Categories
Politics

What Voters in a California Swing District Say About Afghanistan

In a time of deep division, voters polled over the weekend in a Southern California congressional district where the Democrats narrowly outperform Republicans were largely unanimous on at least one issue: After a two-decade war, President Biden was right to withdraw American troops of Afghanistan.

The bombing of Kabul airport had done little to change their minds, with the killing of 13 soldiers stunned rather than sad. Many said they were simply too overwhelmed to pay attention to another overseas crisis. “We have a lot to repair here,” said Ms. Ortiz, who described herself as politically moderate and voted for Mr. Biden.

In the midst of a still raging pandemic and economy still recovering, this is a time to focus on issues domestically and not overseas, more than a dozen Republican, Democratic and independent voters said in talks in and around Hacienda Heights, a community of 55,000 people about 20 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, where first and second generation immigrants fill the neighborhoods and malls.

Afghanistan can be ignored, they said, but the possibility that their children, who are too young to be vaccinated, cannot. Washington leaders might be concerned about the terrorism threat or America’s standing with allies, but Hacienda Heights voters said they were far more concerned about issues that affect them directly: Covid-19, homelessness and climate change , to name just a few.

They also seemed reluctant to hold Mr Biden accountable for the attacks over the past week, at least for the time being.

“If you don’t have a good choice, you still have to choose one,” said Patrick Huang, a 65-year-old independent who voted for both Republicans and Democrats. “They had a lot of time to prepare to get everyone out and they totally screwed it up. But I don’t blame President Biden for everything. It happened after many, many presidents made mistakes. “

Categories
Politics

Gerrymandering may restrict minority voters’ energy even after Census positive aspects

Pendler kommen mit Metro-North während der morgendlichen Hauptverkehrszeit am 8. Juni 2020 in New York City an der Grand Central Station an.

Angela Weiss | AFP | Getty Images

Der Kampf um die Neuordnung der US-Kongressbezirke findet zum ersten Mal seit Jahrzehnten ohne bestimmte bundesstaatliche Schutzmaßnahmen statt, was die Besorgnis aufkommen lässt, dass farbige Wähler ins Abseits geraten könnten, obwohl sie einen größeren Anteil an der Bevölkerung haben.

Das Census Bureau hat diese Woche Daten veröffentlicht, die den Bundesstaaten als Grundlage für die Neuordnung ihrer Kongressbezirke dienen werden. Der Prozess wird die Machtverhältnisse in den Vereinigten Staaten für ein Jahrzehnt beeinflussen und könnte sich in den Zwischenwahlen 2022 auf das eng gespaltene Repräsentantenhaus auswirken.

Die Volkszählungsdaten zeigen, dass die USA in den letzten zehn Jahren vielfältiger geworden sind. Hispanische, asiatische und multirassische Gemeinschaften wuchsen schnell, während die weiße Bevölkerung zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte zurückging.

Obwohl die weiße Bevölkerung immer noch die größte Gruppe in den USA insgesamt ist, schrumpfte sie um 8,6 %. Die hispanische Bevölkerung ist um 23% gewachsen, die asiatische Bevölkerung um 35% und die schwarze Bevölkerung um 5,6%. Auch die multirassische Bevölkerung ist in den letzten zehn Jahren mit einem Anstieg von 276% am ​​schnellsten gewachsen.

CNBC-Politik

Lesen Sie mehr über die politische Berichterstattung von CNBC:

Während diese Daten einen signifikanten Anstieg der Farbgemeinschaften in den letzten zehn Jahren zeigen, könnte ihre politische Repräsentation darunter leiden, wenn Staaten ihre politischen Karten neu erstellen, sagen Experten.

„Es ist sicherlich möglich, dass wir trotz des Bevölkerungswachstums tatsächlich einen Rückgang der Minderheitenvertretung sehen, und wir erwarten, dass dies im Laufe des Jahrzehnts ein Bereich erheblicher Rechtsstreitigkeiten sein wird“, sagte Adam Podowitz-Thomas, leitender Rechtsstratege für das Princeton Gerrymandering Project und das Princeton Electoral Innovation Lab.

Der Oberste Gerichtshof hat 2013 eine wichtige Bestimmung im Voting Rights Act aufgehoben, wonach neun überwiegend südliche Bundesstaaten die Genehmigung für ihre Kongresskarten von der Bundesregierung einholen mussten. Grafschaften in Staaten außerhalb des Südens, wie New York und Kalifornien, unterlagen ebenfalls Vorabgenehmigungsregeln.

Um eine Genehmigung zu erhalten, mussten die Bundesstaaten der Bundesregierung nachweisen, dass ihre Neuverteilungspläne keinen diskriminierenden Zweck oder keine diskriminierenden Auswirkungen aufgrund von Rasse, Hautfarbe oder Zugehörigkeit zu einer sprachlichen Minderheitengruppe hatten, so das Justizministerium.

Das Fehlen einer Vorabklärung in diesem Jahr wird einer stärkeren Gerrymandering Platz machen, die die politische Macht von Minderheitengemeinschaften trotz ihrer wachsenden Bevölkerung in den USA bedrohen könnte, sagen Experten.

„Einzelparteienkontrolle“

Gerrymandering bezieht sich auf die Manipulation von Bezirksleitungen, um eine Partei oder Klasse von Menschen zu begünstigen. Obwohl die Taktik von beiden Parteien angewendet wird, sind die Republikaner in einer stärkeren Position, da sie in mehr Staaten die Kontrolle über eine einzige Partei haben, so Samuel Wang, Direktor des Princeton Gerrymandering Project.

„Die alleinige Kontrolle der Kartenzeichnung in einem Staat ist sicherlich der größte Motivator und Prädiktor für Gerrymandering“, sagte Wang.

Laut einem im Februar vom Brennan Center for Justice veröffentlichten Bericht haben die Republikaner die Kontrolle über das Zeichnen von Kongresskarten in 18 Bundesstaaten und Gesetzeskarten in 20 Bundesstaaten, darunter Florida, Georgia, North Carolina und Texas.

Demokraten hingegen haben dem Bericht zufolge nur die Kontrolle über die Karten des Kongresses in sieben Bundesstaaten und die Karten der Legislative in neun Bundesstaaten. Die verbleibenden Bundesstaaten haben unabhängige Kommissionen und eine parteiübergreifende Kontrolle über die Kartenzeichnung oder sie benötigen keine Karten, da sie Ein-Distrikt-Staaten sind.

Insgesamt haben Republikaner laut NBC News die Möglichkeit, 187 Kongressdistrikte und Demokraten 84 zu ziehen. Die Praxis des Gerrymandering zielt oft auf farbige Wähler ab und kann durch zwei Taktiken erreicht werden, die allgemein als Cracking und Packing bekannt sind.

Die alleinige Kontrolle der Kartenzeichnung in einem Staat ist sicherlich der größte Motivator und Prädiktor für Gerrymandering.

Samuel Wang |

Direktor des Princeton Gerrymandering Project

Cracking beinhaltet die Verteilung einer Minderheitsgemeinschaft auf die Bezirke, so dass sie einen kleinen Teil der Wählerschaft ausmachen und in jedem Bezirk wenig politische Macht haben, so Wang. Aber eine Minderheitsgemeinschaft kann auch in einen einzigen Wahlbezirk gepackt werden, um ihren Einfluss in anderen Bezirken zu verringern, fügte Wang hinzu.

Nach der letzten Volkszählung im Jahr 2010 machten die Republikaner gesetzgeberische Fortschritte, indem sie in einer Reihe von Staaten, in denen sie eine Einparteienkontrolle hatten, gerrymandering machten, so Yurij Rudensky, ein Neuverteilungsberater im Demokratieprogramm des Brennan Centers.

“Es ist wirklich eine Art Subversion dieses demokratischen Prozesses, der unser Regierungssystem bis ins Mark schädigt und erschüttert, weil es bedeutet, dass die Wahlergebnisse vorbestimmt sind und die Wähler ihre Vertreter nicht wirklich wählen können”, sagte Rudensky. “Das haben republikanische Agenten zu Beginn des Jahrzehnts getan.”

Allein das Gerrymandering in Michigan, Ohio und Pennsylvania verschaffte den Republikanern 16 bis 17 Sitze mehr im Kongress, als sie mit unvoreingenommenen Karten gehabt hätten, heißt es in dem Bericht des Brennan Center.

Eine Reihe republikanischer Aktivisten startete auch das Redistricting Majority Project (REDMAP), das 2010 mehr als 30 Millionen US-Dollar für die Neugestaltung von Wahlkarten zugunsten von GOP-Kandidaten aufbrachte, wie aus einer vom Brennan Center erhaltenen Gerichtsakte hervorgeht.

“Dieses Jahr wird das Gerrymandering schrecklich sein”, sagte Steven Ruggles, Demograph von der University of Minnesota. “Ohne die Preclearance können Sie davon ausgehen, dass die Republikaner in Bezug auf Gerrymandering dreister sein werden, sogar noch mehr als im Jahr 2010.”

Das Census Bureau veröffentlichte im April erste Daten auf Bundesstaatsebene, die zur Aufteilung der 435 Sitze im Repräsentantenhaus verwendet wurden, die eine leichte Verschiebung der politischen Macht in den von den Republikanern geführten Süden und Westen zeigten.

Laut den Volkszählungsdaten vom April gewann Texas zwei Sitze im Kongress, während Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina und Oregon jeweils einen hinzugewinnen. Kalifornien, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania und West Virginia verloren jeweils einen Sitz.

Die Demokraten klammern sich an eine knappe Mehrheit im Repräsentantenhaus. Sie kontrollieren 220 Sitze, während die GOP 212 hat. Es gibt drei freie Stellen.

Forderungen nach Reformen

Während es in diesem Umverteilungszyklus wahrscheinlich zu Gerrymandering kommen wird, könnte die Reform die Republikaner zwingen, sich stattdessen an farbige Wähler zu wenden, sagte Simone Leeper, Rechtsberaterin beim Campaign Legal Center.

“Es geht darum, ob sie beim Gerrymandering erfolgreich sind oder nicht. Wenn sie es sind, sind sie bestimmten Gemeinschaften weniger verantwortlich”, sagte Leeper. “Aber wenn wir das Gerrymandering stoppen können, können wir sie zur Rechenschaft ziehen und erwarten, dass sie versuchen, diese Wähler zu gewinnen.”

Bei den Wahlen 2020 gewann der damalige Präsident Donald Trump, ein Republikaner, die weiße Stimme mit 55 % bis 43 %, während der Demokrat Joe Biden, der Sieger, laut Pew Research die Stimmen der Schwarzen, Hispanics und Asiaten mit beträchtlichem Abstand gewann. Bei den hispanischen Wählern erzielte Trump jedoch erhebliche Zuwächse.

Auf Bundesebene, sagte Leeper, könnte die Verabschiedung kritischer Gesetze zur Bekämpfung von Gerrymandering beitragen. Dazu gehören der John Lewis Voting Rights Act, der die Vorabgenehmigungspflicht für die meisten Südstaaten wiederherstellen würde, und der For The People Act, der ein Verbot von parteiischer Gerrymandering enthält.

Die Wähler stellen sich am ersten Tag der vorzeitigen Abstimmung in Brooklyn, New York, am 24. Oktober 2020, vor dem Barclays Center, das als Wahllokal dient, an, um ihre Stimmzettel abzugeben.

Jeenah Mond | Reuters

Aber auch auf Landesebene können Minderheitengemeinschaften und Anwälte aktiv werden, sagte Podowitz-Thomas.

Nach Angaben der National Conference of State Legislatures haben ab 2019 acht Bundesstaaten die Möglichkeit, öffentliche Aussagen über die Umverteilung zu treffen, was es den Bürgern ermöglicht, sich in den Prozess einzubringen.

Podowitz-Thomas sagte, Einzelpersonen müssen den Neuverteilungsprozess ihres Staates genau verfolgen und an so vielen öffentlichen Anhörungen wie möglich teilnehmen, um auf eine Reform des Gerrymandering zu drängen.

„Wir sind optimistisch, dass Reformbefürworter und Durchschnittsbürger, die faire Karten wollen, sicherstellen, dass die Karten unabhängig davon, was die Wahlen 2022 bringen, den Willen der Wähler widerspiegeln und nicht nur parteiische Interessen widerspiegeln können“, sagte Podowitz-Thomas.

Allerdings kann das Gerrymandering nur abgeschwächt werden, wenn die Reform erfolgreich ist, bevor die Fristen für die Umverteilung schnell näher kommen.

Die am Donnerstag veröffentlichten Volkszählungsdaten kamen aufgrund der Pandemie Monate später als erwartet. Es gab auch Vorwürfe politischer Einmischung gegen die Trump-Administration, die es versäumte, der Umfrage eine Frage zur Staatsbürgerschaft hinzuzufügen. Die Verzögerung führte dazu, dass die Staaten sich bemühten, vor den Zwischenwahlen im nächsten Jahr neue Distrikte zu gründen.

“Viele Bundesstaaten werden mit beschleunigten Neuverteilungsfristen konfrontiert”, sagte Podowitz-Thomas. „Einige Staaten werden die verkürzten Zeitrahmen als Gründe nennen, den Prozess zu überstürzen und Karten schnell zu übergeben Termin.”

Über den diesjährigen Neuverteilungszyklus hinaus können Bundesstaaten Gerrymandering verhindern, indem sie überparteiliche unabhängige Kommissionen einsetzen, um den Neuverteilungsprozess zu überwachen.

Laut dem Brennan Center-Bericht sind Arizona, Kalifornien, Colorado und Michigan die einzigen Bundesstaaten mit solchen Kommissionen für die Neuverteilung durch den Kongress und die Gesetzgebung. Diese Kommissionen haben “die Aussichten für gerechtere Karten” in diesen Staaten “erheblich verbessert”, heißt es in dem Bericht.

Solche Kommissionen “wäre eine langfristige Lösung, um den Partisanen die Macht der Kartenzeichnung aus den Händen zu nehmen und sie in die Hände zu legen”. [the hands of] überparteiliche, die keinen parteiischen Gerrymander machen wollen”, sagte Leeper.

Einige Republikaner haben sich jedoch gegen die Reform des Gerrymandering ausgesprochen. Laut The Detroit News reichte die Michigan Republican Party 2019 sogar eine Klage ein, um die Bildung einer unabhängigen Neuverteilungskommission zu blockieren, die von den Wählern im Bundesstaat genehmigt wurde.

Mehrere Interessenvertretungen von Minderheiten äußerten die Notwendigkeit, die Reform nach der Veröffentlichung der Volkszählungsdaten am Donnerstag neu einzugrenzen.

„Der Neuzuordnungsprozess muss sicherstellen, dass asiatische Amerikaner und andere ethnische Minderheiten eine vollständige und faire Möglichkeit haben, Kandidaten ihrer Wahl zu wählen“, sagte Jerry Vattamala, Direktor des Demokratieprogramms beim Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, in einer Erklärung.

Thomas A. Saenz, Präsident des Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, sagte, die Organisation erwarte, dass alle Umverteilungen den Veränderungen der Latino-Bevölkerung in den USA Rechnung tragen

„Wir erwarten, dass diese gesetzlichen Verpflichtungen sowohl in Staaten mit seit langem bedeutender und wachsender Latino-Bevölkerung wie Kalifornien, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado und Illinois als auch in Staaten und lokalen Gebieten erfüllt werden, in denen die Latino-Bevölkerung erst jetzt lebt eine kritische Masse zu erreichen, um die Schaffung von Bezirken zu rechtfertigen, in denen Latino-Wähler die Möglichkeit haben, Kandidaten ihrer Wahl zu wählen”, sagte Saenz in einer Erklärung.

Die National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sagte auch, sie werde sich für einen fairen Umverteilungsprozess einsetzen, der die Beteiligung der Gemeinschaft fördert.

„NAACP ermutigt die Wähler, sich am Neuverteilungsprozess zu beteiligen, indem sie sich für einen fairen Prozess einsetzt, der den Beitrag der Gemeinschaft wertschätzt, Kriterien für die Neuverteilung, einschließlich der Einhaltung von Abschnitt 2 des Stimmrechtsgesetzes, und Karten, die die zunehmend vielfältige Bevölkerung dieser Nation widerspiegeln“, NAACP Präsident und CEO Das sagte Derrick Johnson am Freitag in einer Erklärung.

Abschnitt 2 des Stimmrechtsgesetzes verbietet Wahlpraktiken, einschließlich Neuverteilungsplänen, die aufgrund von Rasse, Hautfarbe oder Zugehörigkeit zu einer sprachlichen Minderheit diskriminieren.

Categories
Politics

Scott Stringer Has Skilled to Be Mayor for A long time. Will Voters Be Persuaded?

Scott Stringer’s deep experience in New York City politics has yet to translate into momentum in the mayor’s race. Could an endorsement from the Working Families Party help?

The New York City mayoral race is one of the most consequential political contests in a generation, with immense challenges awaiting the winner. This is the second in a series of profiles of the major candidates.

April 14, 2021

On a late February morning in TriBeCa, the most seasoned politician in the New York City mayor’s race was sitting outside, futzing with his fogging-up eyeglasses as he wrestled with an assessment of an election that appeared to be slipping from his grasp.

For Scott M. Stringer, every chapter of his steady ascent through New York politics — serving on a community planning board as a teenager; becoming a protégé of Representative Jerrold Nadler; moving from district leader to state assemblyman, Manhattan borough president and finally, city comptroller — has laid the groundwork for a long-expected mayoral bid.

He has deep experience, boasts a raft of endorsements and verges on jubilant when describing his passion for his hometown. For much of the mayoral campaign, none of that has been enough to generate a surge of enthusiasm around his candidacy, according to polling and interviews with more than 30 activists, lawmakers and other New York Democrats.

Mr. Stringer is working hard to change that.

“If I was a book, and you’re in a bookstore and you saw the cover of the book, you may say, ‘I’m not sure I want to read that,’” Mr. Stringer said, framing a picture of himself with his hands, reaching from his head to his midline.

“What my job is, is to get people of all different backgrounds to take that book off the shelf, open up the book, look at the different chapters of my career and the issues I’ve championed.”

Mr. Stringer, 60, would appear to have the resources, the résumé and the name recognition to do just that, trailing only Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, in funds on hand so far.

He is hoping that his carefully cultivated political network and a mood of citywide emergency will help him attract voters motivated by both his progressive pitch and his pledges of steady managerial competence.

On Tuesday, Mr. Stringer was endorsed as the first choice of the Working Families Party, aiding his efforts to emerge as the race’s left-wing standard-bearer.

Still, in recent months, it is Andrew Yang — embraced as a celebrity from the 2020 presidential race — who has led polls and infused significant energy into the mayoral campaign. Mr. Stringer, who began the race as a top candidate, has scrambled to brand Mr. Yang as an unserious purveyor of “half-baked ideas” even as he dominates news media coverage.

Mr. Adams and Maya D. Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, beat out Mr. Stringer for several major labor endorsements. Those candidates and others in the crowded field are also competing with Mr. Stringer for either the “government experience” mantle or the title of left-wing standard-bearer.

And for all of his prominent supporters, detailed policy plans and ambitious ideas on issues like climate and post-pandemic education, Mr. Stringer is also a white man who spent his career rising through traditional political institutions. New York Democrats in several recent races have preferred to elevate candidates of color and political outsiders.

Now he faces his most challenging balancing act to date, as he campaigns as a veteran government official while seeking to ally himself with the activist left.

“He’s trying to thread this needle between new and old supporters,” said Susan Kang, a member of the steering committee of the New York City Democratic Socialists, in an interview late last month. “You know how if you try to make everybody happy, you don’t make anybody happy? That is something that has given people pause.”

Yet with the Working Families Party’s endorsement, Mr. Stringer found new cause for optimism. It was a signal to deeply progressive voters that the group believes they should unite around supporting Mr. Stringer’s candidacy, at a time of growing left-wing concern about Mr. Yang.

Mr. Stringer remains in contention for other major endorsements, including one from the United Federation of Teachers. And he is aware that many voters have just begun to pay attention. Major debates do not begin until May, and the race to the June 22 primary may not crystallize until more candidates hit the airwaves with television advertising in the final weeks of the race.

Still, one supporter recently compared Mr. Stringer to Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Mr. Stringer’s choice in the 2020 presidential primary. Like Ms. Warren, Mr. Stringer has a long list of policy plans and is thoughtful about governance. But Ms. Warren, the ally noted, did not win.

Mr. Stringer said his campaign planned to be “very aggressive” in the coming weeks, “reminding people of my record and who I am and what I believe in and what I would do as mayor.”

“I need a message moment,” he said.

Any book written about Mr. Stringer would have a common theme: He is a political animal.

Mr. Stringer, born to a politically active Jewish family, was raised in Washington Heights. His father was counsel to Mayor Abraham Beame, his mother was elected to the City Council, and his stepfather also worked in city government.

He made his campaign trail debut at age 12, volunteering for Representative Bella S. Abzug, his mother’s cousin, who went on to run for mayor.

At 16, he was tapped for a community planning board position. His appointment made the front page of The New York Times, and while on the board, he honed a version of at least one line that he still uses today: that the A train was his “lifeline.” Soon he was working for Mr. Nadler, serving on his assembly staff.

“He was a little cocky,” Mr. Nadler recalled. “He learned to restrain that and to work with people very carefully.”

Mr. Stringer, who did a stint as a tenant organizer, also served as a Democratic district leader in the 1980s, building a base on the Upper West Side, where the political culture reflects a vibrant Jewish community.

Longtime observers tend to reach for Yiddish phrases of affection and derision to describe him. Admirers call the affable Mr. Stringer, a married public-school father of two sons, a “mensch.” Detractors privately dismiss the nasal-voiced candidate as a “nebbish.”

New York City voters have often embraced politicians with more boldly distinctive personas.

Mr. Stringer, who once taught his parrot to say “Vote for Scott,” is working on it.

Asked in a campaign video to share something about himself that might surprise others, Mr. Stringer insisted, “I really am funny.” After a reporter asked him to tell a joke, Mr. Stringer spent the rest of an hourlong interview sprinkling his remarks with wisecracks.

“Scott, when he’s not doing his work politically, he’s actually quite funny, he’s got a great personality” said Michael Mulgrew, the president of the United Federation of Teachers. “But I guess because of his years of experience, he’s guarded when he’s doing his governmental work.”

Mr. Stringer was elected to the State Assembly in 1992, following failed efforts running bars. In Albany, he pressed for some reforms of the State Capitol’s insular political culture, including a requirement that lawmakers be present in order to cast their votes.

He mulled and abandoned several options for higher office, including a 2013 mayoral bid. Instead, he ran for city comptroller. In the greatest test of his career, he faced a late entry from Eliot Spitzer, the deep-pocketed and aggressive former governor who resigned after revelations of his involvement with a prostitution ring.

Many had expected Mr. Spitzer to steamroll Mr. Stringer. For awhile, he seemed on track to do so. But Mr. Stringer held his own in a brutally personal race and overcame a polling deficit, though Mr. Spitzer beat Mr. Stringer with Black voters by significant margins.

“We were not just behind early, we were behind at the end,” Mr. Stringer said. “I fought back through the debates, through the campaigning, and I won. So for me, this positioning is what I’m used to.”

There are key differences, though: In 2013, Mr. Stringer had overwhelming support from unions and the political establishment. Now, labor endorsements are more scattered.

And this race is unfolding in a pandemic. He had been cautious about in-person campaigning, after his mother died from Covid-related complications. Now vaccinated, he is seeking to match the more frenetic pace that some rivals, most notably Mr. Yang, have maintained for months.

As comptroller, Mr. Stringer handled issues from housing authority audits to promoting kosher and halal food in public schools.

He also supported closing Rikers Island and was a key part of the effort to divest $4 billion in city pension funds from fossil fuel companies; he cited that initiative when asked to name the proudest accomplishment of his career.

People who have watched Mr. Stringer in the role say that he has been active in issuing audits and reports on issues vital to the city’s well-being, while embracing a time-honored comptroller tradition of tangling with the mayor.

“Have there been contracts that have gone haywire? It doesn’t seem so,” said State Senator John C. Liu, who preceded Mr. Stringer as comptroller and has yet to endorse in the mayor’s race. “Has the office conducted audits that improved the performance of agencies? I believe there have been some.”

On the whole, Mr. Liu ruled, “He has done a fine job as comptroller.”

Kathryn S. Wylde, who heads the business-aligned Partnership for New York City, said that she believed Mr. Stringer had been “bold on corporate governance issues, he’s been bold in taking on the mayor.”

Mr. Stringer has pressed for more disclosures about board diversity, and he has sharply criticized the de Blasio administration over issues ranging from affordable housing to its handling of prekindergarten contracts.

“He’s done an aggressive job — and substantive — on all the key responsibilities of the comptroller,” Ms. Wylde said.

To many New Yorkers, Mr. Stringer retains a reputation of being a traditional Democrat. He supported Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential race, and served as a delegate for Mrs. Clinton. In 2018, he supported Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo over his progressive challenger, Cynthia Nixon.

Mr. Stringer has since called for Mr. Cuomo’s resignation amid accusations of sexual harassment.

Last September, a group of New York’s leading left-leaning lawmakers, many of them women and people of color, gathered at Inwood Hill Park to cheer on Mr. Stringer’s announcement for mayor.

It was a scene years in the making.

In early 2018, Alessandra Biaggi and Jessica Ramos were political unknowns, seeking to topple powerful moderate members of the State Senate. Mr. Stringer heard out Ms. Biaggi over a side of pickles at the Riverdale Diner; Ms. Ramos of Queens sought his support at drinks in Albany.

He became an early champion of several insurgent progressives, cultivating genuine relationships over strategy sessions, phone calls and meals. Those endorsements were an uncertain political bet at the time.

By last fall, they appeared to have paid off: As he announced his mayoral campaign, he was flanked by a diverse group of progressive lawmakers — including State Senators Biaggi and Ramos — who, to their admirers, represent the future of the party.

It is less clear if their endorsements will translate into grass-roots enthusiasm for Mr. Stringer among voters who are skeptical of his left-wing bona fides.

In his 2005 borough president race, a rival ran an ad criticizing Mr. Stringer for taking real estate developer money at a time when the city’s traditional power donors were looking for receptive politicians (the mayor at the time, the billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg, accepted no donations). It wasn’t until much more recently that he said he would stop taking cash from big developers, as prominent progressives highlighted the issue.

He has become a sharp critic of segregated schools, saying definitively that he wants to eliminate the admissions exam that determines access to top city high schools, which some critics say perpetuates racial inequality. But he has not typically been associated with major integration efforts in past years.

And he appears uncomfortable discussing aspects of the policing debate.

Amid protests over the killing of George Floyd, Mr. Stringer declared that it was time to defund the police.

But Mr. Stringer no longer emphasizes calls to “defund,” a term associated with a specific movement — another reminder that he is not fully part of the activist left. Pressed on whether he believed the phrase was divisive, Mr. Stringer would not answer directly.

“I have used it,” he said. “I don’t think you should be judged based on, you know, one word or another word. And I do believe that when you’re going to talk about these issues, you have to be prepared to come forth with a plan.”

He has proposed reallocating $1.1 billion in police funds over four years and has been more specific on the matter than some of his rivals, though Dianne Morales, perhaps the race’s most left-wing candidate, has pushed for far more, urging $3 billion in cuts from the police budget.

No saga better illustrates Mr. Stringer’s political high-wire act than his 2019 endorsement in the Queens district attorney race. His embrace of Tiffany L. Cabán, the choice of the New York Democratic Socialists, over Melinda Katz, a colleague from his Assembly days who narrowly won, delighted progressive activists but stunned old allies.

Critics who spoke with him at the time say Mr. Stringer had privately described New Yorkers as moving to the left, and they sensed that he wanted to embrace that shift. Mr. Stringer has said he believed Ms. Cabán, who is now running for City Council, was the more qualified candidate, but he also sounded testy when pressed on his decision in an interview with a Jewish outlet, to the irritation of some activists.

“Scott, you know, seemed to have changed some of his positions over the years,” said Representative Gregory Meeks, the chairman of the Queens Democrats. “That has caused him, in Queens County at least, which I can speak to, to have some difficulty.”

From Mr. Stringer’s earliest days in politics, he learned to think strategically about relationships.

He has maintained communication with business leaders, and his central message that he will be prepared from Day 1 to “manage the hell out of the city” is not ideological.

Ms. Wylde said that some business leaders “know him as a steady hand.”

“When I think he’s going totally off the deep end, we have a conversation,” she added.

Ranked-choice voting, which enables voters to support up to five candidates, will test Mr. Stringer’s political skills like never before.

Even if he is not the favorite of deeply progressive voters, he hopes to be their second choice. That could also work with moderates who see him as more of a manager than a firebrand. But first he must cement his standing as a leading candidate in the homestretch of the race.

Mr. Stringer knows that he has significant work to do.

In a campaign video he filmed to introduce himself to voters, he said that his favorite movie was “The Candidate,” a 1972 film that traced the arc of a dazzling young candidate, played by Robert Redford, who had little understanding of government process.

He has little in common with Mr. Redford’s character. But Mr. Stringer, too, must prove that he can win.

Categories
Health

Voters extra optimistic about Covid, blame feds for vaccine rollout: NBC ballot

USC School of Pharmacy Assistant Professor Richard Dang (R) gives Ashley Van Dyke a Covid-19 vaccine as a mass vaccination of health care workers is happening on January 15, 2021 at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, California.

Irfan Khan | AFP | Getty Images

With President Joe Biden making tackling the Covid-19 crisis his top priority, American voters are a little more optimistic about the pandemic than they were last fall, according to a new poll by NBC News.

Still, many respondents are dissatisfied with the sluggish introduction of the vaccine in the country, and a majority blame the federal government, according to the survey.

Poll results released Thursday showed that 38% of registered voters believe the worst of the health crisis is behind the country, while 44% believe the worst is yet to come. In a poll conducted just before the November elections, those numbers were 25% and 55%, respectively.

In his inaugural address on Wednesday, Biden warned of a difficult battle against the impending coronavirus.

“We are entering what is possibly the toughest and deadliest phase of the virus,” he said.

The country has at least 193,600 new coronavirus cases and at least 3,030 Covid deaths every day, based on a 7-day average calculated by CNBC using data from Johns Hopkins University. New, more infectious strains of the virus have emerged in the United States. At least 406,000 Americans have died from the virus since the pandemic started early last year.

The U.S. has failed to meet its target of vaccinating 20 million people by the end of 2020. Under the administration of former President Donald Trump, just over 14.2 million people had received one or more doses of the Covid-19 vaccine on Wednesday morning, according to the CDC.

While respondents to the NBC survey expressed a slight increase in optimism about the pandemic, more than half of respondents were previously dissatisfied with the introduction of vaccines: 30% said vaccine administration went poorly, while 25% said it was bad that they “didn’t” run too well. “

Another 11% said it was handled “very” well, and 31% said it went “fairly” well.

Among those who said the rollout was below average, 64% primarily blamed the federal government, while 21% blamed the state governments. Another 11% blamed both of them the same.

The answers diverged across the party lines. 79% of Democratic voters who criticized the introduction of the vaccine blamed the federal government. Among Republicans who were dissatisfied with the distribution, 52% blamed states.

The poll polled 1,000 registered voters nationwide from January 10-13. The error rate is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Biden’s plan

Biden plans to accelerate vaccine rollout by increasing funding for local and state officials, creating more vaccination sites, and launching a national awareness campaign, according to his Covid Response Plan released Thursday. Previously, Biden said his government will try to give 100 million vaccine shots in the first 100 days.

His incoming health officials have expressed dismay at the state of the federal vaccine distribution plan.

“What we inherit from the Trump administration is so much worse than we could have imagined,” Jeff Zients, Biden’s Covid Response coordinator, told reporters. “We have to vaccinate as much of the US population as possible to get out of this pandemic, but we don’t have the infrastructure.”

On his first day in office, Biden restored the national security team in charge of global health, safety and biological defense, urged authorities to extend statewide moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures, and urged the Department of Education to put a break on student loan payments and interest to extend.

The president has also issued a mask mandate for anyone visiting a federal building or state, or using certain public transportation. Biden launched a 100-Day Masking Challenge that asked Americans to wear face coverings in public for the next 100 days.

Adopting a new Covid aid package will be a challenge for the new Congress and the White House. Democrats have a small majority in both houses of Congress, and Republicans are skeptical about spending increases.

“We have to put politics aside and finally face this pandemic as a nation,” Biden said on Wednesday.

Categories
Politics

Trump’s Legacy: Voters Who Reject Democracy and Any Politics however Their Personal

Mr Hanna, 19, was an election worker in his rural community not far from Mr Biden’s native Scranton, and he cannot accept that Mr Biden won honestly.

“We were crowded, we had over 250 people in line,” he said, confidently adding that there were few Biden supporters. “It’s mind-boggling to believe that we go to bed and wake up 800,000 votes ahead, and after those magical ballots are dumped overnight, we kind of lose.”

This disinformation, which has spread widely online, has been exposed by election analysts who explain that mail-in ballots were counted more slowly over several days, greatly benefiting Mr Biden after the president made their use toxic to his supporters.

Robert Fuller of Georgia was so furious with the election that he foresaw an America would push off its deepest berths. “We’ll be lucky if we have another country after that,” he said, citing false allegations of electoral fraud that the president teased over the weekend during a taped call to Georgia’s top electoral officer, a Republican.

“I foresee a civil war, Republicans versus Democrats,” said Fuller. “You know as well as I do that you put the ballots in the states of Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan.”

In Tuesday’s Georgia Senate runoff election, 65-year-old Fuller supported Republicans Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who both lost. The winners – Rev. Raphael Warnock, who will be the first black Senator from Georgia, and Jon Ossoff, who will be the youngest member of the Senate – secured control of the Democratic Chamber.

Mr. Fuller believes none of the winners are legitimate. Not because they didn’t win the most votes, but because of their political views, which were caricatured far left of the center during the race.

Categories
Politics

Democrats goal Asian American, Latino voters

U.S. Senate Democratic nominees Jon Ossoff (R) and Raphael Warnock (L) wave at supporters during a rally in Marietta, Georgia on November 15, 2020.

Jessica McGowan | Getty Images

James Woo grew up in Georgia and was never contacted by political campaigns. His house rarely received flyers or mailers for candidates. There was only one ethnic market where you could buy cultural foods. He could count all the other Asian American kids in his middle school class in Gwinnett County.

Today, Gwinnett is one of the most racially diverse counties in Georgia, with significant populations of islanders and Latinos in Asia, the Americas, and the Pacific – groups that are growing in metropolitan Atlanta and across the state.

Ahead of the crucial January 5 Senate runoff election that will rule over control of the upper chamber, Democrats hope to harness the growing political power of AAPI and Latino voters across Georgia to win over incumbent GOP Sens. David Perdue and defeat Kelly Loeffler and choose the challengers Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock.

Woo is the communications manager and Korean outreach director for Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, a nonprofit that has worked for years to mobilize AAPI voters in Georgia. Advancing Justice-Atlanta and other color community advocacy groups have reached out to voters who have been overlooked by many political campaigns in the past.

A historic surge in voters in Asia, America, and Latin America has helped turn the state blue for President-elect Joe Biden, according to Democratic data firm TargetSmart. Compared to 2016, the AAPI voter turnout increased 91% while the Latino voter turnout increased 72%.

“That kind of turnout didn’t really happen overnight,” said Woo. “We have worked with other black, brown, and immigrant communities and organizations to get them to vote.”

AAPI and Latino advocacy leaders say more investment and grassroots organizations are needed for Democrats to win in January and beyond.

Georgia’s changing political landscape

“Partisan politics in Georgia have long been characterized by black-and-white racial segregation, and Asian-Americans and Latinos obviously don’t fit in properly,” said Bernard Fraga, political scientist at Emory University.

“They’re more convincing than whites or African-Americans, so they’re more of a swing constituency,” said Fraga. “But Asian Americans and Latinos are much closer to being a democratic constituency in the state than even white suburban voters.”

According to NBC News polls, 88% of Georgia’s black voters supported Biden, while 69% of white voters in the state supported incumbent Republican President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, 62% of Georgian Latino voters supported Biden and 63% of AAPI voters across the country supported Biden. (AAPI data were not available for Georgia.)

Fraga said the November election results in Georgia represent a “long-term model for Democrats” that does not rely on shrinking white votes, but instead looks at the turnout rates of Latinos and Asians, and that boosts Americans . “

Asian American and Latin American voters made up about 3% and 5%, respectively, of the Georgian electorate in 2019, but are by far the fastest growing segments of US voters, according to the Pew Research Center.

“People are realizing for the first time that AAPI and Latinx voters are that growing group of people who have the ability to swing a state one way or another,” said Gigi Pedraza, executive director of the Latino Community Fund Georgia.

Preparation for January 5th

In the highly competitive Senate runoff competitions that are expected to get to the point, increasing the turnout among AAPI and Latino voters will be key for Democrats hoping to maximize electoral margins.

Georgia electoral rules required runoffs if no candidate exceeded 50% of the vote in both races during the November 3 election.

After the general election, according to a campaign spokesman, the Ossoff campaign hired constituency directors who focused on public relations for the AAPI and Latino. The Warnock campaign hired an AAPI community coordinator to do political outreach in the summer of 2020 and also has a Latinx voting director and New Americans coordinator on the team, the campaign told CNBC.

The Perdue campaign did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment. The Loeffler campaign was not available for comment before this story was published.

Historically, turnout in runoff elections in Asia, America and Latin America has declined compared to black and white voters. By December 24, more than 2 million people had voted in the Senate runoff elections. The pace of black voter turnout in the runoff elections is at or above the pace of voter turnout during the November 3 election, while the pace of whites turnout is slightly slower, according to Fraga’s analysis of the early voting data. The fall in voter turnout by Latino and AAPI in the runoff elections is the lowest of the racial groups and is between 80% and 90% of the general election turnout rate.

The campaigns, the Democratic Party and advocacy groups are all working to increase the turnout of AAPI and Latino voters as January 5th approaches. Before the voter registration deadline, they helped register new voters. Voto Latino, a national voter registration organization, said it had registered 12,000 new voters in Georgia for the runoff election, in addition to the nearly 36,000 voters the organization had registered for the general election.

“We know this turnout will be the biggest problem,” said María Teresa Kumar, President and CEO of Voto Latino. “That’s why we started again to register voters.”

Of the nearly 76,000 new voters registered in Georgia since the November election, Latin American and Asian American voters made up more than their total share of the electorate, the Atlanta Journal’s Constitution reported.

Language barriers and gaps in civic education are challenges that particularly affect Asian American and Latin American voters, many of whom are first-time voters, young people, or naturalized citizens. AAPI and Latino advocacy leaders say the misinformation can spread quickly in their communities, particularly on group messaging platforms like WeChat, WhatsApp, and KakaoTalk, and sometimes through ethnic media. Asian-American and Latin American voters are not monoliths either; They encompass different races, languages ​​and experiences between different communities.

The groups hope to address these challenges through multilingual and multicultural public relations: door-to-door advertising, literature drop-outs, telephone and text banking, advertisements and press in ethnic media – together with the aim of reaching out to hundreds of thousands of voters. During the early voting period and on January 5th, stakeholders also organize election protection work and multilingual voter hotlines.

Beyond the runoff

In recent history, the work of mobilizing voters for these color communities has mainly been done by local units. Asian-American and Latin American organizers cite the work of black organizers to pave the way, particularly leaders like suffrage activist and former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who has worked with AAPI and Latino groups for years.

“We’ve really built our churches in ways that haven’t really been there in the past. So when we talk about why Georgia turned blue this year, it is in large part because of the organization that has been organized in color communities in recent years, “said Aisha Yaqoob Mahmood, director of the Asian American Advocacy Fund, a grassroots progressive group focused on AAPIs in Georgia. “In recent years it has been clear that Georgia would require an investment in color communities to move forward.”

While Georgians can self-identify their race when registering to vote, making it easier for organizations to use electoral rolls to contact key constituencies, reaching out to eligible voters who may not yet have a voting history can be difficult. Stakeholder leaders say it can be more time-consuming and costly to advertise in AAPI and Latino neighborhoods, as the high percentage of immigrants means there is typically a lower proportion of eligible voters compared to black and white neighborhoods .

To continue the momentum in mobilizing Asian American and Latin American voters, organizers need to keep contacting and building relationships, organizers say. The investment is especially important for the Democratic Party to make AAPI and Latino voters a core part of its base.

Jen Rafanan, AAPI media director for the Georgia Democratic Party, said in a statement, “We don’t take anything for granted.” Rafanan and Karla Alvarado, Latinx media director for the Georgia Democrats, said the party was determined to engage and mobilize the AAPI and Latino communities in the state beyond the runoff elections.

“We struggle to get investment every year,” said Pedraza of Latino Community Fund Georgia. “Now everyone’s watching, which is great … but can you commit for the next five years?”

“Because Georgia might not be sexy next year and it will be sexy again for gubernatorial elections in 2022, but by then it will be too late,” Pedraza said. “We have to keep building next year so that we are ready for 2022.”