Primaries and Caucuses

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Should Not Run Again — and He Should Say He Won’t

      by

      Is it a good idea for Joe Biden to run for re-election in 2024? And, if he runs again and wins, would it be good for the United States to have a president who is 86 — the age Biden would be at the end of a second term?I put these questions bluntly because they need to be discussed candidly, not just whispered constantly.In the 1980s, it was fair game for reputable reporters to ask whether Ronald Reagan was too old for the presidency, at a time when he was several years younger than Biden is today. Donald Trump’s apparent difficulty holding a glass and his constricted vocabulary repeatedly prompted unflattering speculation about his health, mental and otherwise. And Joe Biden’s memory lapses were a source of mirth among his Democratic primary rivals, at least until he won the nomination.Yet it’s now considered horrible manners to raise concerns about Biden’s age and health. As if doing so can only play into Trump’s hands. As if the president’s well-being is nobody’s business but his own. As if it doesn’t much matter whether he has the fortitude for the world’s most important job, so long as his aides can adroitly fill the gaps. As if accusations of ageism and a giant shushing sound from media elites can keep the issue off the public mind.It won’t do. From some of his public appearances, Biden seems … uneven. Often cogent, but sometimes alarmingly incoherent. What’s the reason? I have no idea. Do his appearances (including the good ones) inspire strong confidence that the president can go the distance in his current term, to say nothing of the next? No.And many people seem to know it. On Sunday, my colleagues Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns reported on the Democratic Party’s not-so-quiet murmurs about what to do if Biden decides not to run. Aspirants for the nomination appear in the story like sharks circling a raft, swimming slow.This is not healthy. Not for the president himself, not for the office he holds, not for the Democratic Party, not for the country.In 2019, the Biden campaign — cognizant of the candidate’s age — sold him to primary voters as a “transition figure,” the guy whose main purpose was to dethrone Trump and then smooth the way for a fresher Democratic face. Biden never made that promise explicit, but the expectation feels betrayed.Things might be different if the Biden presidency were off to a great start. It’s not. Blame Joe Manchin or Mitch McConnell or the antivaxxers, but Biden’s poll numbers have been deeply underwater since August. The man who once gave his party hope now weighs on his party’s fortunes like a pair of cement shoes.Things might also be different if it looked like the administration would soon turn the corner. That’s the administration’s hope for the mammoth Build Back Better legislation. But last month’s passage of the infrastructure bill didn’t really move the political needle for Biden, and that bill was genuinely popular. Now B.B.B. looms as another costly progressive distraction in a time of surging prices, spiking homicides, resurgent disease, urban decay, a border crisis, a supply-chain crisis and the threat of Iran crossing the nuclear threshold and of Russia crossing the Ukrainian border.Oh, and Kamala Harris. Her supporters might decry the fact, but to an ever-growing number of Americans, the heir apparent seems lighter than air. Her poll numbers at this point in her term are the worst of those of any vice president in recent history, including Mike Pence’s. If she winds up as her party’s default nominee if Biden pulls out late, Democrats will have every reason to panic.So what’s the president to do? He should announce, much sooner than later, that he will not run for a second term.The argument against this is that it would instantly turn him into a lame-duck president, and that’s undoubtedly true.But, news flash: Right now he’s worse than a lame duck, because potential Democratic successors are prevented from making calls, finding their lanes and appealing for attention. That goes especially for people in the administration who should be powerful contenders: Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and infrastructure czar Mitch Landrieu.And what would that mean for the rest of the Biden presidency? Far from weakening him, it would instantly allow him to be statesmanlike. And it would be liberating. It would put an end to the endless media speculation. It would inject enthusiasm and interest into a listless Democratic Party. It would let him devote himself wholly to addressing the country’s immediate problems without worrying about re-election.And it needn’t diminish his presidency. George H.W. Bush accomplished more in four years than his successor accomplished in eight. Greatness is often easier to achieve when good policies aren’t encumbered by clever politics. Biden should think on it — and act soon.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans in Texas County, in Unusual Move, Upend Primary System

      by

      The G.O.P. in Potter County is planning to break away from a nonpartisan election board and hold its own primary next year, in a move criticized by election experts.The Republican Party in the second-largest county in the Texas Panhandle is planning to conduct its own election during the state primary in March, breaking away from a nonpartisan county election board in a highly unusual move.The G.O.P. in Potter County, which includes Amarillo, plans to use ballots that will be marked and counted by hand, rather than employ the electronic systems that the county has relied on for decades. Election experts said the changes would confuse voters and create more potential for fraud.Under Texas law, county parties are allowed to run their own primary elections, but the vast majority have contracted with local boards of election for decades. The decision, which was reported by Votebeat, an election news website, comes as Republicans nationally have continued to push baseless claims of fraud in the 2020 election and sow doubts about the reliability of election machinery.Daniel L. Rogers, the chairman of the Potter County Republicans, said that he made the decision this week because “a lot of voters have concerns” with the electronic counters and “don’t feel comfortable with them.” He did not cite evidence of any problems arising under the current system, and studies have shown that hand counting leads to more inaccuracies. He argued that paper ballots would be more secure.“The parties have become lazy and complacent, but the primaries are actually the party’s responsibility,” said Mr. Rogers, a real estate broker whose office was decorated with red Make America Great Again hats when a New York Times reporter interviewed him last year. “The counties are spending millions of dollars on electronic systems, but this way it’s a true secret ballot.”He said that “the voters are smarter than our elected officials, than administrators — they don’t trust the voters. I do.”Mark P. Jones, a professor of political science at Rice University in Houston, said the move “removes the Republican Party one more step away from the standard electoral procedure.”He added: “The integrity of our electoral system depends on institutionalizing and professionalizing election boards. There will be more doubts about the overall outcome, or it will lead to more slip-ups and more potential flaws and problems than if the professionals ran it.”Potter County has about 57,000 registered voters, and they are overwhelmingly Republican: Roughly 70 percent cast their ballots for Donald J. Trump in 2020.Mr. Rogers, when asked if the election results nationally were valid, responded, “I don’t have any idea and that’s the problem — I don’t know if it was accurate or not.”Under state law, the county elections board will still be responsible for absentee and early voting, which a majority of voters in Texas use to cast their ballots. But the two systems, experts said, could complicate the process and make it easier for voters to cast ballots twice.“It opens the door wide to fraud,” Dr. Jones said. “It doesn’t close the door to fraud.”The legal office of the Texas secretary of state, who oversees elections in the state and who was appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, raised several concerns about the move.“Any time that a party conducts their own election rather than contracting with a county, it is more confusing to voters,” said Sam Taylor, the assistant secretary of state for communications. Still, he added that “ultimately it’s their decision to go at it alone.”One risk, Mr. Taylor said, is that candidates in contested races could file election challenges to prompt a court to order a new primary election. “It’s not unprecedented,” he said. “But county parties usually do not invite that opportunity upon themselves.”“They have every legal right to do so,” he added. “We can’t really intervene.”Melynn Huntley, the Potter County elections administrator, said that she had been taken aback by Mr. Rogers’s decision and that she was most worried about the potential to make it easier to vote twice.“The biggest worry I have is that those two systems will not talk with each other,” Ms. Huntley said. “His desire is to eliminate fraud, but there is a vulnerability in the plan. I am concerned whether this can function with high integrity.”Ms. Huntley, who has served as elections administrator for eight years, said that when she took on the job, she pledged not to vote in either party’s primary so that she could maintain her role as a nonpartisan overseer.“I am truly trying to figure out how this is going to work,” she said. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Can the Press Prevent a Trump Restoration?

      by

      There is a school of thought that holds that if Donald Trump sweeps back into power in 2024, or else loses narrowly but then plunges the United States into the kind of constitutional crisis he sought in 2020, the officially nonpartisan news media will have been an accessory to Trumpism. It will have failed to adequately emphasize Trump’s threat to American democracy, chosen a disastrous evenhandedness over moral clarity and covered President Biden (or perhaps Vice President Kamala Harris) like a normal politician instead of the republic’s last best hope.This view, that media “neutrality” has a tacit pro-Trump tilt, is associated with prominent press critics like Jay Rosen of New York University and the Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan (formerly this newspaper’s public editor) and it recently found data-driven expression in a column by The Post’s Dana Milbank. In a study “using algorithms that give weight to certain adjectives based on their placement in the story,” Milbank reported that after a honeymoon, Biden’s media coverage has lately been as negative, or even more negative, than Trump’s coverage through most of 2020. Given the perils of a Trump resurgence, Milbank warned, this negativity means that “my colleagues in the media are serving as accessories to the murder of democracy.”I think this point of view is very wrong. Indeed, I think it’s this view of the press’s role that actually empowers demagogues, feeds polarization and makes crises in our system much more likely.To understand why, let’s look at a case study where, at one level, the people emphasizing the press’s obligation to defend democracy have a point. This would be the Georgia Republican primary for governor, which will pit David Perdue, a former senator who lost his re-election bid in a 2021 runoff, against Brian Kemp, the conservative incumbent who is famously hated by Donald Trump.That hatred is the only reason this primary matchup exists: He is angry at Kemp for fulfilling his obligations as Georgia’s governor instead of going along with the “Stop the Steal” charade, he’s eager to see the incumbent beaten, and he’s hoping that either Perdue or Vernon Jones, a more overtly MAGA-ish candidate, can do the job for him.As a result, the Georgia governor’s primary will effectively be a referendum not just on Trump’s general power in the G.O.P. but also on his specific ability to bully Republican elected officials in the event of a contested election. And reporters have an obligation to cover the campaign with that reality in mind, to stress the reasons this matchup is happening and its dangerous implications for how Republican officials might respond to a future attempt to overturn a presidential vote.But now comes the question: Is that the only thing that a responsible press is allowed to report during the campaign? Suppose, for instance, that midway through the race, some huge scandal erupts, involving obvious corruption that implicates Kemp. Should Georgia journalists decline to cover it, because a Kemp loss would empower anti-democratic forces? Or suppose the economy in Georgia tanks just before the primary, or Covid cases surge. Should civic-minded reporters highlight those stories, knowing that they may help Perdue win, or should they bury them, because democracy itself is in the balance?Or suppose a woman comes forward with an allegation of harassment against Perdue that doesn’t meet the normal standards for publication. Should journalists run with it anyway, on the theory that it would be good for American democracy if Perdue goes the way of Roy Moore, and that they can always correct the record later if the story falls apart?You can guess my answers to these questions. They are principled answers, reflecting a journalistic obligation to the truth that cannot be set aside for the sake of certain political results, however desirable for democracy those results may seem.But they are also pragmatic answers, because a journalism that conspicuously shades the truth or tries to hide self-evident realities for the sake of some higher cause will inevitably lose the trust of some of the people it’s trying to steer away from demagogy — undercutting, in the process, the very democratic order that it’s setting out to save.I think this has happened already. There were ways in which the national news media helped Trump in his path through the Republican primaries in 2016, by giving him constant celebrity-level hype at every other candidate’s expense. But from his shocking November victory onward, much of the press adopted exactly the self-understanding that its critics are still urging as the Only Way to Stop Trump — positioning itself as the guardian of democracy, a moral arbiter rather than a neutral referee, determined to make Trump’s abnormal qualities and authoritarian tendencies the central story of his presidency.The results of this mind-set, unfortunately, included a lot of not particularly great journalism. The emergency mentality conflated Trumpian sordidness with something world-historical and treasonous, as in the overwrought Russia coverage seeded by the Steele dossier. It turned figures peripheral to national politics, from Nick Sandmann to Kyle Rittenhouse, into temporary avatars of incipient fascism. It invented anti-Trump paladins, from Michael Avenatti to Andrew Cuomo, who turned out to embody their own sort of moral turpitude. And it instilled an industrywide fear, palpable throughout the 2020 election, of any kind of coverage that might give too much aid and comfort to Trumpism — whether it touched on the summertime riots or Hunter Biden’s business dealings.Now you could argue that at least this mind-set achieved practical success, since Trump did lose in 2020. But he didn’t lose overwhelmingly, he gained voters in places the establishment did not expect, and he was able to turn media hostility to his advantage in his quest to keep control of his party, even in defeat. Meanwhile, the public’s trust in the national press declined during the Trump era and became radically more polarized, with Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents maintaining a certain degree of confidence in the media and Republicans and Republican-leaning independents going very much the other way.This points to the essential problem with the idea that just a little less media neutrality, a little more overt alarmism, would put Trumpism in its place. You can’t suppress a populist insurgency just by rallying the establishment if suspicion of the establishment is precisely what’s generating support for populism in the first place. Instead, you need to tell the truth about populism’s dangers while convincing skeptical readers that you can be trusted to describe reality in full.Which brings us to Joe Biden’s press coverage. I have a lot of doubts about the Milbank negativity algorithms, both because of the methodological problems identified by analysts like Nate Silver and also because, as a newsreader, my sense is that Trump’s negative coverage reflected more stalwart opposition (the president we oppose is being terrible again) while in Biden’s case the negativity often coexists with implicit sympathy (the president we support is blowing it, and we’re upset). But still, there’s no question that the current administration’s coverage has been pretty grim of late.But it’s turned grim for reasons that an objective and serious press corps would need to acknowledge in order to have any credibility at all. Piece by piece, you can critique the media’s handling of the past few months — I think the press coverage of the Afghanistan withdrawal was overwrought, for instance — but here’s the overall picture: A president who ran on restoring normalcy is dealing with a pandemic that stubbornly refuses to depart, rising inflation that his own White House didn’t predict, a border-crossing crisis that was likewise unanticipated, increasing military bellicosity from our major adversaries, stubbornly high homicide rates in liberal cities, a party that just lost a critical gubernatorial race and a stalled legislative agenda.And moreover, he’s confronting all of this while very palpably showing the effects of advancing age, even as his semi-anointed successor appears more and more like the protagonist of her own private “Veep.”Can some of these challenges recede and Biden’s situation improve? No doubt. But a news media charged with describing reality would accomplish absolutely nothing for the country if it tried to bury all these problems under headlines that were always and only about Trump.And one of the people for whom this approach would accomplish nothing is Biden himself. We just had an object lesson in what happens when the public dissatisfied with liberal governance gets a long lecture on why it should never vote Republican because of Trump: That was Terry McAuliffe’s argument in a state that went for Biden by 10 points, and McAuliffe lost. Having the media deliver that lecture nationally is likely to yield the same result for Democrats — not Trumpism’s defeat but their own.Far wiser, instead, to treat negative coverage as an example of the press living up to its primary mission, the accurate description of reality — which is still the place where the Biden administration and liberalism need a better strategy if they hope to keep the country on their side.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Max Rose to Run for House in Likely Rematch Against Malliotakis

      by

      Mr. Rose, a moderate Democrat, lost to Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican, by six percentage points last year in a conservative district that includes Staten Island.Max Rose, a moderate Democrat who lost his congressional seat last year amid a resurgence of Republican power in parts of New York, announced on Monday that he was mounting another run for Congress, setting up a national political battleground in New York City.The race for New York’s 11th Congressional District, currently held by Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican, could be one of the most competitive in the metropolitan area next year, along with possible races on Long Island.Depending on the contours of the Staten Island- and Brooklyn-area district following the redistricting process, the contest may also represent one of the Democrats’ more promising pickup opportunities, as they strain to maintain their congressional majorities heading into a grueling midterm campaign environment.The race may also offer a revealing snapshot of how Democrats in key battlegrounds choose to position themselves, after the Republican Party gained ground over the last year by portraying Democratic candidates as anti-law enforcement.Mr. Rose announced his intentions in a brief video in which he discussed what he cast as the promise of American exceptionalism, even as he nodded to the challenges facing the country, including inflation, natural disasters, the coronavirus pandemic and the extraordinarily violent political climate laid bare by the Jan. 6 insurrection.“The alarm bells, they never stop ringing, and the people we trust to fix it, they divide us, they lie to us, tearing America apart, just to hold on to power,” Mr. Rose said in the video, as images of the United States Capitol under siege flashed across the screen. “You look at all that and it’s easy to think that maybe our best days are behind us, that nothing will change. Well, I disagree.”Ms. Malliotakis voted against certifying the results of the 2020 election even though former President Donald J. Trump’s claims of a stolen election are false — a vote that will almost certainly become an issue in the congressional race.Nicole Malliotakis gave a speech after she was elected to represent New York’s 11th Congressional District last year.Benjamin Norman for The New York TimesLast year, she beat Mr. Rose by around six percentage points, though Mr. Rose outperformed President Biden’s showing in the district, which includes strongly pro-Trump Staten Island. In that race, she sought to use Mr. Rose’s decision to join a march for racial justice as a cudgel, and he appeared to allude, in part, to that moment in his video as he discussed doing what he “thought was right” in the face of political consequences. Republicans signaled on Monday that they would again seek to paint Mr. Rose, who is a decorated combat veteran and a critic of the “defund the police” movement, as radically left-wing. The race will clearly be nationalized: Ms. Malliotakis has firmly tied herself to Mr. Trump, a boon on Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn, but a riskier bet if the district becomes more liberal.“Staten Islanders rejected Max Rose and the Democrats’ socialist agenda in 2020 and they will do the same in 2022,” said Camille Gallo, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, in an emailed statement. The subject line was, “anti-cop Max Rose loves losing.”A representative for Ms. Malliotakis was not immediately reachable for comment Monday morning.It is not yet clear how redistricting will change the political dynamics of the district, but given Mr. Rose’s experience with challenging national headwinds, his decisions regarding campaign strategy and messaging will be closely watched as he competes in the Democratic primary. “It should not be taboo in the Democratic Party to say that it’s time to open up completely and return to work,” he wrote on Twitter last month. “Our economy needs it. New York City’s especially.”His decision to run drew instant expressions of optimism from Democratic strategists with expertise in House races, who recalled his success in flipping the district from Republican control in 2018 as Democrats won control of the House.Mr. Rose will instantly be seen as the front-runner in the Democratic primary to take on Ms. Malliotakis. But that, too, is a contested race.Brittany Ramos DeBarros, who describes herself as an “Afro-Latina Staten Islander, community organizer and progressive combat veteran,” has been fund-raising and locking down some endorsements. Ms. Malliotakis, for her part, begins the race bolstered by a favorable national environment for Republicans, even in some corners of New York, and about $1.2 million in cash on hand, according to the most recent campaign filing. She was also one of 13 Republicans to vote for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which will fund much-needed improvements to subways, roads, bridges and sewers in New York. Her vote could help her messaging in the general election, though she has also drawn some backlash for it.Almost exactly one year ago, Mr. Rose launched an exploratory bid for mayor of New York City before ultimately deciding against a run. But he has remained active on the New York political circuit, attending an event for the Staten Island Democrats last week and joining Mayor-elect Eric Adams’s transition team.In the video, Mr. Rose cited his military service and his time working as a senior adviser to the secretary of defense on Covid-19 as experiences that had given him hope.“I’m running because this country, it can be affordable and fair,” he said. “Our politics can lift us up, rather than tear us down. The America we believe in is possible.”Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Rep. Tom Suozzi to Run for Governor of New York

      by

      Mr. Suozzi will enter a crowded field of Democrats seeking to challenge the incumbent, Gov. Kathy Hochul.Representative Thomas Suozzi, a Long Island Democrat, intends to announce on Monday that he will enter the race for governor of New York, broadening the field of candidates challenging the incumbent, Kathy Hochul, according to five people who have spoken with the congressman and his team in recent days.Mr. Suozzi, who has most recently focused on federal negotiations over raising a cap on state and local tax deductions, has positioned himself as a vocal centrist who is quick to lash what he casts as the excesses of his party’s left wing. His decision to run for governor, which he is expected to announce at an 11 a.m. news conference, will intensify and complicate the battle for moderate voters in one of the nation’s marquee Democratic primary contests next year.Mr. Suozzi, a former Nassau County executive, could cut into parts of the coalition Ms. Hochul is seeking to assemble on Long Island and in suburbs around the state. And in a crowded field, the race increasingly appears to be fluid and unpredictable.Mr. Suozzi, a strong fund-raiser, nevertheless would face steep challenges in a statewide Democratic primary.While early polling has limited value ahead of a primary slated for next June, he was in the single digits in a recent survey. Ms. Hochul, the state’s first female governor who has consistently led the field in early polls, has an overwhelming head start in fund-raising and endorsements.Other candidates in the race also have the kind of history-making potential that Mr. Suozzi, a white man, does not — most notably Attorney General Letitia James, who could be the first Black female governor in the country should she win.“I’ll comment at 11 o’clock,” Mr. Suozzi said, reached by phone.The five people with knowledge of his intentions asked for anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. But on Monday morning, his congressional campaign website was automatically redirecting visitors to a password-protected page for an unspecified statewide campaign, suozziforny.com.Democrats are expected to face a brutally challenging environment in next year’s midterm elections.Mr. Suozzi’s candidacy for governor could put at risk Democrats’ hold on his largely suburban House seat at a time when they are battling nationally to retain control of the chamber.Without a popular incumbent there to defend it, Republicans would likely make the seat a top pickup target in New York. Democrats could find themselves spending large sums to defend the seat or be forced to shore up their claim to it during the once-in-a-decade redistricting process. Diverting more Democratic voters to the district could in turn complicate the party’s efforts to use the process to seize one or two more House seats on Long Island.A Guide to the New York Governor’s RaceCard 1 of 6A crowded field. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The G.O.P. Has a Bad Men Problem

      by

      How upbeat is the Republican Party about its prospects for taking control of the House and Senate next year? So upbeat that it apparently is cool with the fact that in three Senate races — Georgia, Missouri and Pennsylvania — it has leading candidates who have been accused of harassing, abusing, threatening or otherwise mistreating women.Once upon a time, this situation likely would have provoked a major display of concern, or at least an attempt at damage control, by the Republican establishment. Instead many party officials are brushing off related questions like pesky bits of dryer fluff.While the particulars of these cases vary — the allegations, the candidates’ responses, the warmth of the party’s embrace — the creeping not-so-casual misogyny is indicative of the dark path down which former President Donald Trump continues to lead the G.O.P.It is not simply that Mr. Trump has long worn his shabby treatment of women like a perverse merit badge — a symbol of how the rules of decent society do not apply to him. He also has made the Republican Party a welcoming place for other like-minded men. As president, rarely did he confront a harassment or abuse scandal in which he didn’t make clear his sympathies for the accused and his skepticism of the accusers. Pity the poor harasser. So misunderstood. So persecuted by humorless prigs. It almost takes the fun out of groping random chicks.In Georgia, Herschel Walker, the former N.F.L. star, has been accused of a host of erratic and frightening behavior, including threatening his ex-wife’s life while pointing a gun to her head. Some episodes he has denied. Others he has chalked up to his struggle with mental illness, about which he wrote a book in 2008. (He credits therapy and Christianity with saving him.) In September, Mr. Trump endorsed Mr. Walker. Party leaders, including Mitch McConnell, are probably hoping that Mr. Walker’s violent history won’t much bother voters, or better yet, that it will play as an inspiring redemption story.In Missouri, Eric Greitens is hoping for political vindication after stepping down as governor in 2018 amid a swirl of scandal. His bad behavior allegedly included threatening a woman with whom he’d had an affair to keep her trap shut about it or else he’d make public an explicit photo of her that he’d snapped without her permission.Mr. Greitens is still in hot pursuit of Mr. Trump’s endorsement, but he already has a number of Trumpworld stars in his corner. The Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio has signed on with the campaign, and Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Trump campaign aide and Don Jr.’s girlfriend, is its national chair. Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, and Rudy Giuliani, who at this point defies meaningful description, have stumped in the state for Mr. Greitens. Michael Flynn, Mr. Trump’s disgraced national security adviser, has given his endorsement.Finally, in Pennsylvania, Sean Parnell is neck-deep in a custody battle with his estranged wife, who has testified that he verbally and physically abused her and their children. He has flatly denied all accusations.Mr. Parnell was endorsed by Mr. Trump shortly before the controversy erupted. Other party leaders have been loath to comment on the unfolding drama. Asked recently whether, in light of the hubbub, Mr. Parnell was the right man to be the nominee, Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, insisted it was inappropriate for him to take sides in a primary. “We have Republican and Democrat primaries across the country and in Pennsylvania, we have — both Republicans and Democrats have primaries, and so we’ll see who comes out of the primary,” he told CNN.Impressive moral leadership.Republican officials are in a tough spot. Accusations of sexual misconduct or domestic violence are not necessarily disqualifying in the party of Trump. In some cases, they can be dismissed as lies — Mr. Trump’s preferred approach — a nefarious attack by haters. Bad behavior that is indisputable can always be pooh-poohed as unfortunate but of secondary importance within the larger battle against radical leftists.For devout Trumpists, accusations of toxic masculinity can even be a comfort of sorts, a kind of corrective to a #MeToo movement that many in the MAGAverse consider excessive and anti-man. Remember when two White House aides resigned over accusations of domestic violence in early 2018? Mr. Trump popped up on Twitter to whine, “Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation.” Later, during the Brett Kavanaugh hubbub, Mr. Trump bemoaned what a “scary” and “difficult” time it was to be a young man in America.The rot goes beyond the disrespect and mistreatment of women. Under Mr. Trump, the Republican Party has undergone a fundamental shift, swapping a fixation on character and morality and so-called Family Values for a celebration of belligerence, violence, and, yes, toxic masculinity. Greg Gianforte won his 2017 House race after “body slamming” a reporter who asked an unwelcome question. Charged with assault and sentenced to anger management classes and community service, Mr. Gianforte was praised by Mr. Trump as “my kind of guy” for his violent display. Last year, Montanans elected him governor.This tendency is not restricted to the G.O.P.’s men. Just look at the way MAGA extremists like Representatives Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene play up their swaggering, gun-toting images to the delight of the base. Before arriving in Congress, Ms. Greene got her kicks indulging social media fantasies about killing Democratic leaders.Speaking of that, just this week, Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona, a 62-year-old former dentist desperate to be known as a MAGA butt-kicker, got himself censured and stripped of committee assignments for posting an animated video depicting him slashing the throat of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York progressive. All but two of his Republican colleagues stuck by him. Ms. Boebert took to the House floor to deliver a barn-burning defense.Whatever the misconduct of individual Republicans, the larger scandal is in the party’s collective group shrug.When a party prizes thuggishness, it becomes harder and harder to figure out where to draw the line. The slope is not merely getting slipperier. It’s getting steeper.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The N.Y. Governor’s Race Is Wide Open, and Democrats Are Rushing In

      by

      Jumaane Williams, the New York City public advocate, became the latest Democrat to enter the 2022 race for governor.On a weekend swing through Southern California, Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, wooed corporate donors to join a new fund-raising initiative aimed at helping her become the nation’s first Black female governor.Closer to home, Gov. Kathy Hochul — her campaign accounts already swelling with more than $11 million — waded into Ms. James’s political backyard on Sunday, preaching from the pulpits of Black churches in vote-rich Brooklyn and Queens about the scourges of the coronavirus and gun violence.Two days later, Jumaane D. Williams of Brooklyn, New York City’s public advocate, formalized his bid for governor, using a campaign launch video to position himself as an activist with the most authoritative claim to the race’s increasingly crowded left lane.“Without courageous progressive leadership, the way things have always been will stand in the way of what they can be,” he said in the video.Three months after Ms. Hochul’s unexpected ascension as the state’s first female governor, next year’s Democratic primary contest is now veering toward something New York has not seen in decades: a freewheeling intraparty battle among some of the state’s best-known political figures.The race, which has played out in recent weeks from the beaches of Puerto Rico to West Hollywood, Calif., and will culminate in June, will test traditional racial, geographic and ideological coalitions in a liberal stronghold, setting up one of the most high-profile Democratic primary battles in the nation as a midterm election year arrives.“Like me, so many people are going to grapple with this really, really hard,” said Ruben Diaz Jr., the Bronx borough president.The melee in the making has already inspired a mix of anticipation and wariness among party leaders.For some left-wing officials and activists, the profusion of possible nominees has stirred memories of this year’s mayoral primary, when they struggled to coalesce around one candidate, and Eric Adams, a relative moderate, triumphed. This time around there is a real commitment, officials say, to unite behind one contender early — most likely Ms. James or Mr. Williams — though that may be easier said than done.Mr. Williams, the New York City public advocate, lost to Ms. Hochul in 2018 in a race for lieutenant governor.Anna Watts for The New York TimesMore moderate leaders are voicing worries, too, warning that after this month’s stinging electoral losses for Democrats in New York and across the country, nominating someone seen as too far to the left could put the party’s hold on Albany at risk. Some have pointed to the losses to argue for their own brands of politics.Steven Bellone, the Suffolk County executive who is thought to be considering a number of statewide offices, said the drubbing his party took on Long Island “was a message to the Democratic Party.” He added: “If our party is not sounding the alarm now, in advance of the midterms, I think we’re in for a very tough time ahead.”The tensions were on vivid display just after Election Day as New York’s political elite — including every potential candidate but Mr. Williams — decamped to the humid, booze-filled beaches of Puerto Rico for an annual postelection junket of lobbying, politicking and partying.After months of shadowboxing, it proved to be a surreal campaign in miniature, as Ms. Hochul, Ms. James, and Mr. Bellone schmoozed under palm trees alongside two more potential Democratic candidates: Mayor Bill de Blasio and Representative Thomas Suozzi. Contenders met surreptitiously with City Council members, party activists and union leaders in what amounted to high-powered focus groups fueled by piña coladas.Ms. James, for her part, offered fresh indications in Puerto Rico that she intends to run to the left of Ms. Hochul while building a base that, her allies hope, will be broader than that of Mr. Williams.She referred to herself as “the face of the Working Families Party,” New York’s leftist alternative to the Democratic line. She literally dropped a mic after a stem-winding campaign appeal to Bronx Democrats gathered in a makeshift club, who roared their approval. And the next morning, Ms. James turned a breakfast hosted by labor unions into a de facto campaign rally.“Join the O.G. team,” Ms. James said at a Working Families Party gathering. “Her name is Tish James.”Ms. Hochul showed her political power in other ways. She threw a lavish soiree in a ballroom overlooking the ocean, where labor leaders and business lobbyists fought for the governor’s ear between bites of passed hors d’oeuvres, and Mr. Adams showed up, a few days after Ms. Hochul made a cameo at his victory party.In an interview in a private room at a beachfront hotel — which was briefly interrupted when Ms. James walked in — Ms. Hochul warned that the general election in the governor’s race could be competitive; Representative Lee Zeldin of Long Island is considered the leading Republican candidate. She urged her party to focus on matters of public safety and economic growth, among other priorities, after Democrats lost badly across New York.Governor Hochul announced that her campaign had raised $11 million in her bid for a full four-year term. Stephanie Keith for The New York Times“They have concerns about where our party’s headed,” she said. “They want to make sure that the mainstream principles of our party prevail.”For now, though, it is the left-leaning and Brooklyn-area lanes of the primary that appear most crowded. As many as three candidates — Ms. James, Mr. Williams and Mr. de Blasio — could ultimately run: all boasting of deep ties to the progressive-left movement, and all from that borough.“I’m supporting Jumaane because I think he has real potential to fire people up,” said Brad Lander, the New York City comptroller-elect. Calling both Mr. Williams and Ms. James “really compelling leaders,” he also emphasized that “it’s important for progressives to get on the same page in the governor’s race and to rally around one candidate.” Allies of Ms. James had hoped that Mr. Williams, who garnered 47 percent of the vote running against Ms. Hochul as lieutenant governor in 2018, would skip the race, wary that the two candidates would siphon votes from one another.An in-person meeting between Ms. James and Mr. Williams to discuss the race last month, before either had formally entered, ended with both still moving toward a run, according to three people with direct knowledge of the meeting. Representatives for both candidates declined to comment on the meeting, which was first reported by City and State.Takeaways From the 2021 ElectionsCard 1 of 5A G.O.P. pathway in Virginia. More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Mayor Pete’ Review: Politics Is Local

      by

      This film, which follows Pete Buttigieg on his campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, rarely captures him in what looks like an unselfconscious moment.We already knew Pete Buttigieg was good on camera. For “Mayor Pete,” the documentarian Jesse Moss followed Buttigieg — the current transportation secretary and former mayor of South Bend, Ind. — during his campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. But the resulting portrait rarely captures him in what looks like an unselfconscious moment.Maybe Buttigieg is always on. “In my way of coming at the world, the stronger an emotion is, the more private it is,” he says in an interview for the film. He chafes against consultants’ advice that he “let loose” and be himself — because letting loose, he says, would not be being himself. The movie does show him singing a “Schoolhouse Rock” tune as he signs papers at his mayor’s desk.But Moss — a director of “Boys State,” in a sense a companion look at political novices finding their voices — hasn’t succeeded in becoming a fly on the wall, if such a thing is possible during a heavily photographed campaign. (“The War Room” focused on strategists, not the candidate.) Showing Buttigieg at one public appearance after another, “Mayor Pete” more often plays like outtakes from the trail than an inside glimpse.Occasionally the movie encounters situations that appear as if they weren’t intended to be filmed, as when Buttigieg’s husband, Chasten, points out that he’s not going to be positioned as prominently as other candidates’ spouses in Iowa. Later, in South Carolina, Chasten encourages his weary spouse to deliver yet another speech (“Everything you’re going to say is new to them”). For a minute, you can see Buttigieg let a private emotion through.Mayor PeteRated R for language. Running time: 1 hour 36 minutes. Watch on Amazon. More