Elections

Five months after a stroke nearly took his life, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania, clashed with Dr. Mehmet Oz on Tuesday in their one and only debate, disagreeing sharply over abortion, the economy and other partisan issues as Mr. Fetterman tried to assure voters of his fitness to serve.Standing at red and blue lecterns in a television studio in Harrisburg, Pa., the two men could scarcely conceal their disdain for each other, or the scope of their disagreements. Dr. Oz returned repeatedly to the issue of crime while trying to position himself as a centrist candidate. Mr. Fetterman slashed Dr. Oz as a wealthy outsider unfamiliar with the economic struggles of Pennsylvanians.The spectacle of the debate itself took on uncommon significance because of Mr. Fetterman’s stroke and the pace of his recovery. Mr. Fetterman sought to address the issue at the very start. “Let’s also talk about the elephant in the room: I had a stroke,” he said in his opening remarks, adding of his opponent, “He’ll never let me forget that.”The debate was held under unusual conditions. Situated above the moderators were two 70-inch monitors to show the text of what was being said in close to real time — for both questions and answers. Professional typists were on hand to try to transcribe the debate as part of an agreed-upon accommodation for Mr. Fetterman, who has publicly discussed his lingering auditory processing issues after the stroke.Mr. Fetterman’s words were frequently halting, and it was apparent when he was delayed in either reading or reaching for a phrase or word. But he was also fluent enough over the course of the hour to present his Democratic vision for a state that could determine control of the Senate.Dr. Oz, the Republican nominee and a former television personality, displayed a sharpness and comfort honed by years in front of the camera. And from the opening minutes, he seized the chance to tack to the political center, casting himself as a problem-fixing surgeon and labeling Mr. Fetterman repeatedly as a radical.“Washington keeps getting it wrong with extreme positions: I want to bring civility, balance,” said Dr. Oz, who won the Republican primary largely on the strength of an endorsement from former President Donald J. Trump.In the primary, Dr. Oz fully embraced Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” platform. But he has revised his pitch for the general election, saying he wanted “Washington to be civil again” and to be the “candidate for change.” He did say he would support Mr. Trump again in 2024.Mr. Fetterman’s words were frequently halting, but he was also fluent at other times when it came to presenting his Democratic vision.Greg Nash/Nexstar Media GroupDr. Oz, a former television personality, displayed a sharpness honed by years in front of the camera.Greg Nash/Nexstar Media GroupMr. Fetterman pounded Dr. Oz as an out-of-state phony with 10 homes. Dr. Oz criticized Mr. Fetterman as a soft-on-crime liberal who lived off his parents into his 40s.“He’s on TV and he’s lying,” Mr. Fetterman said at one point. He repeatedly called that the “Oz rule.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz clashed in one of the most closely watched debates of the midterm campaign. Here are five takeaways.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.Strategy Change: In the final stretch before the elections, some Democrats are pushing for a new message that acknowledges the economic uncertainty troubling the electorate.“John Fetterman thinks the minimum wage is his weekly allowance from his parents,” Dr. Oz said at another point.At least once, Dr. Oz seemed to condescend about Mr. Fetterman’s auditory issues. “Obviously I wasn’t clear enough for you to understand this,” he said.Mr. Fetterman was able to reel off some made-for-TV one-liners, though he had difficulty going into greater depth over the course of full one-minute answers.In defending his record on crime, Mr. Fetterman invoked his time as mayor of Braddock, a small town outside Pittsburgh: “I was able to stop gun violence for five and a half years as mayor — ever accomplished before since my time as mayor because I’m the only person on this stage right now that is — can successful about pushing back against gun violence and being the community more safe.”Republicans quickly clipped and posted a verbal flub of Mr. Fetterman saying, “I do not believe in supporting the Supreme Court,” as he spoke about his opposition to court expansion.Pennsylvania, one of the central battlegrounds for control of the Senate, is increasingly seen as a potential tipping-point state. On Tuesday, the leading Senate Republican super PAC announced it was adding $6 million to its television reservations in the state. The top Democratic super PAC had put a further $5 million into the state last week.“We believe if we win Pennsylvania, we win the majority,” said Steven Law, who leads the Republican super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund.The evening unfolded with an intensity befitting the stakes.Some of the most pointed exchanges came over abortion, which has featured prominently in Democratic advertising.Dr. Oz said that there should be no role for the federal government on the issue but that he was open to state-level restrictions. He even tried awkwardly to come up with a new phrase to describe having state governments determine abortion rights, saying that he wanted the decision left to “women, doctors, local political leaders.”Mr. Fetterman later interrupted to link Dr. Oz to the Republican nominee for governor, Doug Mastriano, who is trailing significantly in most polls and who has spoken about banning abortion beginning at six weeks with no exceptions. “You roll with Doug Mastriano!” Mr. Fetterman said.The Democrat said he supported the framework of Roe v. Wade, as Dr. Oz pressed him for details about any limits he would impose on late-term pregnancies.A blitz of commercials this fall about crime has helped Dr. Oz shrink what had been a summer lead in the polls for Mr. Fetterman. On Tuesday, crime was the first specific issue that Dr. Oz raised, and the final one he included in his closing remarks.“I’ve talked to families who won’t let their kids go outside because of the crime wave that’s been facilitated by left, radical policies like the ones John Fetterman has been advocating for,” the Republican said.Mr. Fetterman replied, “I run on my record on crime.”For much of the evening, Dr. Oz was on the offensive, though he appeared less comfortable when it came to questions of how he has profited in the past from the sale and promotion of unproven medical treatments through his daytime TV show.“The show did very well because it provided high-quality information that empowered people,” Dr. Oz said. When the moderator followed up to ask about his own profits, Dr. Oz did not answer directly, saying advertisers were entitled to run commercials during his show.“I never sold weight-loss products as described in those commercials,” he declared. “It’s a television show like this is a television show.”The two men also clashed over immigration.“Pennsylvania is already a border state,” Dr. Oz said, accusing Mr. Fetterman, who has pushed for the legalization of marijuana, of wanting to legalize even more drugs.Mr. Fetterman responded that Dr. Oz was affiliated with a company that was once fined for hiring people who were in the country illegally. “I believe that a secure border is — can be compatible with compassion,” Mr. Fetterman said.Another key issue in Pennsylvania is fracking, the extraction of the state’s abundant natural gas from deep in the ground. Mr. Fetterman was once opposed to the practice, but supports it now. But when Mr. Fetterman was confronted with his past opposition, he struggled to answer. “I’ve always supported fracking,” he insisted.It was not always clear a debate would happen.The Oz team had needled Mr. Fetterman over the summer for failing to commit to any debates, but seemed to face some backlash for the focus on his health. The Fetterman campaign eventually agreed to the single debate late in October, trying to give the lieutenant governor as long as possible to recover.Mr. Fetterman had the stroke on the Friday before the May primary election, though he waited until that Sunday to disclose it. On Primary Day, he had a pacemaker and defibrillator implanted. His campaign initially offered few details about his condition, saying in early June that he also had a serious heart condition called cardiomyopathy.Mr. Fetterman stayed off the campaign trail until mid-August. He has since ramped up his activity, regularly holding rallies and giving television interviews. Before the debate, he released a letter from his primary care doctor that said he had “no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office.”Mr. Fetterman was pressed by the moderators to release his full medical records. He declined. “To me, for transparency is about showing up,” he said.Katie Glueck More

El presidente Jair Bolsonaro y los legisladores conservadores de Brasil quieren ilegalizar la publicación de encuestas que no coinciden con los resultados de las elecciones.BRASILIA — Este mes se celebró la primera vuelta de las elecciones en Brasil, que han sido observadas con detenimiento, y las encuestas mostraron un pronóstico errado porque subestimaron el apoyo con el que cuenta el presidente en funciones, Jair Bolsonaro, un líder de extrema derecha, y otros candidatos conservadores de todo el país.Muchos integrantes de la derecha se pusieron furiosos y criticaron las encuestas por estar desconectadas del electorado brasileño.Esa reacción no fue ninguna sorpresa. Lo que pasó después, sí lo fue.A instancias de Bolsonaro, algunos líderes políticos brasileños ahora buscan tipificar como delito las predicciones incorrectas de una elección.La Cámara de Diputados de Brasil ha acelerado un proyecto de ley que penalizaría la publicación de una encuesta que luego se compruebe que estuvo fuera de su margen de error. Se prevé que la Cámara Baja, controlada por aliados de Bolsonaro, vote para aprobar la medida en los próximos días.El contenido y destino finales de la propuesta de ley aún no están claros. Los líderes legislativos han insinuado que podrían cambiar algunos aspectos de la legislación, y las posibilidades de que se apruebe en el Senado, donde los oponentes a Bolsonaro son mayoría, parecen mucho menos certeras.Sin embargo, independientemente del futuro de esa propuesta, tanto ese proyecto como otras iniciativas para investigar a las encuestadoras por sus recientes errores de cálculo forman parte de una narrativa más amplia, sin evidencias, promovida por Bolsonaro y sus aliados, según la cual la clase política y la izquierda de Brasil tratan de amañar las elecciones en su contra.Mientras Brasil se prepara para votar en la segunda vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales el 30 de octubre, las encuestas siguen mostrando que Bolsonaro está rezagado detrás de su rival de izquierda, el expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, aunque la contienda luce cada vez más cerrada.Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva celebrando los resultados de la primera vuelta de las elecciones en São Paulo, a principios de este mes.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesPor su parte, Bolsonaro optó por tildar a las empresas encuestadoras de “mentirosas” y denunciar que sus errores cambiaron hasta tres millones de votos a favor de Da Silva en la primera ronda electoral, y ha abogado para que las firmas enfrenten consecuencias. “No es por haberse equivocado, ¿OK? Una cosa es cometer un error”, puntualizó. “Es por los delitos que cometieron”.Bolsonaro no ha aclarado qué delitos considera que se cometieron.La Asociación Brasileña de Empresas Encuestadoras declaró en un comunicado que estaba “ofendida” por los intentos de criminalizar las encuestas que arrojan pronósticos equivocados.“Iniciar este tipo de investigación durante el periodo de campaña para la segunda vuelta electoral, cuando las encuestadoras están realizando su trabajo, demuestra otro intento flagrante de obstruir la investigación científica”, aseveró el grupo.Las firmas encuestadoras agregaron que su trabajo no era predecir elecciones, sino brindar un panorama general de las intenciones de los electores en el momento en que se realiza una encuesta.El proyecto de ley en el Congreso no es el único recurso que se ha entablado contra las encuestadoras. A petición de la campaña de Bolsonaro, el ministro de Justicia y Seguridad Pública de Brasil le ordenó a la policía federal que abriera una investigación contra las encuestadoras por los sondeos que realizaron antes de la primera ronda electoral. Además, la agencia federal antimonopolio de Brasil inició sus propias pesquisas sobre las principales instituciones encuestadoras de la nación por posible colusión.Alexandre de Moraes, juez del Supremo Tribunal Federal y director del tribunal electoral del país, no tardó en ordenar la suspensión de ambas investigaciones, tras señalar que carecían de jurisdicción y parecían cumplir las órdenes políticas del presidente. A su vez, Moraes le ordenó al tribunal electoral de Brasil investigar si Bolsonaro trataba de usar de manera indebida el poder que tiene sobre las agencias federales.En este último año, Moraes se ha posicionado como el principal contrapeso al poder de Bolsonaro, lo cual le ha valido algunas críticas por medidas que, según expertos en derecho y gobernanza, representan un giro represivo para el máximo tribunal de Brasil.Entre otras decisiones, Moraes encarceló a cinco personas sin juicio previo por hacer publicaciones en redes sociales que él consideró que eran ataques contra las instituciones brasileñas. El 20 de octubre, los funcionarios electorales ampliaron aún más su poder al otorgarle la autoridad unilateral para suspender las plataformas de redes sociales en Brasil que no obedecieran de inmediato sus órdenes de eliminar la desinformación.Alexandre de Moraes en Brasilia antes de la primera vuelta de las elecciones, a principios de este mes.Dado Galdieri para The New York TimesMoraes y el Senado del país parecen estar listos para proteger a las encuestadoras de las medidas en contra de sus sondeos.Sin embargo, las acusaciones reiteradas de que las encuestadoras son corruptas podrían socavar aún más su capacidad para brindar la mejor estimación posible de la opinión pública. Algunos de los asesores principales de Bolsonaro han hecho un llamado para que sus partidarios ignoren a los encuestadores con el fin de sabotear los resultados.“¡¡¡No le respondan a ninguno de ellos hasta el final de la elección!!! Así será seguro desde el principio que cualesquiera de sus resultados son fraudulentos”, escribió Ciro Nogueira, el jefe de gabinete de Bolsonaro, en su cuenta de Twitter. “¿Fue un delito su absurdo error? Solo una investigación profunda lo determinará”.Las firmas encuestadoras más importantes habían pronosticado que Bolsonaro recibiría alrededor de un 36 por ciento del voto en la primera ronda electoral. Recibió un 43,2 por ciento, una brecha de siete puntos porcentuales fuera del margen de error de prácticamente todas las encuestadoras.Sus pronósticos fueron aún peores en muchas contiendas por cargos de menor relieve. En Río de Janeiro, los sondeos mostraron que el candidato conservador a gobernador llevaba una ventaja de unos nueve puntos porcentuales. En cambio, ganó por 31 puntos.En São Paulo, algunas encuestas mostraron que un candidato de izquierda que aspira a llegar al Senado llevaba una delantera de 14 puntos porcentuales frente a su oponente antes de la primera ronda de elecciones. En cambio, un candidato de derecha ganó por casi el mismo margen, una diferencia de 28 puntos porcentuales de lo que predijeron los sondeos previos a la elección.Las empresas encuestadoras han atribuido sus pronósticos fallidos a una variedad de factores, entre ellos los datos obsoletos del censo, los cuales minaron su capacidad de encuestar a una muestra estadísticamente representativa de electores. Esas firmas mencionaron que sus encuestas también fueron deficientes porque una ola de votantes más grande de lo esperado cambió su voto para apoyar a Bolsonaro en el último minuto.Algunas encuestadoras también comentaron que creían que muchos electores conservadores no estuvieron dispuestos a responder sus encuestas.La proporción de votantes de mayor edad excedió por mucho sus expectativas, tal vez debido a un anuncio que hizo el gobierno este año de que votar era una nueva manera de dar fe de vida y mantener activos sus beneficios de jubilación. Las encuestas en la víspera de las elecciones mostraron que los electores mayores apoyaban a Bolsonaro más que a Da Silva.Brasil está lejos de ser el único país donde las encuestas luchan por dar una imagen precisa del electorado, particularmente la fuerza del apoyo conservador.En 2016, las encuestas en Estados Unidos no pronosticaron con precisión el apoyo a Donald Trump, y las empresas dieron razones similares para el error, incluido que algunos votantes de derecha no estaban dispuestos a responder las encuestas.El presidente Jair Bolsonaro, en São Paulo, a principios de este mes.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesLa credibilidad de las empresas de encuestas en Brasil se vio afectada después de la primera vuelta de las elecciones, y algunos periodistas se han mostrado reacios para compartir las encuestas antes de la segunda vuelta del domingo.Ricardo Barros, un congresista conservador que está ayudando a impulsar el proyecto de ley para criminalizar las encuestas defectuosas, dijo que la legislación obligaría a las empresas encuestadoras a ser más cuidadosas con sus resultados. Según la ley propuesta, solo las encuestas que se equivocan fuera de su margen de error enfrentarían responsabilidad.“Si no están seguros del resultado, usen un margen de error del 10 por ciento”, dijo. “Pierden credibilidad, pero no desinforman a los votantes. El problema es que hoy en día siempre se presentan como una verdad absoluta”.Los legisladores tanto de la Cámara como del Senado también han reunido suficientes firmas para abrir investigaciones en el Congreso sobre las firmas de encuestas, aunque se espera que el líder del Senado tome medidas para bloquear la investigación.Alexandre Cordeiro Macedo, director de la agencia federal antimonopolio de Brasil que fue designado por Bolsonaro, trató de ir más allá que Barros al señalar la supuesta responsabilidad de las firmas de encuestas.Antes de que Moraes interviniera y detuviera la investigación, Cordeiro Macedo acusó a las principales encuestadoras de colusión basándose en lo que calificó como la improbabilidad estadística de que todas hubieran subestimado el apoyo de Bolsonaro por un margen tan significativo. Afirmó que el escenario era tan probable como ganar la lotería varias veces.Pero Alexandre Patriota, profesor de estadística en la Universidad de São Paulo, lo cuestionó y dijo que probar la colusión basada únicamente en esa única medida sería casi imposible.“Incluso si todos los institutos se equivocaron de la misma manera, eso no es una prueba de colusión”, dijo. “Para tener un toque de malicia, necesitas algo más que números”.Jack Nicas es el jefe de la corresponsalía del Times en Brasil, que abarca Brasil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay. Antes cubría tecnología desde San Francisco. Antes de unirse al Times, en 2018, trabajó durante siete años en The Wall Street Journal. @jacknicas • Facebook More

MINDEN, Nev. — As Adam Laxalt, the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, ambled along a throng of Trump supporters at a recent rally and posed for pictures, it was his campaign’s communications director, Courtney Holland, who was really working the crowd.With an iPhone in her left hand, Ms. Holland used her right one to whip up more enthusiasm from the red-capped Republicans gathered behind her boss. As the crowd took the cue, Ms. Holland framed her shot and blasted the footage out onto the campaign’s various social media channels — as well as her own.With more than 100,000 followers on Twitter and nearly 70,000 others on Instagram, Ms. Holland reflects a new breed of campaign aides — those whose online profiles more closely resemble social media influencers than traditional behind-the-scenes press operatives.The shift seizes on the transformation in how American voters receive information about their candidates, and is changing the way campaign press shops function. Both parties are increasingly using social media to build loyalty to a particular political brand, and targeting critics and journalists to energize supporters and drive online contributions. Instead of drafting political positions for their candidates, these staff members take to social media to make their own statements.Working her first political campaign, Ms. Holland has shown little interest in dealing with mainstream reporters to shape stories about Nevada’s closely watched Senate race — and she didn’t respond to a request for comment for this article. She has used her Twitter account, however, to repeatedly post negative information about Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, and criticize Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, the Democratic incumbent in the race, for not participating in more TV interviews.Ms. Holland’s posts on Instagram — posing with fellow conservatives or modeling Republican merchandise — have regularly drawn hundreds or even thousands of likes. Several of her memes attacking Mr. Biden have been viewed more than 100,000 times.“Influencers are being subsumed into the political apparatus on the right and the left,” said Samuel C. Woolley, who has studied social media and politics as the project director of the propaganda research team at the University of Texas at Austin. “There has been a blurring of the line between influencers and their positions as staffers that has historically been behind the camera.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz clashed in one of the most closely watched debates of the midterm campaign. Here are five takeaways.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.Strategy Change: In the final stretch before the elections, some Democrats are pushing for a new message that acknowledges the economic uncertainty troubling the electorate.In Florida, Christina Pushaw had about 2,000 Twitter followers before Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed her as his press secretary in May 2021. She now has more than 220,000 followers — far more than Lt. Gov Jeanette Nuñez and nearly as many as Casey DeSantis, Florida’s first lady.Ms. Pushaw built her following with an aggressive social media persona that sometimes includes five or six dozen postings a day, often attacking Democrats and the mainstream media. She has called the president a “seemingly senile 79-year-old aspiring dictator” and suggested that a neo-Nazi rally in Orlando had been staged by Democrats, although she later deleted that tweet.Last summer, Twitter locked her account for 12 hours for violating rules on “abusive behavior” after The Associated Press said her conduct led to a reporter receiving threats and other online abuse.Ms. Pushaw, who is now the DeSantis campaign’s rapid response director, has recently urged her fellow Republicans to stop engaging at all with the mainstream media, which she often refers to as “liberal,” “corporate” or “legacy media.”“My working theory is that if ALL conservatives simply stop talking to them, the legacy media will lose any shred of credibility or interest to Americans who follow politics,” Ms. Pushaw wrote in August.In Florida, Christina Pushaw had about 2,000 Twitter followers before Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed her as his press secretary in May 2021.Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty ImagesMs. Pushaw didn’t respond to a request for comment. But Mr. DeSantis has defended his aide, saying he views the criticism of her as a sign of her success.“You can try to smear me or anyone in my administration all you want to,” he told reporters in June. “All that’s going to do is embolden us to continue moving forward for the people of Florida.”The pugnacity from Ms. Pushaw and other Republicans has been deeply influenced by former President Donald J. Trump, whose combative political style has been defined by both his aggressiveness on social media and his sparring with the media. Mr. Trump bestowed his top social media aide in the White House, Dan Scavino, with the title of “assistant to the president,” while former President Barack Obama’s digital director, Jason Goldman, was a deputy assistant.Still, Mr. Obama and his team helped pave the way for turning press teams into content creators. The Obama White House regularly produced photos and videos packaged specifically for direct consumption among their own followers on social media.More recently, some of the 2020 Democratic presidential campaigns were loosely linked to armies of fanatical social media followers who teamed up to bully critics, fellow Democrats and reporters.During that race, a relentless group of superfans for Vice President Kamala Harris, known as #KHive, targeted Senator Bernie Sanders, her rival in that campaign, and numerous reporters.Reecie Colbert, one of the group’s more outspoken members, issued a warning during the campaign to Ms. Harris’s critics in a podcast about the group, saying, “I wanted them to know I will stomp a hole in you if you come for Kamala.” She later told The Los Angeles Times that she was speaking for herself, not the group.Ms. Harris has thanked KHive for its support of her on Twitter, and her husband, Doug Emhoff, regularly interacts with them.Lis Smith, a Democratic strategist, has long maintained an active social media profile. In 2012, when she was working on Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign as the rapid response director, Twitter temporarily locked her profile after she sent so many tweets during a presidential debate that she set off an internal alarm at the company designed to identify bots.But Ms. Smith warned that campaigns can go too far in letting their social media presence define them.“Social media is an increasingly big part of the job, but not in a good way,” she said. “Candidates who use social media in an authentic way can reinforce their strengths. But if you let Twitter supplant the hard work of dealing with reporters, you’re essentially breaking down a legitimate line of communications with the public.”Ryan James Girdusky, a conservative activist with over 110,000 followers on Twitter, said having staff members whose agility on social media could drive attention to a candidate’s message could be a significant advantage during a campaign.“When you have a new social media account, you have to build followers,” said Mr. Girdusky, a co-author of the book, “They’re Not Listening: How the Elites Created the National Populist Revolution.”“When you’re behind the eight ball, it’s definitely a major plus to have people who are known in the conservative movement and bring that level of credibility,” he added. More

Members of Gen Z (Americans under 26 years old) have come of age during the Trump presidency and a pandemic, in an era of protests over police violence, attacks on reproductive rights, rising economic inequality, and frequent school shootings. These young people are calling for major changes, but many aren’t confident that politicians will act with the urgency necessary to carry them out. As Gen Z voters consider the midterms, they are prioritizing the issues, not party allegiance.But with a history of low turnout, and disenchantment with politics across the spectrum, will young voters be moved enough by the issues to show up at the polls? And if so, will there be enough of them to sway decisive races?[You can listen to this episode of “The Argument” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]Today on “The Argument,” Jane Coaston convenes three voters in their early 20s to talk about how their families and communities have affected their politics, what matters most to them at the ballot box, and what they wish older Americans and politicians understood about people their age.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated PressThoughts? Email us at [email protected] or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, and Vishakha Darbha and Derek Arthur. Edited by Alison Bruzek and Anabel Bacon. With original music by Isaac Jones and Pat McCusker; mixing by Pat McCusker. Fact-checking by Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta with editorial support from Kristina Samulewski. More

new video loaded: More

Lt. Gov. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Mehmet Oz, the celebrity television doctor, collided Tuesday in one of the most closely watched debates of the midterm campaign. The Pennsylvania Senate matchup was both highly personal and unusual, as viewers watched Mr. Fetterman, a Democrat, rely on closed captioning to accommodate for the lingering effects of a stroke he had in May.Mr. Fetterman set out to show Pennsylvania voters that he is ready to serve — and to take on a Republican opponent who has recently gained ground in a race that could decide control of the Senate. He repeatedly called the Republican a liar, invoking what he called “the Oz rule — that if he’s on TV, he’s lying.” Dr. Oz didn’t hold back either, casting Mr. Fetterman as “extreme” and accusing him of misrepresenting his positions.Here are five takeaways from the first and final debate of one of the most consequential Senate contests in the nation:Fetterman is asking voters to bear with him.For many voters, the debate was their first extended chance to see what Mr. Fetterman looks and sounds like after his stroke. He could sound halting, sometimes jumbling words, using the wrong one, and occasionally sounding off-key. He opened the evening by saying, “Good night.”His performance will test whether voters regard his impairments as temporary or even humanizing setbacks, or whether it fuels questions about his fitness for office.Mr. Fetterman was mindful of that challenge. From his opening remarks, he framed his experience as a comeback story still in progress.“I had a stroke,” he said. Referring to Dr. Oz, he continued, “He’s never let me forget that. And I might miss some words during this debate, mush two words together, but it knocked me down, but I’m going to keep coming back up.”Mr. Fetterman sometimes failed to prosecute a crisp case against his opponent, a television veteran, or to vigorously or extensively answer some of the criticism that came his way.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz clashed in one of the most closely watched debates of the midterm campaign. Here are five takeaways.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.Strategy Change: In the final stretch before the elections, some Democrats are pushing for a new message that acknowledges the economic uncertainty troubling the electorate.But he could also sound energetic and passionate, drawing contrasts on issues like abortion rights and urging his opponent to run against Senator Bernie Sanders, given how much Dr. Oz tries to link the left-wing Vermonter to Mr. Fetterman. He also sought to use his illness to connect with others who are struggling.“This campaign is all about, to me, is about fighting for everyone in Pennsylvania that ever got knocked down,” he said.Swing-state Republicans are still struggling with abortion questions.Three times, Dr. Oz was asked whether he would support a federal ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, as Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has proposed.And three times, Dr. Oz declined to give a straight answer, offering a vivid illustration of how difficult some Republican candidates are finding it to navigate the abortion debate after Roe v. Wade was overturned — especially candidates like Dr. Oz, who are seeking to appeal to suburban moderates who support abortion rights without alienating the conservative base.Dr. Oz, who has previously said that terminating a pregnancy any time is “still murder,” said he saw abortion as a state issue and even inserted an addition to Democrats’ often-repeated line about abortion being a decision made by a woman and her doctor.“I want women, doctors, local political leaders — letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive — to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves,” Dr. Oz 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.Mr. Fetterman jumped on the topic.“If you believe that the choice of your reproductive freedom belongs with Dr. Oz, then you have a choice,” he said, promising to vote to codify abortion protections into law, given the opportunity. “If you believe that the choice for abortion belongs between you and your doctor, that’s what I fight for.”Oz pins Fetterman to his progressive past.At several points, Dr. Oz — sometimes assisted by the moderators’ questions — called Mr. Fetterman out on disowning progressive policies he once espoused (he endorsed Senator Sanders in the 2016 presidential race).On fracking, which supports thousands of jobs in the state, Mr. Fetterman maintained, “I’ve always supported fracking,” even though, as recently as 2018, he said that he did not.Dr. Oz also pressed Mr. Fetterman for having said in 2015 that he favored decriminalizing not just marijuana but drugs “across the board.” That was a “radical position,” Dr. Oz said — a theme he returned to throughout the debate to paint Mr. Fetterman as outside the mainstream.But on one position, ending the legislative filibuster in the Senate, Mr. Fetterman gladly owned his view. When Dr. Oz accused him of wanting to “bust the filibuster,” in other words, allowing bills to pass without a 60-vote threshold, Mr. Fetterman responded: “That is true. That is true.”Both men use relatability and real estate as cudgels.At a moment when inflation is biting nearly every American, each candidate sought to nail the other as too privileged to relate to the plight of working people. Dr. Oz “has never met an oil company that he doesn’t swipe right about,” Mr. Fetterman said, a reference to his rival’s personal investments.Mr. Fetterman repeatedly brought up Dr. Oz’s multiple properties, or as he put it at one point, “10 gigantic mansions.”Dr. Oz — protesting that he wanted to speak about economic policies — responded that “the irony is that John Fetterman didn’t pay for his own house; he got it for $1.”Indeed, Mr. Fetterman, who served for 13 years as the mayor of Braddock, Pa., a job that paid only a token salary, was supported by his relatively affluent family until he was elected lieutenant governor at 49. He purchased an industrial-style loft in Braddock for a dollar from a sister, who had paid $70,000 for it.Both men largely stood by their party leaders.President Biden’s weak approval rating has many battleground Democrats keeping him at a distance.But Mr. Fetterman was more supportive than many when discussing Mr. Biden, a native of Scranton, Pa., who was once known to Democrats in the state as Pennsylvania’s third senator. Asked if he supported a Biden run for president again in 2024 — a question many Democrats are dodging — Mr. Fetterman replied directly, “if he does choose to run, I would absolutely support him.”And pushed on whether he disagreed with Mr. Biden on any policies, Mr. Fetterman paused for a while before replying that the president could do more to combat inflation.“But at the end of the day, I think Joe Biden is a good, good family man, and I believe he stands for the union way of life,” he said, also noting low unemployment numbers.Dr. Oz, for his part, won the Republican nomination with an endorsement from former President Donald J. Trump — a man who is anathema to some of the moderates he is trying to court. Asked if he would support a Trump 2024 run, he initially punted.“I’ll support whoever the Republican Party puts up,” he said, shifting to talk up his interest in bipartisanship. But pressed on the question, he replied, “I would support Donald Trump if he decided to run for president.” More

In their only scheduled debate, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York and her challenger, Representative Lee Zeldin, quarreled intensely on Tuesday over divisive issues such as rising crime and abortion access, while accusing each other of corruption and dangerous extremism.Mr. Zeldin, who has spent his campaign trying to appeal to voters’ dissatisfaction with the status quo, went on the attack from the get-go, frequently raising his voice as he channeled a sense of outrage, especially around crime. Ms. Hochul, a Buffalo-area Democrat vying for her first full term, took a more measured approach that fit her insistence that the state needs a steady hand to lead it.Scenes outside the debate.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesThere was no live audience, but some New Yorkers expressed their views.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesBeyond trading barbs, neither candidate appeared to have a major breakout moment or gaffe that could reshape the race, which, according to recent polls, may be tightening just two weeks before Election Day. But both staked out starkly different positions on substantive matters from crime to vaccine mandates and the migrant crisis ahead of the general election on Nov. 8.Here’s a recap of some of the most memorable moments.Zeldin repeatedly pivoted to crime.Mr. Zeldin, a Long Island congressman, has for months made crime the central focus of his campaign for governor, and Tuesday’s debate was no different. From the start, he attacked Ms. Hochul, charging that she was not doing enough to stem an increase in serious offenses in the state and especially New York City, and blamed her policies for fueling fears.New Yorkers, Mr. Zeldin said in his opening statement, were “less safe thanks to Kathy Hochul and extreme policies.”Mr. Zeldin largely stuck to tough-on-crime policy points that he honed during his primary campaign. He forcefully criticized Ms. Hochul for opposing further revisions to the state’s bail law and called for changes to laws that reformed the juvenile justice system and the parole system in the state.Mr. Zeldin also doubled down repeatedly on a vow that, if elected, he would immediately remove the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, from office, accusing Mr. Bragg of failing to enforce the state’s criminal code.Ms. Hochul sought to redirect attention to her efforts to stem the flow of illegal guns and noted that she had already tightened the bail reforms earlier this year. Those efforts, she said, had already proven fruitful.But Mr. Zeldin argued that the governor was overly focused on gun crime and had not focused enough on other offenses of concern to New Yorkers, including a rise in violent incidents in the subway system.Mr. Zeldin repeatedly turned the debate back to the topic of crime.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesIn New York City, the number of murders and shootings both dropped by about 14 percent through Sunday compared with the same time period last year, though other serious crimes, including robbery, rape and felony assault, have increased, according to police statistics. Though she largely kept her cool during the hourlong debate, Ms. Hochul appeared frustrated with Mr. Zeldin’s insistence on discussing crime when moderators were asking about other topics, something he did even during a discussion of abortion.Hochul says abortion is ‘on the ballot.’Throughout the debate, Ms. Hochul sought to criticize Mr. Zeldin’s anti-abortion stance, saying that he couldn’t run from his long record in Congress opposing access and funding for abortions.“You’re the only person standing on this stage whose name right now — not years past — that right now, is on a bill called ‘Life Begins at Conception,’” Ms. Hochul said.Ms. Hochul cast herself as a bulwark against a potential rollback of abortion protections in New York, warning that Mr. Zeldin, if elected, could appoint a health commissioner who is anti-choice — as he once pledged to do — and shut down health clinics that provide reproductive care.“That is a frightening spectacle,” said Ms. Hochul, the first female governor of New York. “Women need to know that that’s on the ballot this November as well.”Ms. Hochul said Mr. Zeldin could appoint a health commissioner who is opposed to abortion rights.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesReiterating a pledge from earlier this month, Mr. Zeldin vowed that he would not seek to unilaterally change the state’s already-strict abortion protections, which are enshrined in state law. Mr. Zeldin said that doing so would be politically unfeasible and that Ms. Hochul was being disingenuous by suggesting he would do so, given that Democrats control the State Legislature in Albany and are likely to retain control this election cycle.Mr. Zeldin, however, raised the prospects of potentially curbing funding for abortions for women traveling to New York from other states where abortions are banned.“I’ve actually heard from a number of people who consider themselves to be pro-choice, who are not happy here that their tax dollars are being used to fund abortions, many, many, many states away,” he said.Zeldin dances around his ties to Donald Trump.For months, Ms. Hochul has emphasized Mr. Zeldin’s close relationship with former President Donald J. Trump, focusing particularly on the congressman’s vote to overturn the results of the 2020 election hours after the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.Though Mr. Zeldin has scoffed at Ms. Hochul’s focus on that day, when asked by debate moderators if he would repeat his vote, he stood by it.“The vote was on two states: Pennsylvania and Arizona,” he said. “And the issue still remains today.”Sarah Silbiger/ReutersMr. Zeldin walked a delicate line as he was questioned about his relationship to the former president. When asked if he wanted to see Mr. Trump run in 2024, he waved away the question as irrelevant. When Ms. Hochul asked if he thought Mr. Trump — who lost New York by 23 percentage points in 2020 — was “a great president,” he refused to give her a simple “yes or no” answer.Yet Mr. Zeldin did not denounce Mr. Trump, who remains popular with many of the Republicans that he needs to draw to the polls if he hopes to defeat Ms. Hochul. He said he was proud to have worked closely with the former president on a laundry list of issues ranging from local crime to international politics.Ms. Hochul appeared satisfied with the reply. “I’ll take that as a resounding yes,” she said. “And the voters of New York do not agree with you.”Questioning Hochul’s ethics.Mr. Zeldin wasted little time impugning Ms. Hochul’s fund-raising efforts, accusing her of orchestrating “pay-to-play” schemes because of the large sums she has raised from people with business before the state.In particular, Mr. Zeldin referenced a $637 million contract that the state awarded in December to Digital Gadgets, a New Jersey-based company, for 52 million at-home coronavirus tests. The founder of the company, Charlie Tebele, and his family have given more than $290,000 to Ms. Hochul’s campaign and hosted fund-raisers for the governor.The Times Union of Albany has reported that the company charged the state about $12.25 per test, similar to the retail price for many tests, and that the company did not go through a competitive bidding process.“So what New Yorkers want to know is what specific measures are you pledging to deal with the pay-to-play corruption that is plaguing you and your administration?” Mr. Zeldin asked.Ms. Hochul vehemently denied any connection between the campaign donations and the contract, saying the company helped the state obtain an extraordinary number of tests at a time of huge demand when tests were relatively scarce nationwide. The company has also previously said that it never communicated with Ms. Hochul or her campaign about any company business.“There is no pay-to-play corruption,” the governor said. “There has never been a quid pro quo, a policy change or decision made because of a contribution.”Thalia Juarez for The New York TimesMs. Hochul, clearly expecting the attack line, used the opportunity to underscore the millions of dollars that Ronald Lauder, the heir to the cosmetics fortune of Estée Lauder, has steered into super PACs supporting Mr. Zeldin’s campaign, saying, “What worries me is the fact that you have one billionaire donor who’s given you over $10 million.”Only a glancing focus on the economy.Despite public polls showing that inflation is a top-of-mind concern for voters, the economy and rising costs of living received less attention than anticipated during the debate.Mr. Zeldin promised to slash taxes across the board if elected, saying that “New York is going to be back open for business on January 1.” He also vowed to block the congestion-pricing plan that would charge drivers a toll for entering part of Manhattan, which he believes would burden middle-class New Yorkers during a precarious economic moment.Mr. Zeldin questioned what Ms. Hochul has done as governor to try and stem New York’s recent population loss. The state has lost 319,000 people since mid-2020, a decline of 1.58 percent that is higher than any other state, primarily as a result of residents moving away, according to an analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts.In response, Ms. Hochul turned to a turn of phrase she deployed several times during the debate, saying that Mr. Zeldin was more fixated on “sound bites” than “sound policy.” She challenged him to detail which social programs he would reduce spending on if he cut the state’s corporate and personal income tax rates, which are among the highest in the nation.And she highlighted her own record of economic investments. She mentioned the tax rebates she had enacted for the middle class, as well as a recent agreement to persuade Micron to build a semiconductor facility near Syracuse, a deal that the company said could generate more than 50,000 jobs. More

The leak of a draft opinion, he said, “gave people a rational reason to think” the eventual decision could be prevented “by killing one of us.”WASHINGTON — The leak of his draft majority opinion overruling Roe v. Wade put the Supreme Court justices in the majority at risk of assassination, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said during wide-ranging remarks in a public interview on Tuesday at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative legal group.“It was a grave betrayal of trust by somebody,” he said. “It was a shock, because nothing like that had happened in the past. It certainly changed the atmosphere at the court for the remainder of last term.”“The leak also made those of us who were thought to be in the majority in support of overruling Roe and Casey targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us,” Justice Alito said.He said the idea was hardly fanciful, noting an attempt on the life of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. A California man armed with a pistol, a knife and other weapons was arrested in June near Justice Kavanaugh’s Maryland home and charged with attempted murder. Among other things, the man said he was upset with the leaked draft suggesting the court would overturn Roe, the police have said.The leaked draft was published by Politico in early May, while the decision itself was issued in late June. The decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruled Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that had established a constitutional right to abortion, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed Roe’s core holding.Understand the Supreme Court’s New TermCard 1 of 6A race to the right. More