Polls and Public Opinion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 38 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      A Republican Advantage

      by

      As headlines shift in the weeks before the midterms, so do voters’ top concerns.Two weeks before November’s midterm elections, many voter surveys suggest Republicans are gaining momentum toward retaking one or both chambers of Congress.Every major Senate race, except for Georgia’s, has been trending toward Republicans. There are even warning signs for Democrats in House districts in Oregon and Rhode Island where Republicans are rarely competitive. And now, more voters say they intend to vote for Republicans instead of Democrats for Congress in their districts.In such a polarized country, understanding how one party can gain an advantage so quickly can sometimes be hard. In this case, the explanation is straightforward: It’s about the issues on the minds of voters.Over the summer, the dominant headlines and resulting public debate were focused on issues that helped Democrats, like abortion, gun violence and threats to democracy. These issues helped Democrats stay highly competitive, despite President Biden’s low approval ratings and a tendency for the sitting president’s party to get drubbed in midterm elections.But the spotlight on those matters is fading. Voters are less frequently citing them as top concerns while expressing worries about the economy, crime and immigration — issues that tend to favor Republicans. In a New York Times/Siena College poll released last week, the share of voters citing the economy, inflation, crime or immigration as the “most important problem” facing the country increased to 52 percent, up 14 points from a July version of the poll. The share citing the Democratic-friendly issues of abortion, democracy or guns dropped to 14 percent from 26 percent.Attitudes in fluxLooking back, it’s easy to see why the mood of the nation’s electorate has shifted.Our July poll was taken just a couple weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Abortion was in the headlines nearly every day, as the nation grappled with the fallout and state bans went into effect. But relevant news developments have slowed, and that affects the public’s attention. Google searches for “abortion” are now at about the level they were in early spring, before the ruling hit the headlines.In last week’s Times/Siena poll, just 5 percent of voters said that abortion was the most important problem facing the country.Other issues playing to Democrats’ strengths had similar trajectories. The House committee investigating the Capitol attack held eight public hearings in June and July, but only one after Labor Day (and it was on Oct. 13, after we conducted our most recent poll). Firearms restrictions are another core issue for Democrats that they often highlight in response to gun violence. The Times cataloged at least nine mass shootings in the two months before our July poll, including the horrific massacres at a grocery store in Buffalo and at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. The spate of such mass shootings has, fortunately, faded as well.Now on voters’ mindsEconomic concerns are resurgent. The summer’s falling gas prices and somewhat optimistic inflation news have given way to renewed concerns about the rising cost of living and drops in the stock market.Crime and immigration are in a somewhat different category. These are longstanding problems, but they don’t usually dominate the front pages alongside major news stories, save for mass shootings. Republicans have nonetheless elevated them as campaign issues, including with high-profile gambits like the decision by Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis to fly migrants to the liberal bastion of Martha’s Vineyard.The swing votersIf you’re an ideologically consistent voter who agrees with your party on almost every issue, it can be hard to believe that other voters can be so fickle. But millions of Americans — perhaps even most of them — hold conflicting views. They can be drawn to different candidates or parties, depending on what they consider most important in a particular election.Take abortion: If you believe the polls that 60 percent of Americans think it should be mostly legal, then a huge share of the voters who back Republicans in any given election must support legal abortion. These voters presumably back Republicans for another reason, whether it’s the economy and taxes or an issue like immigration. But if abortion is at the top of their minds, perhaps a sliver of them will defect.In polling over the summer, some did. But in the more recent surveys, many of them came back to the Republican fold.More midterms newsA shrinking white majority is a shared feature of the congressional districts held by Republicans who rejected Donald Trump’s 2020 defeat.The Republican candidate for New York governor, Lee Zeldin, agreed to a single debate set for tomorrow against Gov. Kathy Hochul.To win Ohio’s Senate race, Representative Tim Ryan is running as a Democrat who doesn’t have much in common with his party.THE LATEST NEWSBritainBoris Johnson led Britain until early last month.Toby Melville/ReutersBoris Johnson pulled out of the race to become Britain’s prime minister, making his former finance minister, Rishi Sunak, the favorite.Sunak’s financial agenda made him unpopular with his Conservative Party. But after weeks of economic chaos, it could be the reason he gets the job.Britain’s new prime minister could be announced as early as today. Follow our updates here.InternationalXi Jinping, China’s leader, appointed loyalists to top government jobs, giving him nearly absolute power.The authorities in Brazil, which holds a presidential runoff on Sunday, have granted its elections chief the power to remove online misinformation.The Ukrainian military is rapidly learning how to shoot down the kind of drones that Russia has begun deploying in recent weeks.Other Big StoriesU.S. students recorded deep declines in math and a dip in reading on a national exam, the clearest picture yet of the pandemic’s impact on education.A Vermont town’s water superintendent resigned after admitting that he had been lowering fluoride levels for more than a decade.A solar eclipse will be visible tomorrow across Europe and Asia.OpinionsGail Collins and Bret Stephens discuss British politics and the Republicans’ midterm advantage.Terms like “queer” and “L.G.B.T.Q.” are intended to be inclusive. But not everyone they’re meant to include feels that way, says Pamela Paul.The U.S. should make pandemic preparedness a more permanent priority, like national defense, Dr. Craig Spencer says.Retaliating against Saudi Arabia for cutting oil production would only hurt American consumers, Ellen Wald argues.MORNING READSMichelle Groskopf for The New York TimesDecades of addiction: In a new memoir, the “Friends” actor Matthew Perry estimated he has spent $9 million trying to get sober.Well: Sex therapy is misunderstood. Here’s what it actually entails.Quiz time: Take our latest news quiz and share your score (the average was 8.6).Metropolitan diary: A helpful man welcomes a stranger to the neighborhood.A Times classic: What really killed President William Henry Harrison?Advice from Wirecutter: These inexpensive screen protectors will keep your iPhone safe.Lives Lived: All four of Louis Gigante’s brothers were mobsters. He chose a different path as a priest and a developer who helped revive the South Bronx. Gigante died at 90.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICThe World Series is set: Both the Astros and Phillies clinched spots yesterday, setting up a battle between juggernaut Houston and upstart Philadelphia. The Phillies star Bryce Harper is building his legacy in this season’s playoffs, The Times’s Tyler Kepner writes.Back on the field: The Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa led Miami to a 16-10 win over the Steelers last night in his first game back since a scary concussion three weeks ago. Brady and Rodgers in disarray: Two of the N.F.L.’s best quarterbacks — Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers — find themselves mired in 3-4 starts early in the season. For Green Bay, it’s a disaster. For Tampa Bay, it leaves a recent Super Bowl champion wondering whether it can even make the playoffs.ARTS AND IDEAS EJ Hill under his roller coaster.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesThe art of the rideMost people look at roller coasters and see fun, or fear. EJ Hill sees art. The rides have inspired his artwork — photography, painting, sculpture and performances — for years. His latest exhibit, “Brake Run Helix,” will feature a working roller coaster that runs through the inside of the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, in the Berkshires. It opens Sunday.Hill, who is Black and queer, hopes the ride will help visitors connect with the “bodily threat” that he feels anytime he leaves his home. “There are things that I believe you have to feel to understand,” Hill said. “Certain ideas can be communicated via language and land really well; other things you have to feel in your gut.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChris Simpson for The New York TimesBrunswick stew, a hearty fall dish from the South, combines tomatoes, corn, beans and shredded chicken.TheaterA new show from Jill Sobule, best known for her 1995 hit song “I Kissed a Girl,” is part autobiography, part rock concert.TravelA guide to the beaches, bars and bookshops of Santa Cruz, Calif.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was painful. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Tall and thin (5 letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. Vox named Zeynep Tufekci, a Times Opinion columnist, to its inaugural list of 50 people working to make the future better.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about election denial. “Popcast” remembers Loretta Lynn.Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Brazil’s Polls Were Wrong. Now the Right Wants to Criminalize Them.

      by

      President Jair Bolsonaro and conservative lawmakers in Brazil are trying to make it illegal to publish polls that later do not match the election results.BRASÍLIA — In the first round of Brazil’s closely watched elections this month, the polls were off the mark. They significantly underestimated the support for the far-right incumbent, President Jair Bolsonaro, and other conservative candidates across the country.Many on the right were furious, criticizing the pollsters as out of touch with the Brazilian electorate.That response was expected. What happened next was not.At the urging of Mr. Bolsonaro, some of Brazil’s leaders are now trying to make it a crime to incorrectly forecast an election.Brazil’s House of Representatives has fast-tracked a bill that would criminalize publishing a poll that is later shown to fall outside its margin of error. The House, which is controlled by Mr. Bolsonaro’s allies, is expected to vote and pass the measure in the coming days.The bill’s final shape and fate is unclear. House leaders have suggested they may soften the legislation, and its prospects in the Senate, where opponents of Mr. Bolsonaro are in the majority, appear far less certain.Still, whatever the measure’s fate, the proposal and other efforts to investigate pollsters for their recent miscalculations are part of a broader narrative pushed by Mr. Bolsonaro and his allies, without evidence, that Brazil’s political establishment and the left are trying to rig the election against him.As Brazil prepares to vote in a presidential runoff on Oct. 30, the surveys continue to show Mr. Bolsonaro trailing his left-wing rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former president, though the race seems to be tightening.Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva celebrating the results of the first round of elections in São Paulo earlier this month.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesFor his part, Mr. Bolsonaro has taken to calling the polling firms “liars,” claimed that their mistakes swung up to three million votes to Mr. da Silva in the first round, and has advocated for the firms to face consequences. “Not for getting it wrong, OK? An error is one thing,” he said. “It’s for the crimes they committed.”He has not said what crimes he believes were committed.The Brazilian Association of Pollsters said in a statement that it was “outraged” at the attempts to criminalize surveys that turn out to be inaccurate.“Starting this type of investigation during the runoff campaign period, when the polling companies are carrying out their work, demonstrates another clear attempt to impede scientific research,” the group said.Polling firms added that their work was not to predict elections, but to provide a snapshot of voters’ intentions at the time a survey is conducted.The bill in Congress is not the only effort to target pollsters. Following a request from Mr. Bolsonaro’s campaign, Brazil’s justice minister ordered the federal police to open an investigation into polling firms over their surveys before the first election round. And Brazil’s federal antitrust agency opened its own inquiry into some of the nation’s top polling institutions for possible collusion.Alexandre de Moraes, a Supreme Court justice and Brazil’s elections chief, quickly ordered both of those investigations halted, saying that they lacked jurisdiction and that they appeared to be doing the president’s political bidding. In turn, Mr. Moraes ordered Brazil’s election agency to investigate whether Mr. Bolsonaro was trying to use his power over federal agencies inappropriately.Mr. Moraes has emerged as the top check on Mr. Bolsonaro’s power over the past year, drawing criticism at times for measures that, according to experts in law and government, represent a repressive turn for Brazil’s top court.Among other moves, he has jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he said attacked Brazil’s institutions. On Thursday, election officials further expanded his power by giving him unilateral authority to suspend social media platforms in Brazil that do not quickly comply with his orders to remove misinformation.Alexandre de Moraes in Brasília before the first round of elections earlier this month.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesMr. Moraes and Brazil’s Senate appear poised to protect polling firms from measures that target their surveys.Yet repeated claims that pollsters are corrupt could further weaken their ability to provide the best possible gauge of public opinion. Some of Mr. Bolsonaro’s top advisers have urged his supporters to ignore survey takers in order to sabotage their results.“Do not respond to any of them until the end of the election!!! That way, it’ll be certain from the start that any of their results are fraudulent,” Ciro Nogueira, Mr. Bolsonaro’s chief of staff, wrote on Twitter. “Was their absurd screw-up criminal? Only a deep investigation will tell.”The top polling firms had forecast that Mr. Bolsonaro would receive roughly 36 percent of the vote in the first round. He received 43.2 percent, a seven-point gap that was outside virtually all polls’ margins of error.Their performance was even worse in many down-ballot races. In Rio de Janeiro, the polls showed that the conservative candidate for governor was ahead by about 9 percentage points. Instead, he won by 31 points.In São Paulo, some polls showed that a left-wing candidate for Senate was ahead of his opponent by 14 percentage points heading into the first election round. Instead, a right-wing candidate won by nearly that same margin — a swing of 28 percentage points from what the pre-election polls had found.The polling firms have blamed a variety of factors for their flawed forecasts, including outdated census data that hampered their ability to survey a statistically representative sample of voters. The firms said their polls were also undercut because a larger-than-expected wave of voters switched their ballots to Mr. Bolsonaro from third-party candidates at the last minute.Some polling firms also said they believed that many conservative voters were unwilling to answer their surveys.The share of older voters far exceeded expectations, potentially because of a government announcement this year that voting was a new way to establish proof of life and keep retirement benefits active. Polls on the eve of the election showed that older voters supported Mr. Bolsonaro over Mr. da Silva.Brazil is far from the only country where polls struggle to give an accurate picture of the electorate, particularly the strength of conservative support.In 2016, polls in the United States did not accurately forecast the support for Donald J. Trump, and the firms gave similar reasons for the miss, including that some right-wing voters were unwilling to answer surveys.President Jair Bolsonaro in São Paulo earlier this month.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesThe credibility of Brazil’s polling firms was damaged after the election’s first round, and some journalists have become more hesitant to share surveys ahead of Sunday’s runoff.Ricardo Barros, a conservative congressman who is helping to push the bill to criminalize faulty polls, said the legislation would force polling companies to be more careful with their findings. Under the proposed law, only polls that err outside their margin of error would face liability.“If you’re not sure of the outcome, then place a margin of error of 10 percent,” he said. “It loses credibility, but it doesn’t misinform voters. The problem is that today it’s always being presented as an absolute truth.”Lawmakers in both the House and Senate have also gathered enough signatures to open congressional investigations into the polling firms, although the leader of the Senate is expected to move to block that chamber’s investigation.Alexandre Cordeiro Macedo, the head of Brazil’s federal antitrust agency and an appointee of Mr. Bolsonaro, tried to go further than Mr. Barros in taking aim at polling firms.Before Mr. Moraes intervened and stopped the inquiry, Mr. Cordeiro Macedo had accused top polling companies of collusion based on what he said was the statistical improbability that they all had underestimated Mr. Bolsonaro’s support by such a significant margin. He claimed that the scenario was about as likely as winning the lottery several times.But Alexandre Patriota, a statistics professor at the University of São Paulo, disputed that, saying proving collusion based solely on that single measure would be nearly impossible.“Even if all the institutes got it wrong in the same way, this is not an indication of a cartel,” he said. “To have a hint of malice, you need something more than numbers.” More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How Political Primaries Drive Britain’s Dysfunction

      by

      In the United States, too, the rise of inside-party primaries has empowered candidates at the extremes, and the result is likely to be a greater disconnect with the public.The rise and fall of Liz Truss, Britain’s six-week prime minister, embodies a seismic and long-mounting change in British politics, though its cause and consequences may not always be obvious.Ms. Truss was only the fourth British leader to win the job through a particularly American practice newly common in her country: a party primary.As in most parliamentary democracies, British parties, for most of their history, chose their leaders, and therefore the prime minister, through a poll of party officials.But in recent elections, Britain has shifted that power to party bases, which now select party leaders in elections somewhat like those held in the United States for party nominations.This was intended to empower voters over back-room party bosses, elevating politicians who would be more representative and therefore more electable. But the consequences have been very different.As in the United States, British primary voters tend to be more ideologically fervent and less inclined to moderation than are party bosses or even the median party supporter, surveys find.This has, in both countries, tended to elevate candidates who are more extreme, with research suggesting that the effect has been to make politics more polarized and dysfunctional. Ms. Truss, and the policies that seemingly ended her brief tenure, have become prime examples.Britain’s Conservative Party selects leaders first by winnowing down candidates in the traditional way: voting among party lawmakers. In four out of five such rounds, Ms. Truss was only the third-most selected candidate. In the fifth round, she came in second to Rishi Sunak, who is seen as more moderate.But, since 2001, the party has put its final two leadership candidates to a vote among dues-paying members. Ms. Truss’s libertarian ideas were seen as risky and extreme among party officials. But they were embraced by primary voters, who chose her over Mr. Sunak.More on the Situation in BritainA Rapid Downfall: Liz Truss is about to become the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. How did she get there?Lifelong Allowance: The departing prime minister is eligible for a taxpayer-funded annual payout for the rest of her life. Some say she shouldn’t be allowed to receive it.Staging a Comeback?: When Boris Johnson left his role as prime minister in September, he hinted he might return. He is now being mentioned as a successor to Ms. Truss.Those voters — about 172,000 of them — bear little resemblance to the average Briton. Roughly two in three are male. Two in five are 65 or older, double the proportion in the general population. Three in four voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 Brexit referendum, compared with only 52 percent of Britons, and 58 percent of all Conservative supporters.Ms. Truss’s economic ideas may have wooed those primary voters, but her policies, and the economic shudder that followed them, alienated much of the rest of the country. Even many Conservative supporters, most of whom do not qualify to vote in primaries, told pollsters that they intended to vote for other parties.In this case, the political shift brought about by primary voters’ pull toward an extreme was stark and, with Ms. Truss having resigned under party pressure, ultimately brief.But it is of a piece with what a growing body of political science research suggests are deeper and longer-term changes brought about by the rise of party primaries in a few democracies.A Quietly Seismic ShiftDavid Cameron, a former British prime minister, deepened his party’s commitment to primaries.Pool photo by ReutersBritain’s first leadership primary open to party members was held by Labour in 1994, part of an effort by that party to emphasize a connection to everyday citizens.The Conservatives followed in 2001, responding to deep election losses, said Agnès Alexandre-Collier, who studies British party politics at the University of Burgundy in France. Conservatives also began holding primaries for some individual seats in Parliament.This was intended to elevate Conservative politicians, Dr. Alexandre-Collier said, who would be “more modern, closer to the people, more in touch with the population, because the Conservatives were seen to be disconnected, out-of-touch elites.”Primaries were a relatively untested concept in Europe. The United States had only begun inviting voters into the process of selecting party nominees in the 1970s and ’80s.American party officials had long used control over nominations to block candidates who did not embrace party orthodoxy — and, often, to bar racial and religious minorities. Many Americans objected to this as undemocratic and divisive, pressuring parties to open up.In Britain, it was David Cameron, then the Conservative leader, who in 2009 deepened his party’s commitment to primaries, surrendering party control over nominations in dozens of races.“This will have a transformative effect on our politics, taking power from the party elites and the old boy networks,” he said at the time. A year later, he became prime minister.But in both the United States and Britain, primaries brought other changes, too.Party officials tend to overwhelmingly prefer moderate candidates over ideological ones, research has found. This holds true even in uncontested districts, suggesting that the preference runs deeper than electability considerations.To activists looking to push their parties further left or right, this can look like a conspiracy to block change. To parties, it is often intended to enforce internal unity and cohesion, as well as what is known in European politics as the “cordon sanitaire,” or an informal ban on extremists and demagogues.As primaries have shifted power from parties to the rank-and-file, these barriers have fallen away.This has also granted individual lawmakers greater independence, allowing them to more freely buck party positions — but binding them to primary voters’ desires instead.How Primaries Change PoliticsJeremy Corbyn won a Labour Party leadership vote in 2015 thanks to primary voters.Jessica Taylor/Agence France-Presse, via U.K. Parliament/AFP via Getty ImagesMr. Cameron quickly saw his party fill with rebellious lawmakers who had won primaries by championing a position that party insiders had opposed: leaving the European Union.At the same time, Mr. Cameron faced the prospect that, in any future leadership contest, his fate would be up to primary voters who also favored this policy. In 2016, partly as an effort to stave off these threats, Mr. Cameron held the referendum that ultimately resulted in Britain’s departure from the union.This is why some political scientists now argue that a straight line can be drawn from the Conservatives’ use of primaries, and the power it handed to a small and ideologically committed faction of voters, to Brexit.Britain’s Labour Party has also changed.Jeremy Corbyn, a left-wing lawmaker long at odds with his party’s leadership, won a leadership vote in 2015 thanks to heavy support from primary voters.But Mr. Corbyn took a soft line on Brexit, which saw his party’s support drop in polls and angered party officials who wanted Labour to champion a policy of remaining in Europe.Still, even as Labour officials tried to eject Mr. Corbyn, primary voters kept him in power. During his five-year leadership, Labour failed to win a majority although Conservatives struggled through leadership crises and economic turmoil.“Internal democracy can undermine a party’s ability to select candidates who can win general elections,” Georgia Kernell, a U.C.L.A. political scientist, wrote in a Washington Post essay, referring to Mr. Corbyn.“Party activists rarely represent the population,” she added. “Nor do they often represent the party’s own voters.”Weaker PartiesWhen Donald J. Trump was running his primary campaign, Republican officials tried to stop his rise.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesIn perhaps the most famous case of primary voters overruling party officials, Republican leaders repeatedly attempted to halt Donald J. Trump’s rise in their party’s 2016 primary.Those who have not subsequently fallen in line, like Representative Liz Cheney, who called Mr. Trump a threat to democracy, have often seen their careers ended by primary challenges.“It’s counterintuitive, but democratizing parties will ultimately harm democracy,” Jennifer N. Victor, a George Mason University political scientist, wrote in 2018, just as Democrats announced changes to curtail party bosses’ influence over primary nominations.“Democracy requires institutional forces of coordination to enforce collective action,” Dr. Victor said. “It comes in many forms. All of them can be called leadership.”“Without them,” she added, “we’re all just in ‘Lord of the Flies.’”Still, in countries where voters now expect to select their party’s leaders, reverting that authority back to party insiders, even if their choices were sometimes more representative of the electorate, would surely feel to citizens like an unacceptable loss of democratic rights.Voter-led primaries remain unusual in the world.One exception was, briefly, France, whose two traditionally dominant parties held primaries for nominations to the 2017 presidential contest.Voters in France’s right-wing party, which had been expected to win, chose a scandal-plagued candidate who was friendly with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and who lost. The winner of the left-wing party’s primary went on to take only 6 percent of the national vote.“This experiment was seen as an absolute failure,” Dr. Alexandre-Collier said. “It gave priority to the most populist leaders,” she added, as primaries have tended to do across countries.Both parties quietly ended the practice, returning candidate selection in France to party officials. More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Auge y caída de Liz Truss en la escena política del Reino Unido

      by

      Cuando solo habían transcurrido un poco más de seis semanas del inicio de su gestión, la primera ministra británica anunció su renuncia.LONDRES — El colapso político de Liz Truss concluyó con el anuncio de su renuncia el jueves 20 de octubre, poco más de seis semanas después de haberse convertido en la primera ministra del Reino Unido. Sus planes trastabillaron, su propio partido le dio la espalda y proliferaron los pronósticos de comentaristas de todos los ámbitos de que no podría sobrevivir más tiempo que una lechuga fresca. Y así fue.Truss reiteró su determinación de vadear la tormenta política a pesar del clamor generalizado que pedía su renuncia. Por desgracia, la presión aumentaba minuto a minuto… hasta que, en cierto momento, se percató de que no había salida.Si necesitas ponerte al día, a continuación te presentamos una síntesis de los hechos básicos.¿Quién es Liz Truss y cómo se convirtió en primera ministra?El 6 de septiembre, Truss fue designada para remplazar a Boris Johnson, quien fue elegido por los votantes en 2019, pero sufrió una espectacular caída tras una serie de escándalos que no le dejaron más remedio que abandonar el cargo en julio.Los ciudadanos no eligieron a Truss, sino que ascendió al poder gracias a su triunfo en una contienda interna del Partido Conservador para convertirse en su dirigente. Para elegir al sustituto de Johnson, los miembros del partido en el Parlamento seleccionaron, de entre un grupo de candidatos, solo a dos. Estos dos candidatos se sometieron a una votación en la que participaron alrededor de 160.000 miembros del partido que pagan su afiliación (se trata de un grupo nada representativo de una nación de 67 millones de residentes, pues en su mayoría son varones de edad avanzada, blancos y de clase media).Truss, de 47 años, fungió como secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores durante el gobierno de Johnson. Favorecía medidas políticas agresivas, era partidaria del libre mercado y, tras cambiar de opinión, apoyó el brexit, con lo que se ganó al bando de derecha del partido a pesar de su pasado más moderado (antes de integrarse al Partido Conservador, perteneció al Partido Liberal Demócratas, un movimiento de centro, durante sus años de estudiante en la Universidad de Oxford).¿Cómo empezó su declive?Nunca fue una tarea fácil. Cuando Truss asumió el cargo, la nación enfrentaba un panorama económico desastroso, especialmente porque se esperaba que los costos de la energía se elevaran un 80 por ciento en octubre y que volvieran a subir en enero. Esta situación amenazaba con condenar a millones de británicos, que ya sufrían los efectos de la inflación y otros problemas, a condiciones de pobreza extrema que les imposibilitaran calentar su hogar o usar electricidad.Así que, cuando los planes económicos que tanto promovió empeoraron esos problemas, el descontento masivo no se hizo esperar.Sus planes de recortes fiscales, desregulación y uso de préstamos causaron tal alarma entre los inversionistas de todo el mundo, que el valor de la libra británica cayó a niveles récord con respecto al dólar. El Banco de Inglaterra tomó medidas para apuntalar los bonos soberanos, en una intervención extraordinaria con la intención de calmar a los mercados.Esta respuesta demostró que sus ambiciones de libre mercado eran insostenibles. En una decisión humillante, esta semana se vio obligada a revertir casi todos los recortes fiscales, incluido uno aplicable al grupo de mayores ingresos que fue objeto de muchas críticas. Despidió a Kwasi Kwarteng, el ministro de Hacienda encargado de preparar el plan y su aliado cercano, y adoptó políticas económicas promovidas por el Partido Laborista, el partido de oposición.“No es posible dar un giro total como el que ella dio y esperar que tu credibilidad política se mantenga”, dijo Jon Tonge, profesor de política en la Universidad de Liverpool.¿Cómo puso en peligro su cargo?Sus concesiones no lograron apaciguar la rebelión que se propagaba dentro de su propio partido que, como le sucedió a Johnson, tenía el poder para derrocarla.Los conservadores (también conocidos como tories), que ya habían sufrido una marcada caída en sus índices de popularidad en la opinión pública tras los escándalos de Johnson, vieron sus estadísticas hundirse a profundidades impresionantes con los tropiezos de Truss. Una encuesta dada a conocer por Redfield & Wilton Strategies esta semana reveló el porcentaje de aprobación más bajo registrado en la historia para un primer ministro: el 70 por ciento de la población ve con malos ojos a Truss y ese porcentaje incluye al 67 por ciento de los conservadores.Si se celebraran elecciones generales el día de hoy, el 56 por ciento de los votos favorecerían al Partido Laborista, mientras que el 20 por ciento de los electores votarían por el Partido Conservador, según la encuesta.El descontento del Partido Conservador con Truss llegó a su clímax y se vio envuelta en un ambiente palpable de crisis. El miércoles 19 de octubre, explotó en una lucha frenética por su supervivencia. En pleno bombardeo de preguntas de los miembros del Parlamento, declaró: “Siempre lucho, no me doy por vencida”.Entonces, sobrevino una oleada de caos. Suella Braverman, la ministra británica del Interior, que se vio obligada a renunciar a causa del uso indebido de su correo electrónico, aprovechó su carta de renuncia para criticar a Truss, expresando “inquietud por la dirección que ha tomado este gobierno”. Además, una votación sobre el tema de la fracturación hidráulica en el Parlamento se transformó, según la información que circula, en una escena de hostigamiento, gritos, maltrato físico y lágrimas. Más conservadores del Parlamento expresaron abiertamente su deseo de que Truss renunciara al cargo. Y empezaron a correr rumores sobre renuncias al más alto nivel. En ese contexto, resultaba difícil tener información actualizada.“En resumen, es un caos total, absoluto y abyecto”, dijo un presentador de noticias en iTV. Charles Walker, un legislador conservador, no se contuvo en una entrevista en la BBC.El jueves, Truss anunció que había entregado su renuncia al rey y que el plan era elegir una nueva dirigencia en el plazo de una semana.¿Y ahora qué?Los conservadores planean elegir al próximo primer ministro la próxima semana. (Aquí ofrecemos un listado de los candidatos favoritos).El partido ha optado por un proceso simplificado que fue diseñado para evitar una campaña larga. Los candidatos deben recibir 100 nominaciones entre 357 legisladores conservadores antes de las 2:00 p.m. del 24 de octubre. Si solo un candidato alcanza el umbral, esa persona se convertirá en el primer ministro.Si dos candidatos logran las 100 nominaciones, los legisladores votarán para indicar cuál tiene más apoyo. Si el finalista del segundo lugar no se retira, los aproximadamente 160.000 miembros del partido votarán en una encuesta en línea que finaliza el viernes.Si tres candidatos cruzan el umbral, la votación de los legisladores que se celebrará el 24 de octubre eliminará a un candidato, y los dos primeros clasificados avanzarán a la votación en línea.El candidato ganador será el segundo líder consecutivo del Reino Unido que no ha sido escogido en elecciones generales. Truss seguirá siendo primera ministra hasta que su sucesor sea elegido.Las próximas elecciones generales, en las que podrán participar todos los ciudadanos y el Partido Laborista tendrá una nueva oportunidad para tomar el control, están programadas para enero de 2025, a más tardar. El dirigente conservador podría convocar a elecciones antes, pero no sería nada lógico hacerlo pronto, pues las encuestas indican que el partido sufriría una derrota arrasadora frente al Partido Laborista.Tonge subrayó que una ventaja que tienen los conservadores es el tiempo. En teoría, el partido podría recuperar su credibilidad si la economía se recupera en los siguientes años, señaló.“No creo que el cambio de liderazgo garantice que los conservadores se salven”, aseveró. “Pero es posible que sea una buena medida para limitar los daños”.Daniel Victor es un reportero de temas generales radicado en Londres; ha reportado desde Hong Kong y Nueva York. Se unió al Times en 2012. @bydanielvictor More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Ins and Outs of America’s Shrug at the Threat to Democracy

      by

      With voters distracted by other issues and election denial flourishing, the country has what academics call a legitimacy problem.One way to read the striking results of the New York Times/Siena College poll released this week is that democracy is not shaping up to be the driver of votes that many on the left hoped it would be.The obvious reason is that inflation is a far more immediate issue on the minds of most voters, who are watching their savings evaporate or struggling to pay their bills. That’s Abraham Maslow 101: Physiological needs of food and shelter will always take priority over abstractions.But another way to interpret the survey is as yet more confirmation that American democracy is indeed in trouble.In a Twitter Spaces conversation today with Ruth Igielnik, a staff editor for news surveys who worked on this week’s poll, and Nick Corasaniti, a national correspondent on the politics team, we unpacked why, even though 71 percent of voters agreed that democracy was at risk, only 7 percent said that democracy’s fragile state was the most important problem facing the country. You can listen to our discussion here.Ruth noted that voters’ responses to the question “What one or two words do you think summarize the current threat to democracy?” were all over the map.Some said “election deniers” or “Donald Trump,” while others said “Joe Biden,” “inflation and taxes” or “the one percent, a.k.a. Wall Street and hedge funds.” Another person said “our division” — that is, political polarization itself.Nick, who recently returned from a reporting trip in Michigan, added some texture from tagging along during voter canvassing in Detroit and its suburbs, as well as in Saginaw, a city of about 50,000 people in the center of the state. Biden carried Saginaw County by just a few hundred votes in 2020.“We encountered a ton of voters, and not a single one of them brought up any issues of democracy,” Nick said.He added that the organizers, as they prepared the canvassers for what they should expect to encounter, told them: “You’re going to hear about issues like, why are our wages so low when we’re a predominantly union town? Why are prescription drug prices so persistently high? Why are there potholes in the road? Why can’t I get a garbage can?”Lonna Atkeson, who studies political psychology at Florida State University, said voters were just thinking rationally. When it comes to protecting democracy, she noted, each side sees the other as the problem.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.“So there’s not really much to go on there other than to vote for your own party,” Atkeson said, “whereas the economy is a clear signal. It’s on your doorstep. You feel it every day. Maybe there’s something that can be done about that.”A legitimacy problemMost serious experts on democracy — academics who study governments around the world, and why they fall apart — would say that election deniers are the real danger.And the new Times/Siena poll shows that millions of them are out there, despite zero evidence that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. As Nick wrote in an article explaining the poll results, “Twenty-eight percent of all voters, including 41 percent of Republicans, said they had little to no faith in the accuracy of this year’s midterm elections.”There’s an academic term for that: a legitimacy problem.Seymour Martin Lipset, a sociologist and political scientist who did seminal work on what makes democracies successful, published an influential paper in 1959 called “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.”At the time, he was trying to understand two main questions: why Europe veered toward extremist ideologies like fascism and communism after World War I, and whether the nascent democracies forged by fire and blood in World War II were sustainable.Lipset defined democracy this way: “a political system which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials.”The United States still meets that pretty basic requirement. Despite Trump’s bellowing about a stolen election, and his efforts to whip up the mob that assaulted the Capitol, Biden duly assumed office in 2021 after a near-disastrous handover of power. The system held, albeit tenuously.But Lipset’s framework should alarm us today because, as the Times poll suggests, nearly half the country still doesn’t consider Biden the legitimate president.Many of Donald Trump’s supporters deny the legitimacy of the last presidential election.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesPretend the U.S. is a foreign country; how would we explain what is happening? Two years on, the fever that powered an attempt to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power has not broken, and it’s still being stoked every day by the loser of the previous election.As Lipset wrote, “If a political system is not characterized by a value system allowing the peaceful ‘play’ of power — the adherence by the ‘outs’ to decisions made by ‘ins’ and the recognition by ‘ins’ of the rights of the ‘outs’ — there can be no stable democracy.”Lipset also defined a stable democracy as the absence “of a major political movement opposed to the democratic ‘rules of the game’” — which required, he thought, that “no totalitarian movement, either Fascist or Communist, received 20 percent of the vote.”The one silver lining in the poll? Only 17 percent of the voters who saw democracy as threatened said there was a need to go “outside the law” to fix the problem. And of those voters, just 11 percent said the answer would be to “take up arms/violence/civil war.”Then again, maybe that’s no silver lining at all: By my math, that would still be over a million people. Buckle up.What to read on democracyA South Florida man became the first of 20 defendants ensnared in Gov. Ron DeSantis’s voter fraud dragnet to have charges dropped, ABC News reports.The midterm legal battles have already begun: The Democratic National Committee has filed a court motion to try to stop Republicans in Pennsylvania who want to disqualify mail-in ballots without handwritten dates on them.Tens of thousands of transgender people could be disenfranchised in the November elections because of strict voter ID laws and other rules in their states, according to Rolling Stone.Nonwhite voters were 30 percent more likely to have their vote-by-mail application or ballot rejected compared with white voters in Texas, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, which analyzed data from the March primary.Election offices large and small across the country are contending with internal threats that could undermine the integrity of the midterms: election deniers holding positions of power in them, CNN reports.The head of a major federal union warned this week that demonization of the Internal Revenue Service by some Republicans could put the agency’s employees in danger.Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, is stepping up his courtship of right-wing fringe figures, including adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.viewfinderSupporters of Stacey Abrams at a campaign event in Athens, Ga.Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York TimesOn the trail in GeorgiaA couple of hundred people had gathered to wait for a glimpse of Stacey Abrams by the time her purple bus pulled up in College Square in Athens, Ga. Abrams’s supporters have often spoken to me about how inspiring it is for them to see her running for office when for so long Black women have organized politically behind the scenes.I crept to the center of the crowd for a photo of Abrams as she spoke. At one point, I turned around and captured this image of a group of racially diverse and multigenerational women. To me, it represented a key group of her supporters and their feelings about her candidacy and the future.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak Among Top Contenders to Replace UK Prime Minister

      by

      Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the man who helped oust him from his job, the former Finance Minister Rishi Sunak, are seen as two of the top contenders within the governing Conservative Party.LONDON — The race to succeed Liz Truss as Britain’s prime minister was already gathering pace on Friday morning, potentially pitting the former prime minister, Boris Johnson, against the man who helped oust him from Downing Street just a little more than three months ago, the former finance minister, Rishi Sunak.Penny Mordaunt, now a senior minister, was also seen as a serious potential contender in an election that will be conducted within the governing Conservative Party, which controls the government and can select a prime minister without calling a general election.The next government leader faces a formidable task as Britain heads into an economic slowdown with inflation surging, borrowing costs rising and a winter likely to be dominated by labor strikes and worries about energy supplies.Ahead of what could be a head-on battle against Mr. Johnson, Mr. Sunak’s supporters are presenting him as the safe pair of hands, the man who can restore stability following the crisis precipitated by Ms. Truss’s government when it announced unfunded tax cuts last month, sending financial markets into a tailspin. The British pound plummeted and borrowing costs soared.Less than seven weeks after she took office, Ms. Truss resigned on Thursday — the shortest-serving prime minister in British history.This summer, after Mr. Johnson was forced to resign, Mr. Sunak ran to succeed him but lost out to Ms. Truss. During that leadership contest he gave a prophetic warning of the risks of her economic program, including the tax cuts that ended up rattling the markets.So the appointment of Mr. Sunak, an experienced former chancellor of the Exchequer, might reassure financial markets enough to give a new government more leeway when it comes up with a new budget plan.“Rishi is the experienced leader to sort the economy, lead effectively, get us back into political contention and unite the Party and country,” wrote Bim Afolami, a Conservative lawmaker, on Twitter.Rishi Sunak, one of the possible candidates for prime minister, meeting with supporters in August in Birmingham, England.Susannah Ireland/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesBut the prospect of an extraordinary return for Mr. Johnson, who left Downing Street less than two months ago under a sizable cloud, has galvanized the looming contest.Reinstalling him would be a risk for the Conservative Party because he quit after a succession of ethics scandals and is still being investigated by a parliamentary committee over claims he misled lawmakers about lockdown-busting parties at his Downing Street office and residence.More on the Situation in BritainA Rapid Downfall: Liz Truss is about to become the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. How did she get there?Lifelong Allowance: The departing prime minister is eligible for a taxpayer-funded annual payout for the rest of her life. Some say she shouldn’t be allowed to receive it.Staging a Comeback?: When Boris Johnson left his role as prime minister in September, he hinted he might return. He is now being mentioned as a successor to Ms. Truss.Mr. Johnson has been on a Caribbean vacation. But his father, Stanley Johnson, did little to dispel the impression that his son was preparing a comeback attempt. He told Britain’s ITV television network on Friday: “I think he’s on a plane, as I understand it.”By the time he left office, Mr. Johnson, always a polarizing figure, was deeply unpopular with voters, according to opinion polls. He tarnished his party’s reputation and dozens of members of his government resigned.But since then, the Conservative Party’s support has collapsed. A new opinion poll showed the party plunging to a new low in support of just 14 percent.Mr. Johnson’s supporters argue that because he won a landslide election victory in 2019, he has a mandate from the voters, and his brand of optimism could help rally the Conservatives.If he were to run, he would be seen as the clear favorite as he remains popular among party members who could make the ultimate decision.Boris Johnson on his last day in office in September.Leon Neal/Getty ImagesIt was they who, during the summer, rejected Mr. Sunak in favor of Ms. Truss when the two reached the final stages of the last leadership contest. One of the main reasons for his failure was the perception among party members that Mr. Sunak betrayed Mr. Johnson by resigning from his cabinet, prompting the crisis that destroyed his leadership.Even before formal declarations by any candidates, their allies were canvassing lawmakers, who in some cases offered their public support.Among those urging Mr. Johnson to run are Jacob Rees-Mogg, the business secretary, who wrote on Twitter that he was supporting the former prime minister under the hashtag #BORISorBUST. Nadine Dorries, another strong supporter in Parliament, described him as a “known winner.”More centrist lawmakers might also be tempted to support Mr. Johnson because of his history of success in elections before his recent ethics scandals. But his critics say he would struggle to unite his colleagues, and one Conservative lawmaker, Roger Gale, has said he would resign from the party if Mr. Johnson returned.Ms. Mordaunt, who finished third in the summer leadership contest, has good communication skills and has raised her profile in recent weeks, including this week when she appeared in Parliament to defend the government.She is relatively untested at the highest reaches of government. But her supporters argue that she has more experience than former prime ministers like Tony Blair and David Cameron who never held ministerial positions before taking power, having been in opposition.And Ms. Mordaunt might be the best placed of the possible contenders to manage a fractured Conservative Party.“Penny is the best candidate to unite our party and lead our great nation,” said Bob Seely, one of her supporters and a member of Parliament.Britain’s leader of the House of Commons, Penny Mordaunt, is another potential candidate for prime minister. Daniel Leal/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNone of the likely front-runners have yet declared, but by Monday afternoon, contenders must have nominations from at least 100 of the 357 Conservative lawmakers, a number intended to speed up the contest by limiting potential candidates to a maximum of three.If only one politician passes that threshold, he or she will become prime minister on Monday. If there are two or three, Conservative lawmakers will vote on Monday and the top two will then go for a final decision on Oct. 28 in a vote by about 170,000 Conservative Party members — unless one withdraws voluntarily.Other possible candidates include the home secretary, Suella Braverman, who was fired by Ms. Truss on Wednesday, and Kemi Badenoch, the international trade secretary. However, on the evidence of their performance in the summer leadership contest, neither is seen as likely to reach the threshold of 100 nominations.On Friday, the defense secretary, Ben Wallace, ruled himself out of the contest, and said he was leaning toward support for Mr. Johnson. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      There’s Been a ‘Regime Change’ in How Democrats Think About Elections

      by

      According to the conventional rules of politics, Democrats should be on track for electoral disaster this November. Joe Biden’s approval rating is stuck around 42 percent, inflation is still sky-high and midterms usually swing against the incumbent president’s party — a recipe for the kind of political wipeouts we saw in 2018, 2010 and 1994.But that’s not what the polls show. Currently, Democrats are on track to hold the Senate and lose narrowly in the House, which raises all kinds of questions: Why are Republicans failing to capitalize on such a favorable set of circumstances? How did Democrats get themselves into this situation — and can they get out of it? And should we even trust the polls giving us this information in the first place?[You can listen to this episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]Matt Yglesias is a veteran journalist who writes the newsletter “Slow Boring” and co-hosts the podcast “Bad Takes.” And in recent years he’s become an outspoken critic of the Democratic Party’s political strategy: how Democrats communicate with the public, what they choose as their governing priorities and whom they ultimately listen to. In Yglesias’s view, Democrats have lost touch with the very voters they need to win close elections like this one, and should embrace a very different approach to politics if they want to defeat an increasingly anti-democratic G.O.P.We discuss why Yglesias thinks the 2022 polls are likely biased toward Democrats, how Republicans’ bizarre nominee choices are giving Democrats a fighting chance of winning the Senate, why Biden’s popular legislative agenda hasn’t translated into greater public support, the Biden administration’s “grab bag” approach to policymaking, why Yglesias thinks there’s been a “regime change” in how Democrats think about elections, how social media has transformed both parties’ political incentives, what the Democratic agenda should look like if the party retains both houses of Congress and more.You can listen to our whole conversation by following “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts. View a list of book recommendations from our guests here.(A full transcript of the episode is available here.)The New York Times“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Emefa Agawu, Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld and Rogé Karma. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Original music by Isaac Jones. Mixing by Jeff Geld, Sonia Herrero and Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      La derecha moviliza a las organizaciones de activistas que monitorean las elecciones en EE. UU.

      by

      En la víspera de una segunda vuelta de elecciones primarias en junio, un candidato republicano a secretario de Estado de Carolina del Sur envió un mensaje a sus partidarios.“Para todos los del equipo que van a monitorear las urnas mañana, buena caza”, escribió Keith Blandford, un candidato que en Telegram, la aplicación de redes sociales, promovió la falacia de que se le robó la victoria a Donald Trump en las elecciones de 2020. “Ya saben lo que tienen que buscar. Ahora que el enemigo está a la defensiva, refuercen el ataque”.Al día siguiente, activistas se dispersaron por las casillas electorales en Charleston, Carolina del Sur, y exigieron inspeccionar el equipo de votación y tomar fotografías y video. Cuando los trabajadores electorales rechazaron sus peticiones, algunos regresaron con agentes de policía para denunciar sellos rotos o extraviados en las máquinas de votación, según correos electrónicos que fueron enviados por funcionarios locales a la comisión electoral estatal. No había ningún sello roto ni extraviado.Luego de que Blandford perdió, los activistas publicaron en línea una lista de más de 60 “anomalías” que observaron, suficientes para haber cambiado el resultado de la contienda, afirmaban. Se refirieron al operativo como un “programa piloto”.El episodio es uno de muchos que tienen a los funcionarios electorales en alerta ahora que inician las votaciones para las elecciones de mitad de mandato, la prueba más importante que ha enfrentado el sistema electoral estadounidense desde que las mentiras de Trump sobre los resultados de 2020 instigaron un ataque contra el proceso democrático.En los dos años transcurridos desde entonces, grupos de activistas de derecha se han aliado para difundir afirmaciones falsas sobre fraude electoral generalizado y mala praxis. Ahora, esos activistas se están inmiscuyendo en el conteo de votos, en un esfuerzo amplio y agresivo para monitorear la votación en busca de evidencia que confirme sus teorías. Muchos activistas han sido movilizados por las mismas personas que trataron de revocar la derrota de Trump en 2020.Sus tácticas en las elecciones primarias han hecho que los funcionarios se preparen para una nueva gama de disputas, como observadores y trabajadores electorales alborotadores, estrategias judiciales agresivas, impugnación de votantes y papeletas y patrullajes parapoliciales en busca de fraude.Muchos activistas electorales han sido movilizados por las mismas personas que intentaron revertir la derrota de Donald Trump en 2020.Tamir Kalifa para The New York TimesFuncionarios electorales, tanto republicanos como demócratas, concuerdan en que es poco probable que estas iniciativas generen un desorden generalizado. Afirman que están preparados para contar con precisión las decenas de millones de votos que esperan recibir en las próximas semanas. Pero situaciones como la de Carolina del Sur conllevan consecuencias, pues engendran desinformación y propagan dudas acerca de los resultados, sobre todo en las contiendas cerradas.“De cierto modo, es la manifestación de una profecía autorrealizada”, dijo Tammy Patrick, quien trabaja con funcionarios electorales como asesora principal en el Fondo para la Democracia. Los activistas que están preparados para detectar la falta de ética profesional son más propensos a exagerar los pequeños errores y causar disturbios “que no harán más que apuntalar sus denuncias”, explicó.Entrevistas con funcionarios electorales y activistas, análisis de documentos públicos y correos electrónicos de planificación obtenidos por The New York Times muestran que la amplia red de organizadores incluye a funcionarios del Partido Republicano, grupos conservadores populares y los elementos más conspirativos del movimiento de negación electoral.Al parecer, los grupos recurren a las tácticas que se utilizaron hace dos años: recopilar testimonios de funcionarios de casilla aliados del Partido Republicano, los empleados temporales que supervisan los centros de votación y observadores electorales, los voluntarios que monitorean las operaciones, con el fin de respaldar impugnaciones y rebatir resultados.“Ahora estamos 100 veces más preparados”, dijo en una entrevista Stephen K. Bannon, exasesor de Trump que participó en los intentos de anular la elección de 2020. Bannon es presentador de un pódcast que se ha convertido en una cámara de compensación para los activistas electorales de la derecha. “Vamos a adjudicar la victoria en cada batalla. Esa es la diferencia”.En julio, Bannon fue declarado culpable por desacato al Congreso por no cooperar con el comité de la Cámara de Representantes, responsable de investigar el ataque del 6 de enero de 2021. El lunes, los fiscales recomendaron una sentencia de seis meses en prisión, mientras que Bannon sostuvo que no debía pasar tiempo en la cárcel.Desde hace tiempo, tanto demócratas como republicanos han reclutado a observadores y trabajadores electorales para supervisar las votaciones y anticiparse a disputas. Pero este año, los funcionarios están contemplando la posibilidad de que esos esfuerzos puedan quedar en manos de activistas que difunden teorías fantásticas o desacreditadas.Los funcionarios vieron pruebas de estos nuevos operativos en las elecciones primarias. En Míchigan, un trabajador de casilla fue acusado de manipular una computadora de votación. En Texas, unos activistas siguieron a funcionarios electorales hasta sus oficinas y trataron de entrar en áreas restringidas. En Alabama, activistas intentaron insertar papeletas falsas en una máquina durante una prueba pública.En Kansas, los activistas financiaron un recuento de una medida electoral sobre el derecho al aborto que requería que el condado de Johnson contara a mano un cuarto de millón de votos, a pesar de que la medida fracasó por 18 puntos porcentuales. Fred Sherman, el jefe electoral del condado, dijo que algunos trabajadores involucrados parecían negar las elecciones. Dijo que tuvo que llamar a la policía para sacar a uno que violó la seguridad. El recuento transcurrió sin problemas, agregó, pero fue “aterrador”.Empleados que la semana pasada clasificaban las boletas enviadas por correo que fueron hechas recientemente.Rebecca Noble para The New York Times“Debemos tener en cuenta que es posible que existan personas que no tengan las mejores intenciones desde el punto de vista de la integridad electoral”, dijo Sherman.Los funcionarios electorales se han preparado durante meses para estos retos. Algunos han participado en ejercicios organizados por el FBI sobre cómo lidiar con amenazas, incluso agresiones físicas contra trabajadores electorales. Han ofrecido a su personal capacitación para la “reducción de hostilidades”. Algunos han cambiado sus oficinas, pues han añadido cercas y otras barreras.“Cuando la gente ve que todos trabajamos duro y con ética hacia la misma meta, ¿quién querría alterar eso?”, preguntó Stephen Richer, registrador del condado de Maricopa en Arizona.Los activistas afirman que están tratando de garantizar que todas las reglas sean acatadas y que solo los votantes que cumplen los requisitos tengan acceso al sufragio.“Tenemos a personas capacitadas que conocen la ley, por lo que pueden observar, documentar y reportar cuando las cosas no se realizan conforme dicta la ley”, dijo hace poco en el pódcast de Bannon Cleta Mitchell, organizadora de uno de los grupos nacionales que capacitan activistas y abogada que ayudó a Trump en sus impugnaciones vanas de 2020. Mitchell comentó que su red había capacitado a más de 20.000 personas para formar lo que ella describió como una “agencia de detectives ciudadanos”.Mitchell no respondió a las solicitudes para que ofreciera comentarios.En muchos lugares, los partidos políticos influyen de manera directa en el reclutamiento de trabajadores y observadores electorales. El Comité Nacional Republicano declaró que había desplegado a más de 56.000 trabajadores y vigilantes en las elecciones primarias y especiales este año y esperaba aumentar ese número en las elecciones generales. En varios estados bisagra, el comité también contrató lo que llamó funcionarios de “integridad electoral”.El Comité Nacional Demócrata considera sus esfuerzos como una “protección a los votantes” y ha contratado a 25 directores y 129 miembros de personal en todo el país. El comité no reveló la cifra total de trabajadores ni observadores electorales que reclutó.El pódcast de Stephen Bannon se ha convertido en un centro de intercambio de información sobre el activismo electoral.Kenny Holston para The New York TimesLos observadores veían cómo los votantes sufragaban en Rancho High School el día de las elecciones en Las Vegas en 2020.Bridget Bennett para The New York TimesTanto demócratas como republicanos han lanzado un bombardeo anticipado de litigios electorales: 96 demandas, según Democracy Docket, un grupo jurídico electoral de izquierda. El recuento está distribuido con bastante equilibrio entre ambos bandos.Es una situación que recuerda a lo que sucedió en 2020 porque muchas de las disputas se enfocan en la votación en ausencia: más de la mitad de las demandas interpuestas por grupos de afiliación republicana están relacionadas con las normas de voto por correspondencia, por ejemplo, cómo enmendar errores en una papeleta, según Democracy Docket.Algunos defensores del derecho al voto y grupos demócratas afirman que están alertas ante otra similitud con 2020, cuando Trump y sus aliados impidieron que se certificaran los resultados.“Existe la preocupación subyacente de que, en algunos de estos lugares donde los políticos certifican la elección, quizá no la certifiquen y se desate una crisis”, dijo Jonathan Greenbaum, abogado jefe de Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, un grupo jurídico apartidista por los derechos civiles.Algunas de las personas involucradas en las disputas de 2020 ahora son organizadores líderes.Patrick Byrne, exdirector ejecutivo de Overstock.com y activista que impulsa teorías de conspiración electoral, está reclutando personas a través de su grupo, Proyecto América. Michael Flynn, el primer asesor de seguridad nacional de Trump, es cofundador y asesora a esa organización. (Ambos hombres asistieron a una reunión de diciembre de 2020 en la Casa Blanca donde Flynn instó a Trump a apoderarse de las máquinas de votación).En Míchigan, un funcionario estatal del partido se identifica en los documentos como el director estatal de la estrategia de Proyecto América, llamada Operación Eagles Wings. Ese funcionario también se coordina con la Red de Integridad Electoral de Mitchell, que organiza llamadas estratégicas y capacitación, según los correos electrónicos obtenidos por el Times.En su pódcast War Room, Bannon le dice a su audiencia que los demócratas solo ganarán las elecciones si las roban. Él y sus aliados pueden impedir esto al “tomar el control del aparato electoral”, comentó en su programa este mes.Boletas por correspondencia recién impresas en PhoenixRebecca Noble para The New York TimesUn observador electoral voluntario en Wilkes-Barre, Pensilvania, en 2020Robert Nickelsberg para The New York TimesBannon ha estado dirigiendo a sus seguidores a sitios web que motivan una especie de vigilancia clandestina de las elecciones. The Gateway Pundit, un sitio web de derecha, insta a los activistas para que exijan que a los observadores se les permita supervisar mientras las papeletas se suben a los camiones en las oficinas postales e insistir en acercarse más al conteo de papeletas de lo permitido por las normas.Bannon también ha incitado a su audiencia a abordar a los partidos locales, que en algunos estados están a cargo de seleccionar a los trabajadores de casilla.En el condado de El Paso, Colorado, la directora local del Partido Republicano, que coincide con figuras influyentes del movimiento de negación electoral, le pidió al secretario del condado que depusiera a varios trabajadores electorales que habían servido desde hace años a quienes describió en un correo electrónico como “desleales” al partido. El secretario, Chuck Broerman, dijo que cumplió la petición muy a su pesar, ya que estaba obligado por la ley.Un partidario de Trump sostiene un cartel que pide elecciones justas afuera del Capitolio del estado de Arizona en Phoenix en 2020.Adriana Zehbrauskas para The New York Times“Los individuos que están desplazando han sido republicanos trabajadores y dedicados desde hace mucho”, dijo Broerman, quien también fue presidente del partido en el condado.En Carolina del Norte, un grupo de derecha dedicado a la “integridad electoral” dijo que capacitó a 1000 observadores electorales en el estado, con la ayuda de la red de Mitchell. Algunos fueron objeto de decenas de quejas durante las primarias.En el condado de Pasquotank, uno estaba “intimidando a los trabajadores electorales porque salió varias veces del recinto para ‘reportarse con su cuartel general’”, según las denuncias obtenidas por el Times.Para abordar las quejas, el estado redactó una propuesta de cambios que habrían facilitado la destitución de un observador electoral por mala conducta. La comisión de reglas controlada por los republicanos las rechazó después de un torrente de correos electrónicos y testimonios públicos de activistas locales.Mitchell fue una de las personas que intervino. Los cambios estaban tratando de frenar “el interés entusiasta” que los ciudadanos tenían en el proceso electoral, dijo.Alexandra Berzon es una reportera de investigación ganadora del Premio Pulitzer para la sección de Política, que se enfoca en los sistemas electorales y la votación. Antes fue reportera de investigación en The Wall Street Journal y cubrió la industria de las apuestas y la seguridad en el lugar de trabajo. @alexandraberzonNick Corasaniti cubre la política nacional. Fue uno de los principales reporteros que cubrieron la campaña presidencial de Donald Trump en 2016 y ha estado escribiendo sobre las campañas presidenciales, del Congreso, de gobernadores y alcaldías para el Times desde 2011. @NYTnickc • Facebook More