internal-sub-only-nl

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Americans Think Our Democracy Is on the Brink. So Does Biden.

      by

      We examine the president’s speech in Philadelphia with Zolan Kanno-Youngs, a White House reporter.In a new national poll this week from Quinnipiac University, 67 percent of American adults said they thought the country’s democracy was “in danger of collapse.”That’s a huge number. And, as Quinnipiac noted, it is an increase of nine percentage points from its January survey, when 58 percent of Americans said the same thing.One noteworthy caveat: “Adults” is not the same as “likely voters,” which is what political pollsters use to estimate who will turn out to vote in the next election. Figuring that out is as much art as it is science, as any pollster worth their salt would acknowledge.In January, Quinnipiac found that 62 percent of Republicans, and 56 percent of Democrats, agreed that America’s democracy was in danger of collapse. In the latest poll, the partisan breakdown is dead even: Sixty-nine percent of Republicans and Democrats alike share that fear.So Democrats have caught up to their Republican counterparts. But their views of who might be responsible for that potential collapse differ greatly, as Peter Baker writes in a forthcoming story analyzing the data in greater detail.The numbers are “disturbing,” Larry Sabato, the longtime director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said in a tweet reacting to the Quinnipiac poll. It doesn’t mean that American democracy is collapsing or will collapse; we’ve arguably endured far worse at various times in our history, and yet, like Tom Brady, we’re still here.But it does mean that people’s confidence in our system of government is declining to an alarming degree.In December, most of the Democratic and Republican political strategists I spoke with said democracy wasn’t a huge topic in their private polling and focus groups and wasn’t likely to move votes in the midterms.Some Democrats also told me then that they worried that drawing too much attention to the issue of “threats to democracy” (as Democrats describe the topic) and “electoral integrity” (as Republicans describe it) would help Republicans, as Donald Trump’s baseless conspiracy theories and election falsehoods seemed to be a powerful motivator for voters in his party’s base.If more voters are indeed starting to prioritize democracy over other issues, that is big news in the political world. But the evidence for that notion is thin at the moment.More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsAn Upset in Alaska: Mary Peltola, a Democrat, beat Sarah Palin in a special House election, adding to a series of recent wins for the party. Ms. Peltola will become the first Alaska Native to serve in Congress.Evidence Against a Red Wave: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, it’s hard to see the once-clear signs of a Republican advantage. A strong Democratic showing in a New York special election is one of the latest examples.G.O.P.’s Dimming Hopes: Republicans are still favored in the fall House races, but former President Donald J. Trump and abortion are scrambling the picture in ways that distress party insiders.Digital Pivot: At least 10 G.O.P. candidates in competitive races have updated their websites to minimize their ties to Mr. Trump or to adjust their uncompromising stances on abortion.Examining Biden’s speechPresident Biden laid out his own concerns about American democracy with a prime-time address on Thursday at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. My colleague Zolan Kanno-Youngs was there to capture it along with Michael Shear, his frequent collaborator.I asked Zolan to unpack Biden’s speech — why he made it and what the White House’s political calculations might be, alongside the serious concerns the president laid out in his 24-minute address. (Be sure also to read Peter Baker’s analysis and Jonathan Weisman’s takeaways.)Our Slack chat, lightly edited for length and clarity:You’ve been following President Biden’s focus on threats to democracy for a while now, including his idea for a summit rallying the world’s democracies and Thursday’s speech in Philadelphia. What’s your read on why he is doing this?President Biden has said all along that it is this threat against democracy that motivated him to run for president. For him, this battle began when he saw neo-Nazis and white supremacists marching through Charlottesville in 2017.From the conversations I have had with sources in and around the White House, the president is genuinely concerned about the rise of autocracy overseas and about extremism within the United States. He came into office expecting that people would leave Trumpism behind and that his message of unity and national healing would resonate. That obviously hasn’t happened.Some of his supporters found that assumption to be out of touch with the current polarized state of the nation. He had been planning Thursday’s speech since early this summer because of persistent false claims of election fraud and the impending midterm elections, according to officials familiar with the matter.When you talk to people at the White House, do they say that there is a political upside to Biden’s emphasis on saving democracy from the Republican Party, or that it is purely about substance? Because the political portion of my brain wonders why he keeps returning to a swing state for these speeches. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      A Journey Into Misinformation on Social Media

      by

      “Fake news” has gone from a hot buzzword popularized during the 2016 presidential campaign to an ever-present phenomenon known more formally as misinformation or disinformation.Whatever you call it, sowing F.U.D. — fear, uncertainty and doubt — is now a full-time and often lucrative occupation for the malign foreign actors and even ordinary U.S. citizens who try to influence American politics by publishing information they know to be false.Several of my colleagues here at The New York Times track the trends and shifting tactics of these fraudsters on their daily beats. So I exchanged messages this week with Sheera Frenkel, Tiffany Hsu and Stuart A. Thompson, all three of whom spend their days swimming in the muck brewed by fake news purveyors here and abroad.Our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity:This is a political newsletter, so let me ask my first question this way: What are you seeing out there that is new during this election cycle, in terms of tactics or topics?Sheera Frenkel: I’d say it’s the way misinformation has shifted slightly, in that you don’t have the same type of superspreaders on platforms like Twitter and Facebook that you did in the 2020 election cycle. Instead, you have lots of smaller-scale accounts spreading misinformation across a dozen or more platforms. It is more pervasive and more deeply entrenched than in previous elections.The most popular topics are largely rehashes of what was spread in the 2020 election cycle. There are a lot of false claims about voter fraud that we first saw made as early as 2016 and 2018. Newspapers, including The New York Times, have debunked many of those claims. That doesn’t seem to stop bad actors from spreading them or people from believing them.Then there are new claims, or themes, that are being spread by more fringe groups and extremist movements that we have started to track.Tiffany Hsu: Sheera first noticed a while back that there was a lot of chatter about “civil war.” And, quickly, we started to see it everywhere — this strikingly aggressive rhetoric that intensified after the F.B.I. searched Mar-a-Lago and with the passage of a bill that will give more resources to the I.R.S.For example, after the F.B.I. search, someone said on Truth Social, the social media platform started by Trump, that “sometimes clearing out dangerous vermin requires a modicum of violence, unfortunately.”We have seen a fair amount of “lock and load” chatter. But there is also pushback on the right, with people claiming without evidence that federal law enforcement or the Democrats are planting violent language to frame conservative patriots as extremists and insurrectionists.More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsThe Evidence Against a Red Wave: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, it’s increasingly hard to see the once-clear signs of a Republican advantage. A strong Democratic showing in a special election in New York’s Hudson Valley is the latest example.New Women Voters: The number of women signing up to vote surged in some states after Roe was overturned, particularly in states where abortion rights are at risk.Sensing a Shift: Abortion rights, falling gas prices, legislative victories and Donald J. Trump’s re-emergence have Democrats dreaming again that they just might keep control of Congress. But the House map still favors Republicans.Bruising Fights in N.Y.: A string of ugly primaries played out across the state, as Democrats and Republicans fought over rival personalities and the ideological direction of their parties.Stuart A. Thompson: I’m always surprised by how much organization is happening around misinformation. It’s not just family members sharing fake news on Facebook anymore. There’s a lot of money sloshing around. There are lots of very well-organized groups that are trying to turn the attention over voter fraud and other conspiracy theories into personal income and political results. It’s a very organized machine at this point, after two years of organizing around the 2020 election. This feels different from previous moments when disinformation seemed to take hold in the country. It’s not just a fleeting interest spurred by a few partisan voices. It’s an entire community and social network and pastime for millions of people.Sheera, you’ve covered Silicon Valley for years. How much progress would you say the big social media players — Facebook/Meta, Twitter and Google, which owns YouTube — have made in tackling the problems that arose during the 2016 election? What’s working and what’s not?Sheera: When we talk about 2016, we are largely talking about foreign election interference. In that case, Russia tried to interfere with U.S. elections by using social media platforms to sow divisions among Americans.Today, the problem of foreign election interference hasn’t been solved, but it is nowhere near at the scale it once was. Companies like Meta, which owns Facebook, and Twitter announce regular takedowns of networks run by Russia, Iran and China aiming to spread disinformation or influence people online. Millions have been spent on security teams at those companies to make sure they are removing foreign actors from spreading disinformation.And while it is not a done deal (bad actors are always innovating!), they’ve made a huge amount of progress in taking down these networks. This week, they even announced for the first time that they had removed a foreign influence op promoting U.S. interests abroad.A cutout of Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, dressed as the “QAnon Shaman” and cutouts of others involved in the Capitol riot before a House hearing last year.Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty ImagesWhat has been harder is what to do about Americans’ spreading misinformation to other Americans, and what to do with fringe political movements and conspiracies that continue to spread under the banner of free speech.Many of these social media companies have ended up exactly in the position they hoped to avoid — making one-off decisions on when they remove movements like the QAnon conspiracy group or voter fraud misinformation that begins to go viral. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Not the Win We Wanted, but a Win Nonetheless

      by

      The Biden administration has finally delivered on its long anticipated student loan cancellation plans. The timing is critical: Midterm elections are around the corner. Just a few weeks ago, the consensus was that the Democratic Party was in trouble. But a series of policy wins has changed that narrative.President Biden’s executive order on student loans is another win.The top-line debt cancellation numbers do not sound impressive at first: Ten thousand dollars will be forgiven for borrowers who earn less than $125,000 or households earning less than $250,000. But the policy has many layers. Taken together, it is a meaningful response that mostly gets the diagnosis for how we got here right.The Student Loan Law Initiative at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and the Higher Education, Race and the Economy Lab analyzed Biden’s executive order. They estimate that around 41 million debt holders will be eligible for some form of student loan forgiveness, and that 25 million of those people will be eligible for up to $20,000 in student loan forgiveness. Twenty million people, including 3.8 million Black borrowers, could have their entire debts canceled.That isn’t full debt cancellation, but it will help a lot of people. And the people it will help most are those who got the rawest deal. That includes the millions of people who have debt but no degree — nearly one-third of all borrowers. It also includes people who took on student loans to pay for occupational degrees in blue-collar trades like cosmetology and mechanics. Republicans are criticizing the policy as giving handouts to the rich. They really want to implant the image of a Harvard liberal arts graduate getting a free pass. But cancellation is squarely targeted at the debt that working-class students have accrued to hold pretty working-class jobs. The G.O.P. will have a hard time telling those voters that this relief has not improved their lives.Other parts of the policy address underlying problems that created the student loan boondoggle. Millions of people have paid their loans as promised, following the official guidance of student loan servicers, only to owe more than when they started with because of interest. This negative amortization made it nearly impossible for some borrowers to pay off their loans. And documented problems with public student loan forgiveness programs meant that this burden often fell heaviest on people with public interest careers, such as public defenders, teachers and social workers. Now, income-driven repayments for undergraduate loans will be capped at 5 percent of the borrower’s take-home income. If you don’t have a lot of discretionary income, that payment could be low — too low to cover interest on the loan. Previously, this gap added up and increased the total amount owed. Under new guidelines, the government will cover that interest as long as the borrower is making payments. This does not get rid of the scourge of negative amortization for all borrowers. But it does two things: It effectively ends it for public interest workers. That lives up to the promise of public service loan forgiveness, which is that it becomes possible for people to do the work that society desperately needs done without living in eternal debt peonage. It also gives us a model for expanding that option for more borrowers in the future. It is a safe bet that student debt cancellation organizers are paying attention to that possibility.The other bit of good news in the details of this proposal is targeted relief for borrowers who were also Pell grant recipients. Pell grants are a bright spot in our higher education financing ecosystem. They help reduce the impact of one of the biggest drivers of inequality in higher education access, affordability and returns: family income. As tuition costs have dramatically increased, Pell has struggled to keep up. Earlier this year, the Biden administration increased the maximum amount of money attached to Pell grants. When you add that increase to this proposal’s targeted cancellation for anyone who currently or at any time in their undergraduate career qualified for Pell, it is a big help for poor families.Class — income and wealth — is how the Biden administration prefers to deal with racial inequalities that stem from student loan debt. Black borrowers come from poorer families who have less income and less wealth to pay their tuition. Those borrowers take on more student loan debt and their families take on more family loans, like the PLUS program, to help them pay for college. This is acute at lower levels of student loan debt, such as the millions of borrowers that will be included in the $10,000 and $20,000 forgiveness amounts. But these racial differences in debt also show up at the top of distributions. Black borrowers take on a lot of debt to be competitive in the labor market, from associate’s degrees to graduate programs. That debt then makes it hard for those borrowers to help their children pay for college. It’s a vicious cycle. This program won’t help those high-earning but negative wealth borrowers much.It also won’t reduce the cost of college, but it was not designed to. The executive branch does not have a lot of tools it can use to address that. What it does have is the big stick of federal student loan programs. It has used that stick in the past to make college more accessible, but at a cost that became too much for many borrowers to bear. The fight for affordability is primarily a state issue. Like abortion rights, public education and public health initiatives, the real battle for the future of higher education will happen at the state level.As for the federal fight, organizers will ask for more cancellations. I believe that they should. And while this recent policy is not total debt cancellation, it is far from where the Biden administration started. It accounts for research on how the student loan crisis became such a crisis in the first place. The administration has reformed target areas where abuses are the most egregious: bad student loan servicing companies and predatory for-profit colleges. The latest analysis from Goldman Sachs projects that inflationary pressures will be mild, at most. Restarting payments offsets a lot of the modeled risk. And this relief comes for poor and working-class families just as they start tuning in to midterm races. It is hard to argue that this is anything but good news for millions of people — and for the Democrats.Sometimes policy helps people, and sometimes those people remember it when it is time to vote. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Matt Castelli’s Long-Shot Race to Defeat Elise Stefanik

      by

      GLENS FALLS, N.Y. — Matt Castelli has spent much of his career in the shadows.Over nearly 15 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, he hunted down terrorists in one way or another. Half-Sicilian, with a glistening black beard, he has the look of a global Everyman — someone who you might imagine, in the immortal words of Indiana Jones, “speaks a dozen languages, knows every local custom” and can “blend in, disappear” in any society.Much of what Castelli did in government service he can’t talk about — so it’s hard to know exactly what his accomplishments are. Now, after stints with the National Security Council under the Obama and Trump administrations, Castelli is attempting a radical career shift.He’s running to unseat Representative Elise Stefanik, the No. 3 Republican in the House, who has made an abrupt transition of her own — a Harvard-educated darling of the G.O.P. establishment who is now a pro-Trump bomb-thrower.Castelli, 41, has not received much help from national Democrats, who have all but written off Stefanik’s upstate New York district as a lost cause. In 2020, she won re-election by nearly 18 percentage points, running nine points ahead of President Trump.But after trouncing his primary opponent, a more progressive Democrat, by more than 60 percentage points in Tuesday’s primary, Castelli argues that he has more of a chance to win the North Country, as the area is known, than party officials and pundits expect. (Stefanik ran uncontested.)“This is a moderate district,” Castelli said last week over beers at Fenimore’s Pub in Glens Falls. “And Stefanik is no longer a moderate.”Elise Stefanik and other Republicans defended Donald Trump after the F.B.I.’s search of Mar-a-Lago. Anna Rose Layden for The New York TimesA major component of Castelli’s strategy is leaning into that word: moderate. His campaign collected more than 6,600 signatures to put him on the ballot for the Moderate Party, taking advantage of New York election laws that allow candidates to run on multiple tickets. That total was more signatures than he collected to make the Democratic Party ballot and nearly twice as many as the rules required.He figures there could be thousands of independents and disaffected Republicans who might not stomach voting for a Democrat but would choose a Chevy-pickup-driving, American-flag-waving national security specialist who is not shy about rejecting the left-wing inclinations of, say, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the Bronx.Motivated after Sept. 11 …Raised in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., by a Republican mother and Democratic father, Castelli played baseball in high school, then went to Siena College, a private Franciscan institution near Albany. He was inspired to get a master’s degree in national security studies at Georgetown University after Sept. 11, then joined the C.I.A., where, he says, he “straddled” the agency’s operational and analytical wings as a targeting specialist and, later, a leader of various teams.More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsAug. 23 Primaries: The Democratic establishment in Florida and New York had a good night. Here are some key takeaways and a rundown of who won and who lost.The Evidence Against a Red Wave: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, it’s increasingly hard to see the once-clear signs of a Republican advantage. A strong Democratic showing in a special election in New York’s Hudson Valley is the latest example.Bruising Fights in N.Y.: A string of ugly primaries played out across the state, as Democrats and Republicans fought over rival personalities and the ideological direction of their parties.Challenging DeSantis: Florida Democrats chose Representative Charlie Crist, a former Republican, to take on Gov. Ron DeSantis, setting up a contest between a centrist and a hard-right G.O.P. incumbent.After spending five months in Barack Obama’s National Security Council, he spent a year as a director for counterterrorism in Donald Trump’s tumultuous National Security Council, serving under Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then Gen. H.R. McMaster. Castelli then returned to the C.I.A. for about two years in a liaison role while attending business school at Northwestern University on the side, before leaving for the private sector.During his time in two administrations, Castelli also had a front-row seat to the rise of groups like the Islamic State, which gave him a direct appreciation for the blowback America faced in the Islamic world after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. After seven C.I.A. officers were killed by a suicide bomber in 2009 at an American base in Khost, Afghanistan, Castelli took a more “operational role,” he said, declining to go into details.… and again after Jan. 6But it was the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, Castelli says, that motivated him to leave his job at a health care company to run for public office. Last year, he moved upstate for the first time and now lives in Glens Falls, an old lumber-mill and paper-factory town near Lake George, and announced his run against Stefanik in September. That has fueled the accusation from Stefanik’s local political machine that Castelli is a carpetbagger — a transplant from Washington, D.C., or, worse, Poughkeepsie.In Castelli’s telling, however, his decision to run against Stefanik was inspired by her defense of Trump and embrace of his conspiracy theories about the 2020 election — even after the assault on the Capitol — offended his sense of patriotism.“It was an attack against our country,” he said. “For those of us who swore an oath to the Constitution, this was an effort to overturn all of that. And for me, it was galling.”Castelli estimates he has put at least 40,000 miles on his Chevy driving around the 21st District, which, at around a third of the state, is one of the country’s largest by geographic area. Plattsburgh is the district’s most populous city, but most of the area is rural — and Stefanik was known to run up 40-point margins over her previous Democratic opponents. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Hold the Victory Party for Senate Democrats

      by

      The recent notion that Democrats will hold the Senate might be wrong. Here’s why some Democratic strategists are nervous.It has recently become conventional wisdom that Democrats have a pretty good chance of clinging to the Senate — despite a national political environment that has looked dire for their party throughout most of this year.I’ve written about this a fair bit myself. And even Mitch McConnell, the once and possibly future Senate majority leader, has taken to complaining lately that Republicans have a “candidate quality” problem.McConnell’s deputies use other words in private that cannot be printed here — a reflection, in part, of the tensions between his camp and the network around Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who is officially running the G.O.P.’s Senate campaign efforts. In the view of McConnell’s team, it should be Scott’s responsibility to clear the field of fringe candidates who can’t win general elections, and he failed to do so in many of the biggest Senate races. Adding to those tensions is the fact that Donald Trump has openly feuded with McConnell and threatened to muscle him out of the role of Senate leader in favor of Scott.So when McConnell complains about “candidate quality,” he’s also taking a shot at his own rival, Scott.With those caveats out of the way, let me say this: Republicans might very well do better than the pundits expect. And that is keeping some Democratic strategists up at night.This is true for two main reasons: a flood of outside money that is about to hit the airwaves on Republicans’ behalf, and polling that indicates that the political environment remains a problem for Democratic candidates, despite their party’s recent string of accomplishments.First, the moneySenate Democrats have been able to outspend and out-fund-raise Republicans so far this year.That’s partly a function of incumbency. G.O.P. candidates have spent the bulk of their money and energy attacking one another and vying for Trump’s favor, and Democrats have well-established email lists and national infrastructure to support them.With the primaries wrapping up, however, that’s about to change in a big way. Outside groups are tooling up tens of millions of dollars in ad spending on behalf of Republican candidates, according to public reports. And television advertising still matters a great deal with the older voters who traditionally dominate midterm elections.There’s the Senate Leadership Fund, a group close to McConnell, which has announced $141 million in advertising reservations. That compares with just $106 million announced by Senate Majority PAC, the counterpart on the Democratic side.Already, the leadership fund has ramped up its spending in key states, adding more than $9 million in spending in Georgia, $20 million in Ohio and at least $1 million in Pennsylvania.Another group affiliated with McConnell, One Nation, lifted its spending by nearly $2.6 million in Georgia, $1.24 million in Wisconsin and a little over a quarter-million dollars in Nevada.Outside conservative groups are flush with cash, too, with the Senate Leadership Fund reporting $104 million on hand as of late June. In contrast, the liberal Senate Majority PAC is wheezing a bit, reporting just $72 million cash on hand as of late July.Raising money outside the official campaign apparatus has frequently been an advantage for Republicans, who tend to have a much easier time enticing single megadonors to cut large checks. Democrats have plenty of megadonors of their own, of course. But liberal funders are often pulled in multiple directions, driven by causes like climate change, women’s rights or L.G.B.T.Q. issues rather than electoral politics.Whether Republicans will see their usual monetary advantage is more in question this time. In the past, Republicans have relied on individual billionaires like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers to bankroll super PACs and other kinds of groups. But Adelson died in 2021, and his wife, Miriam, has not indicated the same level of interest in financing politics. The Koch brothers have loudly declared that they are no longer as engaged in donating to political campaigns and would prefer to work on issues like criminal justice reform. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      A Former Fox News Insider Spills the Beans

      by

      Chris Stirewalt was part of a pivotal decision to declare Joe Biden the winner of Arizona in 2020. Now he’s speaking out about a network he says incites “black-helicopter-level paranoia and hatred.”Today’s newsletter is a guest contribution by Jeremy W. Peters, who writes for The Times’s media desk. He got his hands on a forthcoming book by Chris Stirewalt, a former senior journalist at Fox News, and shares its highlights here.After a decade at Fox News, Chris Stirewalt was suddenly shown the door in January 2021, becoming a casualty of restructuring — or, at least, that was how Fox described his and other layoffs that swept out longtime journalists who were part of the network’s news division.Stirewalt, who was part of the team at Fox News that projects election results and who testified before the House Jan. 6 committee this summer, suspects there was a bigger reason behind his firing, which he explains in his new book, “Broken News: Why the Media Rage Machine Divides America and How to Fight Back,” to be released next week.“I got canned after very vocal and very online viewers — including the then-president of the United States — became furious when our Decision Desk was the first to project that Joe Biden would win the former G.O.P. stronghold of Arizona in 2020,” Stirewalt writes.Coming at 11:20 p.m., well before the other networks declared that Biden would win the state, the Fox call was extremely controversial and consequential. It infuriated Donald Trump and threw a wrench into his attempt to falsely declare himself the winner of the 2020 election. He ordered his campaign aides to demand that Fox retract the call, to no avail.Despite the pressure to reverse its decision, and the ratings crash Fox suffered in the next few weeks after Trump urged people to watch other networks, the network didn’t buckle because the Decision Desk analysts insisted that the data backed up their projections. And they were right.A spokeswoman for Fox News said, “Chris Stirewalt’s quest for relevance knows no bounds,” and disputed the idea that his departure from the network had anything to do with the Arizona call. She added that Arnon Mishkin, the head of the Decision Desk, would be returning for the November midterm elections.Green beans and ice creamStirewalt’s book is an often candid reflection on the state of political journalism and his time at Fox News, where such post-mortem assessments are not common — either because of the strict confidentiality agreements in place for employees, or the loyalty that some network insiders continue to feel even after they’ve left.In Stirewalt’s view, the network has played a leading role in the coarsening of American democracy and the radicalization of the right. At one point in the book, he accuses Fox of inciting “black-helicopter-level paranoia and hatred.”He describes how, over his 11 years at the network, he witnessed Fox feeding its viewers more and more of what they wanted to hear, and little else. This kind of affirming coverage got worse during the years that Trump was president, he says, and turbocharged the reaction of Trump supporters once Fox called Arizona for Biden.“Even in the four years since the previous presidential election, Fox viewers had become even more accustomed to flattery and less willing to hear news that challenged their expectations,” he writes. “Me serving up green beans to viewers who had been spoon-fed ice cream sundaes for years came as a terrible shock to their systems.”He describes the “rage” directed at him and the rest of the Decision Desk team, writing, “Amid the geyser of anger in the wake of the Arizona call, Senator Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota, called for my firing and accused me of a ‘cover-up.’”He goes on, “Covering up what, exactly? We didn’t have any ballots to count and we didn’t have any electoral votes to award.”Supporters of Donald Trump outside the Arizona State Capitol in Phoenix shortly after the 2020 election.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesStirewalt also writes: “Had viewers been given a more accurate understanding of the race over time, Trump’s loss would have been seen as a likely outcome. Instead of understanding his narrow win in 2016 as the shocking upset that it was, viewers were told to assume that polls don’t apply (unless they were good for Trump) and that forecasters like me were going to be wrong again.”Stirewalt names names, taking particular aim at Tucker Carlson, the host of Fox’s highest-rated prime time show and a frequent fanner of flames in the nation’s cultural battles. He paints Carlson and Fox management as hypocrites who claim to be standing up against big corporate media despite being part of a gigantic corporate media enterprise.“Carlson is rich and famous,” Stirewalt writes. “Yet he regularly rails about the ‘big, legacy media outlets.’ Guests denounce the ‘corporate media’ on his show and Fox’s C.E.O. calls Carlson ‘brave’ for discussing controversial topics. Yet somehow, nobody even giggles.”He adds, “It does not take any kind of journalistic courage to pump out night after night exactly what your audience wants to hear.”What Fox wantsStirewalt also offers a counterintuitive take on what Fox News ultimately wants to achieve by offering content that tilts hard to the right. It’s not to elect Republicans or really even to help them at all, he says.Rather, it’s about making money.Hosts like Sean Hannity and analysts like Dick Morris, the former Clinton aide who became a fixture on Fox, for years propagated falsehoods to their audiences about how well Republicans were positioned to win their races, apparently aiming to juice the network’s ratings, Stirewalt writes.“They wanted it to be true because they wanted Republicans to win,” he says, “but keeping viewers keyed up about the epochal victory close at hand was an appealing incentive to exaggerate the G.O.P. chances. It was good for them to raise expectations, but it wasn’t good for the party they were rooting for.”He adds, “Despite all that Fox’s detractors said about the network being a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, the two organizations had fundamentally different aims.”Stirewalt briefly reflects on what his role in all of this might have been, now that he’s been gone for a year and a half. He is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a columnist for The Bulwark, a publication that has become a locus of anti-Trump energy among disaffected Republicans.“I make no pretense that I have always been on the side of the angels,” he writes. “But I have definitely paid my dues.”What to read on democracyAfter initially keeping their distance, mainstream Republicans are uniting around Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor of Pennsylvania, Trip Gabriel writes. A hard-right Trump loyalist who marched on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Mastriano has raised fears that if elected, he would not certify a Democratic victory in the state’s 2024 presidential contest.More democracies are declining, and even sliding into autocracy, today than at any point in the last century, according to data from V-Dem, a monitoring institute based in Sweden. Max Fisher, an international reporter and columnist for The Times, takes a country-by-country look.In The New Yorker, Louis Menand writes about how American democracy was never designed to be fully democratic.Thanks for reading. We’ll see you next week.— BlakeIs there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney Braces for Wyoming’s Verdict, but History Will Have to Wait

      by

      Tonight’s big news will be the fate of Representative Liz Cheney, whose latter-day conversion from dedicated Republican partisan to Donald Trump’s chief inquisitor in Congress has been one of the most compelling story lines of the last 18 months.In just a few hours, we should know whether Cheney is able to retain her seat as Wyoming’s lone House member while helping investigate her own party’s leader — or whether her decision to do so has made her anathema to Republican base voters.You’ll be able to follow the results here. The polls closed at 9 p.m. Eastern time.Surveys show Cheney well behind her primary opponent, a Trump supporter named Harriet Hageman, even though she has vastly outraised and outspent her challenger thanks to her much louder national megaphone.But it’s precisely her fame that has probably doomed Cheney with Trump’s core voters, who see her as an apostate and a traitor to their cause.It was Cheney who spoke up inside the Republican Party after the assault on the Capitol, asking her colleagues whether Trump was considering resigning after whipping up the mob on Jan. 6, 2021.It was Cheney whose excommunication from the G.O.P. has driven a much larger discussion about the direction of a party that has become, in the eyes of many, a cult of personality centered on a person who is utterly unmoored from traditional conservative principles.And it was Cheney whose road-to-Damascus moment has awakened her to an entirely new mission: from rapidly ascending the ranks of Republican leadership in the House to turning her back on a party whose course her family has done so much to shape.To make sense of Cheney’s astonishing turn — and her apparent stoicism in the face of what looks like almost certain defeat in today’s primary election in Wyoming — I spoke with my colleague Jonathan Martin, who knows the full arc of her story about as well as anyone.Our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity:Republicans I speak with often seem baffled by Liz Cheney. They want to know what her real motivations are, assuming she has some ulterior political aims beyond the Jan. 6 committee that explain her stance against Trump. What do you make of that?I think it’s fair to say — and perhaps quite obvious — that she’s resigned to losing her primary. But as for motivations, I don’t think it’s more complicated than what she’s said publicly about her paramount goal: to stop Trump from returning to the White House.More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsLiz Cheney: If the G.O.P. congresswoman loses her primary, as is widely expected, it will end the run of the Cheney dynasty in Wyoming. But she says her crusade to stop Donald J. Trump will continue.The Impeachment 10: Ms. Cheney is part of a group of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump over the Jan. 6 riot. Most of them have lost their primary races or are retiring.Sarah Palin: As the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential Republican nominee seeks the state’s lone House seat, voters appeared torn on whether she remained committed to them or had abandoned them for national fame.Abortion Ads: Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Democrats have spent nearly eight times as much on abortion-related ads as Republicans have, with Democratic strategists believing the issue has radically reshaped the 2022 landscape in their party’s favor.That’s clearly the aim of her work on the Jan. 6 committee (which, far more than the Wyoming primary, is her focus). As we reported recently, she privately told her colleagues on the panel in July that they had done “more to prevent Trump from ever regaining power than any group to date.”What do you think Liz Cheney learned about politics or life or public service from her dad?I’d only tweak the question to say she’s still learning.They remain very close, speaking every day. In fact, Liz’s inner circle is not much larger than her parents and her longtime chief of staff. She inherited her policy views, love of history and belief in American exceptionalism from both parents (don’t forget, her mother, Lynne, is a historian). Their view of Trump is clear enough from Liz’s comments and the former vice president’s recent ad.Dick Cheney attended his daughter’s swearing-in to Congress in 2017. They remain very close and are said to speak every day.Stephen Crowley/The New York TimesBut there’s something else that’s not as well known — the family’s love for the House. History would be different if Liz had run for Wyoming’s open Senate seat in 2020.But she grew up in a House family, her dad serving as the second-ranking Republican in the 1980s. Her parents even wrote a book, “Kings of the Hill,” on somewhat forgotten House speakers of the past. And Liz herself appeared to be on track to be a future speaker until she broke with much of her party after the 2020 election.I’ve heard it said that Cheney thinks she is playing to history, and that she is willingly choosing martyrdom in Wyoming because in some sense she thinks it’s fate. Does that sound right to you?Yes indeed. She believes strongly that she’s answering history’s call and that Trump must be stopped to protect her party and the country.For the wonks out there, Liz is very much a believer in the Great Man theory of history, and she wishes American schools would rededicate themselves to this approach. She told me as much when I interviewed her in Cheyenne this month.I think we all assume she’s going down with the ship tonight in Wyoming. Aside from the top-line result, what are you looking for in the numbers?I’m very curious about the urban-rural gap and what could be called the education divide. We know from polling that Trump is stronger with Republicans without college degrees. How much does that show up in the proxy war here in Wyoming?We have this single-minded focus in the Washington chattering class about whether famous politicians like Cheney want to run for president. But of course, there are other options, like setting up a political action committee to throw your weight around, as John Bolton did, or starting some kind of think tank or institute, as John McCain did. What are you hearing about what the Liz Cheney superfans in the disaffected corners of the G.O.P. want her to do next?I think it’s totally plausible that she could run for president or set up an organization to block Trump. And I think as long as Trump is blocked, her fans would be quite content.A Liz Cheney primerIn case you missed it, Jonathan Martin visited Cody, Wyo., on the eve of Tuesday’s Republican primary — which he called “the likely end of the Cheneys’ two-generation dynasty in Wyoming as well as the passing of a less tribal and more clubby and substance-oriented brand of politics.”In “Liz Cheney and the Fate of the 10 Republicans Who Defied Trump,” Michael Bender and Malika Khurana assess the former president’s campaign of vengeance against the House Republicans who voted to impeach him over the Capitol riot.Reid Epstein trudged around Wyoming back in February, when it was still unclear whether Cheney was planning to run again. What he found: a state that seemed ready to choose Trump over his would-be nemesis.For The New York Times Magazine, Robert Draper went deep last year on Cheney’s decision to embrace her role on the Jan. 6 committee and set aside her ambitions within the mainstream of the Republican Party.And our colleagues in The Times’s Opinion section heard from 13 voters in Wyoming who will decide Cheney’s fate.What to readBeyond Liz Cheney’s race in Wyoming, two other prominent Republican women — Senator Lisa Murkowski and Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential nominee — are facing primary voters today in Alaska. Follow live updates on both states (though be forewarned that because of Alaska’s unique election system, its contests might not be called tonight).Two top House Democrats accused the Trump-appointed internal watchdog of the Department of Homeland Security — who is under criticism for his handling of an investigation into missing Secret Service text messages around the time of the Capitol riot — of refusing to cooperate with congressional demands, and even blocking his employees from testifying before Congress.Pat Cipollone and Patrick Philbin, the White House counsel and his deputy under Trump, are said to have been interviewed by the F.B.I. in connection with boxes of sensitive documents that were stored at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left office, Maggie Haberman reports. (Here’s a timeline of Trump’s false and misleading comments about the search of his Florida residence.)Nicholas Fandos profiles Representative Carolyn Maloney, who is “nearing the endgame of an unwelcome, wide-open and increasingly vicious primary fight against her longtime congressional neighbor, Representative Jerrold Nadler, after a New York court unexpectedly combined their Manhattan districts this spring.”— BlakeIs there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Ron DeSantis and Republicans’ Mar-a-Lago Playbook

      by

      Republican politicians weighing how to react to the F.B.I.’s search of Mar-a-Lago last week had several options. Boiled down, they were:1. Immediately denounce it as a “witch hunt” and threaten to investigate or even defund the bureau, while calling for Attorney General Merrick Garland’s impeachment.2. Issue a cautious, place-holder statement expressing confidence in the process while sounding a note of concern about the potential for Justice Department overreach. Say little that could become embarrassing should more facts emerge that portray the former president’s conduct in a negative light.3. Criticize Trump as having jeopardized the national security of the United States. Call on him to release the search warrant and explain what agents might have been looking for, and why he had not returned the documents they were seeking.4. Await more information before commenting at all.To defend or not to defend?The political dilemma was particularly acute for Republicans who aspire to run for president in 2024 — requiring a high-wire act worthy of the Flying Wallendas.Enter Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, who is widely viewed as Trump’s most serious potential rival in a Republican primary race. The political world watches DeSantis’s every move nowadays, and many awaited his reaction to the search with bated breath.Sometimes, mischief ensues.In a clever but dishonest bit of online skulduggery, someone spliced together two separate videos to make it seem as if DeSantis had defended the F.B.I. The manipulated video, which circulated widely on social media, purports to show DeSantis tangling with Sean Hannity over the Fox News host’s use of the word “raid” to describe the F.B.I.’s actions.“It’s not a raid,” DeSantis says in the edited video, adding, “they were serving valid process in accordance with the laws and Constitution of the United States.”It would have been an explosive moment — the first real fireworks of the shadow 2024 presidential primary.But it never happened.In reality, DeSantis had been defending a 2020 search by law enforcement officers of the home of Rebekah Jones, a former data specialist for the state of Florida who had claimed that the DeSantis administration was manipulating information about the coronavirus pandemic.Hannity, for one, called the video “FAKE NEWS” and demanded that Twitter remove it.What DeSantis actually said was this tweet:“The raid of MAL is another escalation in the weaponization of federal agencies against the Regime’s political opponents, while people like Hunter Biden get treated with kid gloves,” DeSantis wrote. “Now the Regime is getting another 87k IRS agents to wield against its adversaries? Banana Republic.”Note what was missing here: any defense of Trump’s conduct. DeSantis made similar remarks at a rally on Sunday for Kari Lake and Blake Masters, the Republican nominees for governor and Senate in Arizona — criticizing the Justice Department and raising examples of what he characterized as F.B.I. misconduct, while remaining silent on the former president’s alleged mishandling of classified documents.DeSantis and Trump hats at a Turning Point USA event in Tampa, Fla., in July.Marco Bello/ReutersThe DeSantis danceDavid Jolly, a former Republican member of Congress from Florida, said the “dance” between DeSantis and Trump was quietly consuming both camps behind the scenes.Trump has periodically noted — accurately — that he remains the most popular Republican in hypothetical 2024 primary matchups, with DeSantis a distant second. But the two have yet to spar in earnest. More