More stories

  • in

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

    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

  • in

    What’s on the Minds of 12 Young Voters

    Whether they are marching against gun violence, advocating stronger action against climate change or pushing for or against abortion rights, young Americans of all political stripes have been engaged in some of the prominent social movements of the 21st century.Electorally, however, they have often struggled to make their voices heard, despite turning out in increasing numbers in 2018 and 2020.A New York Times/Siena College poll found that likely voters younger than 30 planned to support a Democrat for Congress by a 12-point margin in next month’s elections, compared with a narrow advantage for Republicans among likely voters at large. But, compared with older generations, they were less likely to say they would vote at all.Twelve voters in their 20s, living in states with competitive Senate or governor’s races, spoke with photographers for The New York Times about the issues they considered most important. Though President Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan had been in the news, none said it was a top issue. Instead, they discussed their views on abortion, climate, the economy and immigration — or a search for, as one 24-year-old Wisconsin woman put it, “what’s best for the collective versus the singular.” — Maggie AstorGeorgiaSeeking ‘the Least Worst Options’Nicole Craine for The New York TimesJayda Priester, 25, lives in Atlanta and sells life insurance. She said she had no political affiliation and had not decided whom she wanted for governor.“There is no one who made me feel I have to vote for them yet. I am looking at the least worst options.” “The most important issue for me is defunding the police. I am hugely for defunding the police and putting other resources available for crisis management, de-escalation.”—WisconsinFixing Tractors, Worried About FuelJamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesKyle Moore, 28, lives in Poynette. He is a tractor technician who identifies as a Republican and who wants “to see the fuel prices go back down” to ease the strain on farmers and ranchers.“I feel like the 20s generation does not express or voice their opinion as strongly as they should, like the older generations. They hold back more and don’t come out and voice or vote clearly enough to see the country succeeding.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With elections next month, a Times/Siena poll shows that independents, especially women, are swinging toward the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights as voters worry about the economy.Georgia Governor’s Race: A debate between Gov. Brian Kemp and Stacey Abrams produced a substantive hour of policy discussion. Here are five 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.Jill Biden: The first lady, who has become a lifeline for Democratic candidates trying to draw attention and money in the midterms, is the most popular surrogate in the Biden administration.—PennsylvaniaA Nurse With Dreams of Health Care EquityHannah Beier for The New York TimesKadie Mercier, 29, of Philadelphia is a registered nurse in the emergency department of a hospital in her city. She is a registered Democrat.“As an emergency-department nurse, we see people come in all the time that are in very poor health because they’re unable to afford their medications or find a primary care provider. And so it’s something that I’m really passionate about, making sure these people can avoid coming to the emergency department.”—WisconsinBipartisan and Hoping for Change on ImmigrationJamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesChris Ahmann, 18, of Madison is a first-year mechanical engineering student at the University of Wisconsin and a first-generation Filipino American.“I like something that’s a little more bipartisan. Maybe more independent. Because there’s more variety than limiting yourself, because it’s more of a spectrum than just binary.”“Immigration is really close to me. I’m one of the only people in my family who is in the U.S. right now. I was born here, but they want to come here to the U.S. I’d like to see it easier for people.”—PennsylvaniaAgainst Abortion, Concerned About JobsHannah Beier for The New York TimesEmily McDermott, 27, of Lansdowne works from home as a seamstress. She has a daughter and is pregnant. She is a registered Democrat but plans to vote for Doug Mastriano, a hard-right Republican, for governor.“Life begins in the womb, and I think that that is an inalienable right. And I don’t think it’s up to us to decide who lives and dies.”.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.Regarding Mr. Mastriano: “It was during the shutdown, and I lost my job because of the pandemic. And so, he was the only one kind of fighting to get everybody to reopen back jobs.”—New HampshireVoting to Slow Climate Change, a ‘Time Bomb’John Tully for The New York TimesGriffin Brunette, 24, lives in Hampton and works in marketing. He is a registered Democrat.On climate change: “It’s a ticking time bomb. We do have the power to make a form of change and make our voices heard, and it all starts with voting.”“I think a huge issue in getting people on board with what is going on is that it’s become a political thing, and I think that people on both sides should realize the future is in our hands. And we can do something about that by setting these Democrat/Republican things aside.”—MichiganKeeping It Personal and Not Ruling Out TrumpEmily Elconin for The New York TimesJared Tate, 28, left, and Derrick Whitehead, 29, of Ypsilanti are high school friends who produce a podcast. Mr. Tate is a registered Democrat and works at Target while studying communications at Eastern Michigan University.“If Trump runs again, I will consider voting for him, mainly because of the financial aspect of it. Trump did a lot for small-business owners that a lot of people don’t know about. I voted for Biden last time and wanted to give him a chance.”Mr. Whitehead is not affiliated with a party and voted to re-elect President Donald J. Trump in 2020.“I honestly don’t know if I am going to vote or not.”“I look at it more as personal. If it doesn’t have anything to do with me and my inner circle or family, it doesn’t concern me.”—Wisconsin‘What’s Best for the Collective Versus the Singular’Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesEmily Matzke, 24, lives in Prairie du Sac. She does not identify with a political party and works in agricultural marketing.“I just wish people just had more of an ability to compromise and know that not everything will be perfect for everyone, but if it could be better for the majority, then it’s at least what is best for all.”“I feel we can only move forward as kind people and a country if we can figure out a way to be kind. What’s best for the collective versus the singular.”—ArizonaSeeing a Future in an ‘Immigrant-Friendly’ PastRebecca Noble for The New York TimesAngel Martinez, 20, of Tempe is studying political science with a minor in Spanish at Arizona State University and works as a night desk attendant at his apartment complex. He is a Democrat, with immigration, climate and voting rights his biggest issues.“We just need to get back to our roots of being immigrant-friendly in this country. A lot of people have a really bad sentiment towards immigrants, especially immigrants from Latin American countries. Especially Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, all those countries, just because there’s this notion that jobs are being stolen or welfare is being stolen.”—PennsylvaniaBelieving in Abortion Rights: ‘How I Was Raised’Hannah Beier for The New York TimesJake Heller, 26, of Philadelphia is a registered Democrat who works as a cheesemonger at Reading Terminal Market.“What issues are most important to me? Probably the classics: abortion, you know, bodily autonomy, the environment and I’d say gun regulation.”On abortion rights: “I think it’s important to kind of be on the forefront of voting for that and just having a strong opinion on that. And that’s just kind of how I was raised.”—WisconsinProviding for a Son and His EducationTaylor Glascock for The New York TimesKelly Ocotl, 28, of Milwaukee is an executive assistant who attended a rally where Senator Ron Johnson appeared with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.“We have a son, so education is a big one. But the economy as well, you know, just trying to provide for our family is really important and how it’s kind of tanking right now.”—PennsylvaniaHuman Rights, and Food for a City’s HomelessHannah Beier for The New York TimesKish Williams, 25, of Philadelphia works as a dog handler and supervisor, is not affiliated with a party.“I know everyone’s, you know, talking about L.G.B.T. politics, trans rights, trans issues, trans protection and medication, and, being a trans individual myself, that’s a concern for me. And also, for Philadelphia specifically, I’m really interested in seeing what people are doing with the food and homelessness crisis we’re having right now.” More

  • in

    Some Republicans Want to Count Votes by Hand. Bad Idea, Experts Say.

    Over the past two years, Republicans have pursued an array of changes to how Americans vote. The past few weeks have drawn attention to a particularly drastic idea: counting all ballots by hand.Officials in Cochise County, Ariz., recently pushed to do that in next month’s election, and whether or not they go through with it, the efforts may spread. Republicans in at least six states introduced bills this year that would have banned machine tabulation, and several candidates for statewide offices have expressed support, including Kari Lake and Mark Finchem, the party’s nominees for Arizona’s governor and secretary of state, and Jim Marchant, its nominee for Nevada’s secretary of state.The New York Times spoke with six experts in election administration, and all said the same thing: While hand counting is an important tool for recounts and audits, tallying entire elections by hand in any but the smallest jurisdictions would cause chaos and make results less accurate, not more.“People who think they would have greater confidence in this process think so because they haven’t seen it,” said Mark Lindeman, the policy and strategy director at Verified Voting, a nonpartisan organization focused on election technology. “The process in real life would not inspire confidence at all on this scale.”The proposals often stem from false claims by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies that voting technology was somehow to blame for Mr. Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election. Most of those claims center on electronic voting machines, but some extend to scanners and tabulators that count paper ballots.The right-wing arguments against tabulators rely not on evidence that they have been compromised — because there is none — but on the possibility that they could be. In a lawsuit filed in April, Ms. Lake and Mr. Finchem asked a federal court to mandate hand counting in Arizona, arguing that the state’s ballot scanners were “potentially unsecure” and denied voters “the right to have their votes counted and reported in an accurate, auditable, legal and transparent process.” The court dismissed the case, and Ms. Lake and Mr. Finchem are appealing.Research indicates that hand counting increases errors.A study published in 2012 looked at discrepancies between initial counts and recounts in New Hampshire and found that, on average, those discrepancies were 0.8 percentage points smaller in towns that used scanners than in towns that counted by hand. A study in 2018 analyzed two statewide races in Wisconsin and found that “vote counts originally conducted by computerized scanners were, on average, more accurate.”What to Know About the Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 6Numerous inquiries. More

  • in

    Poll Shows Voters See Democracy in Peril, but Saving It Isn’t a Priority

    Voters overwhelmingly believe American democracy is under threat, but seem remarkably apathetic about that danger, with few calling it the nation’s most pressing problem, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll.In fact, more than a third of independent voters and a smaller but noteworthy contingent of Democrats said they were open to supporting candidates who reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election, as they assigned greater urgency to their concerns about the economy than to fears about the fate of the country’s political system.Voters who are open to candidates who reject 2020 election resultsThinking about a candidate for political office who you agree with on most positions, how comfortable would you be voting for that candidate if they say they think the 2020 election was stolen? More

  • in

    Election Officials Prepare for New Challenges in Midterm Vote

    On the eve of a primary runoff election in June, a Republican candidate for secretary of state of South Carolina sent out a message to his supporters on Telegram.“For all of you on the team tomorrow observing the polls, Good Hunting,” wrote Keith Blandford, a candidate who promoted the falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald J. Trump. “You know what you are looking for. We have the enemy on their back foot, press the attack.”The next day, activists fanned out to polling places in Charleston, S.C., demanding to inspect election equipment and to take photographs and video. When election workers denied their requests, some returned with police officers to file reports about broken or missing seals on the machines, according emails sent from local officials to the state election commission. There were no broken or missing seals.After Mr. Blandford lost, the activists posted online a list of more than 60 “anomalies” they observed, enough to have changed the outcome of races, they said. They called the operation a “pilot program.”The episode is one of many warning signs that has election officials on alert as voting begins for midterm elections, the biggest test of the American election system since Mr. Trump’s lies about the 2020 results launched an assault on the democratic process.In the two years since, groups of right-wing activists have banded together, spreading false claims of widespread fraud and misconduct in elections. Now those activists are inserting themselves in the vote count, with a broad and aggressive effort to monitor voting in search of evidence that confirms their theories.Many of the activists have been mobilized by some of the same people who tried to overturn Mr. Trump’s defeat in 2020.Their tactics in primary elections have officials braced for a range of new challenges, including disruptive poll watchers and workers, aggressive litigation strategies, voter and ballot challenges and vigilante searches for fraud.Many of the election activists have been mobilized by the same people who tried to overturn Donald J. Trump’s defeat in 2020.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesBoth Republican and Democratic election officials say the efforts are unlikely to cause widespread disorder or disruptions. They are prepared to accurately count the tens of millions of votes expected to be cast in the coming weeks, they said. But episodes such as the one in South Carolina come with consequences, spawning misinformation and spreading doubt about results, particularly in close races.“In a way, it’s the manifestation of a self-fulfilling prophecy,” said Tammy Patrick, who works with election officials as a senior adviser at the Democracy Fund. Activists primed to see misconduct are more likely to blow minor errors out of proportion and cause disruptions “that will just bolster their claims,” she said.Interviews with election officials and activists, public records and planning emails obtained by The New York Times show that the extensive network of organizers includes Republican Party officials, mainstream conservative groups and the most conspiracist corners of the election denial movement.The groups appear to be building on the tactics used two years ago: compiling testimony from G.O.P.-allied poll workers, the temporary employees who run polling places, and poll watchers, the volunteers who monitor operations, to build challenges and contest results.“We are 100 times more prepared now,” said Stephen K. Bannon, a former adviser to Mr. Trump who was involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, in an interview. Mr. Bannon now hosts a podcast that has become a clearinghouse for right-wing election activists. “We’re going to adjudicate every battle. That’s the difference.”Both Democrats and Republicans have long enlisted poll watchers and poll workers to oversee voting and always plan ahead for disputes ahead of major elections. But this year, officials are grappling with the prospect that those efforts may be driven by activists who spread fantastical or debunked theories.Officials saw evidence of the new organizing in primary elections. In Michigan, a poll worker was charged with tampering with an election computer. In Texas, activists followed election officials back to their offices and tried to enter secured areas. In Alabama, activists tried to insert fake ballots into a machine during a public testing process ahead of the primary.In Kansas, activists funded a recount of a ballot measure on abortion rights that required Johnson County to count a quarter million ballots by hand, even though the measure failed by 18 percentage points. Fred Sherman, the county’s elections chief, said that some of the workers involved in the count appeared to be election deniers. He called the police to remove one who breached security, he said. The recount went smoothly, he added, but was “terrifying.”Employees sorted freshly created mail-in ballots last week.Rebecca Noble for The New York Times“We have to be mindful we may have people who may not have the best of intentions from an election integrity standpoint,” Mr. Sherman said..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.Election officials have spent months preparing for the new challenges. Some have participated in exercises organized by the F.B.I. on how to handle threats, including physical aggression toward election workers. They have held “de-escalation” training for their staff. Some have changed the layout of their offices, adding fences and other barriers that can protect workers.“When people see everyone working hard and ethically and toward the same goal — who wants to disrupt that?” said Stephen Richer, the recorder of Maricopa County in Arizona, whose county election offices were surrounded by protesters following the 2020 election.Activists say they are trying to ensure that all rules are followed and only eligible voters cast ballots.“We have people trained in the law so they can then observe and document and report when things are not being conducted according to the law,” Cleta Mitchell, an organizer of one of the national groups involved in training activists and a lawyer who assisted Mr. Trump in his failed 2020 challenges, said recently on Mr. Bannon’s podcast. Ms. Mitchell said her network had trained more than 20,000 people into what she has described as a “citizens’ detective agency.”She did not respond to requests for comment.In many places, political parties have a direct role in recruiting poll workers and monitors. The Republican National Committee said it has placed more than 56,000 workers and monitors in primary and special elections this year. Emma Vaughn, an R.N.C. spokeswoman, said the committee was expecting more for the general election, but did not have a precise number. In several battleground states, the committee has also hired “election integrity” officials.The Democratic National Committee has also expanded its operations, hiring 25 “voter protection” directors and 129 staff members in states across the country. The committee did not provide the total number of poll workers or monitors it recruited.Stephen K. Bannon’s podcast has become a clearinghouse for information on election activism. Kenny Holston for The New York TimesObservers watched as voters cast ballots at Rancho High School on Election Day in Las Vegas in 2020.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesNinety-six election lawsuits have been filed, according to a tally by Democracy Docket, a left-leaning election legal group.In a replay of 2020, much of the litigation is focused on absentee ballots: More than half of the lawsuits filed by Republican-aligned groups are disputes over mail voting rules, such as how to fix errors on a ballot, whether ballots with small errors should be counted or when a ballot comes too late to count, according to Democracy Docket.Some voting rights advocates and Democratic groups say they are also watching for a replay of 2020, when Mr. Trump and his allies tried to stop the results from being certified.“There’s the underlying concern about in some of these places, where you’ve got political people certifying the election, whether they’ll certify the election and then what the crisis will be,” said Jonathan Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonpartisan group.Some of the people involved in the 2020 challenges are now leading organizers.Patrick Byrne, the former chief executive of Overstock.com and a prominent purveyor of election conspiracy theories, is recruiting activists through his group, the America Project. Michael Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, is a co-founder and is advising the group. (Both men attended a December 2020 meeting at the White House, where Mr. Flynn urged Mr. Trump to seize voting machines.)In Michigan, a state party official is identified as the state director of America Project’s effort — called Operation Eagles Wings — in documents. That official also coordinates with Ms. Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network, which hosts strategy calls and training sessions, according to emails obtained by The Times.On his “War Room” podcast, Mr. Bannon tells listeners that Democrats will only win elections if they steal them. He and his allies can prevent that “by taking over the election apparatus,” he said on his show earlier this month.Freshly printed mail-in ballots in Phoenix.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesA volunteer poll watcher in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., in 2020.Robert Nickelsberg for The New York TimesMr. Bannon has been directing followers to websites that encourage a sort of election vigilantism. The Gateway Pundit, a right-wing website, urges activists to demand that observers be allowed to watch as ballots are loaded onto trucks at post offices and to insist that they get closer to the ballot counting than the rules allow.Mr. Bannon has also urged his listeners to take over local parties, which in some states have a role in selecting poll workers.In El Paso County, Colo., the head of the local G.O.P., who has aligned with influential election deniers, asked the county clerk to remove several longtime poll workers whom she described in an email as “unfaithful” to the party. The clerk, Chuck Broerman, said he reluctantly fulfilled the request because he was required to by law.A Trump supporter outside the Arizona State Capitol in Phoenix in 2020.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times“The individuals they are removing have been longstanding dedicated hard-working Republicans,” said Mr. Broerman, who is also a former county party chairman.In North Carolina, a right-wing group dedicated to “election integrity” said it trained 1,000 poll watchers in the state, with help from Ms. Mitchell’s network. Some became the subject of dozens of complaints during the primary.In Pasquotank County, one was “intimidating poll workers, leaving the enclosure several times to ‘report to headquarters,’” according to complaints obtained by The Times.To address the complaints, the state drafted a proposal of changes that would have made it easier to remove a poll watcher for misbehavior. These were rejected by the Republican-controlled rules commission after a torrent of emails and public testimony from local activists to the commission.Ms. Mitchell was among those who chimed in. The changes were trying to curb “the enthusiastic interest” that citizens had in the election process, she said. More

  • in

    A New Playbook for Saving Democracy, Defeating Fascism and Winning Elections

    Polls swing this way and that way, but the larger story they tell is unmistakable. With the midterm elections, Americans are being offered a clear choice between continued and expanded liberal democracy, on the one hand, and fascism, on the other. And it’s more or less a dead heat.It is time to speak an uncomfortable truth: The pro-democracy side is at risk not just because of potential electoral rigging, voter suppression and other forms of unfair play by the right, as real as those things are. In America (as in various other countries), the pro-democracy cause — a coalition of progressives, liberals, moderates, even decent Republicans who still believe in free elections and facts — is struggling to win the battle for hearts and minds.The pro-democracy side can still very much prevail. But it needs to go beyond its present modus operandi, a mix of fatalism and despair and living in perpetual reaction to the right and policy wonkiness and praying for indictments. It needs to build a new and improved movement — feisty, galvanizing, magnanimous, rooted and expansionary — that can outcompete the fascists and seize the age.I believe pro-democracy forces can do this because I spent the past few years reporting on people full of hope who show a way forward, organizers who refuse to give in to fatalism about their country or its citizens. These organizers are doing yeoman’s work changing minds and expanding support for true multiracial democracy, and they recognize what more of their allies on the left must: The fascists are doing as well as they are because they understand people as they are and cater to deep unmet needs, and any pro-democracy movement worth its salt needs to match them at that — but for good.In their own circles and sometimes in public, these organizers warn that the right is outcompeting small-d democrats in its psychological insight into voters and their anxieties, its messaging, its knack for narrative, its instinct to make its cause not just a policy program but also a home offering meaning, comfort and belonging. They worry, meanwhile, that their own allies can be hamstrung by a naïve and high-minded view of human nature, a bias for the wonky over the guttural, a self-sabotaging coolness toward those who don’t perfectly understand, a quaint belief in going high against opponents who keep stooping to new lows and a lack of fight and a lack of talent at seizing the mic and telling the kinds of galvanizing stories that bend nations’ arcs.The organizers I’ve been following believe they have a playbook for a pro-democracy movement that can go beyond merely resisting to winning. It involves more than just serving up sound public policy and warning that the other side is dangerous; it also means creating an approachable, edifying, transcendent movement to dazzle and pull people in. For many on the left, embracing the organizers’ playbook will require leaving behind old habits and learning new ones. What is at stake, of course, is everything.Command AttentionThe right presently runs laps around the left in its ability to manage and use attention. It understands the power of provocation to make people have the conversation that most benefits its side. “Tucker Carlson said what about the war on ‘legacy Americans’?” “Donald Trump said what about those countries in Africa?” It understands that sometimes it’s worth looking ridiculous to achieve saturation of the discourse. It knows that the more one’s ideas are repeated — positively, negatively, however — the more they seem to millions of people like common sense. It knows that when the opposition is endlessly consumed by responding to its ideas, that opposition isn’t hawking its own wares.Democrats and their allies lag on this score, bringing four-point plans to gunfights. Mr. Trump’s wall was a bad policy with a shrewd theory of attention. President Biden’s Build Back Better was a good policy with a nonexistent theory of attention. The political left tends to be both bad at grabbing attention for the things it proposes and bad at proposing the kinds of things that would command the most attention.An attentional lens, for example, would focus a light on the pressure applied on Mr. Biden, successfully, to wipe out some student debt. In a traditional analysis, the plan is a mixed bag, because it creates many winners but also engenders resentments among nonbeneficiaries. What that analysis underplays is that giving even a minority of Americans something that absolutely knocks their socks off, changes their lives forever and gets them talking about nothing else to every undecided person in earshot may be worth five Inflation Reduction Acts in political, if not policy, terms.Make MeaningA concept you often hear among organizers (but less in electoral politics) is meaning making. Organizers tend to think of voters as being in a constant process of making sense of the world, and they see their job as being not simply to ask for people’s vote but also to participate in the process by which voters process their experiences into positions.Voters read things. They hear stories on cable news. They notice changes at work and in their town. But these things do not on their own array into a coherent philosophy. A story, an explanation, a narrative — these form the bridge that transports you from noticing the new Spanish-speaking cashiers at Walgreens to fearing a southern invasion or from liking a senator from Chicago you once heard on TV to seeing him as a redemption of the ideals of the nation.The rightist ecosystem shrewdly understands this mental bridge building to be part and parcel of the work of politics. Mr. Carlson of Fox News and Mr. Trump know that you know your town is changing, your office is doing unfamiliar training on race, you are shocked by the price you paid for gas. They know you’re thinking about it, and they devote themselves to helping you make meaning of it, for their dark purposes.And while the right inserts itself into this meaning-making process 24/7, the left mostly just offers policy. Policy is a worthy remedy for material problems, but it is grossly inadequate as a salve for the psychological transitions that change foists on citizens. We are asking people in this era to live through a great deal of change — in the economy, technology, race and demographics, gender and sexuality, world trade and beyond. All of this can be stressful. And this stress can be exploited by the cynical, and it can also be addressed, head-on, by the well intentioned — as it is by a remarkable if still small-scale door-to-door organizing project nationwide known as deep canvassing. But it cannot be ignored.Meet People Where They AreThere is a phrase that all political organizers seem to learn in their first training: Meet people where they are. The phrase doesn’t suggest watering down your goal as an organizer because of where the people you are trying to bring along are. It suggests meeting them at their level of familiarity and knowledge and comfort with the ideas in question and then trying to move them in the desired direction.Many organizers I spoke to aired a concern that, in this fractious and high-stakes time, a tendency toward purism, gatekeeping and homogeneity afflicts sections of the left and threatens its pursuits.“The thing about our movement is that we’re too woke, which is why we don’t have mass mobilization in the way that we should,” Linda Sarsour, a progressive organizer based in Brooklyn, said to me. She added: “It’s like when you’re going into a prison. You have to go through this door, and then that door closes, and then you go through another door, and then another door closes. And my thing is, like, if we’re going to do that, it’s going to be one person at a time coming into the movement, versus opening the door wide enough, having room to err and not be perfect.”In a time of escalating and cynical right-wing attacks on so-called wokeness, some practitioners I spoke to called for their movements to do better at making space for the still waking. They want a movement that, on the one hand, is clear that things like respecting pronouns and fighting racism and misogyny and xenophobia are nonnegotiable and that, on the other hand, shows a self-interested gentleness toward people who haven’t got it all figured out, who are confused or even unsettled by the onrushing future.Meeting people where they are also involves a pragmatic willingness to make the pitch for your ideas using moral frames that are not your own. The victorious abortion-rights campaigners in Kansas recently showcased this kind of approach when they ran advertisements obliquely comparing government-compelled pregnancies with government-compelled mask mandates for Covid-19. The campaigners themselves believed in mask mandates. But they understood they were targeting moderate and even some rightist voters who have intuitions different from theirs. And they played to those intuitions — and won stunningly.And meeting people where they are also requires taking seriously the fears of people you are trying to win over, as the veteran reproductive justice advocate Loretta Ross told me. This doesn’t mean validating or capitulating to the fears you are hearing from voters. But it does mean not dismissing them. Whether on fears of crime or inflation or other subjects, figures on the left often give voters the sense that they shouldn’t be worried about the things that they are, in fact, worried about. A better approach is to empathize profoundly with those fears and then explain why your policy agenda would address those fears better than the other side’s.Pick FightsIf the left could use a little more grace and generosity toward voters who are not yet fully on board, it could also benefit from a greater comfort with making powerful enemies. It needs to be simultaneously a better lover and a better fighter.“What Republicans are great at doing is telling you who’s to blame,” Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, told me. “Whether it’s big government or Mexican immigrants or Muslims, Republicans are going to tell you who’s doing the bad things to you. Democrats, we believe in subtleties. We don’t believe in good and evil. We believe in relativity. That needs to change.”Once again, the exceptions prove the rule. Why did the Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Beto O’Rourke, go viral when he confronted the Republican governor, Greg Abbott, during a news conference or called a voter an incest epithet? Why does the Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman so resonate with voters for his ceaseless trolling of his opponent, the celebrity surgeon and television personality Mehmet Oz, about his residency status and awkward grocery videos? In California, why has Gov. Gavin Newsom’s feisty postrecall persona, calling out his fellow governors on the right, brought such applause? Because, as Anat Shenker-Osorio, a messaging expert who advises progressive causes, has said, people “are absolutely desperate for moral clarity and demonstrated conviction.”Provide a HomeMany leading political thinkers and doers argue that the right’s greatest strength isn’t its ideological positioning or policy ideas or rhetoric. It is putting a metaphorical roof over the head of adherents, giving them a sense of comfort and belonging to something larger than themselves.“People want to find a place that they call home,” Alicia Garza, an activist prominent in the Black Lives Matter movement, told me. “Home for a lot of people means a place where you can feel safe and a place where someone is caring for your needs.“The right deeply understands people,” Garza continued. “It gives them a reason for being, and it gives them answers to the question of ‘Why am I suffering?’ On the left, we think a lot about facts and figures and logic that we hope will change people’s minds. I think what’s real is actually much closer to Black feminist thinkers who have said things like ‘People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.’”The Democratic Party establishment is abysmal at this kind of appeal. It is more comfortable sending emails asking you to chip in $5 to beat back the latest outrage than it is inviting you to participate in something. As Lara Putnam and Micah L. Sifry have observed in these pages, the left has invested little in “year-round structures in place to reach voters through trusted interlocutors,” opting instead for doom-and-chip-in emails, while the right channels its supporters’ energy “into local groups that have a lasting, visible presence in their communities, such as anti-abortion networks, Christian home-schoolers and gun clubs.”There is nothing preventing the Democratic Party and its allies from doing more of this kind of association building. Learn from the Democratic Socialists of America’s New Orleans chapter, which in 2017 started offering free brake light repairs to local residents — on the surface, a useful service to help people avoid getting stopped by the police and going into ticket debt and, deeper down, an ingenious way to market bigger political ideas like fighting the carceral system and racism in policing while vividly demonstrating to Louisiana voters potentially wary of the boogeyman of “socialism” that socialists are just neighbors who have your back.As Bhaskar Sunkara, the founder of Jacobin, the leftist magazine, has observed, the political parties most effective at galvanizing working-class voters in the 20th century were “deeply rooted” in civil society and trade unions, “tied so closely with working-class life that, in some countries, every single tenement building might have had a representative.” He suggests rehabilitating the idea of political machines, purged of connotations of corruption, signifying instead a physical closeness to people’s lives and needs, offering not just invitations to vote on national questions but also tangible, local material help navigating public systems and getting through life.Tell the Better StoryAs befits a polity on the knife’s edge, Democrats have good political days, and Republicans have good political days. But in the longer contest to tell the better story about America and draw people into that story, there is a great worry among organizers that the left is badly falling short.The left has a bold agenda: strengthen voting rights, save the planet, upgrade the safety net. But policies do not speak for themselves, and the cause remains starved for a larger, goosebumps-giving, heroes-and-villains, endlessly quotable story of America that justifies the policy ambitions and helps people make sense of the time and place they’re in.There are reasons this is harder for the left than for the right. As the writer Masha Gessen said to me not long ago, it is easier to tell a story about a glorious past that people vividly remember (and misremember) than it is to tell the story of a future they can’t yet see and may not believe can be delivered. It is easier to simplify and scapegoat than to propose actual solutions to complex problems.Still, there are better stories to tell, stories that would point to where we are going, allay the diverse anxieties about getting there, explain the antidemocracy movement’s successes in recent years and galvanize and inspire and conflagrate.One could tell the story of a country that set out a long time ago to try something, that embarked on an experiment in self-government that had little precedent, that committed itself to ideals that remain iconic to people around the world. It’s a country that also struggled since those beginnings to be in practice what its progenitors thought it was in theory, because its founding fathers “didn’t have the courage to do exactly what they said,” as the artist Dewey Crumpler recently put it to me. America was blinded by its own parchment declarations to the exploitation and suffering and degradation and death it allowed to flourish. But since those days, it has tried to get better. The country has seen itself more clearly and sought to improve itself, just as people do.Over the last generation or two, in particular, it has dramatically changed in the realm of law and norms and culture, opening its promise to more and more of its children, working fitfully to become what it said it would be. It is now a society that still struggles with its original sins and unfinished business but has also made great strides toward becoming a kind of country that has scarcely existed in history: a great power forged of all the world, with people from every corner of the planet, of every religion, language, ethnicity and back story. This is something to feel patriotic about, an authentic patriotism the left should loudly claim.What the country is trying to do is hard. Alloying a country from all of humankind, with freedom and dignity and equality for every kind of person, is a goal as complicated and elusive as it is noble. And the road to get there is bumpy, because it has yet to be paved. Embracing a bigger “we” is hard.The backlash we are living through is no mystery, actually. It is a revolt against the future, and it is natural. This, too, is part of the story. The antidemocracy upheaval isn’t a movement of the future. It is a movement of resistance to progress that is being made — progress that we don’t celebrate enough and that the pro-democracy movement doesn’t take enough credit for.It is time for the pro-democracy cause to step it up, ditch the despair, claim the mantle of its achievements and offer a thrilling alternative to the road of hatred, chaos, violence and tyranny. It’s going to take heart and intelligence and new strategies, words and policies. It’s going to take an army of persuaders, who believe enough in other people to try to move — and join — them. This is our righteous struggle that can and must be won.Anand Giridharadas is the author, most recently, of “The Persuaders: At the Front Lines of the Fight for Hearts, Minds, and Democracy,” from which this essay is adapted.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

  • in

    NYT/Siena Poll Is Latest to Show Republican Gains

    Is four points the real margin nationally? That’s a good question.The path to keeping the House and the Senate appears to be getting tougher for Democrats, according to the most recent polling. Campaign signs for the Ohio Democratic Senate candidate Tim Ryan in Columbus on Friday.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesWe have the result of our third New York Times/Siena College national survey of the midterm cycle to go with your coffee this morning: 49 percent of voters say they back the Republican congressional candidate in their district, compared with 45 percent backing the Democratic one.It’s a modest but notable swing from last month, when Democrats led by one percentage point among likely voters. Since then, the warning signs for Democrats have begun to add up, including Republican polling gains in key Senate races like those in Nevada, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and surprising Republican strength in districts in Rhode Island and Oregon where Democrats would normally be safe.Up to this point, Democrats have maintained a narrow lead in polls asking whether voters prefer Democrats or Republicans for Congress, but there have been warning signs for the party here as well. Republicans have led in several high-quality polls, like ABC/Washington Post, CBS/YouGov and Monmouth University. Today, the Times/Siena survey adds a fourth such poll to the pile.The evidence for a shift toward Republicans appears to be underpinned by a change in the national political environment. Gas prices went up again. The stock market is down. A variety of data suggests that the electorate’s attention is shifting back to issues where Republicans are on stronger ground in public opinion, like the economy, inflation, crime and immigration, and away from the summer’s focus on democracy, gun violence and abortion, where Democrats have an edge.In other words, the conditions that helped Democrats gain over the summer no longer seem to be in place.Is four points the real margin? (Wonkiness 4/10)Our poll may show Republicans ahead, 49-45, and yet it may not be accurate to say they lead by four points. In fact, they actually lead by three points.How is this possible? Rounding. By convention, pollsters round the results to the nearest whole number. In this poll, the exact unrounded figures are 48.51 (rounding to 49) to 45.47 (rounding to 45). That’s a three-point lead.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With less than one month until Election Day, Republicans remain favored to take over the House, but momentum in the pitched battle for the Senate has seesawed back and forth.A Surprising Battleground: New York has emerged from a haywire redistricting cycle as perhaps the most consequential congressional battleground in the country. For Democrats, the uncertainty is particularly jarring.Arizona’s Governor’s Race: Democrats are openly expressing their alarm that Katie Hobbs, the party’s nominee for governor in the state, is fumbling a chance to defeat Kari Lake in one of the most closely watched races.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but members of his party have learned to tolerate his behavior.This is not at all uncommon. In 2020 polling, about one-third of our reported margins, based on the difference between two rounded vote shares of the candidates, were different from what our reported margin would have been if we had rounded once on the difference between exact figures.It’s not even the only example in today’s poll. Our result among registered voters is reported as a 46-46 percent tie, but Republicans lead, 46.2 to 45.6. If we reported it as a rounded margin, this might count as a one-point Republican lead.The two rounding errors add up to an even larger disparity between the reported and actual result when it comes to the difference between likely and registered voters. The rounded result makes it seem to be a four-point gap. In reality, the difference is a 2.5-point gap.This is a polling custom that has always left me a little cold. The case for rounding is straightforward: Reporting results to the decimal point conveys a false sense of precision. After a decade of high-profile polling misfires, “precision” is most certainly not the sense pollsters want to try to convey right now. And in this case, reporting to the one-thousandth of a point would obviously be ridiculous. We didn’t even contact a thousand people; how could we offer a result to the one-thousandth?But there’s a trade-off. Characterizing this poll as a four-point Republican lead doesn’t merely offer a false sense of precision — it’s just false. That’s not something I can gloss over.Sometimes, the difference is enough to affect the way people interpret the poll. We’ve reported one party in the “lead” by one percentage point when, in fact, the figures are essentially even. These differences don’t actually mean much, of course, but no one — not even those of us well versed in statistics and survey methodology — can escape perceiving a difference between R+1 and Even.Hopefully, the differences between the rounded and exact results can be another reminder that polling is inexact. The results are fuzzy, and the margin of error understates the actual degree of uncertainty anyway. If we had called another 100 people, or did another round of callbacks, the results would almost certainly have been at least somewhat different, and the same if we had called another 100 more. There isn’t a great way out of this problem. We can refrain from characterizing a 49-45 lead as a four-point lead, as the main Times article on this poll does today. But even this requires us to notice when the rounded and actual margins differ, which is not easy when our crosstabs and other products use rounded numbers. When we do notice a difference worth your attention, we’ll try to flag it here and elsewhere.What’s different about our polls this year?A few weeks ago, I noted that most pollsters this cycle weren’t making big methodological changes. Instead, they’re doing something more like tightening the screws on an old boat after a rough storm in 2020, rather than going out and buying a new boat.But I didn’t actually mention what screws we’ve tightened this cycle. Here’s a quick summary:We’re weighting on method of voting in 2020 — whether people voted by mail, early or absentee. It’s an important predictor of vote choice, even after considering the partisanship of a registrant. Registered Republicans who voted on Election Day, for instance, were more likely to back Donald J. Trump than those who voted by mail. Weighting on this in 2020 wouldn’t have made a major difference, but it would have brought some of our polls about half a point or so closer to the final result.We now use additional information about the attitudes of respondents in determining whether they’re likely to vote, including whether respondents are undecided; whether their views about the president align with their party; whether they like the candidate they intend to vote for; whether they back the party out of power in a midterm; and so on, all based on previous Times/Siena polls. At the same time, we now give even more weight to a respondent’s track record of voting than we did in the past.We’re changing how we characterize people who attended trade or vocational school but did not receive a college degree (Wonkiness rating: 6.5/10). The effect is a slight increase in the weight given to Republican-leaning voters without any post-high-school training, and a decrease in the weight given to the somewhat fewer Republican voters who attended some college or received an associate degree.This is a little complicated. Basically, pollsters need to decide whether people who went to technical or vocational school count as “high school graduates” or “some college” when they’re adjusting their surveys to make sure they have the right number of voters by educational group. They have to choose, because the Census Bureau doesn’t count a trade or vocational school as a level of educational attainment. In the view of the Census Bureau, that puts them in the category of high school graduates. The Times/Siena poll (and many other pollsters) previously counted them the same way.But this choice isn’t necessarily straightforward. Whether it’s the right choice in practice depends on whether census interviewers and respondents handle this question the way the census would like. If you completed a professional technical program at, say, Renton Technical College, there’s a chance you selected one of the various “some college” options on the census American Community Survey or the Current Population Survey.I’d like to run an experiment on this at some point, but for the moment we’re moving respondents like these into the “some college” category. By doing so, we modestly increase the weight we give to those categorized as high school graduates (who are pretty Republican), and decrease the weight on the other group (who still lean Republican but somewhat less so). Unfortunately, had we done this, it would have improved our result by only about a quarter of a point in 2020 — despite the number of words I just dedicated to the topic.On a totally different topic, we now consider the source of cellphones in determining whom we’ll call (Wonkiness rating: 8/10). This is the last point in this newsletter, so you can go on with the rest of your day if your eyes are glazing over, but I think it might be the most interesting to a subset of you, especially those who conduct polls.As I’ve mentioned before, we get the telephone numbers for our poll off a list of registered voters called a voter file. The telephone numbers on the voter file can have two different sources: those provided by the registrant on their voter registration form (which then wind up on the file), and those matched by L2 (our voter file vendor) from an outside source.The voter-provided cellphone numbers are the likeliest to yield a completed interview. They almost always lead to the person we’re looking for (we complete interviews only with the people named on the file). And the people contacted are a little more likely to cooperate, too. But the voter-provided cellphone numbers are almost exclusively from people who registered over the last 10 years (after all, if you registered 20 years ago, you probably didn’t have a cellphone number). As a result, they’re relatively, young, liberal, less likely to be married, less likely to own a home, and so on.The externally matched cellphone numbers are less likely to yield a completed interview. They’re less likely to belong to the people we try to reach; these people may also be less likely to take the survey, even when we’re reaching the right ones. They’re somewhat more representative of the population as a whole because anyone, regardless of when they registered, could plausibly have one of these numbers.Why does this matter? When we treated all cellphone numbers the same, we were systematically reaching fewer people who were older or married or homeowners — people more likely to have registered long ago. We called these groups in the right proportion, but we would wind up with fewer completed interviews from groups like this with more externally matched numbers.Now, we’re accounting for whether different demographic groups — like new or previously registered voters — have more self-reported phone numbers or externally matched phone numbers. As a result, we’ll dial more people from the groups with relatively high numbers of externally matched numbers.It’s hard to know how our 2020 polls would have been different if we had used this year’s approach. After all, we would have reached a different set of respondents. Most of the analyses I’ve conducted suggest that the respondents with self-reported or externally matched numbers aren’t very different politically, controlling for the characteristics we’re using in weighting. I’d note, though, that this would have been a real problem if we hadn’t been weighting on homeownership or marital status. Most pollsters using voter file data aren’t doing so; it might be worth looking at. More

  • in

    Election Firm Knew Data Had Been Sent to China, Prosecutors Say

    The executive of a small Michigan elections software company was charged with grand theft by embezzlement and conspiracy to commit a crime.Before the arrest of its founder and chief executive, Eugene Yu, Konnech repeatedly denied keeping data outside the United States, including in statements to The New York Times.Emily Elconin for The New York TimesWhen Eugene Yu’s small election software company signed a contract to help Los Angeles County organize poll workers for the 2020 election, he agreed to keep the workers’ personal data in the United States.But the company, Konnech, transferred personal data on thousands of the election workers to developers in China who were writing and troubleshooting software, according to a court filing that Los Angeles County prosecutors made on Thursday.The filing adds new details about the arrest last week of Mr. Yu, whose company has been the focus of groups challenging the validity of the 2020 presidential election. Some of those groups have accused the company of storing information about poll workers on servers in China. Before the arrest, the company repeatedly denied keeping data outside the United States, including in statements to The New York Times.Los Angeles prosecutors initially accused Mr. Yu of embezzling public money by knowingly violating the terms of the company’s contract. Since searching Konnech’s offices and Mr. Yu’s home, the prosecutors have also accused him of conspiring with others to commit a crime, according to the new legal filing. It is rare for an executive to face criminal charges for potentially mishandling data. He is scheduled to be arraigned on Friday.In the filing, prosecutors said a project manager at Konnech had sent an internal email early this month saying the company would no longer send personal data to Chinese contractors. “We need to ensure the security privacy and confidentially,” the email said.In a separate message, sent in August, the project manager noted that the contractors had high-level access to all of the poll worker software used by its customers. He called it a “huge security issue.”The documents did not specify whether others were being investigated or would be charged, and the district attorney’s office declined to comment.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With less than one month until Election Day, Republicans remain favored to take over the House, but momentum in the pitched battle for the Senate has seesawed back and forth.A Surprising Battleground: New York has emerged from a haywire redistricting cycle as perhaps the most consequential congressional battleground in the country. For Democrats, the uncertainty is particularly jarring.Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Attacks by Doug Mastriano, the G.O.P. nominee, on the Jewish school where Josh Shapiro, the Democratic candidate, sends his children have set off an outcry about antisemitic signaling.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but some conservative Christians have learned to tolerate the behavior of those who advance their cause.Los Angeles prosecutors said last week that none of Mr. Yu’s or Konnech’s actions had altered election results and that they had seen no evidence of identity theft. They have not indicated any motive in their public statements.The prosecutors said that the charges focused on the handling of personal information about poll workers, such as their names and phone numbers, and that the data did not relate to ballots or the voting process. Still, with the midterm elections just weeks away, several counties that use Konnech software said they were rushing to reassure voters that their elections were secure.Mr. Yu’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Konnech, which is based in Michigan, has about 20 employees in the United States and about 20 customers. It plays no role in the tabulation or counting of votes in American elections.Nevertheless, some election deniers have targeted the company, saying they discovered the company’s data in China and suggesting that Konnech gave the Chinese government a back door to manipulate America’s election process. The New York Times published an article about those claims early last week, as a part of its coverage of misinformation and elections.Los Angeles prosecutors arrested Mr. Yu the day after the article was published, raising questions about the truthfulness of statements that Mr. Yu made to The Times just days earlier, when he denied the accusations and said poll worker data had never been stored in China.If convicted, Mr. Yu faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison for the charges of grand theft by embezzlement of public funds and conspiracy to commit a crime. He also faces an additional five years because the contract was valued at more than $500,000.A ballot-tallying center in Los Angeles County. Officials have said the county will continue to use Konnech’s software to manage data on about 12,000 to 14,000 poll workers for the midterm elections.Allison Zaucha for The New York TimesThe district attorney’s office said it was sifting through a trove of documents seized in its search of Konnech’s offices and Mr. Yu’s home last week. If those files reveal similar crimes in other counties, prosecutors could hand off the case to federal investigators.More than 20 attorneys general, district attorneys and election officials have contacted the district attorney’s office over the past week, they said.Mark Kriger, one of Mr. Yu’s lawyers, said in a bond hearing last week that Mr. Yu had participated in two voluntary interviews several weeks ago with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Yu told the agency that he was not aware of any data from Konnech being stored in China, the lawyer said at the hearing.The F.B.I. agents were surprised to learn about Mr. Yu’s arrest, Mr. Kriger said at the hearing. A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. said she “wouldn’t be in the position to confirm or deny comments made by the attorney.”Mr. Yu, 64 and a Chinese-born American citizen, co-founded Konnech in 2002 as a phone technology company. He turned it into an elections software company in the late 2000s.In statements made to The New York Times before his arrest, Mr. Yu said that he had shuttered Konnech’s Chinese subsidiary in 2021 and that he no longer had employees there. Two people with knowledge of the company, who would speak only anonymously because of the legal proceedings, said it was known within Konnech that employees should avoid bringing up the use of Chinese contractors when talking to customers.Attention on the company surged in August and September after a conference hosted by Catherine Engelbrecht, the founder of True the Vote, a nonprofit that claims to be searching for evidence of voter fraud, and Gregg Phillips, an election denier and longtime associate of the group.The group claimed that their team had discovered and downloaded Konnech’s data from servers located in China.Mr. Yu later sued the group for defamation, hacking and other charges, and hired a crisis management company. That case, based in Texas, is continuing.The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said its investigation began after Mr. Phillips had sent a tip to its public integrity division. When it announced the charges last week, the district attorney’s office told The New York Times in a statement that the group’s investigation had no input on the county’s investigation.After Mr. Yu’s arrest, Konnech sent an identical letter to several customers claiming that they had “never hosted your data or system in servers outside of the United States.”Fairfax County, Va., the City of Detroit, and Prince William County, Va., terminated their contracts with Konnech after Mr. Yu’s arrest.Los Angeles County said it would continue using Konnech software to manage data on about 12,000 to 14,000 poll workers for the midterm elections.Dekalb County in Georgia voted to keep its contract with Konnech, adding an amendment that the data would be stored on servers owned by Dekalb County instead of by Konnech.“We’re one week out from early voting starting in Georgia and run the risk of our election operations going awry from a company that is going down in flames,” Marci McCarthy, the chairwoman for the county’s Republican Party, said in an interview after the vote.“It’s not over,” she added. More