internal-sub-only-nl

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How Republicans Watered Down Their Abortion Message

      by

      Democrats have gone all-in on abortion rights in these elections. But as the issue started having an impact, Republicans adapted.When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, Republicans suddenly faced a conundrum.They could embrace the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which reversed a nearly 50-year precedent and eliminated the federal right to an abortion. Or they could tack toward the political center and alight on more of a consensus, as Chief Justice John Roberts unsuccessfully sought to do within the court.Instead, many Republican candidates tried to pull off a magic trick by doing both. And, with just six days before Election Day, there are signs some of them have managed to pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat.The emotionally fraught issue of abortion put Republicans in a bind. The party’s base was ecstatic at achieving a long-cherished goal. But the middle-of-the-road voters who often decide elections were decidedly less enthused, and Democrats had found a topic that could mobilize their otherwise dyspeptic partisans.The court’s timing was not propitious for Republicans. A leaked draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion, which hewed closely to the final text, hit the internet in May — in the heart of a primary season when candidates were competing to win the right’s favor. And yet polling showed that it was strikingly unpopular, with nearly 60 percent of the public disagreeing with the high court’s ruling.Even anti-abortion groups, such as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, advised Republican candidates in a leaked memo to focus on “Democratic extremism” and “avoid traps laid by the other side and their allies in the media.”Shaking up the Etch A SketchSo, what was an aspiring Republican officeholder to do?As an adviser to Mitt Romney once said during the 2012 presidential race, running in a general election is “almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.”They shook it up and tried to start over.In August, Blake Masters, the G.O.P. nominee for Senate in Arizona, scrubbed his website of comments calling for a 100 percent abortion ban and a federal “personhood” law. Instead, in a video he posted to Twitter, he said, “I support a ban on very late-term and partial-birth abortion.” (Very few abortions take place after the first 21 weeks of a pregnancy, and when they do, it’s often when the pregnant woman encounters health complications.)During his Senate primary in Georgia, Herschel Walker initially opposed any exceptions to banning abortion, even for rape, incest or the woman’s health. On at least one occasion, he told reporters, “There’s no exception in my mind.” But he later said he supported a Georgia bill that would ban abortions after fetal cardiac activity.Adam Laxalt, who is hoping to unseat Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, has called Roe v. Wade “a joke” and a “total, complete invention.” Now, he points to the legality of abortion in Nevada to inoculate himself from Cortez Masto’s attacks.Some of these pivots have been clumsy. Bo Hines, a former college quarterback who is running for a House seat in North Carolina, backs creating a panel that would decide whether to allow abortions in case of rape or incest. But he’s been vague about how it might work.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Governor’s Races: Democrats and Republicans are heading into the final stretch of more than a dozen competitive contests for governor. Some battleground races could also determine who controls the Senate.Democrats’ Mounting Anxiety: Top Democratic officials are openly second-guessing their party’s pitch and tactics, saying Democrats have failed to unite around one central message.Social Security and Medicare: Republicans, eyeing a midterms victory, are floating changes to the safety net programs. Democrats have seized on the proposals to galvanize voters.Debunking Misinformation: Falsehoods and rumors are flourishing ahead of Election Day, especially in Pennsylvania. We debunked five of the most widespread voting-related claims.“There are certainly legal mechanisms you could place legislatively that would create an individual basis,” Hines told Spectrum News. Democrats blasted out a news release calling the idea “post-Dobbs rape panels.”Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is running against Lt. Gov. John Fetterman for Senate in Pennsylvania, says he opposes a federal abortion ban. But he implied during their lone debate that “local officials” should be involved in the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy. Whom he meant was a mystery — the alderman? county assessor? — and Democrats pounced.Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin took a novel approach. Although he has backed a federal abortion ban in the past, he now calls for “a one-time, single-issue referendum to decide the question.” His campaign even released a sample ballot with a multiple-choice quiz, asking: “At what point does society have the responsibility to protect the life of an unborn child?”The Burger King strategy: Have it your wayTudor Dixon’s journey might be the most instructive. She’s running for governor of Michigan against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has aggressively positioned herself as a defender of abortion rights. Whitmer has asked for an injunction to stop a 1931 “trigger law” criminalizing abortion that took effect after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs.A grass-roots coalition on the left, meanwhile, is pushing a ballot measure that would make abortion legal again in Michigan. In response, anti-abortion groups have claimed it would invalidate laws requiring parental consent and even permit children to have gender-reassignment surgery without their parents’ permission. Legal experts say all that would be for courts to decide, but Democrats have griped that the right “has done a good job of muddying the waters.”During the primary, Dixon said she opposed abortion in the case of rape or incest, remarking in one interview that in conversations with rape victims, she had found “there was healing through that baby.”Now, Dixon warns that the ballot measure would invalidate parental consent laws. And if Michiganders want to protect abortion rights but oust Whitmer, they can vote for her and the ballot measure.I know you are, but what am I?As they walked back positions they took during the primary, Republicans accused Democrats of trying to distract from topics that played more to their advantage: inflation and crime. Judging from the recent comments of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, some Democrats even agree.Many Republicans also followed the Susan B. Anthony group’s playbook and portrayed Democrats as the true extremists. Saying that Democrats support “abortion on demand” has been a frequent Republican talking point. That has occasionally tripped up Democratic candidates, but it has rarely done real damage.For instance: Clips of a Fox News interview pinged around social media in May in which Representative Tim Ryan, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Ohio, was asked whether he supported “any limits to abortion at any point” and said it was entirely the woman’s decision. But Ryan has clawed his way within striking distance of his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance.In libertarian-ish Arizona, as Dave Weigel recounts on Semafor, Republicans seized on Planned Parenthood’s support for defunding the police and its use of gender-neutral language to try to delegitimize the abortion rights position writ large.It’s hard to say whether these tactics have worked. But they do seem to have helped take abortion from a lopsided issue to a more neutral one. They also have prevented Republicans who took hard lines in their primaries from suffering the fate of Todd Akin, whose “legitimate rape” remark immediately placed him on the fringe during the 2012 Senate race in Missouri.But abortion hasn’t been the disqualifying issue some Democrats hoped it would be. A Wall Street Journal poll published on Wednesday found that white suburban women, a key target of the Democrats’ abortion message, were swinging back toward Republicans.Republicans who haven’t shaken up the Etch A Sketch have had a tougher time.A rally for Doug Mastriano in Harrisburg, Pa., in September.Mark Makela for The New York TimesConsider the plight of Doug Mastriano, who has stuck to his no-exceptions guns and is down by nearly 10 percentage points against Attorney General Josh Shapiro in the Pennsylvania governor’s race.Or look at Representative Ted Budd, the Republican nominee for Senate in North Carolina, who supported a federal abortion ban that Senator Lindsey Graham proposed even as other Republicans distanced themselves from the idea. Before inflation came roaring back to the forefront of voters’ concerns in late September, Budd’s race against Cheri Beasley, a moderate former judge, had tightened considerably.Democrats have spent nearly $320 million on commercials focused on abortion rights, my colleagues noted yesterday. That’s 10 times as much as they have spent on inflation ads.Much of that has been aimed at holding Republicans accountable to their previous stances. But while there’s been some second-guessing about the wisdom of that approach, many in the party insist it was worth it.“It competes with a lot of other motivations,” said Christina Reynolds, the communications director of Emily’s List, an abortion rights group that backs female candidates. “But this is an issue that has put us in the fight in many ways.”What to read President Biden will give a speech tonight about protecting democracy and the threats that election deniers pose to the voting process, Katie Rogers writes. Follow live coverage on NYTimes.com.A federal judge in Arizona sharply curtailed the activities of an election-monitoring group in the vicinity of ballot boxes, including taking photos or videos of voters and openly carrying firearms, Ken Bensinger reports.Cecilia Kang outlined five of the biggest unfounded rumors that have been circulating about voting.Congressional Republicans, looking toward election victories, have embraced plans to reduce Social Security and Medicare spending. Jim Tankersley writes that Democrats have seized on that to galvanize voters.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered election officials to refrain from counting mail-in ballots that lack a written date on their outer envelope, siding with Republicans, Neil Vigdor writes.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Sandwich Generation Is Getting Squished

      by

      In early 2020, I wrote about the struggles of the “sandwich generation,” demographers’ label for those who are caring for children and aging relatives at the same time. The sandwich generation parents I spoke to in that prepandemic moment talked about the emotional and financial toll of that level of caregiving responsibility. Some had to leave full-time employment or change jobs because caring for a parent with failing health and children with their own abundant needs took too much time and required too much flexibility.More than two years later, I wanted to check back in on this group (which, according to Pew Research Center, includes more than half of 40-somethings). As I’ve written regularly, the difficulties facing both parents and child care workers can be interconnected: The child care industry doesn’t pay workers enough to prevent a lot of turnover, many centers are short-staffed, parents are already paying more for child care than they are for housing in many states and inflation is making everything worse.Elder care has similar challenges. The AARP Public Policy Institute, which tracks nursing home staffing shortages by state, reports that an average of 25.1 percent of nursing homes don’t have enough direct care workers. In some states, it’s dire — over 60 percent of nursing homes in Maine, Minnesota and Wyoming are short on staff. Nursing home work became a particularly dangerous job during the pandemic: As Scientific American reported last year, “Workers in skilled nursing facilities had at least 80 deaths per 100,000 full-time employees” in 2020.Wages in the direct care field, which includes caregivers at private residences, assisted living centers and nursing homes, are “are persistently and notoriously low,” according to PHI, an advocacy group that researches elder care and disability issues. PHI noted, in a report last year, that these workers “are predominantly women, people of color and immigrants,” and that “median annual earnings are just $20,200,” due in part to “high rates of part-time employment” — and how do you support a family on that?Considering the toll Covid took on residents of nursing homes, there’s additional incentive for adult children to keep their parents living with them at home as long as possible, and that can require emotional and financial compromises. Women are more likely to be doing this care — according to the Family Caregiver Alliance, as of 2015, “The average caregiver is a 49-year-old woman who works outside the home and provides 20 hours per week of unpaid care to her mother.”Rebecca Jones’s experience is emblematic of the sandwich generation pandemic crunch. Her mother was diagnosed with early-onset dementia in 2014, which she called “a cruel and relentless illness.” Still, “we really dedicated ourselves to trying to keep her home as long as possible,” she told me. Her family relied on day programs in New England, where they live, to keep her mother occupied. One of her mother’s programs shut down because of a lack of funding before Covid hit. Jones scrambled to find another program, only for it to shut down along with everything else in March 2020.Jones was working as a paralegal at that time, and her husband is a mechanical insulator. In 2020, one of her children was a toddler and the other was an infant, and they were enrolled in a home day care. Jones, her father and her sister worked to get her mother a home health aide through Medicaid, she said. The family was able to manage, with difficulty, until March 2021, when all their arrangements collapsed at once: The woman who ran the home day care took another job, so Jones’s child care disappeared. Her mother’s condition became so bad that she could no longer remain at home, even with a health aide five hours a day.It was all too much. “I gave up a career that I love,” Jones said, because the cheapest child care she could find was $2,500 a month for her two kids, and that was financially out of her reach. Her mother, a school secretary, worked up until the day she was diagnosed with dementia, but “there’s no safety net for the elder working class. That was really so devastating,” Jones said. Her mother died that spring.According to an AARP survey from 2021, caring for older family members is a financial strain for many: “The typical annual total is significant: $7,242. On average, family caregivers are spending 26 percent of their income on caregiving activities.” That’s just the out-of-pocket cost, which doesn’t account for the sweat equity that loved ones are putting in. PHI has estimated that 43 million people provide unpaid caregiving to friends and family members, and that their “economic contribution is valued at $470 billion.”The elder care crunch is only going to become more dire as the population ages. According to a 2022 report on the imperative to improve nursing home quality from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine:The United States, like much of the world, has an aging population. Half of today’s 65-year-olds will need some paid long-term care services before they die. By 2030, one in four Americans will be age 65 or older. The fastest growing group will be those over age 85; this group is expected to grow from 6.5 million to 11.8 million by 2035 and 19 million by 2060. Marriage and fertility rates have declined, while life expectancy has increased, meaning fewer family caregivers will be available.The report has recommendations for improving nursing home care including increasing federal Medicaid payments to states, requiring that states use funding to raise workers’ pay and expand staffing, and requiring a full-time infection control specialist. There’s also need to form some kind of infrastructure for home care, like the kind Rebecca Jones was doing, said Amy York, the executive director of the Eldercare Workforce Alliance.But many ailing loved ones need care now, and help isn’t necessarily on the horizon. I asked York what sandwich generation parents can do in this moment, and she said, “One of the things that needs to be happening is that caregivers need to speak out.” She added, “Older adults tend not to, because we don’t want to think about getting older.” But lawmakers in particular need to hear from their constituents how difficult this work is, and the strain it is putting on families.If you’re not in the sandwich yet, you need to anticipate being in it someday, and get your older relatives to plan for their future. According to AARP, only 29 percent of older Americans have planned with their families how they want to be cared for as they age, and only 12 percent have purchased private long-term care insurance. Jelana Canfield, who lives in Hillsboro, Ore., and owns a bakery, told me via email that her mother, who has Parkinson’s, got long-term-care insurance after caring for her own mother, seeing how stressful it was and how financially out of reach good memory care was.But even though her own mother is in a good assisted-living situation funded by that insurance, Canfield told me she wishes she could afford to keep her mother in her own home. She said her mom calls her four or five times a day, adding, “I’ll call back while pushing my guilt down deep so I don’t cry that I’m not the one who is taking care of her anymore after three years of my husband and I doing everything for her.”Though it isn’t possible for all families, rotating family members in to help care for elders can help lighten the load. Terryn Hall, who lives in Durham, N.C. and wrote about caring for her grandmother in The Washington Post, told me about helping her mother, who is her grandmother’s primary caretaker. When Covid hit, “I jumped in and started helping out more. My mom is the primary caregiver, I was always the pinch-hitter,” she said. She took her grandma to medical appointments, made sure she had food and helped organize other family members who wanted to help.“I wish there were more frameworks or social narratives around staying home and building a community,” for younger people, Hall said. It should be just as aspirational, she said, as moving away from your family of origin to start a big career. Though she doesn’t have children, Hall said she would like to, and would want to live near family that could help her care for them.One of the things that stood out to me in the many conversations I had with parents of the sandwich generation was how isolated they felt, because the work of caring for parents with chronic illnesses at the end of their lives was so hard and so sad. Talking about how common this is, and how difficult, won’t create an elder care system where none exists, but acknowledging this as a collective experience is one way to ease the burden.Want More?In The Atlantic, Judith Shulevitz reviews new books by Elizabeth McCracken and Lynne Tillman in which “daughters try to transcribe the discordant emotions provoked by a mother’s decline and death.” As Shulevitz puts it: “Doing battle with monsters is an inescapable part of elder care. Ministering to mothers, to bodies that were once all-powerful and the source of everything good but are now reduced to helplessness, is particularly scary, or at least very eerie.”In September, writing for The Times, Paula Span looked at the quiet cost of family caregiving. “The pandemic amplified the conflict between employment and caregiving, Dr. [Yulya] Truskinovsky [an economist at Wayne State University] and colleagues found in another study. ‘Caregiving arrangements are very fragile,’ she noted. While families often patch together paid and unpaid care, ‘it’s unstable, and if one thing falls through, your whole arrangement falls apart.’”In July, The Times’s Lydia DePillis, Jeanna Smialek and Ben Casselman reported that “a lack of child care and elder care options has forced some women to limit their hours or sidelined them altogether, hurting their career prospects.”The Times’s resident ethicist ponders the question: “Am I Obligated to Look After My Insufferable Mother?”Tiny VictoriesParenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.My 4-year-old’s resistance to preschool was very high this morning and we were about to miss drop-off time. While she was in her room I turned on the “Frozen” soundtrack as loud as I could, knocked on her door like Anna does in the movie, then started dancing and singing around the house. By the second song she was laughing so much that I got her clothes on and teeth brushed and in the car seat, just in time to leave — and I felt like I got a workout in as well!— Samantha Campbell, MauiIf you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Why Election Experts Are So Confused About the 2022 Turnout Mystery

      by

      It’s a unique midterm year, with a Republican-friendly environment, an abortion ruling energizing Democrats, and increased partisanship in how people cast ballots.WILLOW GROVE, Pa. — It’s the biggest mystery of the midterms: Which groups of voters will turn out in the largest numbers?It’s also, obviously, the most important question of all. Most, if not all, of the big Senate races are within what political pros call the “margin of field” — meaning that a superior turnout operation can mean the difference between winning and losing.“It’s the only thing that matters right now,” said Molly Parzen, the executive director of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania, an environmental group that is part of a coalition of liberal organizations running get-out-the-vote operations in the state.On a sunny day here in mostly Democratic suburban Philadelphia, I tagged along as Parzen’s group plowed through its file of middle-class voters in the town where Jill Biden spent some of her early years. It’s painstaking work, knocking on doors and gently nudging people to vote for Josh Shapiro and John Fetterman in Pennsylvania’s heated races for governor and Senate.Parzen said the races seemed even tighter to her than the public polls indicated. And the handful of voters in this blue-collar area who indicated that Fetterman wouldn’t win their vote — one older white man, echoing millions of dollars’ worth of negative ads from Republicans, said he wanted to “strangle him with his bare hands” over his perceived views on crime — suggested that the Senate race was worth watching closely.Nationally, we already have some data on the early votes cast so far — nearly 26 million as of Tuesday afternoon — but interpreting what the numbers mean is always something of an art. And this year, it’s more confusing than ever.For instance: Does the relatively low turnout of younger voters so far mean they aren’t enthusiastic about voting? Or does it mean they are reverting to their usual, prepandemic habit of voting on Election Day? Is there some more prosaic explanation, such as that colleges only recently started rolling out drop boxes on campus?Will there indeed be a surge of newly registered voters angered by the Supreme Court’s abortion decision, as some Democrats argue? Have pollsters corrected for the errors they made in 2020, when many of them overestimated Democrats’ eventual support? Or have they overcorrected?Almost universally, strategists confess befuddlement and uncertainty about an election that has shaped up somewhat differently than most, with the issue of abortion rights energizing Democrats and putting Republicans into a defensive crouch in many states.Republicans tend to be more confident that widespread public frustration over inflation will propel them to victory, regardless of the problems that have dogged them, like weak fund-raising and Senate candidates their own leaders have described as low in “quality.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.A Pivotal Test in Pennsylvania: A battle for blue-collar white voters is raging in President Biden’s birthplace, where Democrats have the furthest to fall and the most to gain.Governor’s Races: Democrats and Republicans are heading into the final stretch of more than a dozen competitive contests for governor. Some battleground races could also determine who controls the Senate.Biden’s Agenda at Risk: If Republicans capture one or both chambers of Congress, the president’s opportunities on several issues will shrink. Here are some major areas where the two sides would clash.Ohio Senate Race: Polls show Representative Tim Ryan competing within the margin of error against his G.O.P. opponent, J.D. Vance. Mr. Ryan said the race would be “the upset of the night,” but there is still a cold reality tilting against Democrats.Democrats in particular are puzzling over the decision Republicans made during the pandemic to demonize mail-in and early voting, after years of dominating the practice in states like Arizona and Florida. In some states, Republican Party officials have quietly sent out mailers or digital ads urging their supporters to vote early, but more prominent Republican politicians dare not amplify those appeals — lest they be on the receiving end of a rocket from Donald Trump.It has often fallen to conservative outside groups, like Turning Point Action, to rally voters. The group, which is run by the controversial pro-Trump activist Charlie Kirk, is holding a get-out-the-vote event on Saturday in Phoenix.“When you’ve convinced your base that it’s a fraudulent method of voting, you have very little room to change their minds this late in the game,” said Tom Bonier, the chief executive of TargetSmart, a Democratic data firm. “There are so many things that can go wrong on Election Day.”Fast-changing campaign innovationsGet-out-the-vote operations became objects of media fascination after Barack Obama’s 2008 victory, which capitalized on new ways of organizing volunteers, sophisticated social-science techniques and innovative social media strategy to run circles around John McCain’s more traditional operation. That led many Democrats to presume that they had an edge over Republicans in the art and science of campaigns — but Trump’s upset defeat in 2016 of Hillary Clinton, whose data and field operations were widely panned afterward by fellow Democrats, upended the conventional wisdom on that score. Fieldwork, never glamorous, has not had the same cachet since.“My assumption on everything is that Republicans are at least as good as Democrats in everything they’re doing,” said David Nickerson, a political scientist who worked on Obama’s campaign and studies turnout.“People adjust to innovations really quickly,” he added, “and if you do find one, it’s not going to last.”In one example that is famous among turnout specialists, George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign was stunned by Al Gore’s closing surge. Four years later, Karl Rove, Bush’s political guru, responded with a “72-hour plan” in the final days of the 2004 campaign that is widely credited for helping defeat John Kerry.But much has changed since the early 2000s, and lessons learned back then might not apply today. As money has flooded into political campaigns, Americans have become inundated with television ads, campaign fliers, social media posts and digital ads.People also follow politics much more closely than they did back then, even if there’s more noise competing for their attention.“It’s like sports now, dude,” said Ian Danley, a Democratic organizer in Arizona.Who’s got the best ground game?Campaigns love to boast about their “ground games,” whether it’s to feed the notebooks of information-hungry reporters or to motivate their own troops.In Arizona’s races this year, for instance, both parties claim to have the superior field operation. Senator Mark Kelly is relying on Mission for Arizona, the Democrats’ statewide coordinated campaign apparatus. That effort began in June 2021, the earliest Democrats have done so in Arizona. Democrats in Arizona also have an independent organizing effort run by a coalition of unions and progressive groups, which has led to occasional tensions.Infighting on the Republican side has made a parallel effort harder. The Republican Governors Association, for instance, has funneled its support for Kari Lake, the party’s nominee for governor, through the Yuma County Republican Party, rather than the state party. And while Kelly’s campaign is stocked with veterans of his 2020 victory, his opponent, Blake Masters, has run a bare-bones operation that has relied heavily on the support of an allied super PAC.“We are running an incredibly lean field operation, and it’s all internal to the campaign,” said Amalia Halikias, the campaign manager for Masters. “We are knocking on doors that often go overlooked: Democrat doors, low-propensity voters and people who have never voted before.”Democrats return to the doorsVeteran operatives say that get-out-the-vote practices like knocking on doors are even more important in midterm elections than they are in presidential campaigns.The reason? Turnout in midterms is usually around 20 percentage points lower than in presidential years, meaning that the tricks and tools campaigns use to persuade, cajole and nudge people to turn in their ballots or head to the polls become more crucial.Door-knocking, for instance, is about three to four times more effective in a midterm election than it is in a presidential election, Nickerson said, because during a presidential year, more voters are paying attention and are already planning to vote.A Democratic Party office in Eau Claire, Wis., after a canvassing event last month.Liam James Doyle for The New York TimesIn 2020, Democrats and their allies mostly stayed away from door-knocking because of the pandemic. They’re back out in force now, though some turnout-focused groups in Georgia have complained that donor fatigue has left them with fewer resources than in 2020.But assuming Democrats can roughly reach parity with Republicans this year, it could help neutralize what was a G.O.P. advantage during Trump’s re-election bid. Face-to face conversations are widely understood to be the most effective way to reach voters.According to Daron Shaw, a former George W. Bush campaign strategist who now studies turnout at the University of Texas, a good rule of thumb is that for campaigns, every 100 face-to-face contacts made are likely to yield 9 votes. In other words, a campaign that contacts 1,000,000 potential voters will nudge 90,000 of them to cast ballots for the candidate in question.Both parties expect the G.O.P. to rely heavily on a surge of Election Day turnout, while Democratic campaigns are furiously banking as many early votes as they can. That approach gives them a tactical advantage, Democrats say: It lets them work through their voter contact files and adjust their targeting on the fly, whereas Republicans in many states will have to trust that their models are accurate.All of these tactical advantages might make a difference only on the margins of a tight Senate or House race, though.Turnout is also driven by big-picture issues and trends, and those are not working in Democrats’ favor. In 2018, it was Democrats angered by Trump’s presidency who swamped Republicans and took back dozens of House seats. This year, Nickerson said, “for Republicans, it’s how mad are you about Biden and the economy?”What to readTop Democrats are openly second-guessing their party’s campaign pitch and tactics, worrying about a failure to coalesce around one effective message for the midterms, Lisa Lerer, Katie Glueck and Reid Epstein report.Representative Liz Cheney and other Republican opponents of Donald Trump are stepping up their efforts to thwart a comeback of his political movement, Jonathan Weisman writes.Adam Laxalt, the Republican nominee for Senate in Nevada, could easily be mistaken as a legacy candidate, with a grandfather who was once a governor and senator in the state. But he has shed much of his political inheritance, positioning himself as a child of the Trump era, Matthew Rosenberg writes.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      An Achilles’ Heel for House Democrats: The Open Seat

      by

      A rash of retirements has made a tough campaign even tougher.If Democrats lose the House next week, it won’t necessarily be because their members of Congress lost their seats.It will primarily be because they lost competitive races in open seats. That is: races in districts where there is no incumbent, and each party — not just the challenger — has to start from scratch.Gerrymandering has whittled down the number of truly competitive seats this year to just 59 out of 435 total, according to the Cook Political Report’s latest ratings. And of those, 19 are either open seats or new seats formed by the most recent redistricting cycle. Remember: Republicans need to pick up only five seats to retake the House.Cook also lists five open seats in its “likely Republican” category, which it does not consider competitive. Democrats previously held four of those five seats, which suggests that Republicans will start the election night vote-counting needing just one pickup elsewhere in order to win the majority.Or take the next tier down: races Cook says “lean Republican.” Two of the three open seats in that category, in New York and Washington State, are held by Republicans. But the third, Arizona’s newly redrawn Sixth Congressional District, is held by Representative Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat who is retiring. If Republicans pick off that seat, that will make five.That’s a steep deficit to overcome. In 2020, in a year when Democrats took the presidency and won back the Senate thanks to a pair of Georgia races that went their way, nearly every competitive House race broke toward Republicans. And judging from the flurry of advertising spending over the last week or so, Democrats are playing defense on open seats further down in Cook’s ratings — even in blue bastions like Rhode Island.That daunting picture has left Democrats scrounging for a few open, Republican-held seats as pickup opportunities.My colleague Grace Ashford wrote about one in New York State, the Syracuse-area seat held by Representative John Katko, who is retiring.Another is the North Carolina seat just south of Raleigh-Durham, where Wiley Nickel, a criminal defense lawyer and state legislator, is facing Bo Hines, a 27-year-old former high school quarterback I wrote about in May.In Illinois, because of an aggressive redistricting push, there’s a chance Democrats could pick up the seat held by Representative Rodney Davis, who lost a Republican primary for a different seat.Democrats also think they have a slight chance of taking Washington’s Third Congressional District, where Joe Kent, a far-right former Green Beret, defeated Representative Jamie Herrera Beutler in a heated three-way primary. His Democratic opponent, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, got the most votes in that matchup — but Kent needs to consolidate only some of the more moderate Republicans who backed Herrera Beutler in order to win.Elsewhere, Democrats are hoping to knock off a few Republican incumbents: David Valadao in California, Steve Chabot in Ohio, Don Bacon in Nebraska and Yvette Harrell in New Mexico. And in Texas, they have a good shot at picking up a seat in the Rio Grande Valley that Republicans won in a special election a few months ago.But as my colleague Shane Goldmacher wrote last week, the battle for control of the House is overwhelmingly being conducted on Democratic-held turf. And open seats are a major reason.The trouble with open seatsWhy are open seats so hard to defend?There are a few reasons. One is that incumbents already have name recognition in their districts. They have their own brands. And for all the complaints voters might have about Congress in general, they tend to like their own lawmakers.Incumbents also find it easier to raise money, because they can tap into their networks. They already have a campaign apparatus and a trusted staff ready to go. And they usually don’t have to worry about swatting away a primary challenger, whereas open seats often set off a primary free-for-all.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.A Pivotal Test in Pennsylvania: A battle for blue-collar white voters is raging in President Biden’s birthplace, where Democrats have the furthest to fall and the most to gain.Governor’s Races: Democrats and Republicans are heading into the final stretch of more than a dozen competitive contests for governor. Some battleground races could also determine who controls the Senate.Biden’s Agenda at Risk: If Republicans capture one or both chambers of Congress, the president’s opportunities on several issues will shrink. Here are some major areas where the two sides would clash.Ohio Senate Race: Polls show Representative Tim Ryan competing within the margin of error against his G.O.P. opponent, J.D. Vance. Mr. Ryan said the race would be “the upset of the night,” but there is still a cold reality tilting against Democrats.“Candidates in open seats don’t walk in with any definition,” said Jesse Ferguson, a longtime Democratic strategist, “which makes them vulnerable to being defined by their opponents.”All of that means that the national political environment can be decisive in open races. There are fewer true swing voters than ever. But this dwindling number of swing voters, who pay less attention to politics and don’t have the fixed ideologies that hard-core partisans do, usually pull the lever based on the economic conditions of the moment. And we all know how voters feel about the economy right now.Because they’re new to voters, the contenders for open seats function more like generic Democrats or Republicans. You might have heard of Marjorie Taylor Greene or Marcy Kaptur, but what about Christopher Deluzio or Mike Erickson? You’re probably more likely to pay attention to the party label next to the names of the latter two.Cookie-cutter attacksThe ads in these races tend to be pretty generic, too, even when the candidates are not.Deluzio is a lawyer and cybersecurity expert who was deployed to Iraq while he was a Navy officer — the kind of profile that candidate recruiters love in places like Western Pennsylvania.He’s running for the suburban Pittsburgh seat vacated by Representative Conor Lamb, but on themes similar to those of Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania. He is campaigning against what he has called “a system that is rigged against working families, from lousy trade deals and far-flung supply chains, to union-busting corporations and outsourcers making record profits being protected in Washington.”One of the Republican ads attacking Deluzio could be cut and pasted from anywhere. But it seizes on comments that Deluzio, who was a delegate for Senator Bernie Sanders at the 2020 Democratic convention, made about how he was “taking my cues” from Sanders and from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to push President Biden on progressive priorities.“What’s scarier, though, is what his extreme views would mean for us: skyrocketing prices on food and gas, higher taxes, defunding our police,” the narrator says in the ad.Democrats have fired back with ads depicting his opponent, Jeremy Shaffer, as doing the bidding of China — as they have done to their Republican opponents in heavily blue-collar districts and states across the country.Shaffer, who has a doctoral degree in engineering from Carnegie Mellon University, founded a company that makes software to inspect bridges and other transportation infrastructure. Democrats have tried to turn Shaffer’s business into a vulnerability, seizing on the fact that his company had overseas customers. It’s not subtle.“Maybe Jeremy Shaffer should be running for Congress in Peking,” a silver-mustachioed chap in a hard hat says in one ad from House Majority PAC.Democrats helped John Gibbs, center, a far-right commentator, defeat an incumbent in his primary in Michigan. Now he faces Hillary Scholten, a Democrat who is well known in the district.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesTrying to overcome gravityWhere Democrats think they have a shot at defending open seats, it’s usually because the underlying characteristics of the district are tilted in their favor, or because their candidates are already relatively well known.Emilia Sykes, for instance, is the Democratic candidate in Ohio’s 13th Congressional District, which is Representative Tim Ryan’s seat. Ryan is running for Senate. Her parents are longtime Democratic politicians, and she was the minority leader in the Ohio House.In Michigan’s newly redrawn Third Congressional District, Democrats have benefited from some old-fashioned skulduggery: They propped up John Gibbs, a far-right commentator who defeated Representative Peter Meijer in the Republican primary. Gibbs has raised just $1.2 million. At the same time, the Democratic nominee, Hillary Scholten, previously ran in 2020, so voters may know her name.Democratic groups have often swooped in to help newbie candidates in open races, but not always. In Oregon’s Fifth Congressional District, Jamie McLeod-Skinner, a progressive who defeated Representative Kurt Schrader in the Democratic primary, has been left largely to fend for herself in the campaign’s closing weeks even as the Congressional Leadership Fund, a group close to Representative Kevin McCarthy, has poured millions of dollars into of negative ads.Democrats are more optimistic about Oregon’s new Sixth District, which includes Salem and some suburbs of Portland. Andrea Salinas won a fierce Democratic primary against a more progressive candidate with the help of millions of dollars in donations from a group linked to Sam Bankman-Fried, the cryptocurrency billionaire.But the overall math for House Democrats looks daunting, and open seats are a major reason.“You spend the election cycle trying to overcome gravity,” Ferguson said, “but oftentimes it can’t be done.”What to readCalifornia, where Democrats often run against fellow Democrats in November thanks to an unconventional election system, is the unlikely backdrop of some of this year’s most bitter political campaigns. Ken Bensinger has the details.Bitterness over looting and destruction in Kenosha, Wis., that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake could help tip a governor’s race in the direction of Republicans, Julie Bosman reports.A handful of Republicans in New England are making headway in traditionally Democratic strongholds by distancing themselves from the right wing of their party, Stephanie Lai reports from Rhode Island.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Times/Siena Polls Show Democrats Slightly Ahead in Key Senate Races

      by

      Respondents said they preferred Republicans to control the Senate, but individual matchups showed a different story.John Fetterman, left, holds a lead in our poll of the Pennsylvania Senate race, although most of the survey was held before his debate with Dr. Mehmet Oz./EPA, via ShutterstockEight days before the election, we have our final* midterm surveys: polls of the four states likeliest to determine control of the Senate.New York Times/Siena College pollsPennsylvania: John Fetterman (D) 49, Mehmet Oz (R) 44.Arizona: Mark Kelly (D) 51, Blake Masters (R) 45.Nevada: Adam Laxalt (R) 47, Catherine Cortez Masto (D) 47.Georgia: Raphael Warnock (D) 49, Herschel Walker (R) 46.All considered, this is a pretty good set of numbers for Democrats. If they win three of the four Senate seats, they hold the Senate if everywhere else goes as expected. Here, they lead in the magic three of four while remaining highly competitive in the fourth — though it’s very important to caution that most of this poll was taken before the Pennsylvania Senate debate.There’s also a bit of good news for Republicans: Respondents said they preferred Republicans to control the Senate. Democrats led anyway, presumably because of their distaste for some of the Republican nominees or their affection for Democratic incumbents. As we head down the stretch, Republicans can hope to lure some of these voters to their side.How the polls compareIf you compare our polls with the polling averages, they look even better for Democrats. Consider the current FiveThirtyEight averages:In Pennsylvania, Mr. Fetterman leads in the FiveThirtyEight average by one point, compared with our six-point lead (after rounding).In Arizona, Mr. Kelly leads in the average by 3.6 points, compared with our six-point lead.In Georgia, Mr. Warnock leads by 1.2 points, compared with our three-point edge.In Nevada, Ms. Cortez Masto leads by 0.4 points, compared with our tied race.There is a twist: Although our polls may look better for Democrats than the average, they look about the same as the other traditional polls that used to be considered the gold standard in survey research, like ABC/Washington Post, CNN/SSRS, Fox News, NBC, the university survey houses, and so on.In many of these states, our surveys are the first such poll in weeks. Consider the last such polls in the four states, and how much better they look for Democrats than the average — and how similar they look to our survey:Arizona: CNN/SSRS showed Mr. Kelly +6 about a month ago, in a poll conducted from Sept. 26 to Oct. 2.Nevada: USA Today/Suffolk showed Ms. Cortez Masto +2 in a poll taken from Oct. 4 to Oct. 7.Georgia: Quinnipiac showed Mr. Warnock up seven, in a poll taken from Oct. 7 to Oct. 10.Pennsylvania: Franklin and Marshall showed Mr. Fetterman +4 in a poll conducted from Oct. 14 to Oct. 23. In a survey fielded over a partly overlapping period, CNN/SSRS showed Mr. Fetterman up six from Oct. 13 to 17.The absence of surveys from reputable pollsters is remarkable. The drought is partly because of rising costs — our October national survey was eight times as expensive as our final polls in 2016, on a per-interview basis. But it’s also because of a crisis of confidence among the traditional pollsters — Times/Siena included — who don’t have a great explanation for the poor results in 2020 and are understandably treading a little lightly.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.A Pivotal Test in Pennsylvania: A battle for blue-collar white voters is raging in President Biden’s birthplace, where Democrats have the furthest to fall and the most to gain.Governor’s Races: Democrats and Republicans are heading into the final stretch of more than a dozen competitive contests for governor. Some battleground races could also determine who controls the Senate.Biden’s Agenda at Risk: If Republicans capture one or both chambers of Congress, the president’s opportunities on several issues will shrink. Here are some major areas where the two sides would clash.Ohio Senate Race: Polls show Representative Tim Ryan competing within the margin of error against his G.O.P. opponent, J.D. Vance. Mr. Ryan said the race would be “the upset of the night,” but there is still a cold reality tilting against Democrats.The flip side: Most of the polling over the last few weeks is coming from partisan outfits — usually Republican — or auto-dial firms. These polls are cheap enough to flood the zone, and many of them were emboldened by the 2020 election, when their final results came close to the election results even as other pollsters struggled.A couple of the nontraditional firms are worth taking seriously — CBS/YouGov in particular — but a lot of the polls that are filling up the averages just aren’t underpinned by credible survey methods.They may have come close to the results in 2020 — and could easily come close yet again 2022 — but it’s not because they have a representative sample of the population. Imagine, for instance, a poll that is subject to the same pro-Democratic bias as the higher-quality surveys, but simply doesn’t call cellphones and misses people under 35.In that case, the headline results could be “right,” but it’s not because the pollster has some special sauce or has uncovered the secret to reaching Trump voters.To be clear: The point isn’t that our polls are right and the others are wrong. There’s plenty of reason to think Trump-era challenges still plague the survey industry. If so, the pollsters once considered gold standard may struggle yet again. And if so, the dearth of gold standard polls and the surge of partisan polling might just leave the polling averages closer to the results than the last election, even if it’s just as tough for pollsters as it was two years.Right or wrong, there’s not much question that Democrats would hold a more comfortable lead in the Senate if the pollsters who dominated the averages in the past were a bigger part of the averages this year.Note: *We will have one last set of findings for you: the results of a multi-survey study of Wisconsin. This study began in September, so it won’t exactly count as a final poll. But hopefully it will shed some light on the challenges facing pollsters and maybe even offer a path forward. I started to dig into this data only yesterday — and progress has been slow — but my goal is to report a few preliminary findings before the election. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      It’s 2024. Trump Backers Won’t Certify the Election. What Next, Legally?

      by

      The question is most urgent in Arizona, where two of the former president’s loyalists may well become governor and secretary of state.It’s a nightmare scenario for American democracy: The officials in charge of certifying an election refuse to do so, setting off a blizzard of litigation and possibly a constitutional crisis.And there are worrying signs that the fears of independent scholars, Democrats and a few anti-Trump Republicans could become a reality. We could soon be in legal terra incognita, they said — like the days when medieval cartographers would write “Here Be Dragons” along the unexplored edges of world maps.“It would be completely unprecedented,” said Nathaniel Persily, an elections expert at Stanford University. “I hate to be apocalyptic,” he added, but the United States could be headed for the kind of electoral chaos that “our system is incapable of handling.”In Arizona, Kari Lake, a charismatic former television anchor, and Mark Finchem, a state lawmaker, have a very good chance of becoming governor and secretary of state. Both are ardent supporters of Donald Trump and his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.On Friday, a group sponsored by Representative Liz Cheney, the vice chairwoman of the House committee investigating the Capitol assault, put $500,000 behind a television and digital ad that underscores the alarm some anti-Trump Republicans share about Lake and Finchem.“If you care about the survival of our republic, we cannot give people power who will not honor elections,” Cheney says in the ad. “We must have elected officials who honor that responsibility.”Another reason for the worries about Arizona in particular: Unlike in other states where Trump has promoted election-denying candidates, several of the politicians who pushed back on his calls to overturn the 2020 results will be gone.Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican who resisted Trump’s efforts in 2020, is leaving office after his term is up, as is Attorney General Mark Brnovich, an ally in that opposition. Rusty Bowers, who as the Republican speaker of the State House stood with Ducey and Brnovich, lost his primary this year for a State Senate seat. And even Brnovich, who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate against another election denier, Blake Masters, has shifted his tone about the 2020 election.“Ducey was a little bit of a moderating factor,” said Marc Elias, the Democratic Party’s leading election lawyer. But Ducey was also “willing to tolerate a lot of crazy,” Elias added.The governor is backing Lake, as is the Republican Governors Association, actions that Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist whose group is spending at least $3 million in Arizona opposing Lake and Finchem, called “despicable.” Longwell said that Lake was especially dangerous because of her ability to “talk normal to the normies and crazy to the crazies.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: The debate performance by Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is still recovering from a stroke, has thrust questions of health to the center of the pivotal race and raised Democratic anxieties.G.O.P. Inflation Plans: Republicans are riding a wave of anger over inflation as they seek to recapture Congress, but few economists expect their proposals to bring down rising prices.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.What could happen if Lake and Finchem win?The most worrisome scenario, several nonpartisan experts said, is that Finchem and Lake might refuse to fulfill the traditionally ceremonial act of “canvassing” the results of a presidential election under Arizona law, or that the governor could refuse to sign the required “certificate of ascertainment” that is then sent to Washington.Elias’s firm, which has grown to nearly 80 lawyers, would then have to decide whether to sue in state or federal court, or perhaps both, depending on which path was more relevant. But he acknowledged some uncertainty about how that litigation might play out.One new factor in 2024 may be an overhauled Electoral Count Act, which is expected to pass Congress after the midterms. It would create a new panel of three federal judges who would rule on election-related lawsuits, with appeals going directly to the Supreme Court. Proponents say the new panel would allow disputes to be adjudicated more quickly.“It’s not actually all that easy to anoint the loser of an election the winner,” cautioned David Becker, the director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonpartisan group.“The one exception to that is the presidential election,” Becker said, in which there’s an opportunity for a “corrupt individual” to send a slate of electors to Washington that does not reflect the will of voters. If the national Electoral College results were close, a protracted dispute in Arizona could hamper Congress from rapidly determining the overall winner.But Becker said he was more worried about the prospect for political violence fueled by uncertainty than he was about the integrity of the legal system.Neither Lake nor Finchem responded to questions. Finchem has said he would certify the next election “as long as all lawful votes are counted and all votes cast are under the law,” while failing to specify what he means by “lawful.” Finchem has also said that he couldn’t imagine President Biden winning.Employees sorting newly printed mail-in ballots in Phoenix. Republicans in several states have increasingly opposed mail voting and called for a return to hand-counting ballots.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesThe power of a secretary of stateSecretaries of state also have enormous power over elections, though it’s county officials that actually run them.To take just one recent example: Finchem and Lake both support a return to hand-counting ballots, which election experts say would introduce more errors and uncertainty into the process.One rural Arizona county controlled by Republicans, Cochise County, initially planned to count every vote in the midterms by hand — only to back down when Katie Hobbs, the Democratic secretary of state who is running for governor against Lake, threatened to sue.In neighboring Nevada, another G.O.P.-controlled county’s plan to count ballots by hand is on hold after the State Supreme Court ruled the process illegal. The Republican secretary of state, Barbara Cegavske, then ordered the hand-counting process to “cease immediately.” Her possible successor, the Trump-backed Jim Marchant, might have acted differently.One of the Arizona secretary of state’s chief tasks is assembling the elections procedures manual that, once approved by the governor and the attorney general, is distributed to county and local officials. Brnovich refused to accept the 2021 manual proposed by Hobbs, so the state has been using the 2019 edition.The manual is limited to the confines of Arizona election law. But Finchem could tinker with the rules regarding the approval of voter registration, or ballot drop boxes, in ways that subtly favor Republicans, said Jim Barton, an election lawyer in Arizona. He could also adjust the certification procedure for presidential elections.“You can imagine a lot of mischief with all the nitty-gritty stuff that nobody pays attention to,” said Richard Hasen, an elections expert at the University of California, Los Angeles.Looming over all this is a Supreme Court case on elections that is heading to oral arguments this fall.The justices are expected to rule on a previously obscure legal theory called the independent state legislature doctrine. Conservatives argue that the Constitution granted state legislatures, rather than secretaries of state or courts, the full authority to determine how federal elections are carried out; liberals and many legal scholars say that’s nonsense.If the court adopts the most aggressive version of the legal theory, Persily noted, it could raise questions about the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act, adding a new wrinkle of uncertainty.“My hair is on fire” to an even greater degree than it was in 2020, said Hasen, who published a prescient book that year called “Election Meltdown.”What to readNancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, was hospitalized after he was assaulted by someone who broke into the couple’s residence in San Francisco looking for the House speaker. Follow live updates.Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin spends a staggering amount of time on talk radio. And, Reid Epstein writes, it’s paying off in his vital race this year.In Pennsylvania, Dr. Mehmet Oz is struggling in his efforts to win over Black voters, Trip Gabriel reports.In the 24 hours before Elon Musk closed his deal for Twitter, some far-right accounts on Twitter have had a surge in new followers, researchers say.viewfinderThe Philly Cuts barbershop in Philadelphia.Ruth Fremson/The New York TimesA barbershop campaign stopPhilly Cuts is more than a barbershop. It is a community gathering place for exchanging gossip, catching up on the news — and, sometimes, hosting campaign events.Last Saturday, the Democratic nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, stopped in. Before he got there, I saw the barber Damor Cannon, 46, turn to put the finishing touches on the beard of his customer, Michael Woodward.The word “VOTE” was printed on the back of his T-shirt, and the phrase “Philly Cuts for Shapiro” was on the cape draped around Woodward. On either side of the mirror were framed photos of civil rights leaders. The mirror created a third image, reflecting the present alongside the past.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Black, Christian and Transcending the Political Binary

      by

      Justin Giboney is a lawyer and political strategist in Atlanta who grew up in the Black church. He says his theological foundation came from his grandfather, who was a bishop in a Black Pentecostal denomination. Giboney is also the president and a co-founder of the AND Campaign, a Christian civic organization meant to represent people of faith who do not fit neatly into either political party.I’ve written before about how I’m intrigued by people and movements that defy our prescribed ideological categories. The AND Campaign, which is based in Atlanta and has 15 chapters across the United States, is one of those. Led almost entirely by young professionals, artists, pastors and community leaders of color, the group advocates voting rights and police reform, leads what it calls a “whole life project” dedicated to reducing abortion and supporting mothers, endorses a “livable wage” and champions other issues that break left and right, in turn.As we approach the midterms, Giboney graciously agreed to speak with me about the state of our politics from the perspective of a person of faith who is also a person of color — what it’s like to embrace traditional Christian theology while also opposing the political stances of many white evangelicals, and what it’s like to be committed to social justice in ways that differ from those of many secular progressives. This interview has been edited for clarity and concision.How do voices of faith that are also voices of color fit into the American political conversation now? Do you feel represented?I don’t feel fully represented. In part, that’s because the culture war has set a framework in which progressivism and conservatism, as defined in white majority spaces, are billed as the only two legitimate options. That framework has been so effective that a lot of people can’t even discuss politics outside of this “progressive versus conservative” framework.But that’s not, historically speaking, how many Black Christians have engaged. Our view of social justice is often different than the secular progressive view. It’s not about individual expression. It’s about liberation through civil rights, equity, full citizenship and making sure that we have an impartial system. That’s not to say there’s no overlap. But, on the whole, the roots of the secular progressive view are in your 1970s counterculture movement, whereas ours come from an Exodus motif of liberation.There’s no better example than Georgia’s senatorial race.You have Herschel Walker, who I think is completely missing the social justice component found in the Black church.And then Raphael Warnock, who has endorsed the secular progressive kind-of -donor-class view of social issues. These values deal primarily with expressive individualism, such as far-left positions regarding gender identity, abortion and pushback on parental consent. Jonathan Haidt has described them as WEIRD (White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) values. He says, “they hold that people are, first and foremost, autonomous individuals with wants, needs and preferences” that should be supported unless they directly hurt others. These cultures largely focus on an ethic of autonomy. This is counter to an ethic of community.In my opinion, Warnock is far more qualified than Walker. But neither of them truly represents the constituency in the way we would hope.When I was running campaigns, it became very clear to me that there was this false dichotomy in politics. If you cared about social justice, you went all the way to the left. And if you were a Christian, that meant you left some of your convictions aside.If you cared about what we would say is “moral order,” then you would go all the way to the right. And we know that when you look at the Moral Majority and things like that, compassion just was not there.Looking at the Black church historically, it touched on both those things, but very differently. Why are social justice and moral order separate? Why is our conception of love and truth completely separate? Because when I look in the Gospels, they’re not separate. They’re interdependent. They’re not mutually exclusive.As parties become more polarized, are we leaving behind voices of color?I think voices of color are being left behind. The two extremes on both sides — devoted conservatives and progressive activists — are like 6 percent and 8 percent of the population, but they’re both white and wealthy. And they control the dialogue.On the Democratic side, you could say, “We have all these conversations about inclusion and representation,” but Democrats don’t just welcome all Black people with open arms. You have to be willing to fit into this secular, progressive mold.While people like to use civil rights and Black church symbolism and rhetoric, they don’t want the faith and the precepts that are attached to it. So I think it’s up to us to kind of step up and say: “No, here we are. We are a force to be reckoned with.”What would it look like for parties to do a better job of including people of faith who are people of color? What would you say to white conservatives and white liberals?On the right, you have to stop harboring and pandering to racists. I think there’s a group in the Republican Party — you saw this in the Trump campaign, you saw this with what Senator Tuberville recently said — who feel like they need these votes. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like the Southern strategy has ever completely died.You cannot continue to use race to motivate people who are bigoted. And when you don’t speak up against that, racism will remain in your party.On the left, I think it’s about not demanding ideological purity. As long as everyone has to fit these donor class values, then you’re not going to let in people who have nuanced views. You’re only going to allow people to rise up to high office and party leadership that already fit what you want. Which kind of makes the representation and inclusion rhetoric disingenuous, right? True pluralism and true inclusion are more than just accepting different flavors of progressivism.When you really appreciate Black people, that means you don’t just tolerate the Black people who say exactly what you would have them say on social issues or on any other issue. You can use identity politics to say, “Here, that’s your representation.” But that’s not my representation if that person had to jump through your hoops and contort herself to fit a framework that doesn’t fit her community.Do you feel like Black people of faith are politically homeless today?I absolutely do. I mean, you look at somebody like Fannie Lou Hamer or William Augustus Jones. These are activists who fought hard, but because of their beliefs on some social issues, they wouldn’t be accepted into leadership or given exposure within the Democratic Party today. Fannie Lou Hamer was pro-life and William Augustus Jones promoted a Christian sexual ethic and family values in general. These are civil rights legends who in today’s iteration of the party would not be accepted based on their more moderate or traditional values on social issues.Do you understand yourself to be a moderate?We’re not trying to find some squishy middle. We’re just not going to say we’re always with progressives or always with conservatives. If that makes me a moderate, because I’m not always on one side, then so be it. But I’m going to evaluate issues based on my own framework and beliefs.The conservative and progressive approaches are not the only way to approach politics. Everything that doesn’t fit isn’t illegitimate. Once we realize those aren’t the only two approaches, then we open up space for people of color, people of faith and others who are politically homeless to really have a voice and help heal something that’s been broken and won’t be fixed by either of those two sides.What is your hope for politics?My biggest hope is that people of faith who want to engage in politics faithfully would find the AND Campaign to be a place where they can find resources to do that and have on-ramps to getting engaged in that way. And that we would — even though we’re coming from this Black church context — be able to bring the church together, to work together and put partisanship aside.And lastly, that we would be able to promote a sort of civic pluralism. To say: “Hey, it’s not just about Christians winning. It’s about human flourishing in general.” How can we work with others while maintaining our convictions? How can we work with others to do democracy better?Tish Harrison Warren (@Tish_H_Warren) is a priest in the Anglican Church in North America and the author of “Prayer in the Night: For Those Who Work or Watch or Weep.” More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      No, That Democrat Didn’t Vote ‘100% of the Time’ With Nancy Pelosi

      by

      G.O.P. operatives, like a classic rock station playing “Stairway to Heaven,” believe that the hits work, and so they eagerly link vulnerable Democrats to the “radical San Francisco liberal.”It’s a phrase you’re hearing a lot in debates and Republican attack ads: that Democrat X voted “100 percent of the time” with Speaker Nancy Pelosi.Whenever you hear a claim like that, be skeptical. It’s probably false.Some of these ads go even further. An ad for J.D. Vance in Ohio, for instance, claims his Senate opponent, Representative Tim Ryan, “votes with Biden, Pelosi 100 percent.” He repeated that statistic in a news release today.Ryan actually ran against Pelosi for House speaker in 2016, winning 63 votes. In 2018, he signed a letter calling for her ouster. He’s probably been her most vocal critic among elected Democrats, at some risk to his career in the House.Republicans have tried the same tactic against other Democratic rebels — notably Representative Abigail Spanberger, a lawmaker from Northern Virginia who is another of Pelosi’s in-house critics. “Abigail Spanberger votes 100 percent with Pelosi,” one G.O.P. ad says. “It is like having our very own Pelosi mini-me.”Pelosi has been a boogeywoman in Republican campaigns for more than a decade. Remember “Fire Pelosi” in 2010? The haircut thing during the pandemic? The ice cream freezer drawer? For G.O.P. operatives, linking vulnerable Democrats to Pelosi, or the “radical San Francisco liberal” in their words, is akin to a classic rock station that always plays “Stairway to Heaven” or “Free Bird” — they do it because they think it works.And has Ryan voted with Pelosi and Biden 100 percent of the time? Has Spanberger? Not really. Republicans have leveled the same cookie-cutter accusation at Cindy Axne, Angie Craig, Elaine Luria, Chris Pappas, Dean Phillips and Susan Wild — all of them known to be among the least partisan Democrats in the House.Let’s unpack where those statistics come from, and why they’re so misleading.There are two main sources that track congressional voting records: FiveThirtyEight, which rates lawmakers on how often they align with Biden, and ProPublica, which built an online tool that allows you to compare head-to-head voting records of any two members of Congress.ProPublica’s tool lists only “votes designated as major by ProPublica.” In the current Congress, there have been 123 such votes. And when you do a comparison between Pelosi and Ryan, it does return a result of 100 percent, along with the text: “They have disagreed on 0 votes out of 123 votes in the 117th Congress.”But that’s “really misleading,” according to John Lawrence, a former chief of staff to Pelosi and the author of a new book on her first tenure as speaker, “Arc of Power.”Not only, he said, does the tool cherry-pick votes, but it doesn’t capture how often Pelosi has had to deliver what Lawrence called “bad news” to the left wing of her caucus when the Senate balks. During the negotiations over the Affordable Care Act, for instance, Senator Joe Lieberman refused to support a public insurance option — so Pelosi had to twist the arms of disappointed progressives in the House to get them to support final passage.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: The debate performance by Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is still recovering from a stroke, has thrust questions of health to the center of the pivotal race and raised Democratic anxieties.G.O.P. Inflation Plans: Republicans are riding a wave of anger over inflation as they seek to recapture Congress, but few economists expect their proposals to bring down rising prices.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.Here are six more reasons that the 100 percent thing is bunk:First: Because she’s speaker, by House tradition, Pelosi usually doesn’t vote. So on a purely factual basis, it’s flat wrong.“We could estimate with some confidence, but it’s not a great metric,” said Sarah Binder, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University who studies Congress. But that’s a minor point.Second: Centrists like Ryan will sponsor or co-sign reams of legislation that never gets a vote because it doesn’t match the priorities of their more liberal Democratic colleagues. Along with Spanberger, for instance, he’s a co-sponsor of the Trust in Congress Act, a bill to bar lawmakers and their families from trading individual stocks. Pelosi initially opposed it. Ryan also broke with Pelosi by opposing the USA Freedom Act of 2014, which would have cut off the National Security Agency’s collection of bulk telephone records.Third: The “100 percent” sound bites also don’t capture all the times Ryan, for one, voted with the man who hopes to replace Pelosi as speaker: Representative Kevin McCarthy of California. ProPublica’s tool finds that, in the 116th Congress, Ryan and McCarthy voted together 256 times out of 744 total votes, including 11 “major votes.”Drew Hammill, a deputy chief of staff in Pelosi’s office, also noted that legislation on gun safety, infrastructure and semiconductor manufacturing had passed with Republican votes.Fourth: Like a duck paddling beneath the surface of the water, there’s a lot that goes on in Congress that is not easy to see and is impossible to quantify: Lawmakers shape legislation through committee meetings, private exchanges or random hallway encounters with colleagues, public statements and amendments.As Lawrence pointed out, lawmakers will often withhold their vote in exchange for concessions that make a bill more palatable for their districts. Ryan, for instance, insisted on beefing up pro-union provisions in the CHIPS Act, the bipartisan semiconductor bill, and he got his way before voting yes.If you’re a Capitol Hill reporter or a whiz at using Congress.gov, the government’s extremely clunky vote-tracking tool, or the even more arcane Congressional Record, you can trace some of that. But a lot of the give-and-take is hard to capture with data.Fifth: Lawmakers on the left are just as likely to break with leadership as centrists are, if not more so. By ProPublica’s measure, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York voted with Pelosi 94 percent of the time — but nobody would describe her as more moderate than Ryan or Spanberger. Binder noted that, on paper, Ocasio-Cortez often votes with Republicans when she opposes the Democrats’ party line. So she shows up as a “moderate” in some indexes, as do Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.Sixth: The House and the Senate are different institutions, with different structures and traditions. The House, for instance, has a much more powerful Rules Committee, which enforces more party-line voting. As Binder pointed out, most votes are “procedural votes” that don’t tell us much about a lawmaker’s ideological predilections.In the Senate, where any senator can hold up a bill for pretty much any reason, there’s also the filibuster — which, for better or worse, promotes more collaboration across the aisle.So if you run two senators against one another in ProPublica’s app, you’ll find far more Democrats voting with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer at rates in the 80s. But that doesn’t tell you all that much about whether, say, Senator Jon Tester of Montana is to the left of Representative Jared Golden of Maine. And the Senate tends to vote on lots of nominations, which clogs up the data.Representative Tim Ryan, campaigning at Ohio State University, lands in the middle of the pack among Democratic members of Congress in terms of voting against the majority.Gaelen Morse/Getty ImagesSo which metrics are more accurate?Political scientists prefer more sophisticated measures of ideology, but they don’t tend to be easy to use. There are two main ones: VoteView, which I wrote about earlier, and Congressional Quarterly’s “Party Unity” score.Party Unity scores are proprietary, but C.Q. occasionally releases rankings to the public. The publication’s list of the Democrats who voted most often against their own party’s majority makes intuitive sense. The top 10 of these “opposition Democrats” in 2020 all represented swing districts: They include Golden, Spanberger, Luria of Virginia, Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, Max Rose of New York, Joe Cunningham of North Carolina, Anthony Brindisi of New York and Stephanie Murphy of Florida.By VoteView’s more complex measure, Ryan scores a -0.402, which puts him around the middle of the Democratic pack. Spanberger scores a -0.176, implying that she is more conservative.For comparison’s sake, Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the leader of the Progressive Caucus, scores a -0.681, while Golden, the most conservative Democrat, is at -0.114. Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, who voted with Pelosi 99 percent of the time according to ProPublica’s online tool, is right up there with Golden at -0.15.But that’s not exactly the stuff attack ads are made of, let alone rebuttals. You probably won’t see Ryan out there promoting his VoteView rating of -0.402 on the hustings — it’s far easier for him to say, as he often does, “Well, I ran against Nancy Pelosi.”What to readMany American entrepreneurs have mixed politics and business. No one has fused the two quite like the election-denying chief executive of MyPillow, report Alexandra Berzon, Charles Homans and Ken Bensinger.As was the case in 2020, Republican votes are more likely to be counted and reported first in several battleground states, giving the party’s candidates deceptively large early leads. Nick Corasaniti reports on the “red mirage.”As Cheri Beasley and Val Demings run competitive Senate campaigns in North Carolina and Florida, some Black female Democrats say party leaders are leaving them to fend for themselves, writes Jonathan Weisman.A Tennessee man was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for dragging a police officer protecting the Capitol into an angry pro-Trump crowd that brutally assaulted the officer on Jan. 6, 2021. Alan Feuer has sentencing details.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More