Casi 10 millones de personas votaron el domingo por candidatos que ahora están fuera de la pelea, con aproximadamente un tercio de esos votos para candidatos de centroderecha. Otros 38 millones de personas votaron en blanco o no votaron.El expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva terminó en primer lugar el domingo con el 48,4 por ciento de los votos, frente al 43,2 por ciento de Bolsonaro.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesA medida que la campaña entra en una segunda fase, ambas partes han expresado confianza. Da Silva dijo que agradecía la oportunidad de finalmente debatir cara a cara con Bolsonaro, mientras que Bolsonaro dijo que creía que su campaña tenía impulso y un plan para la victoria.El lunes, Bolsonaro ya estaba usando las herramientas de su cargo en su beneficio. Adelantó a la próxima semana la entrega de cheques de unos 115 dólares para brasileños de bajos ingresos, parte de un programa de bienestar mensual que recientemente amplió en un intento de última hora de atraer más apoyo. El domingo por la noche, Bolsonaro citó esa ayuda económica como una de las razones por las que superó las predicciones de las encuestas.Las encuestadoras habían pronosticado que Bolsonaro recibiría aproximadamente el 36 por ciento de los votos, más de siete puntos porcentuales por debajo de su resultado real. Sobreestimaron ligeramente el apoyo de Da Silva.La pregunta de por qué las encuestas habían subestimado el apoyo a Bolsonaro confundió a los círculos políticos brasileños el lunes. Los encuestadores especularon que los votantes fueron deshonestos porque se avergonzaban de admitir que iban a votar por el presidente, cuyas afirmaciones falsas sobre una variedad de temas lo han convertido en un paria en algunos círculos, o que simplemente mintieron para sabotear las previsiones. Bolsonaro ha arremetido contra la industria de las encuestas —el domingo por la noche las llamó mentirosas— y muchos de sus partidarios han seguido su ejemplo.Las cosas podrían complicarse aún más antes de la segunda vuelta. El jefe de gabinete de Bolsonaro, Ciro Nogueira, instó a los partidarios del presidente a rechazar a los encuestadores que quieran entrevistarlos.La votación del domingo trajo buenas noticias para los conservadores en la mayoría de las elecciones de gobernadores y diputados, incluyendo muchos candidatos estrechamente alineados con Bolsonaro.Dado Galdieri para The New York Times“De esta manera, se tendrá la certeza desde el principio de que cualquiera de sus resultados es fraudulento”, escribió en Twitter a sus 100.000 seguidores. Luego sugirió que los encuestadores se equivocaron a propósito. “Solo una investigación profunda lo dirá”, dijo.Antonio Lavareda, presidente de Ipespe, una de las principales empresas de sondeos, dijo que tenía que examinar el efecto de los votantes que se quedaron en casa; el 21 por ciento del electorado no votó, el porcentaje más alto desde 1998. También especuló con que muchas personas que dijeron que votarían a terceros candidatos se pasaron a Bolsonaro en el último momento.Pero a pesar de los pronósticos inexactos de su empresa para el presidente en la primera ronda, Lavareda hizo una predicción audaz: el 48,8 por ciento de apoyo a Da Silva el domingo significa que “es prácticamente imposible” que no gane el 30 de octubre.Sin embargo, el fracaso de las encuestas dejó un mal sabor de boca a muchos brasileños y expertos.“Renuncio a las encuestas durante las próximas cuatro semanas”, dijo Brian Winter, analista de América Latina de Americas Society/Council of the Americas, un grupo que impulsa el libre comercio enl a región. “Su metodología no funciona”.Los pronósticos de las encuestas y la falta de claridad en la contienda podrían llevar a una situación tensa cuando se revelen los resultados el 30 de octubre. Bolsonaro ha dicho durante meses a sus partidarios que sospechen de fraude electoral —a pesar de no ofrecer ninguna prueba— y ha sugerido que la única forma en que podría perder es si la elección es robada.Esas afirmaciones sin fundamento parecen haber persuadido a millones de votantes en Brasil.El domingo por la noche, muchos de los partidarios de Bolsonaro ya reclamaban juego sucio. “Es un fraude. Lula no puede estar por delante de Bolsonaro”, dijo Yasmin Simões, de 28 años, una empleada de comercio minorista que esperaba frente a la casa de Bolsonaro en un barrio junto a la playa en Río de Janeiro. “Si Lula es elegido —por fraude— definitivamente va a haber una revuelta y yo voy a estar ahí”.El éxito de los aliados de Bolsonaro y el apoyo que recibió, mayor a lo anticipado, también muestran que tiene un firme control del movimiento conservador en Brasil.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York TimesAlgunos comentaristas conservadores conocidos también empezaron a asegurar, sin dar pruebas, de que algo sospechoso había sucedido en la votación del domingo.“Creo que es MUY posible que hubo fraude”, tuiteó Rodrigo Constantino, comentarista de derecha afincado en Florida, para sus 1,3 millones de seguidores. “¡El ÚNICO OBJETIVO tiene que ser ganar tantos votos para Bolsonaro que ni siquiera un algoritmo raro pueda cambiarlos!”.La votación del domingo fue una buena noticia para los conservadores en la mayoría de las elecciones de gobernadores y congresistas, incluidos muchos de los candidatos más cercanos a la línea de Bolsonaro. Al menos ocho de sus exministros fueron votados al Congreso, entre ellos varios que se vieron envueltos en escándalos. En total, el partido de Bolsonaro ganó 29 curules en el Congreso, con lo que ahora ocupa 112 en total y se posiciona como el partido con más representación tanto en la cámara baja como en el Senado.En consecuencia, si se le elige para un segundo periodo, Bolsonaro podría estar empoderado por su control del Congreso y replantear de manera más significativa su visión para el país. Para Da Silva, un congreso conservador podría complicar sus esfuerzos por gobernar.El éxito de los aliados de Bolsonaro y el apoyo que recibió, mayor a lo anticipado, también muestran que tiene un firme control del movimiento conservador en Brasil.“La derecha moderada de Brasil es un basurero político”, dijo Stuenkel. “Parte de la polarización extrema en Brasil es que, en la derecha, Bolsonaro tiene el dominio absoluto”.En las próximas cuatro semanas, el equipo de Bolsonaro planea ir por el estado clave de Minas Gerais, donde cree que puede cosechar un millón de votos y buscará mejorar sus resultados en el bastión de Da Silva en el nordeste, dijo Fábio Faria, ministro de Comunicaciones de Brasil y alto asesor del presidente. “Estamos muy confiados”, dijo.La campaña de Lula da Silva planea subrayar la serie de afirmaciones falsas de Bolsonaro y mostrar que a la economía le fue mucho mejor durante los dos mandatos de Da Silva, de 2003 a 2010, que en el gobierno de Bolsonaro.Da Silva en un mitin el sábado. Los analistas pronostican que se moderará para atraer a los votantes más de centro.Victor Moriyama para The New York Times“Será la primera oportunidad que tendremos de un debate cara a cara con el presidente”, dijo a sus seguidores Da Silva el domingo por la noche. “¿Va a seguir mintiendo o, por una vez en su vida, va a decirle la verdad al pueblo brasileño?”.Da Silva había enfocado su campaña en aumentar los impuestos para los ricos y en ampliar los servicios para los pobres pero, luego de los resultados del domingo, los analistas dijeron que moderaría su discurso de campaña para atraer a más votantes centristas.“Hay que ir a los rincones bolsonaristas del país”, dijo el senador Jean-Paul Prates, un asesor de la campaña de Da Silva. “Hay que dar la cara, sonreír a la gente del sur, del medio oeste y hablar de las cosas que importan en sus vidas”.En las ocho elecciones presidenciales previas en la democracia moderna de Brasil, el candidato que ha liderado la primera vuelta nunca ha perdido en la segunda. Pero los cinco puntos porcentuales que separan a Bolsonaro y Da Silva también son el margen más reducido que se ha registrado entre dos candidatos en un balotaje.Como resultado, dijo Winter, “esta va a ser una contienda de infarto”.Jack Nicas es el jefe de la corresponsalía en Brasil, que abarca Brasil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay. Antes reportó de tecnología desde San Francisco y, antes de integrarse al Times en 2018, trabajó siete años en The Wall Street Journal. @jacknicas • Facebook More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      François Legault Wins Re-election in Quebec

      by

      Voters in Quebec gave a second term to Premier François Legault, who has shifted the province from a once fervent-independence movement to a nationalism focused on French Québécois identity.MONTREAL — Voters in Quebec overwhelmingly re-elected Premier François Legault to a second term on Monday, embracing his appeals to French Québécois identity in a campaign marked by heated debates over the inflow of immigrants to Canada’s French-speaking province.Mr. Legault’s party, Coalition Avenir Québec, won a majority of seats in the provincial legislature — significantly increasing its share of seats to 93 from 76 — with an agenda that emphasized an identity-based nationalism and pro-business policies, but set aside the long-held separatist goal of turning Quebec into an independent nation, according to preliminary election results after polls closed at 8 p.m.With his victory to another four-year term, Mr. Legault, 65, who co-founded a successful budget airline before entering politics and is known for his pragmatism, continued to reshape Quebec’s political landscape. The two parties that had enjoyed a lock on the province since the 1970s — the federalist, pro-business Liberal Party and the separatist, social democratic Parti Québécois — came in a distant second and fourth respectively.For Canada’s federal government, which is already facing a brewing separatist movement in the oil-rich province of Alberta, the electoral results in Quebec could lead to more demands by Mr. Legault for greater control over immigration policy and other potentially hot-button issues.Mr. Legault’s party won 43 percent of the popular vote, compared with 37 percent in 2018, and 93 seats in the 125-seat National Assembly, according to preliminary results. His support was strongest in the suburban and rural districts that are home to the highest percentage of French Québécois voters, according to polls before the election.In Montreal, the multicultural and ethnically diverse city that has sometimes been a punching bag for Mr. Legault’s allies, his party was expected to come in second place behind the Liberal Party.During the five-week campaign, Mr. Legault accused Montrealers of “looking down’’ on the people of Quebec City, the provincial capital, in one of several comments that, critics and opponents said, were meant to acts as wedges between the French Québécois majority and the province’s English-speaking and other ethnic, racial and religious minorities.Enjoying strong approval ratings thanks to his economic policies and his leadership during the pandemic, Mr. Legault appeared to want to coast to re-election by running a low-key campaign that both the French and English news media described as lackluster.But the polarizing issue of immigration became one of the campaign’s dominant themes, and its most divisive, after Mr. Legault linked immigration to violence and extremism. He apologized for his remarks, but later described increasing immigration as “suicidal” for Quebec’s French identity.Immigration is not a major political issue for much of the rest of Canada, with the federal government planning to significantly increase the number of immigrants allowed into the country over the next few years to fill labor shortages. But in Quebec — the province with the greatest control over immigration policy — the arrival of immigrants is seen as altering the French Québécois’ linguistic and Roman Catholic heritage.Mr. Legault wants to maintain an annual cap of 50,000 immigrants permitted to settle in the province of 8.7 million. With Quebec also facing labor shortages as well as a low birthrate and an aging population, some political opponents and most business groups want that level raised by tens of thousands more.Mr. Legault started his political career in the separatist, social democratic Parti Québécois, which, for decades, led the province’s independence movement. Fighting on behalf of a French-speaking majority that had felt historically oppressed by an economically dominant English-speaking minority, the Parti Québécois identified with liberation movements throughout the world.But even as Mr. Legault has pushed aside the idea of independence, he has tapped into an identity-based nationalism that, critics say, marginalizes the province’s non-French Québécois minorities. In his first term, Mr. Legault’s government has further restricted the use of English and has banned the wearing of religious symbols by some government workers in public places, in a move that, critics say, effectively targeted veiled Muslim women.If Mr. Legault has reshaped Quebec politics, his strong popularity among French Québécois voters has nearly wiped the separatist Parti Québécois off the electoral map. According to preliminary results, it won only two seats in Monday’s election. More