internal-sub-only-nl

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Joe Biden Better Watch His Back

      by

      Could J.B. Pritzker be contemplating a run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2024?That’s not the first, second or seventh most important question in connection with the massacre in a Chicago suburb on July 4. But Politico raised it, at least implicitly, the following day, noting that the Illinois governor was taking advantage of the national spotlight on him to model a rage over gun violence that President Biden doesn’t always project.The Washington Post made the same observation. “In the view of many distraught Democrats, the country is facing a full-blown crisis on a range of fronts, and Biden seems unable or unwilling to respond with appropriate force,” wrote Ashley Parker and Matt Viser, who identified Pritzker as one of several Democratic leaders adopting a more combative tone. They mentioned Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, as another. Like Pritzker, Newsom is the subject of speculation about 2024. And he only fueled it in recent days by running television ads in Florida, a pivotal presidential election battleground, that attacked that state’s governor, Ron DeSantis, who could be a major contender for the Republican presidential nomination.As if November 2022 weren’t causing Democrats enough grief, November 2024 won’t wait. Biden’s age, dismal approval rating and seeming inability to inspire confidence in the party’s ranks have created an extraordinary situation in which there’s no ironclad belief that he’ll run for a second term, no universal agreement that he should and a growing roster of Democrats whose behavior can be read as preparation to challenge or step in for him. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.That’s not to say that incumbent presidents haven’t confronted competitive primaries before. Jimmy Carter did in 1980, against Ted Kennedy. George H.W. Bush did in 1992, against Pat Buchanan. Carter and Bush vanquished those challengers — only to be vanquished themselves in the general election.The doubts swirling around Biden recall the doubts that swirled around those men, but they’re intensified by our frenzied news environment. They’re also exacerbated by Democrats’ sense that the stakes of a Republican victory in 2024 — especially if the Republican is Donald Trump — are immeasurable.And the insistent and operatic airing of these misgivings is deeply worrisome, because I can’t see how they’re easily put to rest, not at this point, and they’re to some degree self-defeating.Pointing out Biden’s flaws and cataloging his failures is one thing — and is arguably constructive, inasmuch as it points him and his administration toward correction — but the kind of second-guessing, contingency planning and garment rending that many Democrats are currently engaged in is another. It threatens to seal Biden’s and his party’s fate.Republicans are so much better at putting a smiley face over their misfortunes, marketing dross as gold and pantomiming unity to a point where they actually achieve it. Their moral elasticity confers tactical advantages. Democrats shouldn’t emulate it, but they could learn a thing or two.Biden won the party’s nomination in 2020 not for random, fickle reasons but because Democrats deemed him a wiser, safer bet than many alternatives. Are Democrats so sure, two troubled years later, that the alternatives are much wiser and safer than he would be?He has dimmed since his inauguration — that’s indisputable. And the crisis of confidence around him is a difficult environment in which to campaign for a second term. If that gives him pause, if he’s hesitant in the least, he should announce as soon after the midterms as possible that he’s limiting himself to one term so that Pritzker, Newsom, Kamala Harris or any number of other prominent Democrats have ample time to make their cases for succeeding him.And if he’s all in? Then Democrats can’t have their knives out the way they do now. Our president is already bleeding plenty.For the Love of LyricsLaura Nyro in 1968.Michael Ochs Archives/Getty ImagesAfter the celebration of women in this feature’s previous installment, Michael Ipavec of Concord, N.H., wrote, “No love for Laura Nyro?” Anita Nirenberg of Manhattan posed the same question.Michael, Anita: Have faith. There is infinite love for Laura Nyro here.During college, I just about wore down my vinyl LP of “Eli and the Thirteenth Confession.” Then I moved on to “New York Tendaberry” and lingered on my favorite track, “You Don’t Love Me When I Cry,” which has the most melodramatic vocal performance this side of Jennifer Holliday’s “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going.”Nyro, who died in 1997 at the age of 49, was a prolific and prodigiously talented songwriter, one who, like Carole King and Karla Bonoff, was at times better known as the author of other musicians’ hits than as the singer of her own compositions. She was arguably more gifted with melodies than with words, but “Wedding Bell Blues” and “Sweet Blindness” are perfect blends of the two, and there are many great lines in “And When I Die,” which the group Blood, Sweat & Tears popularized:I’m not scared of dyingand I don’t really careIf it’s peace you find in dying,well, then let the time be nearSo I hereby add Nyro to our growing (but still woefully incomplete) pantheon of women lyricists, which already includes Joni Mitchell, Aimee Mann, Lucinda Williams and others. I also add Joan Armatrading, another of my college favorites. I thrilled to the straightforward yearning and palpable ache of Armatrading’s “Love & Affection” (“Now if I can feel the sun in my eyes / And the rain on my face / Why can’t I feel love”), which she always performed brilliantly. I admired the wit and wordplay in “Drop the Pilot,” with its Sapphic suggestiveness, and it has to be the only American pop song with the word “mahout” in it.The pantheon, I realize, shows my age (57) and generation, giving short shrift to younger singer-songwriters. The one who comes quickest to mind is Taylor Swift, whose sprawling catalog belies her 32 years. I’m not well versed in her work, so I turned to a former Duke student of mine, Allison Janowski, who’s the most devoted Swift stan I know. She gave me a brilliant mini-tutorial, beginning with the extended version of the song “All Too Well” and these lines, from different sections of it:We’re singin’ in the car, getting lost upstateAutumn leaves fallin’ down like pieces into place’Cause there we are again in the middle of the nightWe’re dancin’ ’round the kitchen in the refrigerator lightYou kept me like a secret, but I kept you like an oathAnd you call me up again just to break me like a promiseSo casually cruel in the name of being honestAllison, you’ve turned the teacher into an appreciative pupil.“For the Love of Lyrics” appears monthly(ish). To nominate a songwriter and song, please email me here, including your name and place of residence. “For the Love of Sentences” will return with the next newsletter; you can use the same link to suggest recent snippets of prose for it.What I’m ReadingMahershala Ali will star in a miniseries based on the novel “The Plot.”FilmMagic/FilmMagic for HBO, via Getty ImagesPage-turners by writers who take real care with language and bring moral questions into play aren’t that common, but “The Plot,” by Jean Hanff Korelitz, about a struggling writer who helps himself to someone else’s idea, definitely fits that bill. Although it came out last year, I only recently found my way to it — and enjoyed it despite spotting its biggest reveal well in advance. It’s being made into a mini-series starring Mahershala Ali. The mini-series “The Undoing” was based on Korelitz’s previous novel, “You Should Have Known,” which I’m listening to now and not liking as much.I also listened recently to “Blood Sugar,” by Sascha Rothchild, which was published this year and earned a place in Sarah Lyall’s roundup in The Times of the summer’s best thrillers. Rothchild, like Korelitz, is a keenly observant writer with many excellent metaphors up her sleeve. Her novel asks you to root for a woman who kills repeatedly — and not in self-defense — and it’s fun to behold Rothchild’s climb up that steep hill. But I wished the main hinge of the plot — the central death — were just a bit more interesting.Because Francis Fukuyama once announced “the end of history,” I’m automatically and reliably interested in his subsequent explanations of why history defied him and marched on. His new book, “Liberalism and Its Discontents,” in some measure summarizes what he’s already written or spoken about in shorter, discrete chunks. But it’s nonetheless an incisive, succinct look at how the United States and other countries arrived at the current crossroads for democracy.Given how many Republican candidates unabashedly echo Trump’s self-serving and democracy-subverting fantasy of a stolen 2020 presidential election, the fate of Democratic candidates in the looming midterms is crucial, as are the questions about the party’s positioning that Jason Zengerle raises in his most recent article for The Times Magazine.On a Personal NoteSadly, that’s not me.Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesI can’t defend the color scheme. Purple and yellow? It’s like you’re walking into a space for children to play pranks, not for adults to do planks.And the wordplay in the signage beside the weight-lifting equipment is a bit much (even for the prankish, plank-ish likes of me). No “gymtimidation”? I can think of better prohibitions against look-at-me preening than aren’t-I-clever portmanteaus.But I love Planet Fitness, the gym I chose when I’d had my fill of others, the gym that doesn’t put on biometrical airs (I’m looking at you, Orangetheory) or promise boot-camp brutalization or crow about the ablutions in its locker rooms, the gym that costs less per month than a movie with popcorn, the gym that’s content to be just a gym.I hesitate to write that because it sounds like I’m doing cardiovascular evangelism (trust me, or just look at me — I’m not) or getting a commission (I wish). What I’m really after is a metaphor. A moral. And for journalistic purposes, Planet Fitness provides just that.It’s an answer and an antidote to much of what’s depressing and exhausting about American life. In a country and era so intent on sorting us into strata of economic privilege and tiers of cultural sophistication, Planet Fitness is a kind of nowhere for everyone, blunt and big-tented, patronized for reasons of utility rather than vanity, with dozens of treadmills that have zero bells and whistles, upon which you find a true diversity of customers.I looked around the other day, which could have been any day, and spotted several apparently nonbinary hipsters. An older woman in a tracksuit used walking sticks to move from one exercise station to another. There were white people, Black people, brown people and as many body types as skin colors. No one sported athleisurewear by Lululemon or Gymshark. No one snapped selfies.Planet Fitness has been criticized for not doing justice to the second word in its name. In the past, it apparently gave members free pizza and bagels.And several years ago its chief executive officer, Chris Rondeau, made political donations — both to Donald Trump and to a conservative New Hampshire lawmaker with an anti-gay record — that contradicted the company’s inclusive messaging. That doesn’t please me.But in my experience at Planet Fitness, you can trust in the “judgment free zone” advertised in big letters on a back wall. That, I realize, is its own branding, its own shtick. And I suppose I’m making an anti-statement statement by going there.So be it. I find a cross-section of Americans there that I don’t find in many other places. I find the opposite of an enclave. Upon second thought, maybe it’s purple and yellow because red and blue are too loaded. Color me grateful. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Perils of Slow Vote-Counting and Delayed Election Results

      by

      Slow vote counts were the bane of the 2020 elections, inviting bogus fraud charges. But they’re not going away anytime soon.What happens when Election Day lasts for weeks?The short, glib answer to that question is that Jan. 6 happens — as we learned dramatically this week when Cassidy Hutchinson, a young former aide to Mark Meadows, gave testimony that put former President Donald Trump at the center of that day’s chaos and violence.The somewhat longer answer is that there’s so much static over how votes should be counted that we’ve seen the same dysfunctional scene twice since 2020 in the same state.First came the presidential election, where Trump seized on a slow vote count in Pennsylvania to cry fraud, declare victory and sow doubt about Joe Biden’s victory there and elsewhere.Round Two came about a month ago when the former president raised the specter of election cheating again and urged Dr. Mehmet Oz, his favored candidate in the race for Pennsylvania’s United States Senate seat, to prematurely declare victory in a Republican primary election — a week into the tally of ballots.Oz sidestepped Trump’s suggestion and eventually won, by just 951 votes. Trump’s insinuations of criminality vanished as quickly as they had surfaced.But in an angry, polarized nation, it was a reminder of how easily a laggard vote count can be exploited to discredit election results. And it raises the question of what will happen this November, when some counts in midterm elections are inevitably delayed — or in 2024, when the stakes will be immeasurably higher.Charles H. Stewart III, an election analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it’s a problem unlikely to go away soon, because, for a mix of reasons having to do with civil rights and also convenience, American voters have played a role in creating it.“Over the last couple of decades, we’ve enjoyed an expansion of access to the ballot and convenience of voting,” he said. “And nine times out of ten, that expansion has occurred without regard to the blocking and tackling of election administration.”Translation: Many voters, including Republican voters, love the shift to mail ballots, early voting, voting within minutes of registering, drop boxes and other efforts to make voting easier and more accessible. But those innovations make voting costlier and more complex — and governments have neither ponied up money nor changed election laws to deal with it.Outside experts say election officials already need well over $2 billion just to replace aging voting machines and beef up security against both physical and cyber attacks. And that doesn’t include the cost of improvements like high-speed ballot scanners, envelope-opening machines and additional employees that would make counting faster. Some of these ideas are under discussion on Capitol Hill.Elections have always run long because of the days of backstage work, validating tallies and verifying questionable ballots, that has to happen even when winners are declared early.The public never saw that sausage-making. But now it is causing delays in some states, opening the door to much of the misinformation and disinformation that is clouding election results and casting doubt on the integrity of the vote.Different parties, different views of the problemAdvocates on the left and right see different problems.California can be particularly thorny because of how slowly and unevenly it counts in votes. In 2018, The Associated Press called one Central Valley congressional race for Representative David Valadao, a Republican, only to make a rare retraction when the Democrat pulled ahead weeks later.More recently, the slow vote-counting in last month’s primaries caused a shift in final results from the initial tallies. On election night, the early leader in the Los Angeles mayoral contest, the mall developer and self-styled crimefighter was Rick Caruso. He now trails a more liberal Democrat, Karen Bass, who argued that “Los Angeles cannot arrest its way out of crime.”Progressives complained, loudly, about how the initial results — in Los Angeles and from the successful recall of San Francisco’s district attorney — were framed as a warning about the potency of crime, including in this newspaper. Some progressive prosecutors won, such as Diana Becton in Contra Costa County, whose campaign received a late $1 million ad blitz fund by a PAC linked to the liberal financier George Soros.On the right, Trump and like-minded candidates are quick to claim fraud whenever a slow vote count leaves one of them endangered or defeated. And Republican officeholders, increasingly hostile to voting by mail, may see little incentive to make it work better.But there is a whiff of hypocrisy to many of their claims: In Nevada, a Republican candidate for secretary of state, Jim Marchant, argued on the campaign trail that every winner of a state election since 2006 had actually been “installed by the deep-state cabal” — only to declare that “Nevadans made their voices heard” when he won the state’s primary in mid-June.Swamped by vote by mailIf laggard election results encourage misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, the obvious remedy is to count votes faster, and declare winners sooner. So why aren’t states doing that?In California, at least, a leisurely tally is effectively state policy. The state embraces mail ballots — about two thirds of votes are cast via mail or drop box — and accepts properly postmarked mail ballots up to a week late. In a state that mails out 22 million absentee ballots for every election, processing that takes time.In some other states, the swing to mail voting has swamped election officials who can’t afford high-speed equipment to process ballot envelopes. And while 37 states allow at least some processing of mail ballots as they come in, laws in other states force workers to wait until Election Day before even opening ballot envelopes, much less counting votes and verifying signatures.That was the case this spring in Pennsylvania, which sent out nearly 910,000 mail ballots to voters who requested them. To compound the task, a printing error forced a days-long hand recount of some 21,000 mail ballots.Election judges in Denver counting votes during the primary on Tuesday.Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesDoing it rightThat said, states like Oregon, Colorado and Utah conduct all-mail elections seamlessly and report results promptly. And Wisconsin, which also bars opening mail ballots before Election Day, managed to report 2020 general election results by 3 a.m. on the day after the polls closed.“It just comes down to process and procedure and having the right equipment,” said Claire Woodall-Vogg, the executive director of the Milwaukee Board of Election Commissioners.Wisconsin doesn’t require signature verification of ballots, which speeds counting considerably, she said. But the purchase of additional high-speed tabulators also has allowed the city to process more than twice as many ballots in the same amount of time.Just because the tallies can be accelerated does not mean that they will be. The next two elections face challenges that could prolong counts even further.One is a potential shortage of poll workers, deterred from volunteering because of threats of violence. Another is a shortfall of money, now that some states have barred help from outside groups that donated hundreds of millions of dollars to finance local election work in 2020.A third is an exodus of seasoned election administrators, who are retiring in droves after the pressures of the 2020 election cycle. Running a secure election is an extraordinarily complex task, and that institutional knowledge will be hard to replace, said Jennifer Morrell, a former election official in Colorado and Utah and now a partner in The Elections Group, a consulting firm.And that could lead to more cracks in fraying foundations of American democracy.“Overall, I think election administration is better today than it’s ever been,” Ms. Morrell said. “The flip side is that the misinformation and election conspiracies are bigger than they’ve ever been. I’m super concerned.”We want to hear from you.Tell us about your experience with this newsletter by answering this short survey.What to readThe Supreme Court term that ended on Thursday was the most conservative since 1931, Adam Liptak writes in a sweeping assessment of the Roberts Court’s achievements, with help from graphics by Alicia Parlapiano.Annie Karni looks at “the 20-somethings who help the 70-somethings run Washington,” a city teeming with ambitious young people who have more power than you might think.A question rarely asked: How will states like Texas handle the surge in babies now that abortion is largely illegal there?viewfindeRCassidy Hutchinson testifying on Tuesday before the House committee investigating the Capitol riot.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesA momentous hearingOn Politics regularly features work by Times photographers. Here’s what Haiyun Jiang told us about capturing the image above:Doug Mills, the well-known New York Times photographer, always reminds me not to take scenes on Capitol Hill for granted, even if I have seen them a thousand times. So I always try to approach photo coverage with a fresh eye, striving to make frames of aesthetic and storytelling value.When I covered the Jan. 6 House committee hearing featuring testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to President Donald J. Trump’s final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, I was in the “cuts” — meaning I had the freedom to move around the room, as opposed to being in the “well,” where you are stationed between the committee members and the witness and have very little room to move.I tried to show what I saw by capturing a fuller picture. As I stood on the side, photographers formed a curve with their cameras, and the audience, even the stenographers, focused on the witness. So I decided to include all of those characters in the frame, taking people into the hearing room and hopefully making them feel present.Thanks for reading. Enjoy the July 4 holiday; we’ll see you on Tuesday.— BlakeWere you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is 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

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Eric Greitens to Face New G.O.P. Attacks in Missouri Senate Race

      by

      The long-awaited effort to stop Eric Greitens from becoming the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri is finally getting underway.The big question is whether it’s too late to stop him.A robust, well-financed Republican campaign to highlight Greitens’s personal scandals — which include allegations of domestic and sexual abuse — is set to begin on Friday, starting with at least $1 million in paid television ads.Politico first reported the arrival of the new super PAC, Show Me Values, which is being led by Johnny DeStefano, a longtime aide to Representative John Boehner of Ohio who became a powerful figure inside the Trump White House.The leaders of the drive to halt Greitens, which is being spearheaded by a coalition of in-state donors, hope to fundamentally alter the dynamics of a race that has been stagnant for months by sounding a drumbeat of allegations about disturbing and erratic behavior by the former Missouri governor.But as they look to avoid jeopardizing what is most likely a safe Republican Senate seat, they face a tight timeline ahead of Missouri’s Aug. 2 primary, and it is unclear whether new details about Greitens’s alleged conduct will resonate with G.O.P. voters.The front-runner: Eric GreitensGreitens’s history has long been subject to scrutiny — and new accusations have steadily emerged.In 2018, he resigned as governor amid allegations that he had sexually abused a hair stylist with whom he was having an extramarital affair. Greitens denies the accusations, which the woman detailed in sworn testimony during an impeachment inquiry led by fellow Republicans in the state.His ex-wife, Sheena Greitens, a scholar of Asian geopolitics, left him after those allegations came to light and moved to Texas. The couple are now waging a bitter court battle over custody of their elementary-school-age children.Sheena Greitens, second from left, during a court session in her child custody case against her former husband on Thursday in Columbia, Mo.David A. Lieb/Associated PressIn a sworn affidavit released in April, Greitens accused her former husband of a pattern of abusive behavior, including allegedly “cuffing our then-3-year-old son across the face” and “yanking him around by his hair.”The former governor has denied all wrongdoing, and on Thursday his campaign pointed to a previous statement provided to The New York Times by Tim Parlatore, a lawyer for the candidate. The alleged abusive behavior “never happened,” Parlatore said.At a court hearing on Thursday, a lawyer for Sheena Greitens, Helen Wade, said that her client had received death threats this week after the former governor released a violent new political video that shows him armed with a shotgun and storming a home in search of “RINOs,” or Republicans in name only, along with what appears to be a SWAT team wielding military-style rifles. Wade did not respond to multiple messages seeking comment on Thursday.The kingmaker: Rex SinquefieldFor now, Greitens is ahead of his nearest opponent, Eric Schmitt, the Missouri attorney general, by about 3.5 percentage points, polling averages of the race show.Schmitt has the backing of Save Missouri Values, a super PAC bankrolled by Rex Sinquefield, a wealthy retired investor who is a dominant player in state politics.Sinquefield, who is also the primary funder of Show Me Values, the new anti-Greitens super PAC, is best known for his devotion to three “idiosyncratic passions,” according to a critical 2014 profile in Politico Magazine: “promoting chess, dismantling the traditional public school system and eliminating income taxes.”Until now in the Senate primary campaign, not one television ad has aired laying out Sheena Greitens’s most recent allegations. One of the new ads from Show Me Values will focus on her accusations, saying that Eric Greitens has faced “scandal after scandal,” according to two people familiar with its contents.The most effective knock on Greitens with likely Republican primary voters in Missouri, polling conducted by a rival campaign discovered, might sound a bit surprising.It involved informing them that he had previously identified as a Democrat and traveled to the Democratic National Convention in 2008 to hear a young, progressive senator named Barack Obama accept his party’s nomination for president.The X Factor: TrumpThe president’s endorsement could be decisive — and everybody knows it.Allies of both Schmitt and Representative Vicky Hartzler, another Senate candidate who is closely trailing Schmitt in most polling, have been cautioning Trump and his allies against backing Greitens.One argument that seems to resonate with the former president, according to people who have spoken with him: Don’t risk upsetting your pristine endorsement record in 2022 Senate races.On Wednesday, after Katie Britt defeated Representative Mo Brooks in a G.O.P. primary runoff for a Senate seat in Alabama, Trump boasted that his scorecard remained perfect in Senate primaries this year.“With the great ALABAMA win by Katie Britt tonight, I am pleased to announce that WE (MAGA!) are 12 WINS & ZERO LOSSES in U.S. Senate Primary races this cycle,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, his Twitter-like social media site. He made no mention of the fact that he had previously endorsed Brooks before souring on his candidacy.Eric Schmitt, left, the attorney general of Missouri, is hoping for a surge to win the Republican nomination for Senate.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesIn Missouri, Trump’s notoriously chaotic decision-making process is complicated by the fact that his son, Donald Trump Jr., and Kimberly Guilfoyle, Don Jr.’s fiancée, are backing Greitens.The younger Trump has advised his father to allow the primary to develop further before endorsing anyone, according to two people familiar with his thinking. A spokesman for Trump said that, to his knowledge, an endorsement was not “imminent,” and that he had not seen any draft announcements.Allies of Greitens are eager to link any effort to attack him to Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, who is a frequent target of Trump’s ire. McConnell’s team did not return phone calls on Thursday, but there is no evidence that his allies have any connection to the new super PAC.Republicans in Washington worry that if Greitens manages to win the primary, he might saddle their party with an embarrassing, and expensive, candidate who could throw the seat to Democrats.Guilfoyle is the national finance chair of Greitens’s campaign. Despite her help, his campaign has struggled to raise money, according to the most recent campaign finance reports, forcing him to rely almost exclusively on one Republican donor — the billionaire shipping magnate Richard Uihlein, who has given at least $2.5 million to a super PAC supporting Greitens’s candidacy.The potential sleeper: Josh HawleyAllies argue that Hartzler, a House lawmaker from western Missouri, has the best chance at beating Greitens. They are counting on the clout of Josh Hawley, the arch-conservative freshman senator who holds the state’s other Senate seat.Her campaign this week began airing a new ad promoting the endorsement of Hawley, who has capitalized on his opposition to the certification of the 2020 election results to earn Trump’s favor and build a nationwide grass-roots donor base.Polls show that Hawley is the state’s most popular politician, and the Hartzler campaign hopes to use his fund-raising prowess and omnipresence on Fox News to move voters in the state’s socially conservative hinterlands. Hawley raised about $400,000 for the campaign over a span of four days, his aides said.“There’s a lot of Republicans running for the Senate,” Hawley says in the ad. “I know all of them.”That’s an understatement: Hawley was the attorney general of Missouri while Greitens was governor, and the two men are not exactly friends.Josh Hawley, left, and Eric Greitens, right, with Steven Mnuchin at a Trump rally in St. Louis in 2017. Whitney Curtis/Getty ImagesIn 2018, Hawley accused Greitens of misusing the donor list of his veterans charity and called on him to resign over the allegations involving the hair stylist.The move helped sideline Greitens, a potential rival for Missouri’s other Senate seat, which Hawley assumed after defeating Claire McCaskill, the incumbent Democrat, in 2018.“Fortunately for Josh,” Greitens shot back at the time, “he’s better at press conferences than the law.”What to read tonightThe Jan. 6 committee revealed on Thursday that a White House lawyer told Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department attorney pushing a Trump-backed plan to subvert the 2020 election results, that he would be committing a felony if he helped to overturn the outcome. Catch up with our live coverage of the day’s big hearing here.In a separate development, federal investigators carried out a predawn search on Clark’s home in connection with the Justice Department’s sprawling inquiry into efforts to overturn the 2020 contest, Alan Feuer, Adam Goldman and Maggie Haberman report.The day’s other big political news: The Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun law, most likely limiting the ability of state and local governments to restrict guns outside the home. Hours later, the Senate advanced a bipartisan gun safety bill that responded to a spate of mass shootings.Thanks for reading. We’ll see you tomorrow.— 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

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      A Recession Would Hurt Democrats. Some Warn It’d Also Hurt Democracy.

      by

      By trying to tame inflation, some commentators say, the Federal Reserve could bring about a recession — just as an unrepentant Donald Trump appears to be eyeing another White House bid.Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, made the understatement of the year on Wednesday when he noted offhandedly to reporters, “Clearly, people do not like inflation.”And how.According to Fox News’s latest national poll, 41 percent of registered voters said that “inflation and higher prices” represented the most important issue influencing their ballot decision in November. Just 12 percent of voters called guns their top priority, the second-place issue. Seventy-one percent disapproved of the job President Biden is doing on inflation.This is not exactly a vote of confidence in the federal government. In the past, this level of public dissatisfaction has typically led to major political upheaval.Inflation ran at a rate of 8.6 percent in May, the fastest annual pace in four decades. Voters do not seem to be buying the White House’s argument, backed up by the Fed and places like the World Bank, that global factors beyond Biden’s control like the pandemic, supply-chain crises and the war in Ukraine are driving the increase in prices.Nor do they seem to be giving the administration much credit for an unemployment rate that is down to 3.6 percent, just a tick above its prepandemic level.The Fed might be Biden’s best hope. After the Federal Open Market Committee announced on Wednesday that it would raise short-term interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point, Powell said the Fed’s goal was to bring inflation closer to its 2 percent target while keeping the labor market “strong.”He hastened to add: “We’re not trying to induce a recession now. Let’s be clear about that.”‘A democracy-wrecking election’Yet some commentators, notably David Frum of The Atlantic, have begun to fret that in trying to tame inflation, the Fed will do exactly that — start a recession, just in time to doom Biden or whomever Democrats nominate in his stead in 2024.Understand Inflation and How It Impacts YouInflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Greedflation: Some experts contend that big corporations are supercharging inflation by jacking up prices. We take a closer look at the issue. Inflation Calculator: How you experience inflation can vary greatly depending on your spending habits. Answer these seven questions to estimate your personal inflation rate.For Investors: At last, interest rates for money market funds have started to rise. But inflation means that in real terms, you’re still losing money.Frum noted the historically tight link between economic growth and a president’s chances of re-election. Citing the possibility that an unrepentant Donald Trump will run again, he argued that a downturn this year or next could result in “a democracy-wrecking election the next year.”He concluded: “So the Federal Reserve has a more than usual obligation this week to measure its policy appropriately. A miscalculation in monetary policy in 2022 could reverberate through long ages of American history ahead.”Others have criticized Biden’s decision last fall to nominate Powell for a second term, leaving the president handcuffed in blaming the Fed chair for the parlous state of the economy. Powell was, after all, Trump’s pick for Fed chair — and Biden, the thinking goes, could have thrown him overboard and started afresh.That would have been a very Trump-like move. Powell resisted months of intense pressure from the 45th president to lower interest rates, including comments describing the low-key Fed chairman as an “enemy” of the United States. Central bankers prize their distance from politics, mindful that their credibility with financial institutions around the world is crucial to their effectiveness.So in renominating Powell, Biden made sure to emphasize his respect for his institutional prerogatives. “My plan is to address inflation,” the president said. “It starts with a simple proposition: Respect the Fed and respect the Fed’s independence.”Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, with President Biden last month. Some Democrats had urged Biden to choose a Fed chair of his own.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe Fed’s relationship with politicsLet’s set aside the fraught question of whether Trump’s re-election could bring about the end of American democracy. Does the Fed, in fact, have an “obligation” to consider how its actions might affect the U.S. political system?On a simple reading of the law, not really. The Federal Reserve Act gives the Fed the authority to regulate the nation’s money supply, to foster the “long-run potential” of the U.S. economy and to promote the goals of “maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.”Frederic Mishkin, a former member of the Fed’s board of governors, no doubt spoke for many in the finance world when he wrote in an email, “I most strongly disagree with the view that the Federal Reserve should adjust its policy to favor or harm any politician.”He added, “The Fed should be as apolitical as possible, and its policy focus should be on stabilizing both inflation and output fluctuations, as is mandated by congressional legislation.”But it’s hard to divorce the Fed from its historical roots, founded as it was in an era of great political turmoil driven by frequent financial panics.The Fed was successfully established in 1913 because President Woodrow Wilson won the assent of William Jennings Bryan, the most influential populist leader of the time, by guaranteeing that government officials appointed by the president, not private sector bankers, would run the board.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Winning When Trump Is Against You: A How-To Guide

      by

      Are you a Republican who broke with Donald Trump but hope to win your upcoming primary?Maybe you said that Joe Biden is the duly elected president, condemned Trump’s demagogy on Jan. 6 or merely suggested that he tone down his social media posts.This handy guide is for you.So far, Trump’s preferred candidates have won primaries for Senate seats in Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. One of those candidates, J.D. Vance, overcame his past comments ripping Trump as “cultural heroin” by undergoing a wholesale reinvention of his political persona.Others, like Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, have defied him and survived, without such a radical about-face.So what explains why some Trump critics succeed and others don’t? Here, based on a review of the results of this year’s primaries and conversations with roughly a dozen Republican strategists, are a few lessons:1. Do not vote to impeach him.This much is clear at the midway point of this year’s election calendar: The Republican base regards having voted to impeach Trump as the ultimate act of betrayal.The former president has already induced the retirements of four of the 10 House Republicans who supported his impeachment in 2021, while helping to oust another — Representative Tom Rice, who lost his coastal South Carolina seat on Tuesday by more than 25 percentage points.One impeacher, Representative David Valadao, is clinging to second place ahead of a Trump-friendly challenger in his district in California, where the top two vote winners of any party move forward to the general election.Four others — Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Jaime Herrera Beutler and Dan Newhouse of Washington, and Peter Meijer of Michigan — have yet to face the music.Only one of the seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump over Jan. 6 is running for re-election this year: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. In her case, a new voting system engineered by her allies could help her fend off a challenge from Kelly Tshibaka, a former federal government official who has the former president’s backing.2. Choose your location wisely.Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who did not vote to impeach Trump, made the former president’s enemies list for criticizing him on television after the events of Jan. 6, 2021. He called her a “grandstanding loser” and mocked her for filming a video praising him in front of Trump Tower in New York.But she never got fundamentally out of step with the South Carolina Lowcountry, a libertarian-leaning area with a history of electing iconoclastic lawmakers. Mace grew up in Goose Creek, just outside Charleston. That local familiarity gave her an intuitive feel for navigating issues like offshore drilling, which is unpopular in the coastal region.Understand the June 14 Primary ElectionsTakeaways: Republicans who embraced former President Donald J. Trump’s election lies did well in Nevada, while his allies had a mixed night in South Carolina. Here’s what else we learned.Winners and Losers: Here is a rundown of some of the most notable wins and losses.Election Deniers Prevail: Republicans who deny the 2020 election’s result are edging closer to wielding power over the next one.Nevada Races: Trump-inspired candidates captured key wins in the swing state, setting the stage for a number of tossup contests against embattled Democrats.Texas Special Election: Mayra Flores, a Republican, flipped a House seat in the Democratic stronghold of South Texas. Her win may only be temporary, however.“She did a much better job of staying aligned with her district,” said Mick Mulvaney, a former South Carolina congressman who was White House chief of staff during Trump’s first impeachment.Rice, by contrast, “almost took the attitude to dare people to throw him out,” Mulvaney said — standing emphatically by his impeachment vote despite representing a district that Trump won by more than 18 percentage points in 2020.The backbone of Rice’s district is fast-growing Horry County, a historically conservative region filled with “angry retirees,” according to Chip Felkel, a Republican strategist based in Greenville.But just down the coast in Mace’s more upscale district, Trump outperformed his approval ratings in 2020 — a sign, Felkel said, that there are “a lot of people who like Trump’s policies but don’t like Trump.”3. Speaking of which: Don’t break with the base on policy.Mace has been described as a moderate, but that’s a misnomer: She holds a 95 percent lifetime rating from the Club for Growth and a 94 percent score from Heritage Action, two groups that gauge lawmakers’ fealty to conservative principles. Rice scored 83 percent on both indexes — dangerous territory in the deep-red Pee Dee region of South Carolina.Although the Club for Growth stayed out of her race, Mace did benefit from $160,000 in spending from Americans for Prosperity, another conservative outside group funded by the Koch brothers. No national outside groups spent money on Rice’s behalf.Even minor heresies, like Mace’s support for legalizing marijuana, underscored her carefully cultivated image as an independent thinker and gave her a useful measure of distance from Trump.“Nancy polished the ring; she didn’t kiss the ring,” Felkel said.4. Run against a weak opponent.Russell Fry, the state representative who defeated Rice on Tuesday, was a known quantity in the state who happily played the part of a generic pro-Trump Republican.Katie Arrington, a former state lawmaker and Pentagon official who won Trump’s endorsement against Mace despite his private doubts about her candidacy, is another story.Voters certainly heard about the former president’s preference: At least 75 percent of voters in the district were aware that he had endorsed Arrington, according to the Mace campaign’s internal polling.Russell Fry’s election night event in Myrtle Beach, S.C. He happily played the part of a generic pro-Trump Republican against Representative Tom Rice, who voted in favor of impeachment.Jason Lee/The Sun News, via Associated PressBut Mace and her allies pummeled Arrington with ads accusing her of voting to raise gasoline taxes as a member of the state legislature, noting that her security clearance had been suspended while she was a defense official in the Trump administration and calling her “just as bad as Biden.”Mulvaney, who campaigned for Mace, noted an additional factor: that Arrington had lost the district to a Democrat in 2018.“Trump doesn’t like losers, and that’s what Katie was,” Mulvaney said.5. Get yourself a strong local surrogate.Although Arrington had Trump in her corner, Mace had the backing of Nikki Haley, a popular two-term former governor of South Carolina and United Nations ambassador under Trump who now lives in the district.It proved enormously valuable. Like Mace, Haley has toed a careful line toward Trump, criticizing him on occasion but never fundamentally breaking with her former boss. She has an 82 percent approval rating among South Carolina Republicans, according to a poll conducted in May, just a few points below Trump.Haley raised more than $400,000 for Mace and appeared at two of her campaign rallies, in addition to recording get-out-the-vote videos and robocalls and sending texts. She also cut a television ad calling Mace “a fighter,” a “strong, pro-life mom” and a “tax-cutter” that ran for six weeks, airing 446 times in two ad markets. Mace’s campaign also mentioned Haley’s endorsement in its closing TV spot.Rice made the puzzling decision to invite Paul Ryan, the former House speaker, to stump for him in the closing weeks of the campaign. Ryan, who tangled often with Trump before quitting politics to join the board of Fox News and starting a small think tank, hails from Janesville, Wis. — more than 800 miles from Myrtle Beach.Understand the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6Why are these midterm races so important? More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Will Nevada Turn Red in the November Midterms?

      by

      If a red wave arrives in November, as many expect, it will likely wash ashore in landlocked Nevada, a state whose recent history of Democratic victories masks just how hard-fought those triumphs have been.In presidential elections, Republicans have not won Nevada since 2004, when President George W. Bush carried the state narrowly over John Kerry. Races for statewide office have been more contested, but still dominated by Democrats on the whole.This year could be different. Nevadans will cast their final ballots on Tuesday in primary elections that will decide what sorts of candidates will be carrying the G.O.P. banner in November. And as of now, it looks as if many of those Republicans might very well be elected.Much has been written about the woes of Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat who is up for re-election this year. Whenever her name appears in national news coverage, it’s invariably accompanied by some version of the phrase “one of Democrats’ most endangered incumbents.”Her likely opponent is Adam Laxalt, a former state attorney general whose father, Pete Domenici, was a senator in New Mexico — a fact that was a closely held family secret until 2013. Laxalt’s grandfather was Paul Laxalt, who served as both governor and senator in Nevada.Heading into Election Day, Laxalt looks to be comfortably ahead of his top primary opponent, Sam Brown, a retired Army captain. Laxalt helped lead Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the presidential election results in Nevada in 2020.House seats on fireLess well understood than the Senate stakes is the fact that all three of Democrats’ House seats in Nevada are also at risk in November.The Cook Political Report rates all three districts as Democratic tossups. House Majority PAC, the main outside spending arm of House Democrats, has reserved more dollars in ad spending in Las Vegas than in any other media market in the country.There’s Representative Susie Lee, who squeaked by her Republican opponent by fewer than 13,000 votes in 2020. Lee’s likely opponent is April Becker, a lawyer who has the backing of Representative Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House.Representative Steven Horsford, whose district stretches from northern Las Vegas to the middle of the state, could also be in trouble. In March, his wife, Sonya Douglass, popped up on Twitter to say she would “not be silent” about the decade-long affair he has admitted to having with Gabriela Linder, a former intern for Senator Harry Reid.Douglass criticized his choice to “file for re-election and force us to endure yet another season of living through the sordid details of the #horsfordaffair with #mistressforcongress rather than granting us the time and space to heal as a family.”Linder hosted an “audio memoir” of the affair under a pseudonym, Love Jones, called “Mistress for Congress.”After Horsford responded to her first series of tweets, Douglass wrote: “This statement is worse than the first from May 2020. The lies never end. Let’s pray @stevenhorsford comes to grips with reality and gets the help he needs.”Horsford’s likely opponent is Annie Black, a state lawmaker who was outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Last week, Black sent out a fund-raising appeal to supporters with the subject line, “The Real ‘Big Lie’ is that Biden Won ‘Fair and Square.’”The Democratic primary to watchThen there’s Representative Dina Titus, whose historically safe Las Vegas seat is now decidedly unsafe thanks to a decision by Nevada Democrats to spread some of the voters in her old district across the two others.That move prompted a vulgar complaint by Titus, who blasted the redistricting move as “terrible” during remarks at an A.F.L.-C.I.O. town hall event in December.“They could have created two safe seats for themselves and one swing,” Titus said. “That would have been smart.” She added: “No, no, we have to have three that are very likely going down.”Titus, in an interview, noted that she had represented parts of her new district when she was in the Nevada Legislature. “It’s like coming home,” she said. “Been gone awhile, but I’m back.”But first, Titus faces a primary challenge from Amy Vilela, an activist who last week secured the backing of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Vilela was a co-chair of the Sanders presidential campaign in 2020. She previously ran in a primary against Horsford in 2018, losing by a large margin.This time, Vilela is running a progressive insurgent campaign against what she called “complacency” by Titus and the Democratic establishment, which she said was causing low enthusiasm among voters.“We definitely have to start delivering on our promises and start addressing the needs of the working class instead of the donor base,” Vilela said in an interview.“Well, let’s put it in perspective,” Titus responded, pointing to her record of bringing federal dollars to Nevada. “When Amy tries to portray herself as the progressive and me as the establishment, look at all the endorsements I have. She’s a Democratic Socialist, and I’m the progressive Democrat.”Tourists and traffic have returned to Las Vegas since the start of the pandemic, but gas prices and rents have climbed.Joe Buglewicz for The New York Times‘We fell off the skyscraper and quickly hit bottom’If Nevada flips to red in November, the state’s economic struggles will be a powerful reason.Nevada’s unemployment rate surged to 28.5 percent in April 2020, just after the coronavirus pandemic throttled the tourism industry, which makes up a huge portion of the state’s economy. The unemployment rate is now 5 percent, still not quite at prepandemic levels.Democrats say that without their help, the economic suffering would have been worse. And Mike Noble, a pollster who works in Nevada, said that while a Republican sweep was a possibility, “a lot of things would need to go right for the G.O.P. to make that come to fruition since the Democrats have the advantage of incumbency.”Inflation is posing a potent new threat. As of Monday, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in Nevada was $5.66, well above the $5 national average. That’s in a state with an anemic public transit system, where you need a car to get most places. And rents in Las Vegas, a place with a famously transient population, are rising faster than in nearly any other city in the country.Understand the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6Why are these midterms so important? More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Our Racial Reckoning Could Have Come Sooner. What Made 2020 Different?

      by

      Why was there an all-encompassing racial reckoning in this country starting in the spring of 2020? And why then? Examining that question reminds us that history is driven — by general trends classifiable as progress or decline — but also just happens. Specifically, chance factors, what historians sometimes call “contingency,” have greater effects than we are always inclined to notice.As the physicist Cameron Gibelyou and the historian Douglas Northrop note in their useful “Big Ideas: A Guide to the History of Everything,” “To state that an event was contingent in general, without further qualification, means that the event would not have been possible without a certain sequence of previous events or actions being taken by particular actors, that it did not have to happen the way it did.”Ancient examples include the Ming dynasty’s decision not to pursue imperial goals across the sea after 1433. Otherwise, China might have established worldwide colonies in advance of Europeans, and the trajectory of world history would be quite different. The Battle of Salamis in 480 B.C.E. held the Persians off from Greece, after which Greek culture flowered in ways that helped forge the intellectual and artistic culture of Europe. It is interesting to imagine the different cultural developments that might have ensued if Persia had conquered and maintained dominion over Greece and then beyond.Contingency matters in our times as well. We might propose, for example, that the murder of George Floyd set off a reckoning on race in America. However, that is more a description than an explanation.There have been other relatively recent cases of gruesome and unjustifiable killings of Black people by the police that have become national touchstones and yet did not result in racial reckonings of the kind we’ve seen since 2020: When, in 1999, the police gunned down Amadou Diallo in the vestibule of a New York City apartment building as he was reaching for his wallet, the media coverage was intense and sustained. The Rev. Al Sharpton, in a role now quite familiar, served as a kind of spokesman for Diallo’s family.Yet there was nothing we would describe as a racial reckoning in the wake of Diallo’s death, nor did the initiative on race that President Bill Clinton started in 1997 result in anything like the intensity of discussion, or changes in language and norms, that our current reckoning has.We might suppose that social media needed to emerge before such a thing could happen. But then social media was largely the reason the shooting deaths of Trayvon Martin (though not by a police officer) and Michael Brown became national causes célèbres in 2012 and 2014. Yet while these cases did intensify national awareness of the generally uneasy and often perilous relationship between Black people and law enforcement in this country, they didn’t occasion a comprehensive reassessment of racism, its nature and its role in creating today’s inequalities in the way Floyd’s murder did.One might propose that what happened in 2020 happened because Black America was by then especially fed up — weary and disgusted with the nation’s refusal to more seriously address police violence. I imagine that analysis when I recall historian and former assistant attorney general Roger Wilkins in 2005 describing some Watts rioters of 1965 as “fed up” with the bleak circumstances of many citizens in Watts and South Central Los Angeles at the time. He was responding to my query about why it was in the late 1960s — after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — that the nation experienced 1967’s “long, hot summer” riots and, in 1968, more riots in Black neighborhoods in various parts of the country, including Washington, D.C. (in response, in part, to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.). Those riots were initiated by Black people in protest, rather than, as I wrote, earlier race riots in American cities that “involved white bigots storming into Black neighborhoods and terrorizing residents.”Today, I cannot help wondering whether we can really say that Black people in the late ’60s were more fed up than at times past. And I similarly wonder if there is reason to suppose that Black Americans were less fed up post-2005, after Hurricane Katrina, the miserable government response to it and the nationwide discussion of what that signaled about racism — inspiring Spike Lee’s documentary “When the Levees Broke” and David Simon’s succès d’estime, “Treme” — than we were in 2020.I would suggest that what conditioned the racial reckoning of 2020 was partly contingency. To wit, I think the pandemic was the determining factor.Tragically, hideously, Americans learn of Black people dying under appalling circumstances, involving police officers, quite often. Think of Sandra Bland, Philando Castile, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner — whether these circumstances lead to criminal convictions, or charges, which they often don’t. Few of us, especially those of us who live in New York City, will ever forget Garner’s words, “I can’t breathe,” though even his death wasn’t a fulcrum in quite the way Floyd’s was. In May 2020, there was something besides the injustice and brutality of Floyd’s murder that motivated the surge of nationwide demonstrations: the fact that we had been in pandemic isolation for two months and that around that same time it was becoming clear that conditions were not going to change anytime soon.I don’t mean to imply that this outcry was insincere or cynical. But I suspect that what helped make the difference was the pandemic lockdown. At that unusual and challenging time, for many people, being outdoors and connecting with other people was understandably a uniquely powerful temptation. The lockdown also gave a broader range of people — beyond those already committed to activism — the time to reflect, and to devote their energies to things beyond themselves, something they may not have done under normal circumstances.As such, it could be that if there had not been a lockdown, the Floyd protests would have been smaller in scale and shorter in duration. Further, one could surmise that if the sequence of events had taken place a few months earlier, with the lockdown beginning in the fall and Floyd’s murder happening in the colder months of January or February, this, too, would have, hypothetically, made protests smaller, less likely or shorter-term in many locations. And this probably would have decreased the chances that the protests stimulated a think-in about racism that would still be going strong two years later.There’s a case that the pandemic shaped the racial reckoning in another way. A controversial aspect of the reckoning has been the examples of workplace disciplinary actions that have become commonplace in its wake, out of a general sense of these actions as inherent to the mission of reconsidering racism. (In this newsletter, I’ve written about more than one.) That a number of these instances involve social media should come as no surprise: These platforms place a kind of scrim curtain between people that can lessen our sense of dehumanization as unnatural.It’s not unlike what can happen to us on video chat applications such as Zoom or messaging programs such as Slack. Contempt and condemnation can come more easily to us when directed to a static avatar on Twitter or someone in a box on a screen than to a person we are in the same room with. Chat features and direct-message side exchanges also allow factions to build up opposition as a general meeting runs, in a way that passing notes and sharing dismissive facial expressions cannot. The way we’ve learned to communicate in the past few years, sometimes normalizing real-time shaming and dismissing, has set new norms that now feel like the default, even as live meetings become routine again.In short, I think that without a pandemic, and an ensuing year-plus when a good deal of our interactions were virtual, America would not have entered an extended racial reckoning. It wasn’t that Black Americans were, two years ago, at some unique tipping point, nor was it that white Americans opened in an unprecedented way to hearing out Black America’s concerns from the sheer goodness of their hearts.It was the confluence of a pandemic, a grievous murder and the time of year in which these occurred, with the magnitude and tone determined partly by the fact that all of this happened when handy group communication technologies had become widely established and were available to spend workdays on.History is like this, including that of race and racism. On race, contingency should be included in how we chronicle it, and not only now but in the past and the future. The civil rights victories of the 1950s and 1960s were related, in part, to the novelty of television. Future progress on race will almost certainly be driven by factors beyond protest and critique, in ways no one could have predicted beforehand.Have feedback? Send a note to McWhorter-newsletter@nytimes.com.John McWhorter (@JohnHMcWhorter) is an associate professor of linguistics at Columbia University. He hosts the podcast “Lexicon Valley” and is the author, most recently, of “Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      How South Dakota Voters Won a Power Struggle With G.O.P. Legislators

      by

      Coming on the same night that voters in San Francisco ousted their lightning rod of a district attorney, Chesa Boudin — in what was widely interpreted as a setback for progressive ideas on criminal justice — it would have been easy to overlook what happened on Tuesday in South Dakota.But the results there are no less consequential for national politics. Voters in South Dakota sent a resounding message of their own to the state’s conservative power structure: We’re in charge here, not you.The immediate issue was a constitutional amendment requiring that certain voter-initiated referendums must pass by 60 percent, rather than a simple majority. The measure was defeated decisively, with more than two-thirds of voters rejecting the proposed new threshold.But this wasn’t just a political process story. It was the latest round in a national fight between voters and state legislatures, who have been battling for primacy on issues like marijuana legalization, gerrymandering and health care. Last year, my colleagues Reid Epstein and Nick Corasaniti took a broad look at Republican-led efforts to limit ballot initiatives, which have grown only more intense in the last 12 months.In South Dakota, the ballot question was pushed by Republican state lawmakers who are hoping to defeat a November referendum on expanding access to Medicaid. To David Daley, the author of several recent books on grass-roots democracy, it was a classic example of the power struggle playing out in state capitols across the country.“Whenever citizens effectively use the ballot initiative to make policy changes the legislature opposes, lawmakers bite back, and they bite back hard,” Daley said.Raising the threshold for ballot drives is an increasingly common tool. A new report by RepresentUs, a nonpartisan group that promotes ballot initiatives, found that since 2017, at least four states have passed laws that impose supermajority requirements and put them in front of voters as a ballot question, out of at least 64 bills proposed.And it’s not always Republican lawmakers pitted against progressive voters.“We’ve seen legislators attempt to threaten and limit the ballot-measure process in red, blue and purple states,” said Anh-Linh Kearney, a research analyst for RepresentUs, pointing to Democratic-controlled Colorado, which raised the requirement for passing ballot measures to 55 percent in 2016.Not-so-subtle tactics to target referendumsChris Melody Fields Figueredo, the executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, described a “growing trend of tactical ways to make the process harder,” pointing to her group’s tally of 108 laws introduced this year in 26 states that would make technical tweaks to the rules surrounding ballot initiatives.Understand the June 7 Primary ElectionBy showing little enthusiasm for progressive and Trumpian candidates alike, voters in seven states showed the limits of the ideologies of both parties.Takeaways: For all the talk of sweeping away the old order, the primaries on June 7 largely saw the establishment striking back. Here’s what else we learned.Winners and Losers: Here is a rundown of some of the most notable wins and losses.California Races: The recall of a progressive prosecutor showed the shifting winds on criminal justice. In Los Angeles, Rick Caruso and Representative Karen Bass are heading to a runoff mayoral election.New Mexico’s Governor Race: Mark Ronchetti, a former television meteorologist, has won New Mexico’s Republican nomination for governor.Since 2017, Fields Figueredo said, the center had counted a fivefold increase in bills introduced and enacted that would make it more difficult to pass ballot measures.Sometimes those tweaks take Kafkaesque forms.In Arkansas, for instance, a drive to establish a nonpartisan redistricting commission ran into a deviously written 2015 law requiring that canvassers for the ballot initiative pass a federal background check conducted by the State Police.But there was a catch. The State Police could not do federal background checks. So the group behind the ballot drive, Arkansas Voters First, pulled what information it could from publicly available records and submitted thousands more signatures than required. The secretary of state rejected those background checks on the grounds that the canvassers had not “passed,” and threw out more than 10,000 signatures.Litigation followed. In a 2020 decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court sided with the secretary of state, ruling that the statute had mandated the background checks, whether or not the task was impossible. In a dissent, Justice Josephine Linker Hart pointed out the absurdity of the statute, noting that “the State Police do not ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ the subject of a background check” — they merely share the information from the relevant databases.“It was wild,” said Bonnie Miller, who led the Arkansas Voters First petition drive. “I’m still not over it.”A court later threw out the background-check requirement, but the cat-and-mouse game goes on: The Arkansas General Assembly passed a new law that lengthened the list of offenses that disqualify paid canvassers. And a measure similar to the one South Dakota voters just rejected, raising the threshold for successful ballot initiatives to 60 percent, is now on the ballot.Miller feels as if she’s battling for the very principle behind voter-led referendums. “This threshold, it’s just death to direct democracy in our state,” she said.‘People want the ability to make decisions for themselves’Opponents of the South Dakota amendment had a couple of factors working in their favor.There’s the state’s long history with ballot initiatives: Father Robert Haire, a radical Catholic priest, helped pioneer the concept as an activist with the Populist Party in the 1880s.Then there’s the fact that Medicaid is popular. Voter-led petitions have already powered Medicaid expansion in Idaho, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Utah. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit group that tracks information and trends about the country’s health care system, has found that three-quarters of Americans hold a favorable opinion of the program — including 76 percent of independents and 65 percent of Republicans.At this point, only 12 states have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, despite its popularity. As you can see from this interactive map, also put together by Kaiser, these states are concentrated in the Deep South, along with Kansas, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming. But when Kaiser asked people in those states whether they wanted to expand Medicaid’s coverage, 61 percent said yes.And finally, Fields Figueredo said, voters have a deep-seated aversion to having their choices limited by politicians — setting up inevitable clashes with lawmakers who “don’t like being told what to do.”“People want the ability to make decisions for themselves,” she said.What to read“We’re bleeding out, and you’re not there”: Families of the Uvalde, Texas, massacre pleaded with Congress today to enact new gun control laws.Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas said this week that the state would investigate fake accounts on Twitter — an issue that Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has pointed to as he appears to waver on a blockbuster deal to buy the platform. What’s in it for Paxton and Texas? David McCabe and J. David Goodman explain.The Supreme Court is expected to release some enormously important rulings in the coming weeks. David Leonhardt previews the five biggest ones.Rick Caruso will face Representative Karen Bass in the general election for Los Angeles mayor.Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York TimesAbout last night’s election results …Last night, we wrote about four candidates we were watching in Tuesday’s primaries, and 24 hours later, we have some results — but as expected, we’re still waiting for more.In one of the three Republican primary challenges we were monitoring, the incumbent is safe. In the other two, it’s too soon to say.Understand the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6Why are these midterms so important? More