More stories

  • in

    What the Collapse of Germany’s Ruling Coalition Means

    After decades of relative stability, the country has entered a new era of political fragmentation and will hold new elections at a precarious time.The collapse of its governing coalition is an extraordinary moment for Germany, a country known for stable governments. It has happened only twice before in the 75 years since the modern state was founded.But like a marriage that has finally ended after years of fighting, the spectacular breakup on Wednesday night of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party coalition was expected by most and welcomed by many.A recent national poll found that a majority of Germans wanted to end the “traffic light” coalition, named for the colors of the parties that made it up — red for the Social Democratic Party, yellow for the pro-business Free Democratic Party and green for the Greens. Only 14 percent still had confidence in the coalition, according to the same poll.Although the opposition is pushing for Mr. Scholz to end the government sooner, Wednesday’s announcement will very likely lead to early elections in March, at a precarious time for Germany both domestically and internationally.Here’s what we know about the collapse of the coalition.How did we get here?On Wednesday night, Mr. Scholz fired his finance minister, Christian Lindner, who is the head of the Free Democrats, over disagreements about the 2025 budget and the economy in general. That precipitated the end of the coalition.The coalition was initially both successful and popular. But a constitutional court ruling late in 2023, barring the government from repurposing finances left over from the pandemic, spelled the beginning of the end.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Democrats Got the Recovery They Wanted. It Wasn’t Enough.

    America’s economic growth is the envy of its global counterparts. But voters wanted more from the Biden administration — specifically, lower prices.Every major U.S. ally is uncomfortably familiar with one of President Biden’s favorite charts. It is a graph of economic recoveries in the wealthy world since the end of the pandemic recession. It shows growth flatlining for the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan over the past two years — while in the United States, growth keeps rocketing up.That chart helps explain why voters have punished ruling parties in election after post-Covid election around the world. Sluggish growth, coupled with a surge in consumer prices, proved toxic for the Conservative Party in Britain. It helped hobble President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist coalition in France and contributed to Japan’s longtime leaders, the Liberal Democrats, losing their majority this fall.Germany’s governing coalition has been so weakened by recession and so flustered by disagreements over how to revive growth that it teetered this week on the brink of collapse.Advisers to Mr. Biden and to Vice President Kamala Harris, his successor candidate in the presidential election, had hoped that America’s outlier economy would rescue them from a similar fate.It did not.Ms. Harris lost to former President Donald J. Trump. Democrats will spend at least months parsing data for conclusions on what drove the defeat. Certainly, economic factors were only one contributor.But as Europe’s stumbling economies woke on Wednesday to the news of Ms. Harris’s defeat, one thing was immediately clear: America’s growth engine may be the envy of the world, but it is not the envy of the American public.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    ¿La Corte Suprema podría decidir estas elecciones presidenciales?

    Los expertos señalan que es poco probable que el tribunal termine ejerciendo un papel importante en el resultado, pero es posible. Te contamos por qué.Es día de elecciones y la contienda entre la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris y el expresidente Donald Trump parece estar empatada, lo que lleva a algunos a temer que la elección se alargue y la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. pueda determinar el resultado.Un puñado de disputas relacionadas con las elecciones ya han llegado a la Corte Suprema. La semana pasada, el tribunal emitió decisiones que permitieron a Virginia eliminar a 1600 personas de su censo electoral, se negó a retirar a Robert F. Kennedy Jr. de la papeleta electoral en dos estados disputados y permitió a los votantes de Pensilvania cuyos votos por correo se habían considerado inválidos emitir votos provisionales en persona.La cuestión sigue siendo si las elecciones presidenciales serán tan reñidas que el tribunal, que tiene una mayoría conservadora de 6-3, se ocupará en los próximos días o semanas de un caso que decida quién ocupará la presidencia.Según los expertos en elecciones, es poco probable que la Corte Suprema acabe desempeñando un papel importante en el resultado, pero es posible. Esto es lo que hay que saber.¿Qué papel podría desempeñar la Corte Suprema?Por lo general, la Corte Suprema ha tratado de mantenerse al margen de las luchas políticas y electorales, y la mayoría de los litigios relacionados con las elecciones permanecerán en los tribunales inferiores. Pero una vez que un caso está en el sistema judicial, es posible que la Corte Suprema decida asumirlo.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    The Polls Are Close. The Results Might Not Be.

    These two things are true about the presidential race: The polls currently show Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump effectively tied. And close polls do not necessarily mean there will be a close result.This may feel counterintuitive, but the fact is that we are just a very normal polling error away from either candidate landing a decisive victory, especially in the Electoral College.This is a point my colleague Nate Cohn has made regularly in his election race updates over the last few weeks. But it bears repeating, because a lopsided result when there is an expectation of only razor-thin margins could further fan distrust in the polls and in the electoral process itself.“You can have a close election in the popular vote and somebody could break 315 Electoral College votes, which will not look close,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “Or you could get a popular vote that is five points” apart, he added, “which is, by today’s standards, a landslide — a word no one has used this year.”Since 1998, election polls in presidential, House, Senate and governor’s races have diverged from the final vote tally by an average of six percentage points, according to an analysis from FiveThirtyEight. But in the 2022 midterm elections, that average error was 4.8 points, making it the most accurate polling cycle in the last quarter of a century. If polls were off this year, in either direction, by the same margin, the winning candidate would score a decisive victory.Based on where the polling averages stood on Monday, if the polls are underestimating Ms. Harris by 4.8 points in each of the seven swing states, she would win every one of them, and a total of 319 electoral votes, compared with only 219 for Mr. Trump. If those same polls underestimate Mr. Trump by the same margin, he would win all the battleground states, for a total of 312 electoral votes. More

  • in

    A November Surprise That’s Jostling the Markets

    The dollar, Treasury yields and crypto currencies have fallen, reversing some elements of the so-called Trump trade after an unexpected poll result. In the race’s final hours, a poll reminds the markets of the power of women voters.Caroline Gutman for The New York TimesDown to the wire Investors on Monday appear to be unwinding bets on the so-called Trump trade. In a major reversal, bonds have rallied and the dollar and crypto currencies have dipped in the race’s final hours.One explanation is a surprising new poll that showed Vice President Kamala Harris, powered in part by support from women and older voters, edging ahead in deep-red Iowa — a finding that’s also led to a tightening of Donald Trump’s lead in political prediction markets.Why the change of heart? The highly regarded Ann Selzer/Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll that was published on Saturday gave Harris a three-point advantage over Trump in the Hawkeye State, a Republican stronghold. “It’s hard for anybody to say they saw this coming,” Selzer said.Some urged caution about the poll. The Economist questioned whether the small sample size in Selzer’s poll made it a good predictor of what might happen in other states. And the Trump campaign pointed to another Iowa poll out this weekend that showed the former president with a 10-point lead over Harris.But Michael McDonald, a politics professor at the University of Florida who runs a vote-tracking site, pointed to similar dynamics in a recent Kansas poll.The Selzer poll has roiled the political betting markets. Following its publication, Trump’s odds of victory fell on platforms including Polymarket, after they had climbed in recent weeks, in tandem with crypto and other elements of the Trump trade.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    ¿Por qué a los demócratas les cuesta tanto vencer a Trump?

    El entorno político nacional no es tan propicio para una victoria de Harris como muchos podrían imaginar.Desde 2008, los demócratas han ocupado la Casa Blanca durante 12 de los 16 años. Vanessa Vick para The New York TimesPase lo que pase el martes, es justo decir que esta campaña no ha ido tan bien como esperaban los demócratas.Tras las elecciones intermedias, Donald Trump parecía estar acabado. Todavía puede perder, por supuesto, pero está claro que no ha quedado “descalificado” —como muchos esperaban— por el 6 de enero, por varias acusaciones penales o por la anulación de Roe contra Wade hecha por sus nombramientos para la Corte Suprema. Si los votantes descalificaron a algún candidato en 2024, fue al presidente en funciones, no al convicto que intentó anular las últimas elecciones.¿Cómo es que Trump sigue siendo tan competitivo? La respuesta más sencilla es que el entorno político nacional no es tan propicio para una victoria demócrata como muchos podrían imaginar.Los demócratas claramente se enfrentan a vientos en contra en estas elecciones. En la última encuesta del New York Times/Siena College, solo el 40 por ciento de los votantes aprobaba el desempeño del presidente Joe Biden, y solo el 28 por ciento decía que el país iba en la dirección correcta. Ningún partido ha conservado el control de la Casa Blanca cuando tantos estadounidenses estaban descontentos con el país o con el presidente.Las encuestas sugieren que el reto para los demócratas es aún más profundo. Por primera vez en décadas, los republicanos han igualado o superado la identificación partidista a nivel nacional. Las encuestas también muestran que los republicanos tienen ventaja en la mayoría de los temas clave, con la democracia y el aborto como excepciones significativas.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    German Government at Risk of Collapse After Rift on Economy

    A breakup of the divided and unpopular coalition well before elections set for next September could leave the country directionless at a critical time for Europe.Germany’s three-party coalition government, wracked by infighting and policy paralysis over a stagnant economy, is teetering on the brink of collapse.It does not look likely to last until the next scheduled elections in September 2025 and could fall imminently over a nasty budget debate that comes to a head this month, analysts say. The main political parties are already laying out their campaign positions, and coalition leaders are barely talking.The growing rift became more evident Friday evening, when a leaked position paper by the leader of one coalition party called for a fundamental economic overhaul that contradicts government policies, and is meant to cut costs.The 18-page economic paper was written by Christian Lindner, the leader of the pro-market liberal Free Democratic Party.Mr. Lindner wants to cut some social service payments, drop a special “solidarity tax” intended to help fund German reunification, and follow European Union climate regulations rather than more ambitious national ones — all demands that his coalition partners are highly unlikely to accept.After coalition parties lost votes in three state elections in September, Mr. Lindner warned that the coming months would become the “autumn of decisions.” And he has suggested that if the coalition did not work in his favor, his party could quit the government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Uncertainty Reigns in Nevada With Rise of Nonpartisan Voters

    With early voting coming to a close, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris must now ensure their respective bases show up on Election Day, while chasing down those whose choice is less clear.As early voting came to a close in Nevada, many of the state’s most veteran pollsters, pundits and political operatives — no strangers to close elections and their accompanying jitters — are finding it uniquely difficult to predict what happens next.Republicans, thrilled with their surprise early voting edge, say they are well on their way to making former President Donald J. Trump the first Republican to win the state since 2004. Democrats agree that Republicans have seized an unusual and anxiety-inducing advantage, but insist that their prized organizing machine will put Vice President Kamala Harris over the top.But what’s making this presidential election different is the sheer number of voters who don’t officially identify with either party. Thanks to the state’s relatively new automatic voter registration law, nonpartisan voters became Nevada’s largest voting bloc in 2022, outpacing both Democratic and Republican registrations.Figuring out who those voters are, and how or if they will cast a ballot, has been a crucial challenge for the campaigns scrambling to find and sway those last few persuadable people. Changes in voting patterns wrought by the pandemic four years ago are also throwing prognosticators for a loop.“The Achilles’ heel of early vote analysis is that it’s really difficult to make cycle-to-cycle comparisons,” said Adam Jentleson, who was a senior aide to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the longtime Democratic leader, “and that has never been more true than in this cycle.”All of those factors combined mean “you are flying blind,” he added.The race is tied, according to The New York Times’s polling average. Both Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris have visited Nevada multiple times, emphasizing that every ballot will make a difference.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More