ReportWire

Tag: first name

  • The crime that haunts Mexico, sowing fear, disrupting life: extortion

    A shop owner facing threats shutters the clothing store that had been in his family for generations.

    A leader of a citrus growers association is kidnapped and killed after refusing mob demands for a cut of profits.

    Enraged peasant farmers fed up with paying graft turn on cartel thugs in a bloody showdown.

    In Mexico, these real-life incidents all arise from a signature offense: extortion.

    Gang shakedowns are rampant in Mexico, victimizing untold numbers — street vendors and taxi drivers, restaurateurs and farmers, factory owners and mine operators. All are coerced into paying tithes to criminal bands, sometimes the same cartels that run drugs.

    “It’s a very sensitive crime because of its social impact,” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said last week. “It doesn’t only affect one person. It affects everyone.”

    An agent of the attorney general’s office in Mexican state of Michoacán inspects the area where vehicles were burned by members of criminal gang near the city of Quiroga in November.

    (Enrique Castro/AFP via Getty Images)

    Sheinbaum launched a high-profile crackdown against extortion, but her efforts face steep odds. Extortion, experts say, is a multibillion-dollar racket, perhaps even more lucrative than drug-trafficking. It sometimes is called “the invisible crime,” since most victims fail to report threats, fearing retaliation.

    Those targeted often confront a ghastly choice: accept ultimatums to hand over cash, property or other assets — or face death, a threat routinely aimed at family members as well.

    “Sure, I can say, ‘I won’t pay: They can go ahead and kill me,’ ” said Antonio, a floriculturist outside Mexico City who hands over almost $600 in derecho de piso [protection] at each flower harvest, the amount doubling in holiday seasons, including this month’s Virgin of Guadalupe feast. “But I cannot allow them to kill my kids. Or take my wife.”

    Like other victims who spoke to The Times, Antonio, 56, a father of four, asked that only his first name be used for security reasons.

    “We live in terror,” he said. “We have to work for these delinquents. And no one in the government helps us.”

    A man surrounded by flowers carries a bunch of cempasúchil flowers

    Farmer Jesús Cuaxospa works on his farm where he grows cempasúchil flowers in San Luis Tlaxialtemalco on the outskirts of Mexico City in October.

    (Claudia Rosel / Associated Press)

    Mexico and two other Latin American countries, Colombia and Honduras, are among the world’s five most extortion-scarred nations, according to the Global Organized Crime Index, an annual ranking from a Geneva-based research group. Filling in the top five are Somalia and Libya.

    Apart from the devastating impact on individuals and families, extortion exacts extreme societal costs: displacement, a profound sense of insecurity and the distortion of local economies.

    In Mexico, strong-armed extortion gangs have been accused of price-fixing, taking over industries, unions and transport routes, and running construction sites —and even setting prices for foodstuffs, building materials and other items.

    Sheinbaum regularly boasts of her administration’s success in curbing violent crime, especially homicides, down by more than one-third since she took office last year, according to official figures. But she concedes that extortion is on the rise, though there are no accurate metrics for an offense so hugely under-reported.

    Calling the eradication of extortion “one of the great challenges” facing Mexico, Sheinbaum pledged to bolster enforcement, stiffen penalties and increase safeguards for anyone receiving threats.

    She is championing a constitutional amendment to make extortion a federal crime and put the onus on law enforcement, not individuals, to hunt down violators. Prosecutors could pursue cases without victims having to file complaints.

    Since the inauguration of Mexico’s “National Strategy against Extortion” in July, authorities say police have arrested more than 600 suspects and fielded more than 100,000 calls to an expanded toll-free extortion hotline. Officials also moved to block cellphone access in Mexican prisons, where gangs specialize in “virtual kidnapping” — calling people on the outside and demanding ransoms for loved ones allegedly abducted.

    “Don’t answer a telephone number that you don’t recognize,” Sheinbaum warned people last week.

    In one notorious case, authorities say a prison gang targeted 14 nurses who were dispatched to Mexico City during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inmates using cellphones warned the nurses to stay in their hotel rooms and say nothing — they supposedly were under surveillance. Accomplices contacted relatives demanding cash. But police got wind of the scheme. No money was paid and no one was injured.

    Security forces stand guard following an operation at a butcher shop

    Security forces stand guard following an operation at a butcher shop allegedly linked to the La Familia Michoacana cartel in Sultepec, Mexico, in July.

    (Alfredo Estrella/AFP via Getty Images)

    Sheinbaum’s anti-extortion campaign faces a major barrier: Barring a massive culture shift, many victims will remain hesitant to approach the law, lacking trust in the system.

    “Making a complaint is not an option, because you never know if authorities are in collusion with the criminals,” said César, co-owner of a restaurant in downtown Mexico City.

    About two years ago, he said, one of his partners began to receive threats on his cellphone. The callers had the name of his wife and children. The partner was nervous but did nothing at first.

    “Then one day two South Americans arrived at the restaurant,” César recalled.

    Their message: Pay $2,500 a week to be “allowed to work in peace.”

    His partner soon abandoned the restaurant, and the city.

    Management hasn’t heard from the goons since.

    Even so, César, like the owners of many businesses, tries to keep a low profile; his name and those of associates aren’t on display at the restaurant. Staff is instructed not to blab to anyone.

    “Still, we live with uncertainty and worry all the time that these guys will come back,” César said. “We know that at any moment we could be victims.”

    Recent victims whose cases shocked Mexico include a successful young butcher entrepreneur in Tabasco state and a woman taxi driver in Veracruz state. Both were found dead after rejecting extortion threats, according to reports. The driver, Irma Hernández, 62, a retired teacher, was kidnapped and forced to make a jihadi-style video in which — surrounded by armed men — she implored her fellow cabbies: “Pay your cuota [fee] … or you’ll end up like me.”

    A private security force funded by avocado growers, on patrol.

    Avocado growers have received so many extortion demands from criminal gangs that some hired private security forces, like this one on patrol in Tancitaro, Michoacán, in 2019.

    (Gary Coronado/Los Angeles Times)

    Sometimes, though, the fed-up marks fight back.

    Two years ago the corn and bean growers of the impoverished hamlet of Texcapilla tired of paying annual protection fees of about $200 per planted acre and decided: No más. Armed with machetes and shotguns, the peasant farmers confronted enforcers of the dominant area cartel, La Familia Michoacana, on a soccer field outside a school. By the time the melee ended, authorities said, 14 were dead —10 gang members and 4 farmers.

    Carlos Manzo, the former mayor of Uruapan in Michoacán state, also pushed back. He blamed Sheinbaum’s government for not doing enough in Michoacán, where gangsters have long fleeced the booming avocado sector and other industries.

    “We are surrounded by criminal groups dedicated to extorting and killing,” Manzo told a crowd in May. “But we are going to confront them.”

    Manzo was assassinated last month at a Day of the Dead celebration in Uruapan.

    Less than two weeks earlier, Bernado Bravo, a leader of regional lime growers in Michoacán, also was shot dead. Bravo repeatedly had denounced extortion demands.

    With so much at risk, it’s not surprising that some potential victims bolt.
    .
    For more than 80 years, Vicente’s family ran a men’s clothing business in downtown Mexico City. He didn’t think much of it when, about four years ago, men began calling demanding money. Then one day three guys arrived at the shop.

    “They said if I didn’t pay, I would lack security, and if I lacked security, something might happen to my workers — if not to me, to my family,” Vicente recalled.

    Like many targets, Vicente hoped the threat would go away. But the menacing strangers kept barging in — and upping their demands, from $500 a month to $1,000 a month to $2,000 a month, all the way up to $10,000 a month.

    His sons urged Vicente to walk away: The business, however beloved, wasn’t worth a bullet to the head. Reluctantly, Vicente finally agreed. The shutdown left 15 people out of work, many of them longtime employees. Some ended up hawking clothing from street stalls.

    Vicente says he never reported the extortion attempt: Like César, he feared some crooked law enforcement insider would reveal his name and address to the mob. He has tried to put the experience behind him. But it hasn’t been easy. Three generations of family life revolved around that shop.

    “Because I refused to pay extortion I was forced to shut down the business that my grandfather founded in 1936, and that my father and I continued,” said Vicente, 67. “It was painful. Very painful.”

    McDonnell is a staff writer and Sánchez Vidal a special correspondent.

    Patrick J. McDonnell, Cecilia Sánchez Vidal

    Source link

  • Ozempic Can Turn Into No-zempic

    Ozempic Can Turn Into No-zempic


    No medication in the history of modern weight loss has inspired as much awe as the latest class of obesity drugs. Wegovy and Zepbound are so effective that they are often likened to “magic and “miracles.” Indeed, the weekly injections, which belong to a broader class known as GLP-1s, can lead to weight loss of 20 percent or more, fueling hype about a future in which many more millions of Americans take them. Major food companies including Nestlé and Conagra are considering tailoring their products to suit GLP-1 users. Underlying all this excitement is a huge assumption: They work for everyone.

    But for a lot of people, they just don’t. Anita, who lives in Arizona, told me she “took it for granted” that she would lose weight on a GLP-1 drug because “the people around me who were on it were just dropping weight like mad.” Instead, she didn’t shed any pounds. Likewise, Kathryn, from Florida, hasn’t lost any weight since starting the medication in October. “I was really hoping this was something that would be a game changer for me, but it feels like it was just a lot of wasted money,” she told me. (I’m identifying both Anita and Kathryn by their first name only to allow them to speak openly about their health issues.)

    Some people can’t tolerate the side effects of the drugs and have to stop taking them. Others simply don’t respond. For some, the strength of the dose, or length of the treatment, does not seem to make a difference. Appetites might remain robust; the “food chatter” in the brain may stay noisy. Together, both groups of less successful GLP-1 users account for a not-insignificant share of patients on these drugs—potentially up to a third. “We don’t really know why it happens, [but] we know it does happen,” Louis Aronne, an obesity-medicine specialist at Weill Cornell Medical College, told me. Despite the promise of a so-called Ozempic revolution, lots of “No-zempics” have been left behind.

    Of the two biggest reasons some people don’t lose weight on GLP-1 drugs—side effects and nonresponse—the former is much more straightforward. The GLP-1 drugs Wegovy and Zepbound (which contain the active ingredients semaglutide and tirzepatide, respectively), are known for causing potentially gnarly gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting, although most people’s reactions are mild and temporary. Yet some have it far worse. Severe, albeit uncommon, side effects include pancreatitis, severe gastrointestinal distress, low blood sugar, and even hair loss, which “can push people off” the drugs, Steven Heymsfield, a professor who studies obesity at Louisiana State University, told me. In one of the biggest studies of semaglutide, encompassing more than 17,000 people over about five years, nearly 17 percent of patients discontinued the medication because of side effects.

    Far more mysterious are the people who tolerate the drugs but respond weakly to them—or sometimes not at all. Researchers have known this might happen since these drugs were in early clinical trials. About 14 percent of people who took semaglutide for obesity saw minimal impacts of less than 5 percent weight loss in one study, as did 9 to 15 percent of people who took tirzepatide in a similar one. In her own experience working with patients, “somewhere between a quarter and a third” are nonresponders, Fatima Cody Stanford, an obesity-medicine specialist at Harvard, told me, adding that it can take up to three months to determine whether the drug is working or not. That the same medication at the same dosage can lead to dramatic weight loss in one person and hardly any in another “remains confounding,” Aronne told me.

    The broad explanation is that it has something to do with genetics. The drugs work by masquerading as the appetite-suppressing hormone GLP-1 and binding to its receptor, like a key fitting into a lock. Although the lock’s overall shape is generally consistent from person to person, its nooks and crannies can vary because of genetic differences. “For some people, that key just won’t fit right,” Eduardo Grunvald, an obesity-medicine doctor at UC San Diego Health, told me. In other cases, genes may limit the effects of these drugs after they bind to GLP-1 receptors. One possibility is that people metabolize the drugs differently: Some patients may break them down too quickly for them to take effect; others may process them too slowly, potentially building up such high levels of the medications that they become toxic, Heymsfield said.

    For No-zempic patients, perhaps the most consequential impact of individual variation is on the propensity for obesity itself. “We are all very different from a genetic standpoint, in terms of our risk of weight gain,” Grunvald said. Numerous factors can drive obesity, including diet, environment, stress, and—most pertinent to GLP-1 drugs—altered brain function.

    GLP-1 drugs target a pathway that regulates appetite and insulin levels. Some cases of obesity can be caused by a disruption in that particular mechanism, in which case GLP-1s can indeed be wondrous. But “not everyone has dysfunction in this particular pathway,” Stanford said. When that is the case, the drugs won’t be very effective. A different pathway, for example, controls the absorption of fat from food; another increases energy expenditure. In these people, GLP-1s might tamp down appetite to a degree, maybe leading to some weight loss, but a different drug may be required to treat obesity at its root. “It is not all about food intake,” Stanford said.

    That’s not to say that No-zempics are out of options. They might have better success switching from one GLP-1 to the other, or even stacking them, Heymsfield said. Some patients who don’t respond to GLP-1s at all can get better results with older drugs that work on different obesity pathways, Aronne said. One, called Qysmia, a combination of the decades-old drugs phentermine and topiramate, can lead to an average weight loss of 14 percent body weight at its highest dose. If medications don’t work, bariatric surgery remains a powerful option, one that may even be growing in popularity. Last year, the number of bariatric surgeries performed in the U.S. grew despite the boom in GLP-1 usage, a trend that some expect to continue, because so many people don’t tolerate the drugs.

    The intense hype around the game-changing nature of GLP-1s makes it easy to forget that they are, in fact, just drugs. “Every drug that’s ever been made” works in some people and not in others, Heymsfield said; there’s no reason to think GLP-1s would be any different. Remembering that they are in an early stage of development has a sobering effect. Eventually, obesity drugs may leave fewer people behind. The category is expanding rapidly: By one count, more than 90 new drug candidates are in development.

    They are evolving to attack obesity from multiple fronts, which, at least in theory, widens their net of potential users. In an early study on an experimental candidate named retatrutide—called a triple agonist because it acts on GLP-1 as well as two other targets involved in obesity, GIP and glucagon receptors—100 percent of people on the highest dose lost 5 percent or more of their body weight. New candidates are also expected to have fewer side effects. They have to, Heymsfield said, because the competition is so steep that any new drug has to be “as good with less side effects, or better.”

    But no matter how good these drugs get, it’s unrealistic to think that they’ll become a one-size-fits-all treatment for everyone with obesity. The disease is simply too complex, with too many drivers, for a single type of medication to treat it. More than 200 different drugs exist for treating high blood pressure alone; in comparison, Aronne said, regulating weight is “far more complicated.” The future, rife with options, holds promise that No-zempics may find a way forward. Yet considering all the unknowns about obesity and what causes it, that may not be enough to guarantee that they will see the results they want.



    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • The Democrats’ Most Surprising Southern Foothold

    The Democrats’ Most Surprising Southern Foothold

    The GOP controls nearly everything in Kentucky, a state that Donald Trump carried by 26 points in 2020. Republicans hold both U.S. Senate seats and five of Kentucky’s six House seats; they dominate both chambers of the state legislature.

    What Republicans don’t occupy is Kentucky’s most powerful post. The state’s governor is Andy Beshear, a Democrat elected in 2019 who is hoping to win a second term tomorrow. Operatives in both parties think he might, but the governor’s in a close race with his Republican opponent, Daniel Cameron, the state’s 37-year-old attorney general. Whether Beshear can stave him off will determine if Democrats maintain one of their most surprising footholds in southern politics.

    Beshear, 45, owes his success in a deep-red state to a combination of competent governance, political good fortune, and family lineage. His father, Steve, was a popular two-term governor who governed as a moderate and won the admiration of fellow Democrats for implementing the Affordable Care Act in the face of conservative opposition. The Republican governor whom Andy Beshear defeated in 2019, Matt Bevin, was widely disliked, even by many in his own party. Soon after taking office, Beshear earned praise for his steady leadership during the coronavirus pandemic and then later in his tenure during a series of natural catastrophes—deadly tornadoes, historic flooding, and ice storms. The crises have made the governor a near-constant presence on local news in the state, where allies and opponents alike usually refer to him by his first name. “I joke that Andy Beshear has 150 percent name ID” in Kentucky, Representative Morgan McGarvey, the lone Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation, told me. “It’s because everybody knows who he is. And they actually know him.”

    Major economic-development and infrastructure projects have also boosted the governor’s reelection bid—Beshear has taken advantage of billions in federal dollars that have flowed to Kentucky from legislation signed by President Joe Biden and backed by the state’s most powerful Republican, Senator Mitch McConnell.

    Cameron is a onetime McConnell protégé who would be the state’s first Black governor if elected. In the campaign’s closing weeks, Cameron has touted an endorsement by Trump and tried to tie Beshear to Biden, who is deeply unpopular in Kentucky. The governor has endorsed Biden’s reelection, though he’s generally kept his distance from the president. At the start of one debate, Beshear, who had recently signed legislation legalizing sports gambling, “wagered” that Cameron would mention Biden’s name at least 16 times in their hour together onstage. Cameron was either unfazed or unable to improvise: He mentioned Biden’s name four times in the next 90 seconds.

    Nationalizing the governor’s race is probably Cameron’s smartest bet in a state like Kentucky. But even Republicans concede that Beshear has done a good job of building a distinct brand during the past four years. “He ended up being able to operate in some nonideological arenas—the tornadoes, the floods, even COVID while it was going on,” Scott Jennings, a Republican consultant in Kentucky, told me. As they did for governors in most states, televised briefings during the pandemic allowed Beshear to connect with his constituents on a daily basis for weeks. The dynamic generally helped Republican leaders in blue states, such as Phil Scott in Vermont, and vice versa in Kentucky. “Anytime you come into people’s lives like that every day during an unusual situation, it does have an impact,” Jennings said. “You seem more familiar than the average politician that you see every now and again.” Since the beginning of 2020, just one governor—Democrat Steve Sisolak in Nevada—has lost a reelection bid.

    Beshear has benefitted from incumbency in other ways as well. He’s raised and spent far more money than Cameron, which allows him to blanket the state in ads both positive and negative. He’s used ribbon cuttings and groundbreakings to tout job-creating projects. In September, Beshear placed the state’s first legal sports bet at the Churchill Downs Racetrack, a launch that was timed explicitly for the start of football season and implicitly for the start of his reelection campaign.

    Among the issues Beshear has prioritized is abortion, a departure for a Democrat in a culturally conservative southern state. The procedure has been illegal in Kentucky since the overturning of Roe v. Wade triggered a statewide ban. But Democrats sensed a political opening last year after Kentucky voters rejected an amendment that would have stipulated that the state constitution did not protect abortion rights. The vote suggested that in Kentucky, as in other red states, such as Kansas, abortion rights have bipartisan support. “It’s a huge advantage for Andy,” former Representative John Yarmuth, a Democrat who served for eight terms in the House before retiring last year, told me. “It has become a voting issue for the pro-choice side. It generates turnout and it moves some voters.”

    One of Beshear’s TV ads features a woman who was raped by her stepfather at age 12 and who criticizes Cameron for his support of Kentucky’s abortion ban, which contains no exceptions for rape or incest. “I’m speaking out because women and girls need to have options. Daniel Cameron would give us none,” the woman says. After the ad began running, Cameron said that if the legislature presented him with a bill adding exceptions to the state’s abortion ban, he would sign it.

    For Cameron, the Republican who has the best chance of winning him votes is Trump. The former president released a recorded endorsement last week, but he has not come to Kentucky to campaign for the attorney general. “We would accept any and all visitors to help get the vote out,” Sean Southard, a spokesperson for Cameron, told me when I asked whether the campaign had wanted a Trump rally.

    What role, if any, race might play in the outcome is also a question mark. Cameron denounced a pair of ads by the Beshear-backing Black Voters Matter Action PAC that refer to him as “Uncle Daniel Cameron” and place his image alongside that of Samuel L. Jackson’s character from Django Unchained. “All skinfolk ain’t kinfolk,” a narrator says in a radio ad, urging a vote for Beshear, who is white.

    To Republicans, Beshear is something of an accidental governor. After winning his race for attorney general in 2015 by slightly more than 2,000 votes, he defeated Bevin four years later by a margin nearly as minuscule (about 5,000 votes). The GOP-controlled legislature drives policy and can override his veto with a simple majority. “The Republican supermajorities have essentially stuffed him in a locker,” Jennings said. But, he argued, their dominance ultimately helps Beshear politically because they’ve prevented him from building a record to the left of where Kentucky voters want to go. “If left to his own devices, he’d be far more liberal on policy,” Jennings said. “In some ways, they save him from himself.”

    As entrenched as they are in Kentucky’s legislature and congressional delegation, Republicans have struggled to win, and keep, the governorship. They’ve held the top job for just three four-year terms in the past eight decades, and both of their recent winners, Bevin and Ernie Fletcher, lost bids for reelection (each time to a Beshear). “What’s clear is that people view the governor differently,” McGarvey told me.

    Both Republicans and Democrats I spoke with told me that they believed the GOP’s strength throughout the state would eventually extend to the governor’s office. Whether that happens tomorrow or in another four years is less clear. Private polls show Beshear with a small but not insurmountable lead, according to operatives in both parties who described them on the condition of anonymity. Public surveys have been limited, but they show a tightening race as well. Democrats close to the Beshear campaign told me that although they felt good about the race, a Cameron victory would not surprise them given the GOP’s overall advantage.

    Yarmuth was a bit more confident. Sensing a lack of enthusiasm on the Republican side, he held out hope for a more convincing Beshear win that might even help Democrats in down-ballot races. But he, too, was skeptical that Democrats would be able to maintain their unlikely grip on Kentucky’s governorship much longer. “I would bet,” the former representative told me, “that it’ll be hard for a Democrat past Andy.”

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • The Brutal Things Republican Voters Say About Mike Pence

    The Brutal Things Republican Voters Say About Mike Pence

    Mike Pence is making little secret of his presidential ambitions. He’s written his book, he’s assembling his team, he’s mastered the art of the coy non-denial when somebody asks (in between trips to Iowa) if he’s running. In early Republican-primary polls, he hovers between 6 and 7 percent—not top-tier numbers, but respectable enough. He seems to think he has at least an outside shot at winning the Republican nomination.

    And yet, ask a Republican voter about the former vice president, and you’re likely to hear some of the most withering commentary you’ve ever encountered about a politician.

    In recent weeks, I was invited to sit in on a series of focus groups conducted over Zoom. Organized by the political consultant Sarah Longwell, the groups consisted of Republican voters who supported Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020. The participants were all over the country—suburban Atlanta, rural Illinois, San Diego—and they varied in their current opinions of Trump. In some cases, Longwell filtered for voters who should be in Pence’s target demographic. One group consisted entirely of two-time Trump voters who didn’t want him to run again; another was made up of conservative evangelicals, who might presumably appreciate Pence’s roots in the religious right.

    I’ve been covering Pence’s strange Trump-era arc since 2017, when I first profiled him for The Atlantic. By some accounts, he’s wanted to be president since his college-fraternity days. I’ve always been skeptical of his chances, but now that he finally seems ready to run, I wanted to understand the appeal of his prospective candidacy. My goal was to see if I could find at least one Pence supporter.

    Instead, these were some of the quotes I jotted down.

    “I don’t care for him … He’s just middle-of-the-road to me. If there was someone halfway better, I wouldn’t vote for him.”

    “He has alienated every Republican and Democrat … It’s over. It’s retirement time.”

    “He’s only gonna get the vote from his family, and I’m not even sure if they like him.”

    “He just needs to go away.”

    It went on and on like that across four different focus groups. Of the 34 Republicans who participated, I only heard four people say they’d consider Pence for president—and two of them immediately started talking themselves out of it after indicating interest.

    Some of the reasons for Pence’s lack of support were intuitive. Hard-core Trump fans said they were alienated by Pence’s refusal to block the certification of the 2020 electoral votes, as the president was demanding. This break with Trump famously prompted chants of “Hang Mike Pence!” to echo through the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

    Although the sentiment expressed in the focus groups wasn’t quite so violent, the anger was still present. During one session, three people—all of whom had reported “very favorable” views of Trump—took turns trashing Pence for what they saw as his weakness.

    “I’m so mad at Pence that I would never vote for him,” said one man named Matt. “He would be a horrible president … I just don’t think he has the leadership qualities to be president.” (I agreed to quote the participants only by their first name.)

    “That’s exactly it,” a woman named Christine said, nodding eagerly. “He didn’t have the leadership qualities to do what everyone wanted him to do on January 6. He just doesn’t have that spine.”

    A third participant, Nicholas, chimed in: “He just chose to go along with all the other RINOs and Democrats, not to upset the applecart.”

    Meanwhile, less MAGA-inclined Republicans thought Pence was too Trumpy.

    “The only thing I liked about him was that he actually did stand up to Donald Trump,” a woman named Barbara said. “He’s too a part of Trump. I don’t think Trump has a chance, and I don’t think anybody in that inner circle has a chance either.”

    “I think he put a stain on himself for any normal Republican when he joined the Trump administration,” said another participant, Justin. “And then he put a stain on himself with any Trump Republican on January 6. So I don’t think he has a constituency anywhere. I don’t know if anyone would vote for him.”

    Longwell told me this is how Pence is talked about in every focus group she holds. What to make of that 6 to 7 percent he gets in the primary polls? “I imagine there’s a cohort of GOP voters who are not particularly engaged who don’t want Trump again, and Pence is the only other name they really know,” she speculated. That, or “they’re all from Indiana,” the state where Pence served as governor. A second Republican pollster, who requested anonymity to offer his candid view, told me, “Seven percent is a weak showing for the immediate former VP.”

    Devin O’Malley, an adviser to Pence, responded to a request for comment in an email: “Mike Pence has spent the last two years traveling to more than 30 states, campaigning for dozens of candidates, and listening to potential voters. Those interactions have been incredibly positive and encouraging, and we place more value in those experiences than of a focus group conducted by disgruntled former Republicans like Sarah Longwell and paid for by some shadow organization that The Atlantic won’t disclose.” (Longwell told me the costs for the focus groups are split between The Bulwark and the Republican Accountability Project, two anti-Trump organizations with which she is affiliated.)

    What I found most fascinating about the voters’ digs at Pence was that they were almost always preceded by passing praise of his personal character: He was a “top-of-the-line guy,” a “nice man,” a “super kind, honest, decent” person. Not only did these perceived qualities fail to make him an appealing candidate, but they were also often held against him—treated as evidence that he lacked a certain presidential mettle.

    “I don’t like how Trump was just in your face with everything, but Pence is almost too far in the other direction,” one participant named Judith said.

    Perhaps these voters were identifying a simple lack of charisma. But their casual dismissal of Pence’s wholesome, God-fearing, family-man persona is emblematic of a sea change in conservative politics—and a massive miscalculation by Pence himself.

    When Pence was added to the ticket in 2016, his chief function was to vouch for Trump with mainstream Republicans, especially conservative Christian voters. Pence’s reputation as a devout evangelical gave him a certain moral credibility when he defended Trump amid scandal and outrage. He performed this task exceptionally well. Those adoring eyes, those fawning tributes, that slightly weird fixation on the breadth of his boss’s shoulders—nobody was better at playing the loyalist. And for a certain kind of voter, Pence’s loyalty provided assurance that Trump was worthy of continued support.

    Pence had his own motives, as I reported in my profile. All of this vouching for Trump was supposed to buy Pence goodwill with the base and set him up for a future presidential run. For many in Pence’s camp, the project took on a religious dimension. “If you’re Mike Pence, and you believe what he believes, you know God had a plan,” Ralph Reed, an evangelical power broker, told me back then.

    But in creating a permission structure for voters to excuse Trump’s defective character and flouting of religious values, Pence was unwittingly making himself irrelevant. In effect, he spent four years convincing conservative Christian voters that the very thing he had to offer them didn’t matter.

    In 2011, a poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that only 30 percent of white evangelicals believed “an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.” By 2020, that number had risen to 68 percent.

    Pence won the argument. Now he’s reaping the whirlwind.

    In one of the focus groups, a devout Christian named Angie was asked how much she factored in moral rectitude when assessing a presidential candidate. “I try to use my faith to choose someone by character, but it hasn’t always been possible,” she said. Sometimes she had to vote for a candidate who shared her politics but didn’t live her values.

    “Who comes to mind?” the moderator asked.

    “I think Trump falls into that category,” Angie conceded. “But quite honestly, the vast majority of others do as well.” She paused. “I would say Pence actually doesn’t fall into that category. I would say his character probably aligns with biblical values fairly well.”

    But Angie remained uninterested in seeing Pence in the Oval Office. If he had a record to run on, she wasn’t aware of it.

    “Anything he did got overshadowed by all the drama of these last four years,” she said, hastening to add, “Seems like a perfectly nice man.”

    McKay Coppins

    Source link