Midterm Elections (2022)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Under Pressure as Anti-Abortion Activists Call for a National Ban

      by

      Activists are pushing for tougher abortion restrictions, while politicians fear turning off swing voters who don’t support strict limits like a national ban.For decades, opposition to abortion was a crucial but relatively clear-cut litmus test for Republican candidates: support overturning a constitutional right to an abortion, back anti-abortion judges and vote against taxpayer funding for the procedure.But now, six months after the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights, the test has grown a whole lot harder — and potentially more politically treacherous.Even after a backlash in support of abortion rights cost Republicans key seats in the midterm elections, a restive socially conservative wing is pushing the party’s lawmakers to embrace deeper restrictions. That effort is likely to be on stark display on Friday in Washington, when anti-abortion activists gather for what is expected to be a lower-key version of their annual march. Historically, the event attracted top Republicans, including former President Donald J. Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence and former Speaker Paul Ryan. This year, the list of speakers circulated in advance included two lawmakers: Representative Steve Scalise, the Republican majority leader, and Representative Chris Smith, one of the leaders of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.These activists and their allies are pressuring potential Republican presidential contenders to call for a national ban. Raising the stakes nearly two years before the 2024 contest, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the most powerful anti-abortion groups, said that any candidate who does not support federal restrictions should be “disqualified” from winning the party’s nomination.But some Republican strategists worry that such a position could repel general-election swing voters, who polls show are turned off by the idea of a national ban.Other conservative activists are pushing for a new series of litmus tests that include restrictions on medication abortion, protections for so-called crisis pregnancy centers that discourage women from having abortions, and promises of fiercely anti-abortion appointees to run the Justice Department and the Food and Drug Administration.For Republican politicians, these activists are forcing the question of what, exactly, it means to be “pro-life” in a post-Roe v. Wade era.In Grand Rapids, Mich., last November, opponents rallied against Proposition 3, a ballot measure that sought to protect abortion rights. Democratic candidates, who supported Proposition 3, did well in the election.Brittany Greeson for The New York Times“This is coming. The pro-life movement is not going to be happy or thanking a candidate simply for saying they are pro-life,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, an anti-abortion group. “We’re in a position where we’re going to get down to the various candidates on how far they are going to go to protect women and children.”Some Republican officials and strategists argue that pitched debates over abortion rights in the midterms — and the party’s inability to quickly adopt a unified message on the issue — contributed to the G.O.P.’s weaker-than-expected performance in battleground states including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona.More on Abortion Issues in AmericaAt a Crossroads: As the 50th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling approaches, anti-abortion activists who fought to have the decision overturned are split about what they should focus on next.In Congress: Republicans used their new power in the House to push through legislation that could subject doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties.Morning-After Pills: The Food and Drug Administration revised its guidance on the most commonly used emergency contraceptives, making clear they are not abortion pills.Abortion Pills: In a move that could significantly expand access to medication abortions, the F.D.A. moved to allow retail pharmacies to offer abortion pills in the United States.This view is shared by former President Donald J. Trump, who distanced himself this month from a social conservative wing that has been a pillar of his base when he blamed the “abortion issue” for the party’s loss of “large numbers of voters” in November.The comments set off an instant backlash from loyal supporters who once lauded him as the most anti-abortion president in history. Ms. Hawkins described Mr. Trump as “listening to swamp consultants.” The remarks also prompted ridicule from some Republican strategists who noted that Mr. Trump was often a liability in major races last year.Some potential 2024 candidates have begun tussling over the issue as they try to position themselves as the conservative movement’s next standard-bearer. Mr. Trump’s comments drew a rebuke from his former vice president, Mike Pence, who retweeted a statement from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America urging the former president and his possible rivals to embrace an “ambitious consensus pro-life position.”“Well said,” added Mr. Pence, who has cast himself as a true champion of the cause as he promotes the Supreme Court’s ruling in appearances at “crisis pregnancy centers” and movement galas.A spokesman for Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota has accused Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida of “hiding” behind his state’s ban on abortion past 15 weeks of pregnancy, while Ms. Noem has promoted her “aggressive” record on abortion restrictions.“Talking about situations and making statements is incredibly important, but also taking action and governing and bringing policies that protect life are even more important,” she said recently on CBS News..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.And Mr. DeSantis, who shied away from addressing abortion for most of the fall campaign, has said he is “willing to sign great life legislation” and has not ruled out support for a six-week ban.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a bill last year for a ban on abortions after 15 weeks, and he has said he would consider a six-week ban.John Raoux/Associated PressStill, it remains unclear what, exactly, is the new standard for being anti-abortion — even among those pushing for more restrictions. Is it enough to seek to ban abortions after 15 weeks? Or should the bar be roughly six weeks, like the measure that Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed into law? Should Republicans support exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother — which Mr. Trump backs — or none at all? And how do you define health anyhow? Do psychiatric crises count?As some Republican-dominated statehouses prepare to further limit abortion, future presidential candidates are also likely to be asked about restrictive measures being proposed, including prosecuting those seeking abortion care in states where it is banned, targeting allies who help women travel across state lines for the procedure, criminalizing the mailing of abortion medication, and granting fetuses the same legal rights as people through fetal personhood bills.“Conservatives will not allow a Republican to be elected as their candidate that’s not pro-life,” said Penny Nance, the chief executive of Concerned Women for America, a group that argues that life begins at conception.Asked how conservatives now defined “pro-life” credentials — in terms of embracing abortion restrictions after a certain pregnancy threshold, simply looking for candidates who seemed to be fighters on the issue, or something else — Ms. Nance replied, “I think we’ll grapple with that.”Several activists have suggested that they expect this grappling to unfold in the context of a presidential primary campaign, as possible candidates race to demonstrate their anti-abortion bona fides.Democrats are avidly watching from the sidelines, keeping close tabs on the abortion stances of potential 2024 rivals. Their hope is that Republicans adopt positions that might be popular with their base but that will cost them the moderate suburbanites who are critical in the general election. Polling conducted by some Democratic strategists during the midterms found that voters strongly rejected any discussion of a national abortion ban.“They’re going to go for a national ban,” Celinda Lake, a longtime Democratic strategist and pollster, said in an interview around Election Day. “That is the most mobilizing statement, the most persuasive.”She added, “And their candidate is going to be pushed into saying it.”Still, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it remains an open question whether social conservatives hold the same king-making power in the primary as they did in 2016, or if they may be forced to accept a candidate who doesn’t go as far on their top issues as they would prefer.Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota has promoted her “aggressive” record on abortion restrictions.Phelan M. Ebenhack/Associated PressThe party remains divided over whether to support any national restrictions. In the House, the new Republican majority opened the session with a package of abortion legislation that did not include a national ban. Because Democrats control the Senate, none of the measures are expected to become law.“A great many Republicans still think the victory in Dobbs was pushing this down to the states,” Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist and longtime adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell, said when asked for his thoughts on the relatively limited action on Capitol Hill. “It is contradictory to simultaneously believe that and then push for a national regime on it.”Mr. Jennings said he thought restricting abortion access after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions, was smart politics, a proposal that candidates could endorse for the states.But when Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina put forward that position in the form of a federal ban before the midterms, the proposal earned a backlash among some Republicans who viewed it, and its timing, as politically foolhardy.Still, in the final weeks of the midterms, many Republicans embraced a central message: a 15-week limit with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. They sought to push Democrats to define their own limits on gestational age — and falsely accused them of supporting “abortion until birth” if they refused. Nearly all Democrats support federal legislation that would reinstate a version of the standard set by Roe: permitting abortion until fetal viability, roughly 23 weeks, and after that point only if the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother’s health.Robert Blizzard, a veteran Republican pollster, noted that several Republican candidates who generally opposed abortion rights won major statewide races in places including Florida, Georgia and Iowa. But elsewhere, for candidates without clearly defined personal brands, he said, “voters can use the abortion issue as a test of how compassionate they are, and how pragmatic they are, in order to solve problems and get things done.”“There were some candidates we had running, specifically in statewide races, that just could never get past the favorability” issue with independent voters, he added.Mr. Blizzard emphasized that it was impossible to know what issues would motivate voters in the 2024 general election. But there is little doubt, he said, that Democrats will continue to use the abortion issue against Republicans — and that in the midterms they often did so effectively.“Every metric you would look at indicates that that energizes the left and energizes the Democratic base, which it certainly did,” he said. “In some cases, where we made the fight over other issues — whether the economy, inflation, the border, whatever else was going on in a particular state or district — we did, I think, well. But in places where we were not able to change the narrative of a race, we didn’t do well.”“In terms of going forward,” he went on, describing the political uncertainties surrounding the issue, “I don’t think anyone has a really solid answer for it.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Can Trump Count on Evangelicals in 2024? Some Leaders Are Wavering.

      by

      The former president, who relied on evangelical voters in 2016, has accused Christian leaders of “disloyalty” and blamed them for Republicans’ disappointing midterm performance.On Sunday, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, a longtime supporter of Donald J. Trump who has yet to endorse his 2024 White House bid, shared the stage at his Dallas megachurch with one of the former president’s potential rivals next year: former Vice President Mike Pence.The next day, Mr. Trump lashed out at Pastor Jeffress and other evangelical leaders he spent years courting, accusing them of “disloyalty” and blaming them for the party’s disappointing performance in the 2022 midterm elections.While Pastor Jeffress shrugged off the criticism, others weren’t as eager to let it slide, instead suggesting that it was time for Mr. Trump to move out of the way for a new generation of Republican candidates.The clash highlighted one of the central tensions inside the Republican Party as it lurches toward an uncertain 2024 presidential primary: wavering support for Mr. Trump among the nation’s evangelical leaders, whose congregants have for decades been a key constituency for conservatives and who provided crucial backing to Mr. Trump in his ascent to the White House.If these leaders break with Mr. Trump — and if evangelical voters follow, which is by no means a certainty — the result will be a tectonic shift in Republican politics.“When I saw his statement, I thought, ‘You’re not going to gain any traction by throwing the most loyal base under the bus and shifting blame,’” said Bob Vander Plaats, an influential evangelical activist in Iowa and the chief executive of the Family Leader organization.Mr. Vander Plaats said that while evangelicals were grateful to Mr. Trump for his federal judicial appointments and for moving the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, many thought that his time as leader of the party has passed given how hardened many Americans’ views of him are. Asked whether Mr. Trump would command support among evangelical leaders as he did in the past, Mr. Vander Plaats, who has criticized Mr. Trump in the past, said, “No way.”Indeed, recent polls point to some Trump fatigue among Republican voters. But it is an open question whether evangelical voters will abandon him if prominent Christian ministers support other candidates. And Mr. Trump has previously had an ability to cleave various types of conservative voters from their longtime leaders, as he did during his unexpected Republican primary victory in 2016.In a New York Times/Siena College poll in October, before the midterm elections, nearly half of Republican voters said that they preferred someone other than Mr. Trump to be the party’s 2024 presidential nominee. But the same poll showed that 54 percent of evangelical voters said they planned to support him.President Donald J. Trump in 2017 with Robert Jeffress, an influential evangelical pastor and longtime Trump supporter. Mr. Jeffress has not endorsed Mr. Trump’s candidacy for president in 2024.Pool photo by Olivier DoulieryA spokesman for Mr. Trump declined to comment. Paula White, the televangelist who led Mr. Trump’s evangelical advisory board while he was president, could not be reached for comment.Politics Across the United StatesFrom the halls of government to the campaign trail, here’s a look at the political landscape in America.2023 Races: Governors’ contests in Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi and mayoral elections in Chicago and Philadelphia are among the races to watch this year.Democrats’ New Power: After winning trifectas in four state governments in the midterms, Democrats have a level of control in statehouses not seen since 2009.G.O.P. Debates: The Republican National Committee has asked several major TV networks to consider sponsoring debates, an intriguing show of détente toward the mainstream media and an early sign that the party is making plans for a contested 2024 presidential primary.An Important Election: The winner of a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April will determine who holds a 4-to-3 majority in a critical presidential battleground state.Since his first campaign, Mr. Trump has considered the evangelical movement a crucial piece of his constituency. He was helped by a relationship that his lawyer and fixer at the time, Michael D. Cohen, had with the Rev. Jerry Falwell Jr., then the president of Liberty University.Mr. Trump tapped Mr. Pence to be his running mate in 2016 in part to assure wary evangelicals that a New York businessman could be trusted to keep his campaign promises.Many evangelicals set aside their skepticism of Mr. Trump’s sometimes scandalous behavior and focused on a long list of policy pledges from the candidate, a thrice-married reality television star. In one memorable moment, Mr. Falwell celebrated his 2016 endorsement of Mr. Trump by posing for a picture with him in front of a Trump Tower office wall that included a framed copy of a 1990 Playboy cover featuring the brash real estate developer.The uneasy alliance between Mr. Trump and evangelical leaders showed signs of strain during an interview he gave with Real America’s Voice, a right-wing streaming and cable network..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Asked about Pastor Jeffress’s neutrality in the 2024 race, Mr. Trump said he did not care, then declared that it was “a sign of disloyalty.” The former president pointed to the Supreme Court ruling last year overturning the federal right to an abortion — a decision led by three of Mr. Trump’s appointees — and said he was “a little disappointed” in some evangelical leaders who “could have fought much harder” during the midterms.“A lot of them didn’t fight or weren’t really around to fight,” Mr. Trump said. “And it did energize the Democrats, but a lot of the people that wanted and fought for years to get it, they sort of — I don’t know — they weren’t there protesting and doing what they could have done.”Mr. Trump’s interviewer, David Brody, who is also a longtime commentator for the Christian Broadcasting Network, appeared to sense the potential effect Mr. Trump’s comments could have on evangelical voters. He told the former president that some anti-abortion activists had taken exception to being blamed for midterm losses.“Do you want to clear that up at all?” Mr. Brody asked.Mr. Trump doubled down.“It’s sort of what I explained to you,” he said. “I just didn’t see them fighting during this last election — fighting for victory for people that were on the same side as all of us.” He added, “The only rallies were the rallies I gave.”In reality, Mr. Trump, a former Democrat who once called himself supportive of abortion rights, has often been uncomfortable discussing the issue, going back to his 2016 campaign. He privately viewed the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade as problematic for Republicans, and he rarely spoke about abortion during his 2022 campaign rallies.Mr. Vander Plaats suggested that Republicans’ failure to win control of the Senate in November was due in part to Mr. Trump’s support for candidates like Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, who did not make abortion a central focus of his candidacy.“Having an instinct to go after a very loyal base that you’re going to need in the Iowa caucuses, in the Republican primary, that’s just a bad instinct or it’s really bad advice,” Mr. Vander Plaats said, adding that “it’s time to turn the page” and put Mr. Trump’s movement behind another candidate.Mr. Trump’s political future may be complicated by multiple investigations into his conduct, both before he was a candidate in 2016 and his efforts to thwart the peaceful transfer of power after he lost in November 2020. Even if those investigations close without actions being taken against him, evangelical leaders and voters may have several other Republican options. One of them is Mr. Pence, a longtime evangelical who has visited churches in various states and has been outspoken in support of the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling. Another is Mike Pompeo, who served as secretary of state and C.I.A. director under Mr. Trump. There is also Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who a number of donors are hoping will enter the race.Marc Short, a top adviser to Mr. Pence and his former chief of staff, suggested that faith leaders recognized that the former vice president “is one of them.” He said that Mr. Trump “confuses their appreciation for what he did” in office with “their commitment to Christ and their congregations, first and foremost.”Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a conservative advocacy group, said Mr. Trump was right to be frustrated about the political response from conservatives after the Supreme Court’s decision in the abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.Democrats had a plan to attack Republicans over the ruling, Mr. Reed said, while Republicans struggled to mount a political defense.Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said that on abortion, Republicans must “have a plan, get on offense and portray the Democrats as the extremists.”Nicole Craine for The New York Times“Too many Republican candidates tried to stick their heads in the sand, ignore the Dobbs decision and talk singularly about inflation and gas prices, with predictable results,” Mr. Reed said.“Trump is correct that if the party is going to succeed in 2024 and beyond, it has to own this,” he added. “We’ve got to have a plan, get on offense and portray the Democrats as the extremists.”Pastor Jeffress said in an interview that he did not view Mr. Trump’s comments as a personal attack. The pastor of a 16,000-member church, Pastor Jeffress was one of the few political veterans who anticipated the sea change in conservative politics six years ago and was one of Mr. Trump’s early, prominent endorsers.But, even now, he is hedging his bets in his neutrality.After telling Newsweek in November that he was withholding an endorsement because “the Republican Party is headed toward a civil war that I have no desire or need to be part of,” Pastor Jeffress said on Wednesday that he had not endorsed a 2024 candidate in part because Mr. Trump had not asked.Pastor Jeffress predicted that evangelicals would eventually coalesce around Mr. Trump, who, he said, “is most likely going to be the 2024 nominee.”“I just don’t see the need for an endorsement right now — not because of any lack of enthusiasm for President Trump, but I think keeping my powder dry might be the best thing for the president,” Pastor Jeffress said. “Timing is everything, and I think it might be a little early to do that.” More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      G.O.P. in Talks With Networks About Debates, and Even CNN Is Included

      by

      Conversations between R.N.C. officials and television executives signal that the contours of the Republican nominating contest are shaping up.Despite a field of candidates who regularly bash the news media and a continuing tussle with the Commission on Presidential Debates, Republican leaders sat down last week with television executives in New York and posed a question:Do you want to host a debate?In an intriguing show of détente, the Republican National Committee has asked several major TV networks — including CNN, a regular Republican boogeyman — to consider sponsoring debates, an early sign that the party is making plans for a contested presidential primary.The debates would probably begin this summer, and Republicans are casting a wide net: Party officials are also in talks with executives from ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News, along with more-niche networks like Newsmax and NewsNation, according to several people who requested anonymity to describe discussions intended to be private. Political debates are highly prized in the TV news industry and the networks are expected to present proposals next month.“Our goal is to have incredibly successful debates that allow Republican primary voters to see, without any kind of bias, a full picture of what these candidates stand for,” David Bossie, the chairman of the party’s presidential debates committee, said in an interview.The conversations, led by Mr. Bossie and Ronna McDaniel, the R.N.C. chairwoman, have moved forward even as the Republicans’ slate of presidential contenders remains uncertain. They underscore a delicate balancing act for Republican leaders, who are reviewing media and messaging strategy after a poor showing in last year’s midterm races.Several Republican candidates in 2022 who spoke only with conservative outlets and podcasters were defeated in November — losses that raised questions about the power of partisan media to reach the swing voters who often determine the outcome of tight races.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is considered a likely presidential candidate.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesBut other leading Republicans found success in ignoring the mainstream press. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is viewed as a likely 2024 presidential contender, easily won re-election without submitting to interviews with nonpartisan outlets or local editorial pages. Former President Donald J. Trump, the only Republican who has declared his intention to run in 2024, continues to assail journalists.Gov. Ron DeSantis and His AdministrationReshaping Florida: Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has turned the swing state into a right-wing laboratory by leaning into cultural battles.2024 Speculation: Mr. DeSantis opened his second term as Florida’s governor with a speech that subtly signaled his long-rumored ambitions for the White House.Avoiding the Press: The governor easily won re-election despite little engagement with the mainstream media, but his strategy would face a big test if he pursued a presidential bid.Latino Evangelicals: The governor has courted Hispanic evangelical Christians assiduously as his national profile has risen. They could be a decisive constituency in a possible showdown with former President Donald J. Trump in 2024.In the interview, Mr. Bossie acknowledged that Republicans remained “incredibly skeptical that our presidential candidates can get a fair shake from what we consider the biased mainstream media.” But he said Republican leaders could still engage with national media outlets that conservative stars routinely criticize.“There are plenty of Republicans who consume their news just from the major networks,” Mr. Bossie said. “That’s why we have a broader outreach.”Mr. Bossie said he would “demand fair and unbiased moderators and questioners,” adding: “We are fighting for that fairness. Our goal is to have a debate without anybody even remembering who a moderator is, or if there was a moderator.”The R.N.C. is unlikely to turn to MSNBC to sponsor a primary debate, partly because the network’s left-leaning audience has little overlap with the primary electorate, according to a person with knowledge of the party’s plans. But the early talks have included NBC properties like CNBC, Telemundo and the NBC broadcast network.There is precedent for political parties bypassing specific networks. In 2019, Democratic officials refused to grant one of their primary debates to Fox News.“We cast a broad net to engage with interested and qualified organizations, though not every entity who submits a proposal will receive a debate,” Ms. McDaniel said in a statement.Aired to mass audiences by broadcast and cable networks, debates are a tradition that often produce pivotal moments in campaigns. For long-shot candidates, they can be hugely beneficial (Mr. Trump’s fiery exchange in 2015 with Megyn Kelly, a Fox News anchor at the time) or hugely destructive (Senator Elizabeth Warren’s dismantling of former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in 2020, effectively ending his presidential candidacy onstage).From left, Fox hosts Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier hosting a Republican presidential debate in 2015.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMichael R. Bloomberg, left, and Elizabeth Warren during the Democratic debate in 2020.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesNetworks typically foot the significant costs for holding a debate, including paying for the venue rental and production crew; in return, TV executives secure big ratings and big revenue. Primary debates in 2015 and 2019 broke viewership records. In the 2016 race, when both parties’ nominations were openly contested, CNN hosted more than a dozen primary debates and candidate forums; the network often made up to $2 million in profit from each event, according to a person with knowledge of internal financial figures.The electoral matchups also place news networks at the heart of the national conversation and highlight their civic role. Cable channels often choreograph days of Super Bowl-like coverage around a primary debate, complete with onscreen clocks counting down to the main event.Recently, however, debates have faced an uncertain future.The Republican Party last year formally boycotted the Commission on Presidential Debates, the nonpartisan group that has sponsored every general election debate since 1988, deeming it “biased.” The R.N.C. has not backed away from that stance. (Primary debates are organized directly between political parties and media organizations, without the participation of the independent commission.) In the 2022 midterm elections, some high-profile Republican and Democratic candidates declined to appear on a debate stage with their opponents.Even if Republican officials finalized plans for a primary debate with a mainstream network, it is not clear if candidates who attack the news media, like Mr. Trump or Mr. DeSantis, would agree to participate.In 2020, Mr. Trump pulled out of the second of three scheduled general-election debates after the commission decided to hold the debate virtually because of concerns about the coronavirus; the event was canceled.In 2016, Mr. Trump withdrew from a Fox News debate on the eve of the Iowa caucuses after the network rejected his request that Ms. Kelly be removed as a moderator. Two months later, when Mr. Trump announced he would skip another Fox News debate in Utah, the network canceled the event altogether. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Does the War Over Abortion Have a Future?

      by

      In decades past, as the calendar turned to January, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade would come into view. Abortion opponents would be planning to acknowledge the date with the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. Supporters of abortion rights would schedule seminars or meet for quiet conversations about whether and when the Supreme Court might actually go so far as to repudiate the decision it issued 50 years ago on Jan. 22, 1973.There will, of course, be no Roe to march against this year, the right to abortion having died a constitutional death in June at the hands of five Supreme Court justices. There has been ample commentary on how anger at the court for its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization helped to block the predicted “red wave” in the midterm elections. Not only did Dobbs-motivated voters enable the Democrats to hold the Senate, but they also, given the chance to express themselves directly, accounted for abortion rights victories in all six states with an abortion-related question on the ballot (California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont).But the justifiable focus on the role of abortion in the country’s politics has crowded out much talk about what this unexpected political turn actually means for the future of abortion. There is a case to be made, it seems to me, that abortion access has won the culture war.I know that might sound wildly premature, even fanciful: Abortion access has vanished across the South in the wake of the Dobbs decision, and anyone anywhere in the world remains free to pursue Texas women seeking abortions, along with anyone who helps them, for a minimum $10,000 bounty under the state’s S.B. 8 vigilante law. The picture is bleak indeed. But it’s when it appears that things couldn’t get worse that weakness can become strength.Consider that as the midterms approached, Republican candidates for whom taking an extreme anti-abortion position had been as natural as breathing started scrambling for cover, blurring their positions and scrubbing their websites, as Blake Masters did to no avail in his campaign for an Arizona seat in the U.S. Senate. (Doug Mastriano, the Republican candidate for governor of Pennsylvania, held to his extreme no-exceptions position, and that didn’t help either.)The full dimension of the post-Dobbs world will come into ever clearer view, as news accounts mount up of what happens when women whose wanted pregnancies have gone drastically wrong are denied the prompt terminations that barely seven months ago would have been the obvious treatment. People who have regarded abortion as something that befalls wayward teenagers will come to realize that abortion care is — or was — an ordinary and necessary part of medical care. And while all the justices in the Dobbs majority were raised in the Catholic church, nearly two-thirds of American Catholics believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.In suggesting that abortion has won its corner of the culture wars, I don’t mean that those wars are over in general or that the road ahead for abortion access is easy. Trans teenagers and their struggle to find a place in the world will continue to be fodder for cynical politicians. School boards taken over by conservative activists will continue to vet reading lists for any hint that the country’s past was less than perfect. Those Supreme Court justices who remain unreconciled to marriage equality will keep looking for ways to enable self-described Christians to avoid treating same-sex couples equally in the marketplace for goods and services. Texas voters just re-elected Greg Abbott as their governor, and the Texas Legislature is not about to repeal S.B. 8.What I mean is that the polarity has shifted. The anti-abortion position that was so convenient for Republican politicians for so long is, with surprising speed, coming to seem like an encumbrance. The once-comfortable family-values rhetoric no longer provides cover for the extremism that the Dobbs decision has made visible. Yes, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives this week passed two anti-abortion measures, both recognized as dead on arrival. The important point about this bit of legislative theater was the label a conservative South Carolina Republican, Representative Nancy Mace, affixed to it: “tone-deaf.” Even so, she voted for the two bills.In a recent article published by ProPublica, Richard Briggs, a Tennessee state senator and cardiac surgeon who co-sponsored the state’s exceptionally strict abortion ban in 2019, now says he had assumed the law would never actually take effect and believes it is too harsh “because the medical issues are a lot more complex.” Not incidentally, 80 percent of Tennessee voters believe that abortion should be legal at least under some circumstances.Abortion is surely not going away as an issue in politics. But it will be just that: an issue, like food safety, reliable public transit, affordable housing and adequate energy supplies. All these, and countless others, are issues in politics, too. We need these things, and if the government won’t provide them, we assume at least that the government won’t stand in the way of our getting them.Democrats played defense on abortion for so long (remember the apologetic Clinton-era mantra “safe, legal and rare”?) that defense became part of the Democratic DNA. What this posture ultimately led to was Dobbs. And now the midterm elections have made Dobbs not an end point but an opportunity, a gift, albeit an unwelcome one, in the form of a national admonition on what extremism looks like.The decision and its aftermath have freed people to acknowledge — or even shocked them into realizing for the first time — that a civilized country requires access to abortion. It is possible, and I’ll even be bold enough to say that it is probable, that in Roe v. Wade’s constitutional death lies the political resurrection of the right to abortion.Linda Greenhouse, the recipient of a 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The Times from 1978 to 2008 and was a contributing Opinion writer from 2009 to 2021.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Solomon Peña Cheered Trump on Jan. 6. Now He’s Accused of Targeting Democrats.

      by

      Solomon Peña, who lost his bid to become a New Mexico lawmaker, faces charges in a series of shootings. “He had a belief process that he was cheated,” the Albuquerque police chief said.ALBUQUERQUE — A former Republican candidate accused of orchestrating attacks on the homes of Democratic rivals cited the need to threaten “civil war” to achieve political change, according to police investigators, who said that a bullet fired in the attacks passed close enough to a sleeping girl to leave her face spattered with dust.The series of shootings in the wake of the November elections followed other episodes of politically motivated violence across the country in recent months — including an attack on the husband of Speaker Nancy Pelosi — and rattled the political establishment in New Mexico, where Democrats hold both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s office.After seeking a state legislative seat, Solomon Peña, 39, a supporter of Donald J. Trump who attended the pro-Trump rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, refused to concede, despite losing by 48 percentage points to an incumbent in a district that has long voted for Democrats. He was arrested on Monday in connection with the shootings at the homes of four Democratic officials.“He had a belief process that he was cheated,” Chief Harold Medina of the Albuquerque Police Department said in an interview on Tuesday. The police filed a rash of charges against Mr. Peña, including criminal solicitation, attempted aggravated battery, shooting at an occupied dwelling, shooting from a moving vehicle and conspiracy.Mr. Peña, who previously served time in prison for burglary and other crimes, took part in at least one of the attacks himself, according to the criminal complaint in the case, trying to fire an AR-15 rifle at the home of Linda Lopez, a state senator.“To me, it’s very concerning, what his actions were, and the impact they could have on our democracy,” Chief Medina said. “He was trying to intimidate some of our elected officials.”A voter cast a ballot in Albuquerque in November. Mr. Peña refused to concede his race despite losing by 48 percentage points.Adria Malcolm for The New York TimesMr. Peña, who was still being held on Tuesday, could not be reached for comment, and it was unclear whether a lawyer was representing him in the case.It was uncertain how he came to be the only Republican candidate in the race for a state legislative seat representing part of Albuquerque. But when Democrats sought unsuccessfully to disqualify him from running, citing his criminal record, the spokesman for the state House Republican leadership came to Mr. Peña’s defense, insisting he should be allowed to run.He received 26 percent of the vote, against 74 percent for his opponent, election results showed.In a statement, the Republican Party of New Mexico said “these recent accusations against Solomon Peña are serious, and he should be held accountable if the charges are validated in court. We are thankful that nobody was injured by his actions. If Peña is found guilty, he must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”Understand the Events on Jan. 6Timeline: On Jan. 6, 2021, 64 days after Election Day 2020, a mob of supporters of President Donald J. Trump raided the Capitol. Here is a close look at how the attack unfolded.A Day of Rage: Using thousands of videos and police radio communications, a Times investigation reconstructed in detail what happened — and why.Lost Lives: A bipartisan Senate report found that at least seven people died in connection with the attack.Jan. 6 Attendees: To many of those who attended the Trump rally but never breached the Capitol, that date wasn’t a dark day for the nation. It was a new start.Mr. Peña’s arrest comes as concerns over political violence have grown after several high-profile incidents, including the attack on Paul Pelosi, a conspiracy to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and stalking charges filed against an armed man at the Seattle home of Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington.Though there have been some notable attacks and threats of violence from people on the left, scholars who study political violence say that most violent episodes with a political bent in recent years have been committed by right-wing extremists or people with conservative-leaning views.Mr. Peña was in the crowd listening to Mr. Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, 2021, according to videos collected by online sleuths, before Trump supporters attacked the Capitol in a bid to keep the president in power. There is no evidence, however, that Mr. Peña passed into a restricted area on the Capitol grounds or entered the building with the mob that day.Mr. Peña served nearly seven years in prison in New Mexico on charges including burglary and larceny, and then obtained an undergraduate degree in political science from the University of New Mexico after being released from prison in 2016.In July 2010, according to a lawsuit later filed by Mr. Peña, he was working in the cafeteria of the Lea County Correctional Facility when another inmate threw butter at him, and then head-butted him. Mr. Peña responded by gouging the attacker’s eyes before guards separated them.In his lawsuit, Mr. Peña claimed that several prison officials had violated his constitutional rights because he was fired from his kitchen job after the fight. In self-filed, handwritten court papers, he complained that “prison authorities want the prisoners to be stupid, uneducated and uninformed (and drug-addicted) so they can do whatever they want to the prisoners.”A judge dismissed Mr. Peña’s claims.The shootings that appeared to target Democratic officials began on Dec. 4, when someone fired eight rounds at the home of Adriann Barboa, a Bernalillo County commissioner, according to the Albuquerque police. On Dec. 8, shots were fired at the home of State Representative Javier Martinez. Three days later, on Dec. 11, a shooting targeted the home of another Bernalillo County commissioner, Debbie O’Malley. Then came the shooting at Ms. Lopez’s house in early January.State Senator Linda Lopez showed where bullets hit the garage door of her house in Albuquerque.Adolphe Pierre-Louis/The Albuquerque Journal, via Associated PressMs. Lopez’s 10-year-old daughter told her mother after the shooting that she believed “a spider woke her up by crawling on her face,” the complaint against Mr. Peña said. But the next morning, Ms. Lopez found bullet holes in her home. “As it turned out, sheetrock dust was blown onto Linda’s daughter’s face and bed” from a bullet passing through her bedroom above her head, the complaint said.Investigators said in a statement after Mr. Peña was arrested on Monday that they had tied him to the men accused of carrying out the shootings through text messages he sent them “with addresses where he wanted them to shoot at the homes,” as well as cash he had paid them.In a text message that Mr. Peña sent to one of the accused gunmen in November, according to the criminal complaint, he highlighted a cryptic passage from a book that was unknown to investigators: “It was only the additional incentive of a threat of civil war that empowered a president to complete the reformist project.”That quote appears in the book “Stuffing the Ballot Box,” a 2002 academic study about fraud and electoral reform in Costa Rica.The belief that civil war is unavoidable in the United States or should be fought to protect conservative values has been a frequent rallying cry on the right in recent months, if not for years.Ms. Barboa, the county commissioner whose home was targeted in the first attack, said in an interview that Mr. Peña had come to her home after the election to argue that it had been fraudulent. “He was aggressive and seemed to be acting erratic,” she recalled. “He claimed there was no way he could have lost, even though he lost in a landslide.”Ms. Barboa said that Mr. Peña seemed to have visited her home, as well as that of Ms. O’Malley, who was also targeted in the shootings, because the Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners certifies election results. The visit to Ms. Barboa’s home took place before the commission certified the results, she said. (Mr. Peña ran against another Democrat, Miguel Garcia, who does not appear to have been the subject of an attack.)Video surveillance from Ms. O’Malley’s home later showed Mr. Peña driving by in a black 2022 Audi — the same car that a witness saw speeding away from the area around Ms. O’Malley’s home when it was targeted on Dec. 11, the criminal complaint said.According to a confidential witness cited by the police in the complaint, Mr. Peña was not pleased that the first shooting attacks against Democratic officials were carried out late at night, when the politicians and their families might have already been sleeping, and that the shots were fired high up on the walls of some homes.“Solomon wanted the shootings to be more aggressive,” the witness told investigators, according to the complaint. In the last attack, on the home of Ms. Lopez on Jan. 3, the witness said that Mr. Peña and two gunmen he hired got into a stolen red truck and drove there.Mr. Peña was armed with an AR-15, but the gun seems to have jammed and did not fire correctly, according to the complaint. But other shots fired from the vehicle struck Ms. Lopez’s home, including the room where her daughter was sleeping.Shortly after the attack, police officers arrested Jose Trujillo, 21, at a traffic stop and found that shell casings at Ms. Lopez’s home matched a handgun confiscated from Mr. Trujillo, according to investigators. Officers detained Mr. Trujillo on an unrelated felony warrant and found that he was driving a car owned by Mr. Peña, the police said, adding that they also found a large amount of cash, more than 800 pills believed to be fentanyl and numerous firearms in the car.Chief Medina said Mr. Peña could face more charges as the police continued their investigation. “We continue to peel off layers, like an onion,” he said.Kirsten Noyes More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Ex-Candidate Arrested in Shootings Targeting New Mexico Democrats

      by

      The authorities in Albuquerque said Solomon Peña, who lost his bid for a State House seat in November, was behind a series of recent shootings targeting Democratic elected officials.The authorities in Albuquerque said on Monday that a former Republican candidate who lost his bid for a State House seat in November had been arrested in connection with a series of recent shootings at the homes and offices of a half-dozen Democratic elected officials.Chief Harold Medina of the Albuquerque Police Department said at a news conference that the former candidate, Solomon Peña, was “the mastermind” behind a conspiracy in which four other men were paid to shoot at the homes of two county commissioners and two state legislators.Mr. Peña lost the election in a landslide to an incumbent Democrat, Miguel Garcia, but refused to concede after making unfounded claims of election fraud.Chief Medina said a gun that was found during the arrest of another suspect in the shootings last week was later linked to Mr. Peña.No one was injured in the shootings at three residences, a workplace and a campaign office in Albuquerque. Three of the shootings took place in December and two this month, most recently on Jan. 5.After losing the election, Mr. Peña “reached out and contracted someone for an amount of cash money to commit at least two of the shootings,” Kyle Hartsock, deputy commander of the Police Department’s homicide unit, said at the news conference. Mr. Hartsock said there was evidence that Mr. Peña pulled the trigger at a shooting on Jan. 3.This is a developing story. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Will It Be Morning in Joe Biden’s America?

      by

      If the midterm elections could be rerun this month, Democrats would probably end up in full control of Congress. President Biden’s approval ratings are rising. Inflation is down, and consumers are feeling more optimistic. And Americans are getting a better look at the G.O.P.’s actual policy agenda, which is deeply unpopular.OK, we don’t give politicians who lost an election the opportunity for a mulligan, even when they falsely claim that the election was stolen. But it is, I think, worth noting just how much the economic and hence political environment has shifted in the past few months, and to start thinking seriously about the possibility that Democrats might be in a startlingly strong position next year.It’s hard to overstate how bad things looked for Biden’s party on election eve. The last report on consumer prices released before the midterms showed inflation of 8.2 percent over the previous year, a terrible number by anyone’s reckoning. The unemployment rate was still very low by historical standards, but the news media was full of warnings about hard times ahead, and a large majority of likely voters believed (falsely) that we were in a recession.Given the perceived grimness of the economic environment, Republicans and many political analysts confidently expected a huge electoral red wave.Why didn’t that happen? Part of the answer may be that Americans weren’t feeling as bad about the economy as some surveys suggested. It’s true that the venerable University of Michigan index of consumer sentiment had fallen to levels last seen in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, during the worst slump since the Great Depression.But the Michigan index was probably distorted by partisanship: Did Republicans really believe, as they claimed, that the economy was worse than it had been in June 1980? (Back then the economy actually was in a recession, inflation was 14 percent, and unemployment was above 7 percent.)And another longstanding index of consumer confidence, from the Conference Board, was telling a quite different story, with consumers feeling pretty good about the economy. I’m not sure why these measures were so different, but the Conference Board measure seemed to do a better job of predicting the vote — although the backlash over Roe v. Wade, and against some terrible Republican candidates, surely also played a role.In any case, in mid-January — a bit over two months after the election, but three consumer price reports later — things look very different. There’s still no recession. Consumer prices actually fell in December; more to the point, they’ve risen at an annual rate of only 2 percent over the past six months.And while consumer expectations haven’t caught up with financial markets, which appear to believe that inflation will stay low for the foreseeable future, consumer expectations of inflation are back down to their levels of a year and a half ago.Which raises a question few would have asked even a few months ago: Is Joe Biden — who, for the record, had a much better midterm than Ronald Reagan did in 1982 — possibly headed for a “morning in America” moment?A few months ago I looked at the “misery index” — the sum of unemployment and inflation, originally suggested by Arthur Okun as a quick-and-dirty summary of the state of the economy. I used to think this index was silly; there are multiple reasons it shouldn’t make sense. But it has historically done a surprisingly good job of tracking consumer sentiment. And as I noted even then, the misery index seemed to be declining.Well, now it has fallen off a cliff. If we use the inflation rate over the past six months, the misery index, which stood at 14 as recently as June, is now down to 5.4, or about what it was on the eve of the pandemic, when Donald Trump confidently expected a strong economy to guarantee his re-election.Nor is that the only thing Democrats have going for them. The green energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act are leading to multiple new investments in domestic manufacturing; it’s unclear how many jobs will be created, but the next two years will give Biden many opportunities to preside over factory openings, giving speeches about how America is, um, becoming great again.Now, I’m not predicting a Democratic blowout in 2024. For one thing, many things can happen over the next 22 months, although I don’t think Republicans, even with cooperation from too many in the media, will convince Americans that the Biden administration is riddled with corruption. For another, elections often turn not so much on how good things are as on the perceived rate of improvement, and with inflation and unemployment already low, it’s not clear how much room there is for a boom.Also, extreme political polarization has probably made landslide elections a thing of the past. Republicans could probably nominate George Santos and still get 47 percent of the vote.But to the extent that the economic landscape shapes the political landscape, things look far better for Democrats now than almost anyone imagined until very recently.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Is Poetry Dead? Listen to the Poets.

      by

      More from our inbox:‘All Polls Are Not Created Equal’The Myth of the American Dream Brea Souders for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Poetry Died 100 Years Ago This Month,” by Matthew Walther (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Dec. 29):Just because poetry is not a popular art form in North America doesn’t mean it’s dead. If Mr. Walther would look closer, he’d see it thriving in local scenes.Poetry is free to change into something Mr. Walther doesn’t recognize as good, but it is not free to die. A poem is a process set in motion by a compulsion to sing in the teeth of death.As the world changes, poets change forms and Mr. Walther has a right to feel shortchanged, but his neglect for everything fabulous that’s happened since T.S. Eliot “finished poetry off” is puzzling.For instance, he ignores the influence of Whitman and Surrealism on the Beats and the impact of French poets like Apollinaire on the quotidian rhythms of New York poets in the postwar American boom, bypassing it all to insist that everyone after Eliot was cursed to rewrite “The Waste Land.” No vision so negative can win.In fact, as a teacher and a poet whose work has been published in this newspaper, I’ve found that our art form’s thrilling and nearly secret history of struggle and triumph is one that most laypeople want to learn about. And I would guess that many young poets, M.F.A.’s or not, are captured by the thrill of becoming part of the story.America today is poetry-curious, and it would be wonderful to see more articles in The Times talking about poetry culture with love and humor.Julien PoirierBerkeley, Calif.To the Editor:Matthew Walther’s lament that poetry is dead because poets are no longer in touch with mysterious forces of the natural world raises once again questions that never fail to excite me: What is a poem? Is there a “right” poem and a “wrong” poem? Not really. Is there an aesthetically “good” poem and a “not so good” poem? Yes, but how different readers arrive at their assessments is as variable as the wind.Mr. Walther implies that we are separate from “nature” and that perhaps poetry could be revived if we returned to a pre-technological sensibility. But what is “nature,” exactly, and where is “nature”? Outside the city, in mountains or sea?What if “nature” is inside every one of us? Aren’t we as much “nature” as the bird and the tree? Our “nature” as a source of poetry is inexhaustible.Barbara BlatnerNew YorkThe writer is a playwright, poet and composer.To the Editor:As one of the judges of the 2022 National Book Critics Circle Awards in poetry, I can assure Matthew Walther that his concerns about the demise of the form are premature.Having read several hundred volumes of poetry written in 2022, I can also reassure him that the vast majority of poems include no references to “an empty plastic bottle” or “an iPhone with a cracked screen.”Rather, they are wondrous and inventive, blazing and desperate, vibrant with the same joys and agonies and mystic awe that have kept poetry alive since the origins of human language. Fortunately, neither “The Waste Land” nor any critic can kill these voices or silence their rhythms.Jacob M. AppelNew YorkThe writer is vice president and treasurer at the National Book Critics Circle.To the Editor:Poetry is dead? No way. I’m a trauma surgeon. I know what’s dead when I see it.A year or two ago, I stood with my team in the emergency room awaiting the arrival of a severely injured patient. Our chaplain was there, as usual, and we chatted about an essay that I’d read on the Poetry Foundation website about chaplaincy and poetry. She’d already heard about it from another hospital chaplain.Our nurse leader chimed in. “I love that site,” he said. “I get their poem of the day.”Then the injured person showed up. We stopped chatting and went to work, inspired by our unexpected connection in poetry, which is definitely not dead.Elizabeth DreesenChapel Hill, N.C.‘All Polls Are Not Created Equal’Skewed red-wave surveys fed home-team boosterism among right-wing news outlets and benefited from cheerleading by former President Donald J. Trump.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Skewed Polling Washed Away ‘Red Tsunami’” (front page, Dec. 31):I agree that partisan polls erroneously created the expectation of a red wave/tsunami for the midterm elections. But that’s only half the story. Why did poll aggregators and election analysts embrace these knowingly partisan polls? Yes, costs for independent, nonpartisan polls have skyrocketed.In response to this challenge, organizations like the Marist Poll and others systematically revised methods to address the mounting difficulties of reaching voters and rising costs without sacrificing accuracy.The Marist Poll’s final round of surveys included a national poll and battleground state polls in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia. There wasn’t a trace of a red wave/tsunami to be found in any of the poll results.What can be learned about poll coverage from this election cycle? Consider the source of the information. That may be the cornerstone of journalism, but it doesn’t drive poll coverage. Partisan-based polls should be treated as if you were hit over the head with a frying pan.In addition, more is not necessarily better. Relying upon the influx of partisan polls will likely only send you in the wrong direction. Making statistical adjustments for a polling organization’s partisanship, as some forecasters do, is not an elixir.Independent, nonpartisan, transparent polls conducted by an organization with a time-tested record must rule the day, particularly in our current partisan charged environment. All polls are not created equal, and it is a mistake to treat them as such.Lee M. MiringoffPoughkeepsie, N.Y.The writer is director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion.The Myth of the American Dream Masha FoyaTo the Editor:Re “What Lies at the Heart of the American Dream” (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 8):Costica Bradatan misses a wider reality about the so-called American dream. He speaks of the “fear of failure” that, he believes, is at its core. But for that fear to be operative there needs to be the opportunity to fail.So, to better understand the American dream, I suggest that Mr. Bradatan travel to cities and towns and rural communities throughout this country. Perhaps then he’ll understand that this dream is only a myth. For countless people, trapped in low-wage work and cycles of poverty, it’s just too dangerous to even think of dreaming. They can’t worry about failing when there’s no opportunity to even fail.Indeed, if we look beyond the surface, the rhetoric surrounding this American myth is just a convenient way to maintain the status quo. It rests on the false foundation that everyone can lift themselves up by their bootstraps — and risk failure. That if you’re poor and struggling, it’s a failure to take personal responsibility.In the end, the American dream ignores the structural, systemic issues that keep this dream beyond so many people’s reach. The dream is just some rhetorical phrase often used to ignore the deep chasm of inequality here in America.Arnold S. CohenNew YorkThe writer is an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School and former president of the Partnership for the Homeless. More