Political Advertising

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      He Calls the Shots for New York’s Governor. He Lives in Colorado.

      by

      Adam Sullivan holds deep influence over Gov. Kathy Hochul, her administration and campaign team, even as skepticism mounts over his judgment and distance from New York.With the Democratic nomination all but assured last spring, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York and her campaign team began to plot a pre-emptive television ad to protect against Republican attacks already bubbling up around rising crime.Ad makers cut a 30-second spot, highlighting Ms. Hochul’s plan to secure city streets and subway trains. She told her campaign manager she was eager to see it on air, and she previewed it for donors at a private Park Avenue screening.But the ad never ran. After rounds of debate, one voice rose above the others. “Let’s focus on abortion,” Adam C. Sullivan wrote in a note to senior strategists reviewed by The New York Times. Crime could wait.A year later, the decision has come to be seen by many in Ms. Hochul’s orbit as a damaging miscalculation that helped her Republican challenger come dangerously close to upsetting her, and contributed to Democrats losing the House majority. It is also a testament to the unseen influence of Mr. Sullivan, an obscure operative who has leveraged a close bond with Ms. Hochul to become perhaps the most powerful political force in New York who almost no one knows.Mr. Sullivan, 42, has no formal job title or social media presence. He operates a small consulting firm from his home in a Colorado mining town, delivering strategy directives on issues like public safety far from the streets of New York City, where crime has unsettled some residents. And his generous compensation — estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars — is mostly hidden from campaign records.Yet 18 months into Ms. Hochul’s tenure, Mr. Sullivan’s fingerprints can be found all over New York, according to more than two dozen people who have worked with him closely.Adam Sullivan, far left, largely remains in the background as the hidden force behind many of Governor Hochul’s stances and political strategy.He helped Ms. Hochul build her administration, advising her on early key hires; shaped two multibillion-dollar state budgets; and ran a 2022 election campaign that was criticized by Democrats for its lack of energy. Most recently, he helped the governor navigate the failed effort to muscle Justice Hector D. LaSalle onto the state’s highest court.Now, as the de facto head of Ms. Hochul’s political operation, Mr. Sullivan has been deputized to revive New York’s embattled state Democratic Party. And the outcome could have significant implications for Democrats’ chances to retake the House.Even by the Zoom era’s standards, the breadth of Mr. Sullivan’s influence from afar is unusual, puzzling much of New York’s clubby political establishment and exasperating many on Ms. Hochul’s own team.Most governors have a trusted, all-around enforcer who carefully guards their political standing. Ms. Hochul met hers in 2011, when Mr. Sullivan helped her win a special House election no one else thought she could. But rarely do people in his position phone in from 1,700 miles away or command so few relationships with key stakeholders.“Managing New York politics from Colorado is like managing the war in Ukraine from New York,” Charlie King, a veteran Democratic strategist, said. “You can be a very good tactician, but things on the ground move incredibly fast and you may just not be close enough to the action.”Many of those who work directly for Ms. Hochul’s political team and administration have taken an even harsher view. The Times spoke to more than 15 people at all levels who said Mr. Sullivan is known as a divisive presence. They related anecdotes of him disparaging subordinates, especially younger women; marginalizing those who disagreed with him; telling younger workers that the governor did not know their names; and frequently shifting blame when things have gone wrong.The aides and advisers insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation. But they said Mr. Sullivan had contributed to Ms. Hochul’s diminished political standing while escaping public scrutiny.In a written statement, Mr. Sullivan did not directly dispute those characterizations, but noted the intensity of the campaign. “I have always tried to treat everyone with respect and regret that there are people who feel I did not meet that bar,” he said.Julie Wood, a spokeswoman for the governor, did not address the workplace concerns in her own statement about Mr. Sullivan, saying that Ms. Hochul “values his ideas and guidance.”“Ultimately what drives her decision-making is what’s best for New Yorkers,” Ms. Wood said.Ms. Hochul has used Mr. Sullivan to advise her on the most recent state budget, which lapsed on April 1, and in current talks over the stalled 2024 budget.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesThere are also questions about how and by whom Mr. Sullivan, who is not a state employee, is being paid.Since 2021, the governor’s campaign has paid roughly $50,000 directly to a limited liability company that Mr. Sullivan controls, “ACS Campaign Consulting.” But he earned far more through a secretive arrangement that rewarded him with a cut of the campaign’s ad spending, according to four people with direct knowledge of the matter. Assuming the arrangement was in line with industry standards, he would have netted at least $500,000 — a figure he did not dispute.The Times could only identify one other current client of Mr. Sullivan’s, the Reform Alliance, a nonprofit founded by the rappers Meek Mill and Jay-Z and others to change probation and parole laws. Mr. Sullivan would not identify other clients, but he said that none had business before New York State. He added that he had “never been paid to lobby or influence the governor.”The governor has leaned on other outsiders for help: The state paid nearly $2 million to Deloitte and Boston Consulting to help her with State of the State messages. Others with Ms. Hochul’s ear include Karen Persichilli Keogh, her top government aide; Jefrey Pollock, her longtime pollster; and Daniel French, who was until recently Syracuse University’s general counsel.While those advisers are mostly known in political circles, even basic biographical information about Mr. Sullivan is difficult to find. Ms. Hochul has mentioned him prominently only once, from the stage after her victory in November. And he seems to be his consulting firm’s lone employee, working mostly out of his home in Leadville, Colo., where he is an avid skier, except for occasional trips to New York.Of two dozen lawmakers, union leaders and campaign strategists contacted by The Times, only a few could correctly identify him.“I’ve never met him, I’ve just heard bad things about him — sorry,” Liz Krueger, an influential Democratic state senator from Manhattan, said.Mr. Sullivan’s proponents describe him as a talented tactician who steered Ms. Hochul through the aftershocks of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s resignation and helped her win a full term in office, even if it was bumpy.“Maybe he’s not the New York backslapper who knows everybody, but Adam has an unquestionable record of success,” Jess Fassler, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s longtime chief of staff, said.Ms. Hochul first hired Mr. Sullivan in 2011 as her campaign manager when she scored an upset victory in a special election for a House seat.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesMr. Sullivan began his career as a political operative in 2000, and ran his first New York race in 2008, the same year he helped Ms. Gillibrand win re-election to the House.He was fresh off a stint with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in early 2011 when Ms. Hochul, then the Erie County clerk, decided to run in a special House election in western New York. She hired Mr. Sullivan as campaign manager because of his experience running special elections and his conviction, shared by few, that she could win. Despite long odds, she did.It was a boon for Mr. Sullivan. He managed a Senate race in New Mexico in 2012 and was Senator Mary Landrieu’s campaign manager in her failed re-election bid in Louisiana in 2014, until he was abruptly fired just weeks before Election Day.Ms. Landrieu said in an interview she had replaced Mr. Sullivan because she was losing and wanted a more familiar team. Afterward, Mr. Sullivan’s political work dried up, and Ms. Hochul appears to have been his only major political client since 2015.Things began to shift in summer 2021, as it became clear that sexual harassment claims would force Mr. Cuomo from office. With only a small circle around her, Ms. Hochul leaned on Mr. Sullivan, whose wedding she attended in 2018, to help build an administration, including choosing Brian A. Benjamin as lieutenant governor. (Mr. Benjamin later resigned amid federal corruption charges.)Mr. Sullivan played an even more active role in the campaign, involving himself in media strategy, Ms. Hochul’s day-to-day schedule and larger decisions like how to allocate millions of dollars on ad campaigns, including the one he intervened in last May.In that case, the campaign produced and tested the ad, “Safe,” to highlight public safety changes approved in the state budget. Ms. Hochul and other advisers pushed to air it across New York. In the communications viewed by The Times, Ms. Hochul’s campaign manager, Brian Lenzmeier, wrote that she “believes strongly that we need to get a crime ad into the mix and not be solely focused on abortion.” (Mr. Lenzmeier declined to comment.)But Mr. Sullivan often insisted that crime was a losing issue for Ms. Hochul. He believed the campaign’s resources would be better spent motivating Democrats to turn out on the issue of abortion rights, so he pushed to limit public safety messaging in areas like Long Island or to issues like gun laws. In the end, the campaign did not meaningfully challenge Republicans on crime statewide until October, after they had already whipped up a frenzy.Ms. Hochul survived by just six percentage points in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and some party leaders believe her approach on crime helped Republicans win congressional seats. Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker, told The Times’s Maureen Dowd that Ms. Hochul needed to deal with crime “early on, not 10 days before the election.”Mr. Sullivan’s allies said he stood by the campaign’s commitment to prioritizing attacks on Ms. Hochul’s Republican opponent on abortion. Mr. Sullivan declined to comment on campaign strategy.Since then, he has also resisted any quick course correction at the state Democratic Party. He and Ms. Hochul have stood by its chairman, Jay Jacobs, who has become a punching bag for Democrats, especially on the left.Mr. Sullivan’s allies say he and Ms. Hochul want to strengthen the party, but they could only describe vague plans. In the meantime, national Democrats do not appear to be waiting, announcing their own $45 million New York political machine.“Adam is the first person to pick up the phone and call me and be supportive,” Mr. Jacobs said in an interview. “I don’t think he has any agenda other than the governor being successful.”Susan C. Beachy More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and DeSantis Super PACs Duel in TV Ads

      by

      As the Republican primary field takes shape, the groups supporting the top two hopefuls are already spending millions.The super PACs supporting the top two Republican presidential hopefuls have opened a wave of TV attack ads, part of a multimillion-dollar attempt to control the political narrative in the early days of an increasingly likely primary matchup.The two groups — MAGA Inc., which is backing former President Donald J. Trump, and Never Back Down, supporting Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida — have already spent over $7.5 million combined.MAGA Inc. has spent exclusively on cable networks, while Never Back Down has targeted states that have traditionally held the party’s earliest presidential nominating contests, according to spokesmen for the two super PACs and data from AdImpact, an ad-tracking firm.The groups’ opposing methods reflect the politicians’ disparate standings in the party. Mr. Trump, a businessman-turned-TV star who has led two national political campaigns and announced his third last year, is universally recognized inside the party and seeking to leverage that advantage with a broad attack against Mr. DeSantis.Mr. DeSantis, who has all but declared his 2024 candidacy and who remains a distant second to Mr. Trump in most public opinion polls, is still introducing himself to voters. A poll by the Republican research firm Cygnal in Iowa this month showed 18 percent of respondents said they had either never heard of Mr. DeSantis or didn’t know much about him.If he opens a presidential campaign in the coming months, as expected, his chance of defeating Mr. Trump will depend largely on his performance in the early primary states.Mr. DeSantis should have the resources to make up ground. Never Back Down has said it has already raised $30 million, part of a $110 million war chest available to his allies.MAGA Inc. reported $54.1 million on hand at the end of 2022. The group has been criticizing Mr. DeSantis in ads for more than a month. The first spot targets Mr. DeSantis’s support for cutting Social Security and increasing the retirement age for Medicare benefits while he was a member of Congress. “The more you learn about DeSantis, the more you see he doesn’t share our values,” the narrator says in the ad.The most recent spot attacks him over his supposed eating habits and his policy positions. It has aired on CNN, Fox and Newsmax.The ad accuses Mr. DeSantis of sticking his “dirty fingers” into senior entitlement programs, referring to his support for changes to Medicare and Social Security when he was a member of Congress. The spot also mocks Mr. DeSantis, a fast-food and snack enthusiast, for supposedly once eating pudding with three fingers instead of waiting for a spoon. (Mr. DeSantis has denied this.)“Ron DeSantis loves sticking his fingers where they don’t belong, and we’re not just talking about pudding,” a narrator says as an anonymous man in a suit sloppily eats pudding with his hands. “DeSantis has his dirty fingers all over senior entitlements like cutting Medicare, slashing Social Security, even raising the retirement age.”The super PAC supporting Mr. DeSantis, Never Back Down, returned fire this weekend with a spot aiming at Mr. Trump. Its ads are focused on Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, all likely to hold early primaries.The pro-DeSantis ad opens by reminding viewers of Mr. Trump’s legal troubles. The former president was arrested on April 4 and charged with 34 felonies as part of an investigation into hush-money payments to a porn actress during the 2016 presidential campaign.The spot, titled “Fight Democrats, Not Republicans,” argues that Mr. Trump should be focused on those legal fights instead of attacking a fellow Republican and asks, “What happened to Donald Trump?”“Donald Trump has been attacked by a Democrat prosecutor in New York. So why is he spending millions attacking the Republican governor of Florida?” the narrator asks. “Trump’s stealing pages from the Biden-Pelosi playbook, repeating lies about Social Security.” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Don’t Be Fooled. Ron DeSantis Is a Bush-Cheney Republican.

      by

      One of the strangest ads of the 2022 election cycle was an homage to “Top Gun,” featuring Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida. In it, DeSantis is the “Top Gov,” setting his sights on his political enemies: “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is your governor speaking. Today’s training evolution: dogfighting, taking on the corporate media.”The ad concludes with DeSantis in the cockpit of a fighter aircraft, rallying viewers to take on the media’s “false narratives.”The imagery plays on the governor’s résumé. He was never a pilot, of course, but he was in the Navy, where he was a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps of military lawyers from 2004 to 2010. DeSantis served in Iraq and at the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay and made his military career a centerpiece of his 2018 campaign for governor. “Service is in my DNA,” he wrote at the time. “My desire to serve my country has been my goal and my calling.”In recent weeks, we have learned a little more about what that service actually entailed, details that weren’t more widely known at the time of his 2018 race.As a lawyer at Guantánamo Bay, according to a report by Michael Kranish in The Washington Post, DeSantis endorsed the force-feeding of detainees.“Detainees were strapped into a chair, and a lubricated tube was stuffed down their nose so a nurse could pour down two cans of a protein drink,” Kranish wrote. “The detainees’ lawyers tried and failed to stop the painful practice, arguing that it violated international torture conventions.”The reason to highlight these details of DeSantis’s service at Guantánamo is that it helps place the Florida governor in his proper political context. The standard view of DeSantis is that he comes out of Donald Trump’s populist Republican Party, a view the governor has been keen to cultivate as he vies for leadership within the party. And to that end, DeSantis has made himself into the presumptive heir apparent to Trump in look, language and attitude.But what if we centered DeSantis in Guantánamo, Iraq and the war on terrorism rather than the fever house of the MAGA Republican Party, a place that may not be a natural fit for the Yale- and Harvard-educated lawyer? What if we treated DeSantis not as a creature of the Trump years but as a product of the Bush ones? How, then, would we understand his position in the Republican Party?For a moment in American politics — before Hurricane Katrina, the grinding occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the financial crisis that nearly toppled the global economy — George W. Bush represented the clear future of the Republican Party.And what was Bush Republicanism? It promised, despite the circumstances of his election in 2000, to build a new, permanent Republican majority that would relegate the Democratic Party to the margins of national politics. It was ideologically conservative on most questions of political economy but willing to bend in order to win points with key constituencies, as when Bush backed a large prescription drug program under Medicare.Bush’s Republicanism was breathtakingly arrogant — “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality,” one unnamed aide famously told The New York Times Magazine in 2004 — contemptuous of expertise and hostile to dissent, as when the president condemned the Democratic-controlled Senate of 2002 as “not interested in the security of the American people.”Bush’s Republicanism was also cruel, as exemplified in the 2004 presidential election, when he ran, successfully, against the marriage rights of gay and lesbian Americans, framing them as a threat to the integrity of society itself. “Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society,” he said, endorsing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.Perhaps the most distinctive quality of Bush’s Republicanism — or rather, Bush’s Republican Party — was that it was still an elite-driven institution. He ran a Brooks Brothers administration, whose militarism, jingoism and cruelty were expressed through bureaucratic niceties and faux technical language, like “enhanced interrogation.”To me, DeSantis looks like a Bush Republican as much as or more than he does a Trump one. He shares the majoritarian aspirations of Bush, as well as the open contempt for dissent. DeSantis shares the cruelty, with a national political image built, among other things, on a campaign of stigma against trans and other gender-nonconforming Americans.Despite his pretenses to the contrary, DeSantis is very much the image of a member of the Republican establishment. That’s one reason he has the almost lock-step support of the organs of that particular elite, for whom he represents a return to normalcy after the chaos and defeat of the Trump years.It is not for nothing that in the fight for the 2024 Republican nomination, DeSantis leads Trump among Republicans with a college degree — the white-collar conservative voters who were Bush stalwarts and Trump skeptics.The upshot of all of this — and the reason to make this classification in the first place — is that it is simply wrong to attribute the pathologies of today’s Republican Party to the influence of Trump alone. If DeSantis marks the return of the Bush Republican, then he is a stark reminder that the Republican Party of that era was as destructive and dysfunctional as the one forged by Trump.You could even say that if DeSantis is the much-desired return to “normal” Republicans, then Republican normalcy is not much different from Republican deviancy.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

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      In Wisconsin, Liberals Barrage Conservative Supreme Court Candidate With Attack Ads

      by

      Daniel Kelly, the conservative candidate for a swing seat on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, promised that help was on the way. But his campaign has already been outspent on TV by $9.1 million to nothing.As conservatives in Wisconsin seek to maintain control of the State Supreme Court in an all-important election for a crucial swing seat, they would appear to be fighting uphill.The conservative candidate, Daniel Kelly, is trailing in limited private polling of the race. Abortion rights, which powered Democrats in the midterm elections, are driving the party to shovel enormous sums of money into the campaign. And perhaps most significantly, Justice Kelly’s campaign has been outspent by a staggering margin on television since the Feb. 21 primary: $9.1 million to nothing.But Justice Kelly, who sat on the court before losing re-election in 2020, appears unfazed. He told supporters on Sunday in northwest Wisconsin that help was on the way from unidentified outside groups in his race against Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee County judge opposing him in the April 4 election.“Because there are nationwide organizations that care about the rule of law, about the constitutional order, and they are spending to promote our campaign, you should start seeing the effects of them this coming week,” Justice Kelly told a gathering of the Northland Freedom Alliance in Webster, Wis. “Right now, it’s kind of wall-to-wall Janet. And I object to that. There, I’m told the cavalry is on the way. And so hopefully, they’ll have some good and smart and true ads.”Wisconsin is at the midway point of a six-week general election for a seat that will determine the balance of the State Supreme Court. Victory by Justice Kelly would preserve conservatives’ sway over the court, which they have controlled since 2008, while success by Judge Protasiewicz would give Wisconsin liberals an opportunity to legalize abortion rights and invalidate the state’s Republican-drawn gerrymandered legislative maps, as well as roll back other measures put in place by the court and G.O.P. lawmakers.The New York Times obtained a recording of Justice Kelly’s remarks, in which he addressed an array of issues likely to be decided in the high-stakes race and estimated that his campaign would raise $2 million to $2.5 million. He also again sought to draw a contrast with Judge Protasiewicz, who has been remarkably open about her political views, by asserting that his comments articulating his judicial philosophy do not constitute broadcasting his personal political positions.“I don’t talk about my politics for the same reason I don’t campaign on who the Packers’ next quarterback should be,” he said. “It has no effect on the job.”While Justice Kelly promised that the cavalry was on the way, it’s unclear whether it will be enough to turn the tide of the battle.Only one national organization has spent anything on television to support the Kelly campaign: the super PAC Fair Courts America, which is backed by Richard Uihlein, the conservative billionaire. So far in the general election, Fair Courts America has spent $2.3 million on TV ads. This week, it began a further $450,000 in statewide radio advertising, but the group has not yet committed to investing more in the race, according to a person familiar with Mr. Uihlein’s decisions who was not authorized to speak publicly.The biggest pro-Kelly spender, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s business lobby, has spent $3.4 million on his behalf so far. Nick Novak, a spokesman for the group, declined to comment on the group’s future plans. A Fair Courts America spokesman did not respond to messages on Tuesday. The flood of Protasiewicz ads have attacked Justice Kelly for his opposition to abortion rights, past statements attacking Social Security and his association with Republican attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, among other issues.Mr. Kelly’s spokesman, Ben Voelkel, said Mr. Kelly was filming a television ad on Tuesday. He predicted the Kelly campaign and its allies would soon catch up with Judge Protasiewicz and Democrats in overall television spending, but at the same time suggested the millions of dollars spent of television time was wasted in a relatively low-turnout April election.“We’re reaching out to voters in a lot of different ways,” Mr. Voelkel said. “They are spending millions of dollars for an election that’s not going to have a big turnout. We’ve taken a slightly different approach.”Wisconsin’s municipal clerks began placing absentee ballots for the Supreme Court election in the mail this week, and in-person ballots can be cast starting next Tuesday. Private polling conducted by officials on both sides of the race shows Judge Protasiewicz with a lead over Justice Kelly in the mid-to-high single digits. Mr. Voelkel disputed that Justice Kelly was trailing but declined to reveal the campaign’s figures.The court election is formally a nonpartisan contest, but there is little mystery about where the candidates stand politically. The bulk of Judge Protasiewicz’s campaign money has come from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which can transfer unlimited amounts under state law. Justice Kelly has worked as a lawyer for the Republican National Committee, which hired him to focus on “election integrity” issues for the party during and after the 2020 election.On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton endorsed Judge Protasiewicz. Justice Kelly was endorsed by President Donald J. Trump during the justice’s 2020 re-election campaign, which he lost.In the last three weeks, the Protasiewicz campaign has spent $9.1 million on television advertising, and outside groups supporting her have spent $2.03 million, according to AdImpact, a media-tracking firm.The imbalance on Wisconsin’s television airwaves is even greater than the spending figures suggest.Because the Protasiewicz campaign is able to buy television advertising at about one-third the rate of independent expenditure groups, she alone has broadcast more than three times as many TV advertisements in Wisconsin as the pro-Kelly groups combined, according to AdImpact’s data.“Dan Kelly has been relying on extreme right-wing groups to save his campaign with millions of dollars in ads that lie about Judge Janet Protasiewicz’s record,” said Sam Roecker, a spokesman for the Protasiewicz campaign.The election is already the most expensive judicial race in American history, with at least $27 million spent so far on television alone. A 2004 contest for the Illinois Supreme Court previously had the most spending, at $15 million, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.In an interview on the eve of the primary last month, Justice Kelly said he had not received any private spending commitments from Mr. Uihlein and had not spoken with him since last summer. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Chief of a Democratic Super PAC Is Stepping Down

      by

      Guy Cecil has led Priorities USA since 2015 and will leave at the end of March, as outside political groups begin to make plans for the 2024 races.The chairman and chief strategist for a major Democratic outside group is stepping down after eight years, a shift in leadership while plans for 2024 are taking shape for the constellation of entities expected to support Democrats up and down the ballot.Guy Cecil, who has led that Democratic group, the super PAC Priorities USA, since early 2015, will leave at the end of March, the group announced on Wednesday. It has been a key force in Democratic politics for over a decade, and during Mr. Cecil’s tenure, it became deeply involved in politics beyond presidential races. In the 2022 midterms, it spent heavily on digital ads.Allies of President Biden are assessing what the support from outside groups for Mr. Biden’s expected re-election campaign will look like. In 2020, officials involved with his campaign indicated that they wanted people to engage with Priorities USA.It is unclear who will replace Mr. Cecil, but officials said the group has top staff members who have been there for six years. It spent tens of millions on anti-Trump ads in 2020, and it has roughly $11 million in cash on hand and $16 million in further commitments. “Priorities will continue to lead and grow, and I look forward to watching them take on the fight to re-elect President Biden,” Mr. Cecil said in a statement. “I’m also looking forward to some new adventures of my own and am more committed than ever to making a difference wherever and however I can.”Who’s Running for President in 2024?Card 1 of 6The race begins. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The ‘Red Wave’ Washout: How Skewed Polls Fed a False Election Narrative

      by

      The errant surveys spooked some candidates into spending more money than necessary, and diverted help from others who otherwise had a fighting chance of winning.Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat, had consistently won re-election by healthy margins in her three decades representing Washington State. This year seemed no different: By midsummer, polls showed her cruising to victory over a Republican newcomer, Tiffany Smiley, by as much as 20 percentage points.So when a survey in late September by the Republican-leaning Trafalgar Group showed Ms. Murray clinging to a lead of just two points, it seemed like an aberration. But in October, two more Republican-leaning polls put Ms. Murray barely ahead, and a third said the race was a dead heat.As the red and blue trend lines of the closely watched RealClearPolitics average for the contest drew closer together, news organizations reported that Ms. Murray was suddenly in a fight for her political survival. Warning lights flashed in Democratic war rooms. If Ms. Murray was in trouble, no Democrat was safe.Republican-aligned polling suggested a tight race for Senator Patty Murray More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos Is In a Class of His Own. But Other Politicians Have Embellished Their Resumes, Too.

      by

      Mr. Santos, a Republican representative-elect from Long Island, has admitted to lying about his professional background, educational history and property ownership.With his admission this week that he lied to voters about his credentials, Representative-elect George Santos has catapulted to the top of the list of politicians who have misled the public about their past.Mr. Santos, a New York Republican, fabricated key biographical elements of his background, including misrepresentations of his professional background, educational history and property ownership, in a pattern of deception that was uncovered by The New York Times. He even misrepresented his Jewish heritage.While others have also embellished their backgrounds, including degrees and military honors that they did not receive or distortions about their business acumen and wealth, few have done so in such a wide-ranging manner.Many candidates, confronted over their inconsistencies during their campaigns, have stumbled, including Herschel Walker and J.R. Majewski, two Trump-endorsed Republicans who ran for the Senate and the House during this year’s midterms.Mr. Walker, who lost Georgia’s Senate runoff this month, was dogged by a long trail of accusations that he misrepresented himself. Voters learned about domestic violence allegations, children born outside his marriage, ex-girlfriends who said he urged them to have abortions and more, including questions about where he lived, his academic record and the ceremonial nature of his work with law enforcement.Mr. Majewski promoted himself in his Ohio House race as a combat veteran who served in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but the U.S. Air Force had no record that he served there. He lost in November.Some of the nation’s most prominent presidential candidates have been accused of misrepresenting themselves to voters as well; perhaps none more notably than Donald J. Trump, whose 2016 campaign hinged on a stark exaggeration of his business background. While not as straightforward a deception as Mr. Santos saying he worked somewhere he had not, Mr. Trump presented himself as a successful, self-made businessman and hid evidence he was not, breaking with decades of precedent in refusing to release his tax records. Those records, obtained by The Times after his election, painted a much different picture — one of dubious tax avoidance, huge losses and a life buttressed by an inherited fortune.Prominent Democrats have faced criticisms during presidential campaigns too, backtracking during primary contests after being called out for more minor misrepresentations:Joseph R. Biden Jr. admitted to overstating his academic record in the 1980s: “I exaggerate when I’m angry,” he said at the time. Hillary Clinton conceded that she “misspoke” in 2008 about dodging sniper fire on an airport tarmac during a 1996 visit to Bosnia as first lady, an anecdote she employed to highlight her experience with international crises. And Senator Elizabeth Warren apologized in 2019 for her past claims of Native American ancestry.Most politicians’ transgressions pale in comparison with Mr. Santos’s largely fictional résumé. Voters also didn’t know about his lies before casting their ballots.The Spread of Misinformation and FalsehoodsCovid Myths: Experts say the spread of coronavirus misinformation — particularly on far-right platforms like Gab — is likely to be a lasting legacy of the pandemic. And there are no easy solutions.Midterms Misinformation: Social media platforms struggled to combat false narratives during the 2022 U.S. midterm elections, but it appeared most efforts to stoke doubt about the results did not spread widely.A ‘War for Talent’: Seeing misinformation as a possibly expensive liability, several companies are angling to hire former Twitter employees with the expertise to keep it in check. A New Misinformation Hub?: Misleading edits, fake news stories and deepfake images of politicians are starting to warp reality on TikTok.Here are some other federal office holders who have been accused of being less than forthright during their campaigns, but got elected anyway.Representative Madison Cawthorn, who lost his primary this year, was elected in 2020 despite a discrepancy over his plans to attend the Naval Academy.Logan R. Cyrus for The New York TimesMadison Cawthorn’s 2020 House campaignMadison Cawthorn became the youngest member of the House when he won election in 2020, emerging as the toast of the G.O.P. and its Trump wing. North Carolina voters picked him despite evidence that his claim that the 2014 auto accident that left him partly paralyzed had “derailed” his plans to attend the Naval Academy was untrue.Reporting at the time showed that the Annapolis application of Mr. Cawthorn, who has used a wheelchair since the crash, had previously been rejected. Mr. Cawthorn has declined to answer questions from the news media about the discrepancy or a report that he acknowledged in a 2017 deposition that his application had been denied. A spokesman for Mr. Cawthorn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Mr. Cawthorn, whose term in Congress was marked by multiple scandals, lost the G.O.P. primary in May to Chuck Edwards, a three-term state senator who represents the Republican old guard.Andy Kim’s 2018 House campaignAndy Kim, a Democrat who represents a New Jersey swing district, raised eyebrows during the 2018 campaign when his first television ad promoted him as “a national security officer for Republican and Democratic presidents.”While Mr. Kim had worked as a national security adviser under President Barack Obama, his claim that he had filled a key role in the administration of former President George W. Bush was not as ironclad.A Washington Post fact check found that Mr. Kim had held an entry-level job for five months as a conflict management specialist at the U.S. Agency for International Development.Mr. Kim’s campaign manager at the time defended Mr. Kim, telling The Post that he played a key role as a public servant during the Bush administration that involved working in the agency’s Africa bureau on issues like terrorism in Somalia and genocide in Sudan.Voters did not appear to be too hung up about the claims of Mr. Kim, who last month was elected to a third term in the House.During the 2010 Senate campaign, Senator Marco Rubio described being the son of Cuban immigrants who fled Fidel Castro, but his parents moved to the United States before Castro returned to Cuba.Steve Johnson for The New York TimesMarco Rubio’s 2010 Senate campaignMarco Rubio vaulted onto the national political stage in the late 2000s after a decade-long rise in the Florida Legislature, where he served as House speaker. Central to his ascent and his 2010 election to the Senate was his personal story of being the son of Cuban immigrants, who Mr. Rubio repeatedly said had fled during Fidel Castro’s revolution.But Mr. Rubio’s account did not square with history, PolitiFact determined. In a 2011 analysis, the nonpartisan fact-checking website found Mr. Rubio’s narrative was false because his parents had first moved to the United States in 1956, which was before Castro had returned to Cuba from Mexico and his takeover of the country in 1959.Mr. Rubio said at the time that he had relied on the recollections of his parents, and that he had only recently learned of the inconsistencies in the timeline. He was re-elected in 2016 and again in November.Mark Kirk’s 2010 and 2016 Senate campaignsMark Kirk, who was a five-term House member from Illinois, leaned heavily on his military accomplishments in his 2010 run for the Senate seat once held by Barack Obama. But the Republican’s representation of his service proved to be deeply flawed.Mr. Kirk’s biography listed that he had been awarded the “Intelligence Officer of the Year” while in the Naval Reserve, a prestigious military honor that he never received. He later apologized, but that was not the only discrepancy in his military résumé.In an interview with the editorial board of The Chicago Tribune, Mr. Kirk accepted responsibility for a series of misstatements about his service, including that he had served in the Persian Gulf war of 1991, that he once commanded the Pentagon war room and that he came under fire while flying intelligence missions over Iraq.Mr. Kirk attributed the inaccuracies as resulting from his attempts to translate “Pentagonese” for voters or because of inattention by his campaign to the details of his decades-long military career.Still, Illinois voters elected Mr. Kirk to the Senate in 2010, but he was defeated in 2016 by Tammy Duckworth, a military veteran who lost her legs in the Iraq war. In that race, Mr. Kirk’s website falsely described him as an Iraq war veteran.Richard Blumenthal was a Marine Corps reservist during the Vietnam War, but did not enter combat, as he had suggested.Christopher Capozziello for The New York TimesRichard Blumenthal’s 2010 Senate campaignRichard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, misrepresented his military service during the Vietnam War, according to a Times report that rocked his 2010 campaign.Mr. Blumenthal was a Marine Corps reservist but did not enter combat. After the report, he said that he never meant to create the impression that he was a combat veteran and apologized. Mr. Blumenthal insisted that he had misspoken, but said that those occasions were rare and that he had consistently qualified himself as a reservist during the Vietnam era.The misrepresentation did not stop Mr. Blumenthal, Connecticut’s longtime attorney general, from winning the open-seat Senate race against Linda McMahon, the professional wrestling mogul. She spent $50 million in that race and later became a cabinet member under Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly zeroed in on Mr. Blumenthal’s military record.Wes Cooley’s 1994 House campaignWes Cooley, an Oregon Republican, had barely established himself as a freshman representative when his political career began to nosedive amid multiple revelations that he had lied about his military record and academic honors.His problems started when he indicated on a 1994 voters’ pamphlet that he had seen combat as a member of the Army Special Forces in Korea. But the news media in Oregon reported that Mr. Cooley had never deployed for combat or served in the Special Forces. Mr. Cooley was later convicted of lying in an official document about his military record and placed on two years of probation.The Oregonian newspaper also reported that he never received Phi Beta Kappa honors, as he claimed in the same voters’ guide. He also faced accusations that he lied about how long he had been married so that his wife could continue collecting survivor benefits from a previous husband.Mr. Cooley, who abandoned his 1996 re-election campaign, died in 2015. He was 82.Kirsten Noyes More