Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Will Gas Prices Doom Democracy?

      by

      Will the price of gasoline — a price that has very little to do with which party controls the government — nonetheless determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and quite possibly the fate of American democracy?I wish that were a silly question, but it isn’t. This year there has been a strong correlation between the price of gasoline and political polls.Earlier this year, when gas reached an average of $5 a gallon, everything seemed to point to a Republican blowout. By mid-September, with gas prices down almost $1.50, the election looked much more competitive. And some apparent recent deterioration in Democrats’ prospects coincided with an upward tick in prices in late September and early October. (Prices are now falling again.)Now, this correlation might be spurious. Other things have been going on, notably a partisan Supreme Court’s overthrow of Roe v. Wade. And political scientists who have studied the issue find that normally the effect of gas prices on political outcomes is fairly weak.But we are arguably in a special situation right now. Americans have been shocked by a sudden surge in inflation, which had been quiescent for decades, and the price of gasoline — displayed on huge signs every few blocks — is a potent reminder of our economic difficulties.What we know for sure is that politicians are harping on gas prices. Republicans don’t talk about the core personal consumption expenditure deflator, they declare that “gas was only $2 a gallon when Trump was in office!” The Biden administration talked a lot about the long slide in prices and is trying to get out the word that this slide has resumed.So this seems like a good time to make three important points about gasoline prices.First, the most important determinant of prices at the pump is the world price of crude oil, over which the United States has little influence. And I do mean “world price”: Prices in Europe and the United States normally move almost perfectly in tandem.Crude prices and hence gas prices were unusually low during Donald Trump’s last year in office, not because of anything he did, but because Covid had the world economy flat on its back, greatly reducing oil demand. Crude temporarily shot up after Russia invaded Ukraine, out of fears that Russian oil exports would be greatly reduced; it fell again as it became clear that a lot of Russian oil would continue to find its way to world markets.Second, smaller fluctuations are usually driven by technical issues at the refineries that turn crude oil into gasoline and other products. The mini-surge in gas prices that began in September (and now seems to be over) was caused by shutdowns of several refineries for maintenance and a fire at one refinery in Ohio. Again, this has nothing to do with policy.What about accusations that energy companies are deliberately holding production back to raise prices and profits?We shouldn’t dismiss this possibility out of hand. Some readers may recall the California electricity crisis of 2000-2001. When some analysts, myself included, argued that the facts suggested that market manipulation was playing a large role, we faced considerable ridicule. But it turned out that markets were, in fact, being manipulated; we have the receipts.As far as I can tell, however, the refining issues that led to recent price increases were genuine. I don’t think it’s wrong to stay suspicious, and keep energy companies on notice against pulling an Enron. But it’s probably not a current problem.Finally, gas isn’t expensive compared with the fairly recent past.One way I like to look at this is to look at the ratio of the price of gasoline to the average worker’s hourly earnings. Right now this ratio is considerably lower than it was in the early 2010s. Gasoline prices did plunge in 2014 — yes, under Barack Obama, not Trump. But this reflected a surge in fracking, which actually did increase U.S. oil production enough to have a significant effect on world markets. Unfortunately the fracking boom turned out to be a bubble that eventually burned up more than $300 billion in investors’ money.So gas prices probably won’t go back to the levels of the late 2010s, not because the Biden administration is hostile to oil production, but because those low prices depended on investors’ delusions about fracking’s profitability. Taking a longer view, as I said, gas isn’t actually expensive at this point.Furthermore, experts believe that with some troubled refineries coming back online, gas prices will fall substantially over the next few weeks.So what does this tell us about the success or failure of Biden administration policy? Very little. Biden’s jawboning of refiners over their margins might be having some effect; so might his release of extra oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Overall, however, it’s hard to think of a worse metric for judging a president and his party than a price determined mainly by events abroad and technical production issues here at home, a price that isn’t even high compared with, say, a decade ago.Yet gas prices may sway a crucial election, a fact that is both ludicrous and terrifying.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

    • 50 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Republicans Are Surging

      by

      Democrats had a golden summer. The Dobbs decision led to a surge of voter registrations. Voters handed Democrats a string of sweet victories in unlikely places — Alaska and Kansas, and good news in upstate New York.The momentum didn’t survive the fall.Over the past month or so, there’s been a rumbling across the land, and the news is not good for Team Blue. In the latest New York Times/Siena College poll 49 percent of likely voters said they planned to vote for a Republican for Congress, and 45 percent said they planned to vote for a Democrat. Democrats held a one-point lead last month.The poll contained some eye-popping numbers. Democrats were counting on abortion rights to be a big issue, gaining them broad support among female voters. It doesn’t seem to be working. Over the past month, the gender gap, which used to favor Democrats, has evaporated. In September, women who identified as independent voters favored Democrats by 14 points. Now they favor Republicans by 18 percentage points.Republicans lead among independents overall by 10 points.To understand how the parties think the campaign is going, look at where they are spending their money. As Henry Olsen noted in The Washington Post last week, Democrats are pouring money into House districts that should be safe — places that Joe Biden won by double digits in 2020. Politico’s election forecast, for example, now rates the races in California’s 13th District and Oregon’s Sixth District as tossups. Two years ago, according to Politico, he won those areas by 11 and 14 points.If Republicans are competitive in places like that, we’re probably looking at a red wave election that will enable them to easily take back the House and maybe the Senate.So how should Democrats interpret these trends? There’s a minimalist interpretation: Midterms are usually hard for the president’s party, and this one was bound to be doubly hard because of global inflation.I take a more medium to maximalist view. I’d say recent events have exposed some serious weaknesses in the party’s political approach:It’s hard to win consistently if voters don’t trust you on the top issue. In a recent AP-NORC poll, voters trust Republicans to do a better job handling the economy, by 39 percent to 29 percent. Over the past two years, Democrats have tried to build a compelling economic platform by making massive federal investments in technology, infrastructure and child welfare. But those policies do not seem to be moving voters. As The Times’s Jim Tankersley has reported, Democratic candidates in competitive Senate races are barely talking about the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which included direct payments to citizens.I thought the child tax credit expansion would be massively popular and could help create a Democratic governing majority. It turned out to be less popular than many anticipated, and there was little hue and cry when it expired. Maybe voters have a built-in uneasiness about income redistribution and federal spending.Democrats have a crime problem. More than three-quarters of voters say that violent crime is a major problem in the United States, according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll. Back in the 1990s, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden worked hard to give the Democrats credibility on this issue. Many Democrats have walked away from policies the party embraced then, often for good reasons. But they need to find another set of policies that will make the streets safer.Democrats have not won back Hispanics. In 2016, Donald Trump won 28 percent of the Hispanic vote. In 2020, it was up to 38 percent. This year, as William A. Galston noted in The Wall Street Journal, recent surveys suggest that Republicans will once again win about 34 to 38 percent of the Hispanic vote. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis is leading the Democrat Charlie Crist by 16 points among Hispanics likely to vote.The Jan. 6 committee and the warnings about MAGA fascism didn’t change minds. That committee’s work has been morally and legally important. But Trump’s favorability rating is pretty much where it was at the committee’s first public hearing. In the Times poll, Trump is roughly tied with Biden in a theoretical 2024 rematch. According to Politico, less than 2 percent of broadcast TV spending in House races has been devoted to Jan. 6 ads.It could be that voters are overwhelmed by immediate concerns, like food prices. It could be that voters have become so cynical and polarized that scandal and corruption just don’t move people much anymore. This year Herschel Walker set some kind of record for the most scandals in one political season. He is still in a competitive race with Senator Raphael Warnock in Georgia.The Republicans may just have a clearer narrative. The Trumpified G.O.P. deserves to be a marginalized and disgraced force in American life. But I’ve been watching the campaign speeches by people like Kari Lake, the Republican candidate for governor in Arizona. G.O.P. candidates are telling a very clear class/culture/status war narrative in which common-sense Americans are being assaulted by elite progressives who let the homeless take over the streets, teach sex ed to 5-year-olds, manufacture fake news, run woke corporations, open the border and refuse to do anything about fentanyl deaths and the sorts of things that affect regular people.In other words, candidates like Lake wrap a dozen different issues into one coherent class war story. And it seems to be working. In late July she was trailing her opponent by seven points. Now she’s up by about half a point.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

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Texas County Asks for U.S. Election Monitors as State Plans to Send Inspectors

      by

      Officials from Harris County in Texas on Thursday requested federal election monitors from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division after the State of Texas confirmed this week that it would send a contingent of election inspectors there during the midterms in November. The state’s move added a layer of scrutiny tied to an active examination of vote counts from 2020 that former President Donald J. Trump had sought.But that step quickly drew criticism from some officials in Harris, Texas’ most populous county, which includes Houston. They accused the state of meddling in the county’s election activities as early in-person voting is about to begin on Monday in Texas.Christian D. Menefee, the county’s attorney, said in a statement on Thursday that the state’s postelection review was politically driven and initiated by Mr. Trump. Still, he said, the county would cooperate with the inspectors.“We’re going to grant them the access the law requires, but we know state leaders in Austin cannot be trusted to be an honest broker in our elections, especially an attorney general who filed a lawsuit to overturn the 2020 presidential election,” Mr. Menefee said. “We cannot allow unwarranted disruptions in our election process to intimidate our election workers or erode voters’ trust in the election process.”The Justice Department did not immediately comment.The skirmish over the inspectors, who will arrive as votes are being counted, highlighted the recurring tensions between Republicans who hold power at the state level and officials in Harris County, which Democrats control and which Joseph R. Biden Jr. carried by 13 percentage points in 2020.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.Debates Dwindle: Direct political engagement with voters is waning as candidates surround themselves with their supporters. Nowhere is the trend clearer than on the shrinking debate stage.The opposing forces previously clashed over the county’s expansion of voting access. Republicans in Texas enacted restrictions last year that included an end to balloting methods introduced in 2020 to make voting easier during the pandemic, like drive-through polling places and 24-hour voting. Both were popular in Harris County.In a letter detailing the inspection plan, Chad Ennis, the secretary of state’s forensic audit division director and a Republican, said on Tuesday that he still had concerns about some vote-count discrepancies from 2020 in Harris County.“These inspectors will perform randomized checks on election records, including tapes and chain of custody, and will observe the handling and counting of ballots and electronic media,” Mr. Ennis said. The term “chain of custody” referred, in this case, to records of who had access to the equipment and why several mobile ballot boxes were created for some locations but only certain ones were used.No credible evidence has emerged of widespread voter fraud from Texas’ 2020 postelection review, which Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, ordered to be conducted last year in the state’s four most populous counties at Mr. Trump’s urging. (Mr. Trump won in Texas with 52 percent of the vote in 2020.)Mr. Ennis also revealed on Tuesday that a task force from the Texas attorney general’s office would be dispatched to Harris County for the election to respond “at all times” to what he characterized as “legal issues” to be identified by the secretary of state, inspectors, poll watchers or voters. The specter of Election Day disputes is particularly heightened this year, with right-wing groups nationwide focused on challenging voters’ eligibility..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.In a statement on Wednesday, Judge Lina Hidalgo, a Democrat who is the top official in Harris County, assailed the state’s latest intervention.“The timing of this letter is — at best — suspicious,” Judge Hidalgo said. “It was sent just days before the start of early voting, potentially in an attempt to sabotage county efforts by sowing doubt in the elections process, or equally as bad, by opening the door to possible inappropriate state interference in Harris County’s elections.”Sam Taylor, a spokesman for the secretary of state, said in an email on Thursday that it was commonplace for inspectors to be dispatched to counties.“I want to add — because I’m sure you will get histrionic statements from so-called ‘civil rights’ organizations in Texas claiming ‘voter intimidation’— that during the primaries this year, the Harris County elections office initially misplaced approximately 10,000 mail-in ballots,” Mr. Taylor said.On Thursday after the county asked for federal monitors, Mr. Taylor released another statement, calling Harris County’s request “an attempt to mislead voters, members of the public, the press and the U.S. Department of Justice.” He added that the “Texas secretary of state’s office has sent election inspectors to Harris County every year, and have never before seen a request for the Department of Justice to ‘monitor the monitors.’”At the time of the error Mr. Taylor cited, county officials said that they had neglected to count the ballots but that they were not misplaced. The county hired a third-party consulting firm to examine its elections operation and make recommendations for improvements.In a statement this week, Clifford Tatum, the Harris County elections administrator, said he was focused on the task at hand.“As you know, we’re five days away from the start of early voting for the Nov. 8 election, and we are focused foremost on ensuring this election runs smoothly,” Mr. Tatum said.Mr. Tatum did not preside over the primary in March in Harris County. He was appointed in August after Isabel Longoria, who had held the post, resigned during the fallout over the primary. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Why Republicans Are Winning Swing Voters

      by

      Rachelle Bonja and Patricia Willens and Marion Lozano and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherAfter a summer of news that favored Democrats and with just two weeks until the midterms, a major new poll from The Times has found that swing voters are suddenly turning to the Republicans.The Times’s Nate Cohn explains what is behind the trend and what it could mean for Election Day.On today’s episodeNate Cohn, the chief political analyst for The New York Times.Mail-in ballots in Phoenix. Polling suggests that Republicans enter the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress with a narrow but distinct advantage.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesBackground readingAccording to the Times/Siena College poll, American voters see democracy in peril, but saving it isn’t a priority.Despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights, disapproval of President Biden seems to be hurting his party.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Nate Cohn contributed reporting.The Daily is made by Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Anita Badejo, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Chelsea Daniel, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Sofia Milan, Ben Calhoun and Susan Lee.Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Cliff Levy, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Desiree Ibekwe, Wendy Dorr, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello and Nell Gallogly. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Battle Between Pocketbooks and Principles

      by

      You are never in the voting booth alone.You bring with you your hopes and fears, your expectations and your disappointments. Your choice is made through a maze of considerations, but it hinges primarily on how the candidates — their principles and their party — line up with your worldview. Would they, if elected, represent and promote the kind of community and country you want to live in? Are they on your side, fighting for you and people like you?Often, the things that are top of mind as you consider those questions are urgent and imminent, rather than ambient and situational. Issues like the economy, for instance, will almost always take top billing, since they affect the most people most directly.Anger over abortion can also be potent, and in some races, it may determine the outcome, but it is a narrower issue. First, no person assigned male at birth will ever have to personally wrestle with a choice to receive an abortion or deal with health complications from a pregnancy that might necessitate an abortion. So, for half the electorate, the issue is a matter of principle rather than one of their own bodily autonomy.Furthermore, at the moment, abortion is still legal in most states. Yes, clinics have disappeared completely in 13 of the 50 states, according to the latest data from the Guttmacher Institute, but for millions of American women living in blue states, abortion access hasn’t changed since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dobbs.That is not to diminish the outrage people do and should feel about this right being taken away from them. It doesn’t diminish my personal outrage, nor does it assume that abortion rights are safe in the states that have yet to outlaw the practice.But I mention it as a way to understand something I’ve seen over and over in the electorate: Incandescent rage, however brightly it burns at the start, has a tendency to dim. People can’t maintain anger for extended periods. It tends to wear on the mind and the body, as everyday issues like gas and rent and inflation push to get back into primary consideration.I have seen repeatedly how people abandon their principles — whether they be voting rights, transgender issues, gun control, police reform, civil rights, climate change or the protection of our democracy itself — when their pocketbooks suffer. There is a core group of people who will feel singularly passionate about each of these problems, but the rest of the public adjusts itself to the outrage and the trauma, shuffling each issue back into the deck. They still care about these problems as issues in the world, but they don’t necessarily see them as urgent or imminent.In a New York Times/Siena College poll released this week, voters were asked “What do you think is the MOST important problem facing the country today?”A plurality, 26 percent, said the economy, and 18 percent said inflation or the cost of living. Just seven percent said the state of democracy, and four percent said abortion.After the Supreme Court struck down Roe, Democrats saw a measurable shift in their direction, as voters began to say that they were leaning toward the Democrats in the midterm elections. The anger among many voters was palpable; the offense was fresh. But now, that momentum has stalled, and some see a swing back toward Republicans as we get further out from the ruling and worrisome economic news retakes the headlines.I still believe that anger over abortion will be felt in the midterms. I believe that taking away such a fundamental right feels like a betrayal that must be avenged. I believe that many parents of daughters are incensed at the idea of those girls inheriting an America where they will have less say over their bodies than their mothers had.But I also know that energy attrition in the electorate is real. I know that historical trends are on the side of Republicans going into the midterms, and even a minor stalling of momentum and erosion of energy could make the already slim chance that Democrats would hold the House of Representatives an impossibly long shot.In the closing days of this campaign cycle, Republicans are driving home perennial issues: the economy and crime. Democrats are arguing big issues of policy: abortion and protecting democracy. In this battle of pocketbooks and principles, which will win out?For those with any sense of political vision and history, the policy side must take precedence. Economic issues are cyclical. They’ll always present themselves. But grand issues like bodily autonomy can define generations. And protecting democracy can define empires.What is the point of a cheaper tank of gas, if it must be had in a failed democracy that polices people’s most intimate choices about their own bodies?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 and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Politician, Thy Name Is Hypocrite

      by

      What’s worse — politicians passing a bad law or politicians passing a bad law while attempting to make it look reasonable with meaningless window dressing?You wind up in the same place, but I’ve gotta go with the jerks who pretend.Let’s take, oh, I don’t know, abortion. Sure, lawmakers who vote to ban it know they’re imposing some voters’ religious beliefs on the whole nation. But maybe they can make it look kinda fair.For instance Mark Ronchetti, who’s running for governor in New Mexico, was “strongly pro-life” until the uproar following the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe. Now, his campaign website says he’s looking for a “middle ground” that would allow abortions “in cases involving rape, incest and when a mother’s life is at risk.”That’s a very popular spin. The public’s rejection of the court’s ruling, plus the stunning vote for abortion rights in a recent statewide referendum in Kansas, has left politicians looking for some way to dodge the anti-choice label. Without, um, actually changing. “I am pro-life, and make no apologies for that. But I also understand that this is a representative democracy,” said Tim Michels, a Republican candidate for Wisconsin governor, when he embraced the rape-and-incest dodge.Mehmet Oz, who’s running for Senate in Pennsylvania, used to support abortion access back when he wanted the world to call him “Dr. Oz.” But now that his day job is being a conservative Republican, he’s “100 percent pro-life.” Nevertheless, he still feels there should be an exception for cases of … rape and incest.We’ve come a long — OK, we’ve come at least a little way from the time, a decade ago, when Todd Akin, the Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, argued it was impossible for a woman to get pregnant from “legitimate rape.” And Akin did lose that race.The backtracking can get pretty creative — or desperate, depending on your perspective. In New Hampshire, Don Bolduc, who’s running for the Senate, was strongly anti-choice before he won the Republican primary. (“Killing babies is unbelievably irresponsible.”)Now, Bolduc the nominee feels a federal abortion ban “doesn’t make sense” and complains that he’s not getting the proper respect for his position. Which is that it’s a state issue. And that his opponent, Senator Maggie Hassan, should “get over it.”These days, it’s hard to sell an across-the-board rule that doesn’t take victims of forced sex into account. In Ohio recently, Senate candidate J.D. Vance tried to stick to his anti-abortion guns, but did back down a smidge when questioned about whether that 10-year-old Ohio rape victim who was taken out of state for an abortion should have been forced to have a baby.And then Vance quickly changed the subject, pointing out that the man accused of raping her was an “illegal alien.” This is an excellent reminder that in this election season there is virtually no problem that Republicans can’t find a way of connecting to the Mexican border.As sympathetic as all rape victims are, the exemption rule would not have much impact. No one knows exactly what proportion of pregnancies are caused by rape and incest, but the number “looks very, very small,” Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute told me.And what about, say, a young woman who’s already a teenage mother, working the night shift at a fast-food outlet, whose boyfriend’s condom failed? No suggestion for any special mercy there. You can’t help thinking the big difference is a desire to punish any woman who wanted to have sex.Another popular method of dodging the abortion issue is fiddling with timelines. Blake Masters, the ever-fascinating Arizona Senate candidate, originally opposed abortion from the moment of conception. (“I think it’s demonic.”) Now his revamped website just calls for a national ban once a woman is six months pregnant.And we will stop here very, very briefly to mention that the number of six-month abortions is infinitesimal.Whenever this issue comes up, I remember my school days, which involved Catholic education from kindergarten through college. Wonderful world in many ways, but there wasn’t much concern about keeping religion out of public policy. Especially when it came to abortion. Any attempt to stop the pregnancy from the moment of conception on was murder.That’s still Catholic dogma, you know. Politicians who think they can dodge the issue with their rape-and-incest exceptions appear to ignore the fact that as the church sees it, an embryo that’s the product of a rape still counts as worthy of protection.It took me quite a while to get my head around the abortion issue and I have sympathy for people who have strong religious opposition to ending a pregnancy.Some folks who hold to that dogma try to encourage pregnant women to have their babies by providing counseling, financial support and adoption services, all of which is great as long as the woman in question isn’t being forced to join the program.But anti-abortion laws are basically an attempt to impose one group’s religion on the country as a whole. It’s flat-out unconstitutional, no matter how Justice Samuel Alito feels.And the rape-or-incest exception isn’t humanitarian. It’s a meaningless rhetorical ploy intended to allow politicians to have it both ways.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

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats’ Feared Red October Arrives Before the Midterms

      by

      Many Democrats hoped it would be a “weird election.” But with Election Day just three weeks away, the midterms aren’t shaping up that way.Here’s the thing about elections: When they break, they usually break in one direction. And right now, all the indicators on my political dashboard are blinking red — as in, toward Republicans.First, there’s inflation. It hasn’t gone away as the Biden administration had hoped, and the Federal Reserve likewise seems to be hamstrung in dealing with it. Americans are being squeezed between exorbitant prices for consumer goods — inflation is still at 40-year highs — and interest rates that the Fed has ratcheted up as it seeks to rein in those prices. Anyone trying to buy a home now faces 30-year mortgage rates that have soared past 6 percent.The latest New York Times/Siena poll, my colleague Nate Cohn wrote this week, suggests that “the conditions that helped Democrats gain over the summer no longer seem to be in place,” with voters’ sour view of the economy driving the downturn in the party’s prospects.As John Halpin, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote recently in his newsletter, “inflation is a political wrecking ball for incumbent governments” around the world. Why should the United States be different?Then there’s crime, which has rapidly moved up the ladder of issues that matter to voters. In a new Politico/Morning Consult poll, 64 percent of voters said crime would play a “major role” in how they voted, versus 59 percent who said the same of abortion access.Democrats have bet heavily that widespread anger over the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade would drive voters away from the Republican Party — especially college-educated women in the suburbs. President Biden pledged on Tuesday to protect abortion rights in a clear attempt to bring the issue back to the forefront of public discussion.Democrats’ strategy might have been a smart move in an otherwise brutal year for the party. But it has also come at a cost: All those abortion ads have taken resources away from whacking Republicans for opposing the policies Democrats passed in Congress this year.Some of those policies are broadly popular, like the way that the Inflation Reduction Act allows the federal government to negotiate prices for certain prescription drugs.But a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only 36 percent of voters were aware of this development. That’s a huge communication failure — or a reflection that Democrats don’t think promoting their accomplishments would move or mobilize many votes.And finally, there’s the historical pattern of midterm elections, which tend to be referendums on the party in power. Older voters, who broadly lean Republican, also usually turn out more reliably in nonpresidential years, while younger, more transient Democratic voters are more fickle.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.G.O.P. Gains Edge: Republicans enter the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress with an advantage as the economy and inflation have surged as the dominant concerns, a Times/Siena poll found.Codifying Roe: President Biden pledged that the first bill he would send to Capitol Hill next year if Democrats expand their control of Congress in the midterm elections would be legislation to enshrine abortion rights into law.Florida Senate Race: In the only debate of the contest, exchanges between Senator Marco Rubio and his Democratic challenger, Representative Val Demings, got fiery at times. Here are four takeaways.Aggressive Tactics: Right-wing leaders are calling on election activists to monitor voting in the midterm elections in search of evidence to confirm unfounded theories of election fraud.So, as the polls move the G.O.P.’s way, this election is looking a lot more “normal” than it might have seemed over the summer. Robert Gibbs, a former White House press secretary under President Barack Obama, wrote in his newsletter today: “We’re still in a very weird election, but it looks like it’s going to be more normal as we get into these final 21 days.”For Democrats hoping that this midterm election might be different from most others, normalcy is bad news.The Republican nominee in one of Rhode Island’s two congressional districts, Allan Fung, left, is leading Seth Magaziner, the state treasurer and a Democrat, in public polls.Corey Welch/WPRI, via Associated PressRepublicans go on offenseAs the playing field tilts toward Republicans, conservative groups are pouring money into newly competitive races, especially on the more volatile House side.This week’s Times/Siena poll showed Republicans leading Democrats by four percentage points in the generic congressional ballot, a widely monitored gauge of voter sentiment that asks respondents which party’s candidate they are most likely to vote for. It’s an especially meaningful indicator in races with no Democratic incumbent, because it takes time and money for little-known candidates to build up their personal brands. And the Democrats’ national brand is faring poorly right now.A super PAC aligned with Representative Kevin McCarthy, the Republican minority leader, just bought $4 million in television ads targeting Representative Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, whose new Hudson Valley district Biden won by five points in 2020. Maloney is the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and his defeat would be deeply embarrassing to House Democrats.Republicans are also crowing about their chances of winning three open seats in Oregon that were previously held by Democrats, as well as a long-shot bid to unseat Representative Jahana Hayes in northwestern Connecticut. And even in wicked-blue Rhode Island, the Republican nominee in one of the state’s two congressional districts, Allan Fung, is leading Seth Magaziner, the state treasurer and a Democrat, in public polls.The Senate, where Democrats have huge cash advantages in races that are driven much more by personality, still looks like a tossup.But even there, Democrats are feeling some new heartburn. In Washington State, Senator Patty Murray’s lead over Tiffany Smiley, the Republican, has narrowed slightly since the summer. And as the polls have tightened, Smiley has outraised her Democratic opponent for the first time — by nearly a two-to-one margin.A loss for Murray would be a major upset. And if Democrats now need to worry about a state like Washington, that’s a dire sign for their chances in November.What to readFewer debates, little retail politicking, scarce town halls: This year’s campaigns look far different from those in the past as traditional norms erode, Lisa Lerer and Jazmine Ulloa write.Senator Bernie Sanders is planning an eight-state blitz over the final two weekends before the midterm elections, looking to rally young voters and progressives.Newly released body camera footage shows how Gov. Ron DeSantis’s much-publicized crackdown on voter fraud caused confusion among those arrested.In a 2021 video, Donald Trump inquired about whether a documentary filmmaker recording an interview with him was a “good Jewish character,” described Persians as “very good salesmen” and complained that Israeli Jews favored him more than Jews in the United States, Maggie Haberman reports.Capitol Hill notepadRepresentative Kevin McCarthy, left, and Senator Mitch McConnell with President Donald Trump in 2020.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMcCarthy zigs while McConnell zagsMitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader at the time of the Ukraine impeachment inquiry, warned President Donald Trump that his infamous call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was “not perfect” — even as McConnell downplayed its importance in public.At the same time, Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, was scoffing behind closed doors about the nature of the offense, while leaning on wavering Republicans to reject Democrats’ calls for an impeachment inquiry.The dueling anecdotes are revealed in a book out this week, “Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump,” by Rachael Bade and Karoun Demirjian. They encapsulate an important difference between the two Republican leaders as they seek a return to power.Both men went along with many of Trump’s excesses. But while McCarthy usually told Trump what he wanted to hear, McConnell sometimes pushed back. It’s why Trump has railed against McConnell, calling him an “old crow,” and recently accused him of harboring a “death wish” — but has helped set McCarthy on a glide path to becoming speaker if Republicans retake the House next month.“If this is the ‘launching point’ for House Democrats’ impeachment process, they’ve already overplayed their hand,” McConnell said after Trump released a transcript of the call, according to the book. “It’s clear there is no quid pro quo that the Democrats were desperately praying for.”But earlier, McConnell’s chief counsel, Andrew Ferguson, zeroed in one remark: Trump’s request to “do us a favor, though,” which Ferguson told his boss was “the dynamite line.” Agreeing, McConnell told Trump privately that the call with Zelensky was a problem.“This call is not perfect,” McConnell told Trump. “And you are going to get in deep trouble for it.”McConnell also cautioned his fellow Republican senators not to take a side. “Don’t box yourself in until you know all the facts,” he told them.McCarthy handled the Ukraine imbroglio rather differently. At a meeting with Trump’s aides to go over the transcript, he was unmoved by what he read, asking, “Is this everything?”Then he dialed up Representative Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican who had expressed some support for an impeachment inquiry — and pressured him to walk back his remarks ASAP.“Using government agencies to, if it’s proven, to put your finger on the scale of an election, I don’t think that’s right,” Amodei had said. The comments set off a media frenzy, leading some to conclude that impeachment might gain Republican support.Bade and Demirjian write that McCarthy was worried Trump would “flip” when he saw the comments.“Oh, man, I screwed up,” Amodei said when the two men spoke. McCarthy instructed him to put out a statement to repair any potential damage with Trump. He quickly did, clarifying, “In no way, shape, or form, did I indicate support for impeachment.”David Frum, a conservative writer for The Atlantic and one of Trump’s leading critics, recently opined that McCarthy “thinks the job to be the speaker of the House is a little bit like being a concierge at some rock-star hotel, where people come downstairs at all hours and they make crazy demands, and you say, ‘Yes, sir, right away, sir. We’ll have the dim sum and cocaine to your room in 15 minutes, sir.’”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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Midterms Look Very Different if You’re Not a Democrat or a Republican

      by

      Ross Douthat, a Times Opinion columnist, hosted an online conversation with Liel Leibovitz, an editor at large for Tablet magazine, and Stephanie Slade, a senior editor at Reason magazine, to discuss how they and other “politically homeless” Americans are thinking about the midterm elections.Ross Douthat: Thanks to you both for serving as representatives of the important part of America that feels legitimately torn between the political parties. Liel, in December of 2021 you wrote an essay about what you called “the Turn,” meaning the feeling of no longer being at home on the political left, of being alienated from the Democratic Party by everything from Covid-era school closures to doctrinaire progressivism.Where does “the Turn” carry you when it comes to electoral politics, facing the (arguably) binary choices of the midterm elections?Liel Leibovitz: Nowhere good, I’m afraid. I’m an immigrant, so I have no real tribal or longstanding loyalties. I came to this country, like so many other immigrants, because I care deeply about two things — freedom of religion and individual liberties. And both parties are messing up when it comes to these two fundamental pillars of American life, from cheering on law enforcement spying on Muslim Americans in the wake of 9/11 to cheering on social media networks for curbing free speech. “The Turn” leads me away from both Democrats and Republicans.Douthat: Stephanie, you’re a libertarian, part of a faction that’s always been somewhat alienated from both parties, despite (usually) having a somewhat stronger connection to the right. This is not, I think it’s fair to say, a particularly libertarian moment in either coalition. What kind of Election Day outcomes are you actually rooting for?Stephanie Slade: This is tough. As someone motivated by a desire for much less government than we currently have, I’m always going to be nervous about the prospect of a Congress that’s willing to rubber-stamp the whims of a president (or vice versa). So I’m an instinctive fan of divided power. But that preference is running smack up against the almost unimaginable abhorrence I feel toward some of the Republicans who would have to win in order for the G.O.P. to retake the Senate.Douthat: Liel, as someone whose relationship to the left and the Democrats has become much more complicated in recent years, what do you see when you look at the Republican alternative?Leibovitz: Sadly, the same thing I see when I look at the Democrats. I see a party too enmeshed in very bad ideas and too interested in power rather than principle. I see a party only too happy to cheer on big government to curtail individual liberties and to let tech oligopolies govern many corners of our lives. The only point of light is how many outliers both these parties seem to be producing these days, which tells me that the left-right dichotomy is truly turning meaningless.Douthat: But political parties are always more interested in power rather than principle, right? And a lot of people look at the current landscape and say, “Sure, there are problems in both parties, but the stakes are just too high not to choose a side.” Especially among liberals, there’s a strong current of frustration with cross-pressured voters. How do you respond to people who can’t understand why you aren’t fully on their side?Slade: Those seeking power certainly want people to feel like the stakes are too high not to go along with their demands. Yes, there are militant partisans on both sides who consider it traitorous of me not to be with them 100 percent. At the same time, there’s a distinction worth keeping in mind between where party activists are and where the average Republican or Democratic voter is. Most Americans are not so wedded to their red-blue identities.Leibovitz: The most corrosive and dispiriting thing is how zero-sum our political conversation has gotten. I look at the Democratic Party and see a lot of energy I love — particularly the old Bernie Sanders spirit, before it was consumed by the apparatus. I look at the Republican Party and see people like Ted Cruz, who are very good at kicking up against some of the party’s worst ideas. There’s hope here and energy, just not if you keep on seeing this game as red versus blue.Douthat: Let me pause there, Liel. What bad ideas do you think Cruz is kicking against?Leibovitz: He represents a kind of energy that doesn’t necessarily gravitate toward the orthodoxies of giving huge corporations the freedom to do as they please. He’s rooted in an understanding of America that balks at the notion that we now have a blob of government-corporate interests dictating every aspect of our lives and that everything — from our medical system to our entertainment — is uniform.Douthat: This is a good example of the gap between how political professionals see things and how individuals see things. There’s no place for the Bernie-Cruz sympathizer in normal political typologies! But you see in polls right now not just Georgians who might back Brian Kemp for governor in Georgia and Raphael Warnock for senator but also Arizonans who might vote for Mark Kelly and Kari Lake — a stranger combination.Stephanie, what do you think about this ticket-splitting impulse?Slade: Some of this isn’t new. Political scientists and pollsters have long observed that people don’t love the idea of any one side having too much power at once. In that, I can’t blame them.Leibovitz: I agree. But it’s still so interesting to me that some of these splits seem just so outlandish, like the number of people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and then in 2016 for Donald Trump. That’s telling us that something truly interesting, namely that these tired labels — Democrat, Republican — don’t really mean anything anymore.Slade: We insiders always want to believe that voters are operating from a sort of consistent philosophical blueprint. But we’re seeing a lot more frustration-based voting, backlash voting. This can be fine, in the sense that there’s plenty in our world to be frustrated about, but my fear is that it can tip over into a politics thoroughly motivated by hatreds. And that is scary.Douthat: Right. For instance, in the realm of pundits, there’s an assumption that Republican candidates should be assessed based on how all-in they are for election conspiracy theories and that swing voters should recoil from the conspiracists. That seems to be happening in Pennsylvania, where the more conspiratorial Republican, Doug Mastriano, seems to be doing worse in his governor’s race than Dr. Oz is in the Senate campaign. But in Arizona, Lake is the more conspiratorial candidate, and she appears to be a stronger candidate than Blake Masters is in the Senate race.Which suggests that swing voters are often using a different compass than the political class.Leibovitz: Let me inject a very big dose of — dare I say it? — hope here. Yes, there’s a lot of hate and a lot of fear going on. But if you look at these volatile patterns you’re describing, you’re seeing something else, which is a yearning for a real vision. Voters are gravitating toward candidates who are telling them coherent stories that make sense. To the political classes, these stories sometimes sound conspiratorial or crazy or way removed from the Beltway reality. But to normal Americans, they resonate.Douthat: Or, Stephanie, are they just swinging back and forth based on the price of gas, and all larger narratives are pundit impositions on more basic pocketbook impulses?Slade: Yeah, I’m a little more split on this. Economic fundamentals matter a lot, as do structural factors (like that the president’s party usually does poorly in midterms, irrespective of everything else).Douthat: But then do you, as an unusually well-informed, cross-pressured American, feel electing Republicans in the House or Senate will help with the economic situation, with inflation?Slade: It’s a debate among libertarians whether divided government is actually a good thing. Or is the one thing the two parties can agree on that they should spend ever more money? I don’t have a ton of hope that a Republican-controlled House or Senate will do much good. On the other hand, the sheer economic insanity of the Biden years — amounting to approving more than $4 trillion of new borrowing, to say nothing of the unconstitutional eviction moratorium and student loan forgiveness — is mind-boggling to me, so almost anything that could put the brakes on some of this stuff seems worth trying.Douthat: Spoken like a swing voter. Liel, you aren’t a libertarian, but your particular profile — Jewish immigrant writer put off by progressive extremism — does resemble an earlier cross-pressured group, the original 1970s neoconservatives. Over time, a lot of neoconservatives ended up comfortably on the right (at least until recently) because they felt welcomed by the optimism of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.Do you think that the toxic side of the G.O.P. is a permanent obstacle to completing a similar move rightward for people alienated by progressivism?Leibovitz: Not to get too biblical, but I view Trump less as a person and more as a plague, a reminder from above to mend our ways, or else. And many voters mortified by the sharp left turn of the Democratic Party are feeling, like me, politically homeless right now.But politically homeless is not politically hopeless. The way out for us isn’t by focusing on which of these two broken homes is better but on which ideas we still hold dear. And here I agree with Stephanie. Stopping the economic insanity — from rampant spending to stopping oil production and driving up gas prices to giving giant corporations a free pass — is key. So is curbing the notion that it’s OK to believe that the government can decide that some categories, like race or gender or sexual orientation, make a person a member of a protected class and that it’s OK for the government to adjudicate which of these classes is more worthy of protection.Douthat: Let’s end by getting specific. Irrespective of party, is there a candidate on the ballot this fall who you are especially eager to see win and one that you are especially eager to see lose?Leibovitz: I’m a New Yorker, so anyone who helped turn this state — and my beloved hometown — into the teetering mess it is right now deserves to go. Lee Zeldin seems like the sort of out-of-left-field candidate who can be transformative, especially considering the tremendous damage done by the progressives in the state.Douthat: OK, you’ve given me a Republican candidate you want to see win, is there one you’d like to see fail?Leibovitz: I know Pennsylvania is a very important battleground state, and the Democrats have put forth a person who appears ill equipped for this responsibility, but it’s very, very hard to take a Dr. Oz candidacy seriously.Slade: I spend a lot of my time following the rising illiberal conservative movement, variously known as national conservatives, postliberals, the New Right and so on. What distinguishes them is their desire not just to acquire government power but to wield it to destroy their enemies. That goes against everything I believe and everything I believe America stands for. The person running for office right now who seems most representative of that view is J.D. Vance, who once told a reporter that “our people hate the right people.” I would like to see that sentiment lose soundly in November, wherever it’s on the ballot. (Not that I’m saying I think it actually will lose in Ohio.)Douthat: No predictions here, just preferences. Is there someone you really want to win?Slade: Like a good libertarian, can I say I wish they could all lose?Douthat: Not really, because my last question bestows on both of you a very unlibertarian power. You are each the only swing voter in America, and you get to choose the world of 2023: a Democratic-controlled Congress, a Republican-controlled Congress or the wild card, Republicans taking one house but not the other. How do you use this power?Leibovitz: Mets fan here, so wild card is an apt metaphor: Take the split, watch them both lose in comical and heartbreaking ways and pray for a better team next election.Slade: If forced to decide, I’d split the baby, then split the baby again: Republicans take the House, Democrats hold the Senate.Douthat: A Solomonic conclusion, indeed. Thanks so much to you both.Ross Douthat is a Times columnist. Liel Leibovitz is an editor at large for Tablet magazine and a host of its weekly culture podcast, “Unorthodox,” and daily Talmud podcast, “Take One.” Stephanie Slade (@sladesr) is a senior editor at Reason magazine.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