Harris, Kamala D

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Need Working-Class Voters. Maybe Now They’ll Act Like It.

      by

      The other day I was supposed to visit a friend who had been released from prison. He had to cancel to rescue his sister, who is using drugs again.Another old friend needed a ride: It turned out that his car had broken down again, and until his next paycheck came, he couldn’t afford a $2 bolt to fix it.I think of friends like these here in rural Oregon, in an area that mostly supports Donald Trump, when people ask me why America’s working class rejected the Democrats on Tuesday. My neighbors, struggling to pay the rent and buying gas five dollars at a time, often perceive national Democrats as remote elites more eager to find them pronouns than housing. Election postmortems have been dissecting Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign, but the challenge for Democrats goes far beyond any of that.For several decades, voters have identified more with the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party. But in some polls this year, more people have affiliated with the Republican Party than with the Democratic Party. Looking ahead at the specific Senate seats that will be in contention in 2026 and 2028, it’s not easy to see when the Democrats will have a chance to recover the chamber.I see the disenchantment with Democrats in my hometown, Yamhill, which traditionally was dependent on timber, agriculture and light manufacturing. But then good union jobs left, meth arrived and everything changed. Today more than a third of the kids on my old No. 6 school bus are dead from drugs, alcohol, suicide and reckless accidents.Here’s an astonishing statistic from Bureau of Labor Statistics data: Blue-collar private-sector workers were actually earning more on average in 1972, after adjusting for inflation, than they are now in 2024. So today’s blue-collar workers are on average earning less in real dollars than their grandparents were 52 years ago.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Book That Predicted the 2024 Election

      by

      The Book That Predicted the 2024 ElectionThe G.O.P. pollster Patrick Ruffini’s book “Party of the People” outlined the realignments reflected in this year’s election results.This is an edited transcript of an episode of “The Ezra Klein Show.” You can listen to the conversation by following or subscribing on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.You should be skeptical of anyone with a very detailed, confident take on the dynamics of the 2024 election right now. At the very least, you should be if they didn’t tell you before the election.But Patrick Ruffini, a longtime Republican pollster who is a founding partner at Echelon Insights, did tell you before the election. In 2023, he published a book called “Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial Populist Coalition Remaking the GOP.”What he argued in that book is really two things: First, the educational divide reshaping American politics would continue, with non-college voters swinging right and college-educated voters swinging yet further left. But second, he argued that the 2020 election results, weird as they seemed to many, weren’t a fluke.Donald Trump performed a lot better in 2020 than the polls said he would. A major reason he performed so much better is that he did better among Black, Hispanic and Asian voters. That was, to put it very mildly, not what Democrats expected. Trump was the xenophobe in chief. Democrats were appalled by the way he talked about immigrants, about Muslims, about China, about Black communities. The theory was that Trump was using racism and nationalism to drive up his margins among white voters.And then what actually happens after four years of his presidency is that Biden in 2020 does a bit better than Clinton did among white voters. And Trump in 2020 improves quite a bit among nonwhite voters.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      After Kamala Harris’s Loss to Donald Trump, Democrats Seek Answers

      by

      The Democratic Party agrees it needs to figure out what went wrong. The question is how.After suffering what could shape up to be their biggest electoral defeat in more than 40 years, Democrats agree on one thing: They need to figure out what went wrong.The question is how.After Republicans failed to oust President Barack Obama and lost ground in the Democratic-held Senate in 2012, G.O.P. leaders produced a 100-page report on what had gone wrong, which has been known ever since as the “autopsy.”Democrats didn’t do that after Hillary Clinton’s narrow defeat by Donald Trump in 2016. But as my colleague Adam Nagourney and I dialed up Democrats all over the country today, we got the sense that a push for a similar exercise had begun in some quarters.It’s coming from party stalwarts like Donna Brazile, a former interim chair and current at-large member of the Democratic National Committee.“It’s vital that we learn why turnout disappeared from 2020 to 2024 and much more,” Brazile wrote in an email.It’s coming from left-leaning lawmakers like Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump’s Win Is Explained by Right and Left Media Outlets

      by

      Media outlets across the political spectrum offered very different explanations about why Donald J. Trump won the presidential election this week.On the right, some media outlets said Mr. Trump had won because of the left’s embrace of what they called extreme political views, while others focused on how Americans were deeply dissatisfied with the economy under President Biden, which Vice President Kamala Harris defended.Outlets on the left were more divided in their explanations. Some said American voters had chosen to “burn it all to the ground” by choosing Mr. Trump. Others blamed the Democratic Party as a whole, arguing that Democrats had failed to connect with voters on key issues, and that Ms. Harris had lost by defending what those commentators saw as a broken system.Here’s how a few outlets have covered the last few days in political news:FROM THE RIGHTBreitbart-Breitbart, a conservative outlet, highlighted that Americans were upset with how Democrats had handled the economy, and argued that Mr. Trump’s victory was a “mandate for Trumponomics.”In one article, the reporter John Carney ticked through what he saw as the reasons behind Mr. Trump’s victory. He pointed to the costs of basic necessities like groceries, housing and health care, all of which had soared over the last four years, as well as fears surrounding high levels of immigration. Americans, in Mr. Carney’s view, wanted “less inflation, more economic nationalism and an economy they could feel great about again.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      California Shifts Rightward on Crime in an Election Fueled by Frustration

      by

      Voters in the Democratic-run state overwhelmingly approved a measure to impose harsher sentences for crimes and were on their way to ousting two progressive district attorneys.California has shown no signs of going Republican anytime soon, but in Tuesday’s elections the reliably liberal state lurched to the right in ways that might surprise other Americans.Fed up with open-air drug use, “smash-and-grab” robberies and shampoo locked away in stores, California voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure, Proposition 36, that will impose harsher penalties for shoplifting and drug possession. Voters in Oakland and Los Angeles were on their way to ousting liberal district attorneys who had campaigned on social justice promises to reduce imprisonment and hold the police accountable. And statewide measures to raise the minimum wage, ban the forced labor of inmates and expand rent control, all backed by progressive groups and labor unions, were heading toward defeat.Amid a conservative shift nationally that included Donald J. Trump’s reclamation of the White House, voters in heavily Democratic California displayed a similar frustration, challenging the state’s identity as a reflexively liberal bastion.And Mr. Trump appears to have gained ground in California compared with four years ago, based on initial election returns, despite facing Vice President Kamala Harris in her home state. (She was still ahead by nearly 18 percentage points after a vote count update on Thursday, but Joseph R. Biden Jr. won in 2020 by 29 points.)The mood this year was “very negative about the direction of the country especially, but also the state,” said Mark Baldassare, who is a political scientist and the statewide survey director for the Public Policy Institute of California. “Lots of concerns about the direction of the economy, and worries about the cost of living and public safety.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Luego de la derrota de Harris, los demócratas buscan a quién culpar

      by

      Un Partido Demócrata deprimido y desmoralizado está iniciando el doloroso camino hacia un futuro en gran medida fuera del poder, mientras sus líderes se enfrentan a lo mucho que subestimaron el resurgimiento de Donald Trump en la nación.El repudio nacional al partido dejó atónitos a muchos demócratas que habían expresado una confianza “nauseabunda” sobre sus posibilidades en las últimas semanas de la contienda. Mientras rebuscaban entre los restos de sus derrotas, no encontraron respuestas fáciles a por qué los votantes rechazaron tan decisivamente a sus candidatos.En más de dos decenas de entrevistas, legisladores, estrategas y funcionarios ofrecieron una letanía de explicaciones sobre el fracaso de la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris, y casi todas ellas encajaban perfectamente en sus nociones preconcebidas de cómo ganar en política.Las críticas discretas, en llamadas telefónicas, chats grupales y sombrías reuniones de equipo, fueron un anticipo entre bastidores de la batalla intrapartidista que se avecina, una en la que los demócratas caerían rápidamente en las desavenencias ideológicas que han definido a su partido durante gran parte de la era Trump.Lo indiscutible fue lo mal que les fue a los demócratas. Perdieron la Casa Blanca, cedieron el control del Senado y parecían abocados a la derrota en la Cámara de Representantes. Obtuvieron peores resultados que hace cuatro años en ciudades y suburbios, pueblos rurales y ciudades universitarias. Un primer análisis de los resultados realizado por el New York Times reveló que la inmensa mayoría de los más de 3100 condados del país se habían inclinado hacia la derecha desde la victoria del presidente Biden en 2020.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      On the Ballot, Abortion Rights Proved More Popular Than Kamala Harris

      by

      In states like Arizona and Nevada, some voters split their tickets, supporting abortion rights measures while also backing Donald Trump.Democrats headed into the election hoping that abortion rights initiatives would drive support for Kamala Harris in states where the measures appeared on the ballot, including two presidential swing states, Arizona and Nevada.But while the ballot measures, broadly put, performed well on Tuesday, succeeding in seven out of 10 states, Ms. Harris and other Democrats underperformed them across the map.In both Arizona and Nevada, more than 60 percent of voters approved measures to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions, though more votes remained to be counted on Thursday. But Donald J. Trump appeared on track to win both states, according to New York Times estimates. Abortion rights initiatives also passed in Missouri and Montana, two states Mr. Trump won easily.Even as a growing share of women said abortion access was central to their vote, pre-election polling suggested that it wasn’t voters’ top concern overall. Fifteen percent of likely voters in an October national New York Times/Siena College poll said abortion was the most important issue in their vote for president, but roughly twice as many listed the economy, or inflation.The voters who cited abortion as their top concern favored Ms. Harris, 88 percent to 11 percent, and the voters who prioritized economic issues favored Mr. Trump, 72 percent to 24 percent.In states where the ballot measures passed but Mr. Trump won or was leading, voters had, in effect, split their tickets, supporting abortion rights in their states while also backing a candidate who took credit for overturning Roe v. Wade, which had established a nationwide right to abortion. Ms. Harris had made protecting abortion rights a central theme of her campaign.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Lo que los votantes de Estados Unidos le están diciendo a las élites

      by

      Hemos entrado en una nueva era política. Durante los últimos 40 años, más o menos, hemos vivido en la era de la información. Quienes pertenecemos a la clase educada decidimos, con cierta justificación, que la economía posindustrial sería construida por gente como nosotros, así que adaptamos las políticas sociales para satisfacer nuestras necesidades.Nuestra política educativa impulsó a muchos hacia el camino que nosotros seguíamos: universidades de cuatro años para que estuvieran calificados para los “trabajos del futuro”. Mientras tanto, la formación profesional languidecía. Adoptamos una política de libre comercio que llevó empleos industriales a países de bajo costo para que pudiéramos concentrar nuestras energías en empresas de la economía del conocimiento dirigidas por personas con títulos universitarios avanzados. El sector financiero y de consultoría creció como la espuma, mientras que el empleo manufacturero se marchitaba.Se consideró que la geografía no era importante: si el capital y la mano de obra altamente calificada querían concentrarse en Austin, San Francisco y Washington, en realidad no importaba lo que ocurriera con todas las demás comunidades que quedaron olvidadas. Las políticas migratorias facilitaron que personas con un alto nivel educativo tuviesen acceso a mano de obra con salarios bajos, mientras que los trabajadores menos calificados se enfrentaban a una nueva competencia. Viramos hacia tecnologías verdes favorecidas por quienes trabajan en píxeles, y desfavorecimos a quienes trabajan en la industria manufacturera y el transporte, cuyo sustento depende de los combustibles fósiles.Ese gran sonido de piezas en movimiento que has oído era la redistribución del respeto. Quienes ascendían en la escala académica eran aclamados, mientras que quienes no lo hacían se volvían invisibles. La situación era especialmente difícil para los hombres jóvenes. En la secundaria, dos tercios de los alumnos del 10 por ciento superior en las clases son chicas, mientras que aproximadamente dos tercios de los alumnos del decil inferior son chicos. Las escuelas no están preparadas para el éxito masculino; eso tiene consecuencias personales de por vida, y ahora también a nivel nacional.La sociedad funcionó como un vasto sistema de segregación, elevando a quienes estaban mejor dotados académicamente por encima de todos los demás. En poco tiempo, la brecha de los diplomas se convirtió en el abismo más importante de la vida estadounidense. Los graduados de secundaria mueren nueve años antes que las personas con estudios universitarios. Mueren seis veces más por sobredosis de opiáceos. Se casan menos, se divorcian más y tienen más probabilidades de tener un hijo fuera del matrimonio. Tienen más probabilidades de tener obesidad. Según un estudio reciente del American Enterprise Institute, el 24 por ciento de quienes han terminado como mucho la preparatoria no tienen amigos cercanos. Tienen menos probabilidades que los graduados universitarios de visitar espacios públicos o unirse a grupos comunitarios y ligas deportivas. No hablan en la jerga adecuada de justicia social ni mantienen el tipo de creencias sofisticadasi que son marcadores de virtud pública.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More