More stories

  • in

    On the Ballot, Abortion Rights Proved More Popular Than Kamala Harris

    In states like Arizona and Nevada, some voters split their tickets, supporting abortion rights measures while also backing Donald Trump.Democrats headed into the election hoping that abortion rights initiatives would drive support for Kamala Harris in states where the measures appeared on the ballot, including two presidential swing states, Arizona and Nevada.But while the ballot measures, broadly put, performed well on Tuesday, succeeding in seven out of 10 states, Ms. Harris and other Democrats underperformed them across the map.In both Arizona and Nevada, more than 60 percent of voters approved measures to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions, though more votes remained to be counted on Thursday. But Donald J. Trump appeared on track to win both states, according to New York Times estimates. Abortion rights initiatives also passed in Missouri and Montana, two states Mr. Trump won easily.Even as a growing share of women said abortion access was central to their vote, pre-election polling suggested that it wasn’t voters’ top concern overall. Fifteen percent of likely voters in an October national New York Times/Siena College poll said abortion was the most important issue in their vote for president, but roughly twice as many listed the economy, or inflation.The voters who cited abortion as their top concern favored Ms. Harris, 88 percent to 11 percent, and the voters who prioritized economic issues favored Mr. Trump, 72 percent to 24 percent.In states where the ballot measures passed but Mr. Trump won or was leading, voters had, in effect, split their tickets, supporting abortion rights in their states while also backing a candidate who took credit for overturning Roe v. Wade, which had established a nationwide right to abortion. Ms. Harris had made protecting abortion rights a central theme of her campaign.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

    Lo que los votantes de Estados Unidos le están diciendo a las élites

    Hemos entrado en una nueva era política. Durante los últimos 40 años, más o menos, hemos vivido en la era de la información. Quienes pertenecemos a la clase educada decidimos, con cierta justificación, que la economía posindustrial sería construida por gente como nosotros, así que adaptamos las políticas sociales para satisfacer nuestras necesidades.Nuestra política educativa impulsó a muchos hacia el camino que nosotros seguíamos: universidades de cuatro años para que estuvieran calificados para los “trabajos del futuro”. Mientras tanto, la formación profesional languidecía. Adoptamos una política de libre comercio que llevó empleos industriales a países de bajo costo para que pudiéramos concentrar nuestras energías en empresas de la economía del conocimiento dirigidas por personas con títulos universitarios avanzados. El sector financiero y de consultoría creció como la espuma, mientras que el empleo manufacturero se marchitaba.Se consideró que la geografía no era importante: si el capital y la mano de obra altamente calificada querían concentrarse en Austin, San Francisco y Washington, en realidad no importaba lo que ocurriera con todas las demás comunidades que quedaron olvidadas. Las políticas migratorias facilitaron que personas con un alto nivel educativo tuviesen acceso a mano de obra con salarios bajos, mientras que los trabajadores menos calificados se enfrentaban a una nueva competencia. Viramos hacia tecnologías verdes favorecidas por quienes trabajan en píxeles, y desfavorecimos a quienes trabajan en la industria manufacturera y el transporte, cuyo sustento depende de los combustibles fósiles.Ese gran sonido de piezas en movimiento que has oído era la redistribución del respeto. Quienes ascendían en la escala académica eran aclamados, mientras que quienes no lo hacían se volvían invisibles. La situación era especialmente difícil para los hombres jóvenes. En la secundaria, dos tercios de los alumnos del 10 por ciento superior en las clases son chicas, mientras que aproximadamente dos tercios de los alumnos del decil inferior son chicos. Las escuelas no están preparadas para el éxito masculino; eso tiene consecuencias personales de por vida, y ahora también a nivel nacional.La sociedad funcionó como un vasto sistema de segregación, elevando a quienes estaban mejor dotados académicamente por encima de todos los demás. En poco tiempo, la brecha de los diplomas se convirtió en el abismo más importante de la vida estadounidense. Los graduados de secundaria mueren nueve años antes que las personas con estudios universitarios. Mueren seis veces más por sobredosis de opiáceos. Se casan menos, se divorcian más y tienen más probabilidades de tener un hijo fuera del matrimonio. Tienen más probabilidades de tener obesidad. Según un estudio reciente del American Enterprise Institute, el 24 por ciento de quienes han terminado como mucho la preparatoria no tienen amigos cercanos. Tienen menos probabilidades que los graduados universitarios de visitar espacios públicos o unirse a grupos comunitarios y ligas deportivas. No hablan en la jerga adecuada de justicia social ni mantienen el tipo de creencias sofisticadasi que son marcadores de virtud pública.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

    ‘El Estados Unidos de Trump’: el regreso que señala un país diferente

    La semana pasada, en su mitin de clausura en la Elipse, Kamala Harris despreció a Donald Trump como un caso atípico que no representaba a Estados Unidos. “Eso no es lo que somos”, declaró.De hecho, resulta que eso es exactamente lo que somos. Al menos la mayoría de nosotros.La suposición de que Trump representaba una anomalía que por fin sería relegada al montón de cenizas de la historia fue arrastrada el martes por la noche por una corriente republicana que barrió con los estados disputados y con la comprensión de Estados Unidos alimentada durante mucho tiempo por su élite dirigente de ambos partidos.La clase política ya no puede desechar a Trump como una interrupción temporal de la larga marcha del progreso, un caso fortuito que de algún modo se coló en la Casa Blanca con una estrafalaria y única victoria en el Colegio Electoral hace ocho años. Con este regreso ganador para recuperar la presidencia, Trump se ha establecido como una fuerza transformadora que está rehaciendo Estados Unidos a su imagen y semejanza.El desencanto populista con la dirección de la nación y el resentimiento contra las élites demostraron ser más profundos y más hondos de lo que muchos en ambos partidos habían reconocido. La campaña de Trump, impulsada por testosterona, aprovechó la resistencia a elegir a la primera mujer presidenta.Y aunque decenas de millones de electores siguieron votando contra Trump, este volvió a aprovechar la sensación de muchos otros de que estaban perdiendo el país que conocían, asediado económica, cultural y demográficamente.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

    What to Know About COP29 and How the U.S. Election Affects Climate Talks

    Diplomats and leaders from around the world are gathering for annual climate negotiations. Here’s what they’re all about and what Donald Trump’s victory means for the meeting.United Nations climate talks are starting in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Monday.The meeting will come just days after the election victory of Donald J. Trump, who has dismissed global warming as a hoax, and at the end of what will probably be the hottest year in recorded history. Extreme weather, much of it made more intense by climate change, is wreaking havoc around the globe.Against that backdrop, diplomats and heads of state from nearly 200 countries are gathering to try to chart a path forward. Here’s a concise guide to the meeting.What to know:What is COP29?When is COP29?Where is COP29?What is the main goal?Who will attend?How will the U.S. election result affect COP29?How will wars affect COP29?What is COP29?It’s an annual gathering of the 197 countries that have agreed to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Those countries, the parties to the convention, come together every year and try to update their plans to address climate change.COP stands for Conference of the Parties. This is the 29th such gathering.In recent years, COP has grown from a relatively insular meeting of diplomats and policy experts into an enormous event that attracts tens of thousands of attendees, including business executives, the leaders of nonprofit groups and activists.When is COP29?The event is scheduled to take place from Nov. 11 to Nov. 22, but the gatherings have a history of going into overtime as negotiators scramble to secure final agreements.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

    Trump Is On Track to Win the Popular Vote

    President-elect Donald J. Trump has already sealed a comfortable majority in the Electoral College. But he is also on course to do something he didn’t do in his first successful campaign for the White House: win the popular vote.The latest count suggests Mr. Trump will win more votes nationally in Tuesday’s election than his defeated rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, making him the first Republican to prevail in the popular vote in 20 years.Though votes were still being counted in some states, as of Thursday morning Mr. Trump had received more than 72.6 million votes, against around 68 million for Ms. Harris, a gap of around 4.6 million votes.The last Republican presidential candidate to win more votes than his opponent was former President George W. Bush in 2004, when he won re-election against John F. Kerry. The last Republican before him to do so was George H.W. Bush, the sitting vice president who defeated Michael Dukakis in 1988.The tally is a further measure of the scale of Mr. Trump’s win and another blow to Democrats. The consensus among pollsters before Election Day was that while Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris would run neck and neck in the Electoral College votes that decide the presidency, Ms. Harris would likely gain more votes overall.The assumption was partly based on recent elections. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore, but prevailed in the Electoral College. In the 2016 election, Mr. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, but some Democrats took comfort in the fact that she had gained nearly three million more votes nationally than he did. More

  • in

    Jan. 6 Defendants Are Already Angling for Pardons From Trump

    The president-elect said during the campaign that he would grant clemency to some of those who took part in the assault by his supporters on the Capitol nearly four years ago.The legal consequences of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s victory start with the likelihood that the cases against him will sputter out but could also extend to the cases of hundreds of his supporters who are being — or have been — prosecuted for storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump repeatedly promised to pardon some of the 1,500 people charged in connection with Jan. 6, sometimes suggesting that his clemency might extend to leaders of far-right groups like the Proud Boys and to other defendants who assaulted police officers.It remains unclear whether or how fully he will fulfill those vows. But should he issue wide-ranging pardons, it would amount to a repudiation of the largest criminal investigation ever undertaken by the Justice Department and damage, perhaps fatally, efforts by prosecutors to seek accountability for a violent mob attack on the lawful transfer of presidential power.Already, some Jan. 6 defendants are excitedly expressing hope that Mr. Trump might strip them of convictions or free them from prison when he takes office.Only hours after the election was called for Mr. Trump early Wednesday, one convicted rioter, Christopher Carnell, asked a federal judge to push back a hearing in his case, saying he “expected” to receive clemency.“Throughout his campaign, President-elect Trump made multiple clemency promises to the Jan. 6 defendants, particularly to those who were nonviolent participants,” Mr. Carnell’s lawyers wrote. “Mr. Carnell, who was an 18-year-old nonviolent entrant into the Capitol on Jan. 6, is expecting to be relieved of the criminal prosecution that he is currently facing when the new administration takes office.”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

    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