Elections, Senate

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Left-Right Divide Might Help Democrats Avoid a Total Wipeout

      by

      With the midterm election less than two weeks away, polling has turned bleak for the Democrats, not only increasing the likelihood that the party will lose control of the House, but also dimming the prospects that it will hold the Senate.The key question is whether Republicans will wipe out Democratic incumbents in a wave election.In a 2021 article, “The presidential and congressional elections of 2020: A national referendum on the Trump presidency,” Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California San Diego, described how the Trump administration and its 2020 campaign set the stage for the 2022 midterms:Reacting to the [Black Lives Matter] protests, Trump doubled down on race‐baiting rhetoric, posing as defender of the confederate flag and the statues of rebel generals erected as markers of white dominance in the post‐Reconstruction South, retweeting a video of a supporter shouting “white power” at demonstrators in Florida, and vowing to protect suburbanites from low-income housing that could attract minorities to their neighborhoods.The headline and display copy on my news-side colleague Jonathan Weisman’s Oct. 25 story about the campaign sums up the party’s current strategy:With Ads, Imagery and Words, Republicans Inject Race Into Campaigns: Running ads portraying Black candidates as soft on crime — or as “different” or “dangerous” — Republicans have shed quiet defenses of such tactics for unabashed defiance.Republican strategies that emphasize racially freighted issues are certainly not the only factor moving the electorate. Republican skill in weaponizing inflation is crucial, as is inflation itself. Polarization and the nationalization of elections also matter, particularly in states and districts with otherwise weak Republican candidates.Jacobson is one of a number of political analysts who argue that the calcification of the electorate into two mutually adversarial blocs limits the potential for significant gains for either party. In a recent essay, “The 2022 U.S. Midterm Election: A Conventional Referendum or Something Different?” Jacobson writes:Statistical models using as predictors the president’s most recent job approval ratings and real income growth during the election year, along with the president’s party’s current strength in Congress, can account for midterm seat swings with considerable accuracy. For example, applying such a model to 2018, when President Donald Trump’s approval stood at 40 percent and real income growth at 2.1 percent, Republicans should have ended up with 41 fewer House seats than they held after the 2016 election — improbably, the precise outcome.Applying those same models to the current contests, Jacobson continued,the Democrats stand to lose about 45 House seats, giving the Republicans a 258-177 majority, their largest since the 1920s. For multiple reasons (e.g., inflation, the broken immigration system, the humiliating exit from Afghanistan) Biden’s approval ratings have been in the low 40s for the entire year. High inflation has led to negative real income growth.No wonder then, Jacobson writes, that “the consensus expectation at the beginning of the year was an electoral tsunami that would put Republicans in solid control of both chambers.” Now, however, “this consensus no longer prevails.”Why?Partisans of both parties report extremely high levels of party loyalty in recent surveys, with more than 96 percent opting for their own party’s candidate. Most self-identified independents also lean toward one of the parties, and those who do are just as loyal as self-identified partisans. Party line voting has been increasing for several decades, reaching the 96 percent mark in 2020. This upward trend reflects a rise in negative partisanship — growing dislike for the other party — rather than increasing regard for the voter’s own side. Partisan antipathies keep the vast majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents from voting for Republican candidates regardless of their opinions of Biden and the economy.Jacobson noted in an email that over the past weekthe numbers have moved against the Democrats, and they should definitely be worried. The latest inflation figures were very bad news for them. But I still doubt that their House losses will approach the 45 predicted by the models and I think they still have some hope of retaining the Senate — or at least, their tie.Jacobson points out that in the current lead-up to the midterms, there is an exceptionally “wide gap between presidential approval and voting intentions, with the Democrats’ support on average 9.2 percentage points higher than Biden’s approval ratings.” He also notes that in previous wave elections, the spread between presidential approval and vote intention was much closer, 5 points in 1994, 4.9 in 2006, 0.3 in 2010 and 4.1 in 2018.Julie Wronski, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi, argued in an email that polarization has in very recent years changed the way voters evaluate presidents and, in turn, how they cast their ballots in midterm contests. “There is a higher floor and lower ceiling in presidential approval,” she said:If anything, approval is fairly resistant to external shocks in ways that look very different from either George W. Bush or Obama. An approval rating below 50 percent seems to be the new norm. But if we think about this from a partisan lens, an overwhelming percent of Democrats will always support the Democratic president, while an overwhelming percent of Republicans will oppose him.Put another way, Wronski said, “it wouldn’t matter what Biden does or doesn’t do to curb inflation, Democrats will largely support, and Republicans will largely oppose.”In this context, “partisanship serves as lens through which economic conditions are evaluated. The stronger partisanship exists as a social identity, the more likely it will be used as the motivation to view and accept information about economic conditions, like inflation.”Negative partisanship, Wronski wrote, “has emerged in recent elections as a driver of voting turnout and vote choice,” with the resultthat partisan antipathies keep Democrats from voting for Republican candidates. No matter how bad economic conditions may be under Biden, the alternative is seen as much worse. The threat to abortion rights and democracy should Republicans take control of Congress may be a more powerful driver of voting behavior.While polls show growing public fear that adherence to the principles of democracy have declined, Wronski pointed out thatthose concerns do not trump more immediate needs like being able to afford food, housing, and gas. To be fair, people cannot fight for lofty ideals like democracy when their basic needs are not being met. People need to be secure in their food and housing situation before they can advocate for bigger ideas.There is another factor limiting the number of House seats that the Republican Party is likely to gain: gerrymandering.Sean Trende, senior elections analyst at RealClearPolitics, makes the case that in state legislatures both parties “hoped to avoid creating districts that were uncertain for their party and/or winnable for the other party. One upshot of this is that in a neutral or close-to-neutral environment, there aren’t many winnable seats for either party.”Trende elaborates: “In the swingiest of swing seats where Biden won between 51 percent and 53 percent, there are just 19 seats. Of those seats, 10 are held by Democrats, seven are held by Republicans, and one is a newly created district.” In a neutral year when neither party has an advantage in the congressional vote, Trende writes, if “Republicans won all the districts where Joe Biden received 52 percent of the vote or less and lost all of the districts where he did better, they would win 224 seats.Gerrymandering has created what Trende calls “levees” — bulwarks — that limit gains and losses for both parties. The danger for Democrats is the possibility that these levees may be breached, which then turns 2022 into a Republican wave election, as was the case in 1994 and 2010: “In a universe where Republicans win the popular vote by four points, sweeping all of the districts that Biden won with 54 percent of the vote or less, the levee would break and the Republican majority would jump from 232 seats to 245 seats.”When Trende published his analysis on Sept. 29, the generic congressional vote was almost tied, 45.9 Republican to 44.9 Democratic, close to a “neutral” election. Since then, however, Republicans have pulled ahead to a 47.8 to 44.8 advantage on Oct. 22, according to RealClearPolitics. FiveThirtyEight’s measure of the generic vote shows a much closer contest as of Oct. 25, with Republicans ahead 45.2 to 44.7 percent.In 2010, the Republican Party’s generic advantage in late October was 9.4 points, a clear signal that a wave election was building.Educational polarization — with college-educated voters shifting decisively to the Democratic Party and non-college voters, mostly white, shifting to the Republican Party — in recent elections has worked to the advantage of the right because there are substantially more non-college voters than those with degrees.This year, the education divide may work to some extent to the benefit of Democrats.James L. Wilson, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, pointed out in an email that not only do “polarization and party loyalty make the election outcomes less likely to depend on immediate economic circumstances,” but also “educational polarization, combined with the fact that better-educated voters tend to turn out at higher rates in midterm elections than do less-educated voters, may help the Democrats despite voter concerns about Biden or the economy.”Even with inflation as one of the Democratic Party’s major liabilities, the intensification of polarization appears to be muting its adverse impact.In their 2019 paper, “Motivated Reasoning, Public Opinion, and Presidential Approval,” Kathleen Donovan, Paul M. Kellstedt, Ellen M. Key and Matthew J. Lebo, of St. John Fisher University, Texas A&M University, Appalachian State University and Western University, wrote that “Polarization has increased partisan motivated reasoning when it comes to evaluations of the president,” as the choices made by voters are “increasingly detached from economic assessments.”As partisanship intensifies, voters are less likely to punish incumbents of the same party for failures to improve standards of living or to live up to other campaign promises.Yphtach Lelkes, a professor of communication and a co-director of the polarization lab at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote by email that “people (particularly partisans) are far less likely to, for instance, rely on retrospective voting — that is, they won’t throw the bums out for poor economic conditions or problematic policies.”In the early 1970s, Lelkes wrote, “partisanship explained less than 30 percent of the variance in vote choice. Today, partisanship explains more than 70 percent of the variance in vote choice.”This trend grows out of both identity-based partisanship and closely related patterns of media and information usage.As Lelkes put it:There are various explanations for this. There is an identity/motivated reasoning perspective, where people think better us than them and would prefer a lampshade to an out partisan. Another possibility is that people get skewed information. If I watch lots of Fox News or pay even marginal attention to Republican candidates, I’ll hear lots about the economy. If I watch MSNBC and pay attention to Democratic candidates, I’ll hear a lot about abortion, but less about the economy.Not everyone agrees that polarization will limit Democratic losses this year.John Sides, a political scientist at Vanderbilt, wrote by email that “it is absolutely true that party loyalty in congressional elections has increased. But this does not stop large seat swings from occurring.”There is, Sides continued, “some evidence that midterm seat swings can be driven by people actually switching their votes from the previous presidential election,” suggesting that “clearly not every voter is a die-hard partisan.”Sides remained cautious, however, about his expectations for the results on Nov. 8: “The recent poll trends are pushing toward larger G.O.P. gains but I am not sure those trends suggest the 40+ House seat gains that the national environment would forecast.” A narrow win, he wrote, would mean that Republican leaders in the House will face “a very delicate task. On the one hand, they have to appease Freedom Caucus types. But they also have to protect potentially vulnerable G.O.P. members in swing districts. I do not know how you manage that task, and so I do not envy Kevin McCarthy.”Dritan Nesho, a co-director of the Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll, was distinctly pessimistic concerning Democratic prospects:An empirical analysis of the 2022 midterm polls in the final stretch suggests that this election will tip both the House and the Senate toward Republicans, and it’s no exception to historical trends suggesting the incumbent party tends to lose an average of 28 seats in the House and 3 or so seats in the Senate. Key numbers around lack of confidence in the economy, the pervasive impact of inflation, and a worsening personal financial situation among a majority of voters today, actually suggest a stronger loss than the average.The two best predictive variables for election outcomes, Nesho writes,are presidential approval and the direction of personal finances. Both are severely underwater for Democrats. In our October Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll, Biden has plateaued at 42 percent job approval and 54 percent of voters report their personal financial situation as getting worse. 55 percent blame the Biden administration for inflation rather than other factors (including 42 percent of Democratic respondents), and 73 percent expect prices to further increase rather than come down. 84 percent of voters think the U.S. is in a recession now or will be in one by next year.If that were not enough, Nesho continued,at the same time Democrats are seen as disconnected from the key issues of concern for the median voter. Republicans are connecting better with general voters on inflation and the economy, crime, and immigration; Democrats are seen as preoccupied with Jan. 6, women’s rights/abortion, and the environment, which are further down the list of concerns.Republicans, in turn, have pulled out all the stops in activating racially divisive wedge issues, relentlessly pressing immigration, crime and the specter of generalized disorder.In Missouri, for example, Brian Seitz, a state representative, is determined to “shut down” critical race theory, declaring, “There is a huge red wave coming.” Elise Stefanik, chair of the House Republican Conference, ran a Facebook ad that read: “Radical Democrats are planning their most aggressive move yet: a PERMANENT ELECTION INSURRECTION. Their plan to grant amnesty to 11 MILLION illegal immigrants will overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington.” In Ohio, J.D. Vance, the Republican Senate candidate, contends that Democrats are recruiting immigrants and “have decided that they can’t win re-election in 2022 unless they bring in a large number of new voters to replace the voters that are already here.” Blake Masters, the Republican Senate nominee in Arizona, warns that Democrats want to increase immigration “to change the demographics of our country.”Robert Y. Shapiro, a political scientist at Columbia, observed in an email: “By all rights this should be a debacle for the incumbent party based on the fundamentals — the relative bad news about the economy — inflation — crime, the southern border, and the lingering Afghanistan fiasco.”But, Shapiro added:There are mitigating factors: a very important one is that the Republicans picked up many seats in the House in 2020 so those seats are not at risk now for the Democrats, thanks to around 11 million more Republican voters in 2020 than in 2016. The other factor is the Dobbs abortion decision that led to a surge in Democratic voter registration, very likely significantly women and younger voters. This at best has just helped the Democrats to catch up to Republicans.The crucial question in these circumstances, in Shapiro’s view, “will be relative partisan turnout — will this be more like 2010 or 2018? I sense the enthusiasm and anger here is at least a bit greater among Republicans than Democrats for House voting.”Bruce Cain, a political scientist at Stanford, emailed me to say that he agrees “with those who think the Democrats will lose the House,” but with Republicans seeing “a below historical average seat gain, i.e. under the 40-45 seats that some models are predicting.”Cain argued that a Democratic setback will not be as consequential as many on both the left and right argue: “It’s not like either party needs to worry about being locked out of power for very long. The electoral winds will shift, and the window to power and policy will open again soon enough.” Polarization, Cain noted, “has made it clear to both parties that you have to grab the policy prizes while you have trifecta control” — as both Trump and Biden have done during their first two years in office.One difference between the current election and the wave election of 1994 is that this time around Republicans have no attention-getting, mobilizing agenda comparable to Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America. They have contented themselves with hammering away on the economy, race and immigration.Republicans are fixated on an ethnically and racially freighted agenda of gridlock and revenge. They propose to reduce immigration and to roll back as much as they can of the civil rights revolution, the women’s rights revolution and the gay rights revolution. They threaten to hound Biden appointees, not to mention the president’s son Hunter, with endless hearings and inquiries. The party has also signaled its refusal to raise the debt ceiling and promised to shut down the government in order to force major concessions on spending.While this agenda may win Republicans the House and perhaps the Senate this year, it contains too many contradictions to achieve a durable Republican realignment.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Fetterman, Showing Stroke Effects, Battles Oz in Hostile Senate Debate

      by

      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

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      5 Takeaways From the Pennsylvania Senate Debate

      by

      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

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Fetterman-Oz Debate Tonight: What to Watch

      by

      The Pennsylvania Senate debate on Tuesday between Dr. Mehmet Oz, a Republican, and Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, a Democrat, is likely to be among the most widely viewed of all midterm debates. It is a clash of two large personalities, who have by turns mocked and scathingly attacked one another, over matters trivial (fresh vegetables) and deeply serious (violent crime).Interest in the debate, for a contest that is critical to control of the Senate, is sky-high as polls show the race tightening two weeks before Election Day, and because of Mr. Fetterman’s recovery from a stroke two days before the May primary.The 60-minute debate will be broadcast at 8 p.m. Eastern time from a TV studio in Harrisburg, Pa. There will be no live audience. Here is what to watch for:How Fetterman soundsMr. Fetterman still has difficulty processing spoken words, and he will read the two moderators’ questions and Dr. Oz’s responses on large monitors with closed captions. The Fetterman campaign warns that the accommodation could slow down his responses, and it worries that Republicans will try to make snippets of the debate go viral with Mr. Fetterman’s pauses and dropped or slurred words. The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Florida Governor’s Debate: Gov. Ron DeSantis and Charlie Crist, his Democratic challenger,  had a rowdy exchange on Oct. 24. Here are the main takeaways from their debate.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.Last Dance?: As she races to raise money to hand on to her embattled House majority, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in no mood to contemplate a Democratic defeat, much less her legacy.Secretary of State Races: Facing G.O.P. candidates who spread lies about the 2020 election, Democrats are outspending them 57-to-1 on TV ads for their secretary of state candidates. It still may not be enough.Major style differencesDon’t expect quick-witted repartee. The candidates have big differences in style. Dr. Oz spent 13 years as a TV host and has transitioned from an empathetic broadcast persona into a political candidate with sharp, succinct attack lines. Mr. Fetterman, even before his stroke, was a so-so debater with a meandering, regular-guy speaking style.Oz’s shift away from Fetterman’s healthA month ago, the Oz campaign was mockingly calling attention to Mr. Fetterman’s refusal to commit to a series of debates (a spokeswoman said he might not have had a stroke if he’d eaten his vegetables). But after the intense focus on the Democrat’s health appeared to produce a backlash, Dr. Oz’s camp now says it will stick to the candidates’ policy differences and to highlight what it calls Mr. Fetterman’s “extremism.”.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.Who’s the real Pennsylvanian?Mr. Fetterman will likely attack his opponent as a “Hollywood doctor” who owns several houses, only moved to the state in 2020 and has poured $23 million of his fortune into the race. Dr. Oz may come back with the defense that he earned his fortune, while Mr. Fetterman received an allowance from his family until he was nearly 50. (He collected only a token salary as mayor of Braddock, Pa., for 13 years.)Attacks over abortionPerhaps Mr. Fetterman’s strongest issue against Dr. Oz, and one crucial in the battle for suburban voters, is Dr. Oz’s right-wing tack on abortion since he entered politics. Look for Mr. Fetterman to call attention to a statement Dr. Oz made that life begins at conception and terminating a pregnancy any time is “still murder.” A focus on crimeThis is the issue that Dr. Oz has leaned into most aggressively, accusing Mr. Fetterman of coddling criminals because of his advocacy for clemency for long-incarcerated men convicted of murder. Dr. Oz calls him “the most pro-murderer candidate” in the country. Viewers may hear Dr. Oz name individuals and their crimes for whom Mr. Fetterman advocated clemency. The focus on crime, especially homicides and street violence in Philadelphia, is meant to stir fears by voters outside the city. How will Mr. Fetterman defend his leadership of the state pardons board and his support for criminal justice reform?Energy and frackingWestern Pennsylvania has major reserves of natural gas. Because Mr. Fetterman cultivates an appeal to blue-collar union voters, especially in the Pittsburgh region, Dr. Oz will most likely seek to undermine him by attacking his past opposition to fracking, which provides thousands of jobs. Mr. Fetterman supports fracking now, but as recently as 2018 he opposed it. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Fetterman’s Debate Challenges: Selling Policies and Proving He’s Fit to Serve

      by

      WASHINGTON — When John Fetterman, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, faces his Republican opponent in a high-stakes debate on Tuesday night, he will face twin challenges: making the case for his policies while convincing voters he is healthy enough to serve.The debate, the first and only in a race that could determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate, will look different than any other. Two 70-inch monitors above the heads of the moderators — scrolling the text of their questions, as well as transcribing the answers, attacks and ripostes of the Republican, Dr. Mehmet Oz — will be visible to TV watchers whenever a camera pans to the moderators.Mr. Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor, needs the accommodations because the stroke he had in May left him with an auditory processing disorder, a condition that affects the brain’s ability to filter and interpret sounds, his primary care doctor said last week. He uses closed captioning to follow conversations. Sometimes his speech is halting. Sometimes he stumbles over his words. But he has “no work restrictions,” the doctor said.Democrats say this makes him seem relatable. Disability rights activists say Mr. Fetterman has been a victim of prejudice from Republicans and reporters who focus more on his health than the issues. But Mr. Fetterman — who also has a heart condition that his cardiologist says was exacerbated by his failure to seek care and take medicine — was cagey about answering health questions in the early months of his campaign, which has left him open to bipartisan criticism about a lack of transparency.“He handled the issue badly at first because he was evasive for months, and that’s changed,” said Shanin Specter, a politically active Philadelphia lawyer (and the son of former Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania), who said he is not supporting either candidate. “He should be more worried about the electorate’s concerns about his evasion than about his capacity.”The race pits Mr. Fetterman, a tall, tattooed figure who favors hoodies and shorts and casts himself as a working man, against Dr. Oz, a former TV celebrity — and newcomer to Pennsylvania residency — who was scolded by senators in 2014 for using his TV show to promote foods and dietary supplements that falsely promised weight loss. Dr. Oz has been endorsed by former President Donald J. Trump, who has said his long television run was proof of his political viability.The general election contest has tightened in recent days, as once-skeptical Republican voters fall in line with Dr. Oz. Polls show Mr. Fetterman’s solid lead has nearly vanished this month.Dr. Mehmet Oz’s campaign spent months taunting and openly mocking Mr. Fetterman as mentally unfit to hold office.Laurence Kesterson/Associated PressThe Oz campaign spent months taunting and openly mocking Mr. Fetterman as mentally unfit to hold office. But now, amid a social media backlash from some voters as well as disability rights activists, Dr. Oz and his allies are shifting course. They have insisted the debate will be about policies, not health.“I don’t think that viewers are tuning into this debate to learn about John Fetterman’s health status,” said Barney Keller, a senior strategist for Dr. Oz. “I think they’ll tune into the debate to learn about the contrast between the candidates on the issues.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.A G.O.P. Advantage: Republicans appear to be gaining an edge in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress. Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, explains why the mood of the electorate has shifted.Ohio Senate Race: Tim Ryan, the Democrat who is challenging J.D. Vance, has turned the state into perhaps the country’s unlikeliest Senate battleground.Losing Faith in the System: As democracy erodes in Wisconsin, many of the state’s citizens feel powerless. But Republicans and Democrats see different culprits and different risks.Secretary of State Races: Facing G.O.P. candidates who spread lies about the 2020 election, Democrats are outspending them 57-to-1 on TV ads for their secretary of state candidates. It still may not be enough.Mr. Fetterman has long sought to turn the Oz campaign’s attacks on his health to his advantage. “Recovering from a stroke in public isn’t easy,” he recently wrote on Twitter. “But in January, I’m going to be much better — and Dr. Oz will still be a fraud.”Still, Democrats worry that any off-key moment by Mr. Fetterman could go viral and affect the outcome of the race.“We are prepared for Oz’s allies and right-wing media to circulate malicious viral videos after the debate that try to paint John in a negative light because of awkward pauses, missing some words, and mushing other words together,” Rebecca Katz, Mr. Fetterman’s senior communications adviser, and Brendan McPhillips, his campaign manager, wrote in a memo on Monday.Although Mr. Fetterman has sat for one-on-one interviews with news outlets using closed captioning, the debate will move much faster — with cross-talk and interruptions — and it is unclear how the technology that Mr. Fetterman relies on will keep up, and how he will respond.His auditory processing issues mean that he typically avoids situations when voices and noise come from multiple directions. He has held no free-for-all meetings with voters or a gaggle of reporters..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.Ahead of the debate, the Fetterman campaign sought to lower expectations. “John is five months post-stroke and Oz has spent the last two decades literally in a TV studio; if there’s a home-field advantage, it’s definitely his,’’ said Ms. Katz, who is overseeing his debate preparations.In an earlier debate during the Democratic primary race that predated Mr. Fetterman’s stroke, he was considered the least verbally dexterous of the three candidates, though he went on to win the nomination easily.“Please remember that John did not get where he is by winning debates, or being a polished speaker,” Ms. Katz said. “He got here because he connects with Pennsylvanians.”Mr. Fetterman, who had a stroke days before the Democratic primary in May, later had a pacemaker and defibrillator implanted to address atrial fibrillation — an irregular heart rhythm — which was the underlying cause of the stroke. In June, the campaign released a statement from Mr. Fetterman’s cardiologist, Dr. Ramesh R. Chandra, that said the candidate also has cardiomyopathy, a weakened heart muscle.In a letter released last week, Mr. Fetterman’s primary care doctor, Dr. Clifford Chen, said he is “recovering well” from his stroke. He is continuing to get speech therapy, which experts say is standard treatment for an auditory processing disorder. Experts also say such disorders often improve with time, and do not render a person unable to hold public office.Research shows that people who have had strokes improve more rapidly in the beginning, said Dr. Clinton Wright, director of the division of clinical research at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. But Mr. Wright said the data show that patients can continue to improve a year after the stroke.“This is a teachable moment,” said Jean Hall, director of the Institute for Health and Disability Policy Studies at the University of Kansas. “My question would be, What if his stroke had resulted in him being deaf and he needed a sign language interpreter?”Medical experts say that is an apt comparison, though auditory processing disorders have nothing to do with hearing. Rather, people with such disorders have a hard time processing small sound differences in words, because their brains don’t hear sounds in the usual way. Closed captioning makes conversations easier to follow.“Auditory processing has nothing to do with a person’s intelligence or the ideas in their head or their thoughts,” said Dr. Peter Turkeltaub, a neurologist and director of the Cognitive Recovery Lab at Georgetown University Medical Center. “It’s just the input and output: Can you connect those ideas to the words you are hearing, and then can you take the ideas and connect them to your own words?”People with disabilities have long held public office. Franklin D. Roosevelt used a wheelchair, although he tried to hide it from the public. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Representative Jim Langevin of Rhode Island also use wheelchairs.But visible physical limitations are easier to explain to voters, said Lisa Iezzoni, a professor at Harvard Medical School who researches health disparities on people with disabilities. Because voters can’t clearly see Mr. Fetterman’s disability, however, he must fight “this perception that his mind was altered in some way.”In Mr. Fetterman’s first live television interview since his stroke, which was broadcast on Oct. 11 by NBC News, the reporter Dasha Burns told viewers that before the formal interview, Mr. Fetterman seemed not to follow her attempts at small talk without his monitor.“Quite frankly, it really infuriated me,” said Judy Heumann, a longtime leader in the disability rights movement, who helped pass the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990 and later served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations. “Voters should be looking at what he’s doing and what he’s saying, and not whether he uses a communications device.”Over the weekend, Dr. Oz steered the conversation away from Mr. Fetterman’s health toward his policies. “I just want him to show up on Tuesday so we can talk to Pennsylvania about our policies, and let them see how extreme his positions have been,” he told Fox News.The Fetterman campaign believes that Dr. Oz and his allies in the right-wing news media went too far in calling attention for months to Mr. Fetterman’s sometimes halting speech and fumbling for words. They say it might work to Mr. Fetterman’s advantage, by lowering expectations for his performance.“Even if he stumbles on a few words here and there, I don’t think it’s a big deal to voters,” said Mike Mikus, a Democratic strategist. “There’s a lot more opportunity than risk for John Fetterman in this debate.”Dr. Iezzoni, the Harvard professor, said the debate would be a referendum on voters as well. The World Health Organization, she said, has described having a disability as a “universal human experience.” Seeing Mr. Fetterman use closed captioning — and answer questions in a halting, not necessarily fluent way — will test the public’s tolerance for differences, she said.“It will be interesting to know whether the public has empathy for human frailty, which we all experience in some way or another,” she said. “Will they be willing to look past it or do they demand perfection?”Katie Glueck More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      This Wasn’t the Vibe Shift Democrats Had in Mind

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, as you know, I always try to avoid discussing foreign affairs — never been my specialty — but I do want to ask you about the British, um, situation.Bret Stephens: You mean the country that seems to have switched places with Silvio Berlusconi’s Italy, politically speaking, and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s Argentina, economically speaking, and Groucho Marx’s Freedonia, comically speaking? Go on.Gail: The Tory prime minister, Liz Truss, set a record for failure before she slunk out of office last week. She came into 10 Downing Street promising to cut taxes on the rich, and she did, and she … nose-dived.Any message there for the rest of us?Bret: When Margaret Thatcher was pressed on whether she would switch course on her free-market policies, she famously said, “The lady’s not for turning.” She went on to be one of the longest-serving prime ministers in British history. Truss turned against her own policies almost immediately and wound up being turned out of office almost immediately.So the first lesson is that if you announce a policy, have the guts to stick to it or face political destruction.Gail: Well, in this case I think we’d have seen political destruction either way. The tax cut idea was disastrous.Bret: I’d say it was the execution, not the idea: Tax cuts usually stimulate a sluggish economy. The second lesson is that Britain’s economic mess isn’t the result of a month and a half of Truss but 12 years of big-government Toryism under David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson. Britain just isn’t an attractive country to live or invest in anymore, particularly after it made the foolish decision to leave the European Union.Bottom line: Have the courage of your convictions and the wit to defend them. Your take?Gail: That cutting taxes on the rich isn’t the magic answer to economic problems. I believe in a lot of what you’d call big government, but sooner or later, you’ve gotta pay for stuff.Bret: Gail Collins, fiscal conservative …Gail: Speaking of debt, President Biden’s plan to start his program of canceling student loans to poor and middle-class borrowers is facing a slew of Republican court challenges.I’m rooting for him to win the fight — a matter on which I believe we disagree.Bret: Totally against loan forgiveness. We’ve increased the national debt from $20 trillion to $31 trillion in barely five years and now higher interest rates are going to make it more expensive to service that debt. And we are supposed to write off $400 billion in college loans — including to couples making up to $250,000 — without even giving Congress an opportunity to weigh in? It’s bad policy and worse politics.Gail: Let me quickly point out that many of the folks who are spending their lives paying off big student loans signed up for the deal when they were little more than kids, some not ready for the programs they were recruited into, and some who were assured that their major in medieval history would lead to high-income jobs that would make it easy to pay off the debt. The system did not work.Bret: I probably shouldn’t say this, but anyone who thought, at any age, that a degree in medieval history would lead to a life of riches needs stupidity forgiveness, not loan forgiveness.I guess we’ll find out soon enough if the courts even allow the plan to go through, though I did find it interesting that Amy Coney Barrett effectively sided with the administration on this issue. Nice to see a Trump nominee show some independence.Gail: Agreed. Meanwhile, I’ve been wanting to ask you about the Senate races. The whole world is watching! Or at least the politically obsessed part of America. Anything grabbing your interest?Bret: The most interesting Senate race is in Ohio. I really don’t see Tim Ryan beating J.D. Vance, but the fact that he’s even competitive in a state Trump won in 2020 by eight points suggests he’s found a formula for how Democrats win back white, working-class votes from the Republicans. Mainly that means running as far away as possible from Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and the progressive wing of his party.How about you?Gail: Since Cincinnati is my hometown, I’ve been watching Ohio pretty intently. I think Ryan has a chance — he’s in a pretty red state, but one that’s elected Democrats before. Including the state’s other senator, Sherrod Brown, who’s considered liberal.Bret: True. And just by outperforming expectations Ryan is forcing Republicans to pour a ton of money in the race just to hold the seat.Gail: Plus Ryan is running against a truly terrible candidate. Vance seems to have an unending supply of mini-scandals about his financial dealings.Bret: I thought Vance did fine in the debate last week. What bothers me about him aren’t his financial dealings. It’s the crass opportunism it took for him to flip almost overnight from Never Trumper to MAGA Republican. And the fact that he represents the isolationist wing of the conservative movement. Hard to overstate how dangerous that is in the face of the new axis of evil in Moscow, Tehran and Beijing.Gail: Also interested in New Hampshire, where the Democratic incumbent, Maggie Hassan, seemed doomed in a Republican-leaning year, given that she won her last election by only about 1,000 votes.But her opponent, the retired general Don Bolduc, has been another awful candidate — all over the map, trying to be a right-wing stalwart in the primaries and now metamorphosing into a moderate who wants to raise Social Security taxes on the wealthy.Who would you vote for there?Bret: Hassan, no question. She’s a good senator, willing to work across the aisle. I would have supported the Republican governor, Chris Sununu, if he’d decided to run, but apparently the sanity gene runs too strongly in his family so he stayed out of the race. And Bolduc isn’t just an election denier or even an election-denier denier — in that he retracted his denialism after he won the primary. It’s that he subsequently denied that he denied being a denier. Which means he should be denied the election.Gail: Bret, either you are the most fair-minded commentator in the country or this is yet another marker for how far the Republican Party has sunk. Even its defenders can’t defend many of this year’s candidates.I’m inclined to say both are true, by the way.Bret: Thanks! Can we switch to some of the races for governor? In New York the Republican candidate, Lee Zeldin, seems to be zooming up in the polls.Gail: Aauugh. If this was a New York Republican like your old fave George Pataki, I’d be unshocked — Gov. Kathy Hochul hasn’t exactly set the world on fire. But Zeldin is terrible! If you want to get a really good feel for this contest, read our editorial board’s very powerful Hochul endorsement.Bret: Zeldin is doing well because New Yorkers are doing badly. We have the highest overall tax burden in the country if you count income, property, sales and excise taxes, but we are very far from having the best school districts, the best infrastructure or the safest streets. The only area in which we lead the country is in losing people to other states. And one-party rule is bad for governance. There are things I don’t like about Zeldin, starting with his proximity to Donald Trump, but I’ll vote for him next month.Gail: Looking elsewhere — how about Arizona? The race pits Katie Hobbs, the Democratic secretary of state, against Kari Lake, a Republican TV personality. I certainly think Hobbs would make the better governor. But if Lake wins I could see her turning into a possible vice-presidential candidate on a Trump ticket.Bret: Our news-side colleague Jack Healy wrote a devastating report about Hobbs, whose personal strengths apparently don’t include campaigning. She refuses to debate her opponent on the grounds that Lake is an election denier, which seems to me like an especially good reason to debate. My bet is that the governorship stays in Republican hands — and that it might push Blake Masters to victory in his Senate race against the incumbent Democrat, Mark Kelly.Gail: It was a great piece, which did note that Lake refuses to answer any questions from the state’s major newspaper.Bret: Bigger picture, Gail, I suspect it’s going to be a pretty good November for Republicans, despite all of the lousy candidates they’ve put forward. Do you see this as just part of a natural cycle in which the incumbent party usually does badly in midterms? Or would you put some blame on the way Biden has handled the presidency so far?Gail: In a world full of war, energy shortages, health crises and political polarization, our president is doing a decent job of keeping things calm. Wish he had a more electric personality, but we’ve certainly learned there are worse things than a chief executive who isn’t great on camera.It is true that the incumbent party usually does poorly during the midterms. Fortunately, the Republicans under Trump have nominated so many terrible candidates that there’s a chance the results won’t be quite as dire for Biden’s side.What do you think? And more important, which side are you rooting for?Bret: I’m rooting for Biden to succeed because we can’t allow Trump to come back, Vladimir Putin to win or the country to come even more unglued and unhinged than it already is.Of course my way of rooting for success is to scold Biden nonstop whenever I think he’s screwing up. It’s a formula my mom has been using with me for nearly 49 years. She’s confident that in a few years more, she might even succeed.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Three Blunders of Joe Biden

      by

      If the Democrats end up losing both the House and the Senate, an outcome that looks more likely than it did a month ago, there will be nothing particularly shocking about the result. The incumbent president’s party almost always suffers losses in the midterms, the Democrats entered 2022 with thin majorities and a not-that-favorable Senate map, and the Western world is dealing with a war-driven energy crunch that’s generally rough on incumbent parties, both liberal and conservative. (Just ask poor Liz Truss.)But as an exculpating narrative for the Biden administration, this goes only so far. Some races will inevitably be settled on the margins, control of the Senate may be as well, and on the margins there’s always something a president could have done differently to yield a better political result.President Biden’s case is no exception: The burdens of the midterms have been heavier for Democrats than they needed to be because of three notable failures, three specific courses that his White House set.The first fateful course began, as Matthew Continetti noted recently in The Washington Free Beacon, in the initial days of the administration, when Biden made critical decisions on energy and immigration that his party’s activists demanded: for environmentalists, a moratorium on new oil-and-gas leases on public lands and, for immigration advocates, a partial rollback of key Trump administration border policies.What followed, in both arenas, was a crisis: first a surge of migration to the southern border, then the surge in gas prices driven by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.There is endless debate about how much the initial Biden policy shifts contributed to the twin crises; a reasonable bet is that his immigration moves did help inspire the migration surge, while his oil-lease policy will affect the price of gas in 2024 but didn’t change much in the current crunch.But crucially, both policy shifts framed these crises, however unintentionally, as things the Biden administration sought — more illegal immigration and higher gas prices, just what liberals always want! And then instead of a dramatic attempt at reframing, prioritizing domestic energy and border enforcement, the Biden White House fiddled with optics and looked for temporary fixes: handing Kamala Harris the border portfolio, turning the dials on the strategic petroleum reserve and generally confirming the public’s existing bias that if you want a party to take immigration enforcement and oil production seriously, you should vote Republican.The second key failure also belongs to the administration’s early days. In February 2021, when congressional Democrats were preparing a $1.9 trillion stimulus, a group of Republican senators counteroffered with a roughly $600 billion proposal. Flush with overconfidence, the White House spurned the offer and pushed three times as much money into the economy on a party-line vote.What followed was what a few dissenting center-left economists, led by Larry Summers, had predicted: the worst acceleration of inflation in decades, almost certainly exacerbated by the sheer scale of the relief bill. Whereas had Biden taken the Republicans up on their proposal or even simply counteroffered and begun negotiations, he could have started his administration off on the bipartisan footing his campaign had promised while‌ hedging against the inflationary dangers that ultimately arrived.The third failure is likewise a failure to hedge and triangulate, but this time on culture rather than economic policy. Part of Biden’s appeal as a candidate was his longstanding record as a social moderate — an old-school, center-left Catholic rather than a zealous progressive.His presidency has offered multiple opportunities to actually inhabit the moderate persona. On transgender issues, for instance, the increasing qualms of European countries about puberty blockers offered potential cover for Biden to call for greater caution around the use of medical interventions for gender-dysphoric teenagers. Instead, his White House has chosen to effectively deny that any real debate exists, positioning the administration to the left of Sweden.Then there is the Dobbs decision, whose unpopularity turned abortion into a likely political winner for Democrats — provided, that is, that they could cast themselves as moderates and Republicans as zealots.Biden could have led that effort, presenting positions he himself held in the past — support for Roe v. Wade but also for late-term restrictions and the Hyde Amendment — as the natural national consensus, against the pro-life absolutism of first-trimester bans. Instead, he’s receded and left Democratic candidates carrying the activist line that absolutely no restrictions are permissible, an unpopular position perfectly designed to squander the party’s post-Roe advantage.The question in the last case, and to some extent with all these issues, is whether a more moderate or triangulating Biden could have held his coalition together.But this question too often becomes an excuse for taking polarization and 50-50 politics for granted. A strong president, by definition, should be able to pull his party toward the center when politics demands it. So if Biden feels he can’t do that, it suggests that he’s internalized his own weakness and accepted in advance what probably awaits the Democrats next month: defeat.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Super PAC Aligned with Senate G.O.P. Cuts Off New Hampshire TV Ads

      by

      In a sign that New Hampshire is at risk of falling off the map of Senate battleground states, the main super PAC aligned with Senate Republicans said on Friday that it was canceling $5.6 million in television ads that it had reserved in the state for the final two weeks of the race.Republicans in New Hampshire, which was once seen as one of the party’s top chances to pick up a seat in 2022, nominated Don Bolduc, a Trump-style retired Army general, to run against Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat. Mr. Bolduc has sparred with the state’s popular governor, Chris Sununu, a Republican who tagged Mr. Bolduc in turn as a “conspiracy-theory extremist.”National Republicans had spent money late in the race to prevent Mr. Bolduc’s nomination, but he won the primary in September anyway. Mr. Bolduc has promoted hard-right views, suggesting he would consider abolishing the F.B.I. and asserting that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald J. Trump — before reversing himself immediately after the primary, and then seeming to backtrack from that reversal. Mr. Bolduc has also been adamant that if he wins, he will not support Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as the party leader. “As the cycle comes to a close, we are shifting resources to where they can be most effective to achieve our ultimate goal: winning the majority,” said Steven Law, the president of the super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, which is aligned with Mr. McConnell.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.A spokeswoman for Mr. Bolduc said he would continue to meet voters “one by one” in town halls, in defiance of the national group’s vote of no confidence.“General Bolduc has defied the naysayers from the beginning and that’s the same approach he is going to take through the finish line to victory,” the spokeswoman, Kate Constantini, said in a statement.Asked if the Bolduc campaign considered the withdrawal of support to be payback for Mr. Bolduc’s rejection of Mr. McConnell as party leader, Rick Wiley, a senior adviser to Mr. Bolduc, said, “You would have to ask them.”The move by the Senate Leadership Fund comes two weeks after the National Republican Senatorial Committee canceled its television reservations in the state.At the time, Chris Hartline, the communications director for the N.R.S.C., said, “We’re glad to see Republican outside forces showing up in a big way in New Hampshire, with millions in spending pledged to take down Maggie Hassan in the final stretch.”Now those outside forces are retreating, as well.Mr. Hartline said on Friday that “our most recent polling has the race inside the margin of error.”“Don Bolduc is working his tail off and has turned it into a tossup,” he said. “There’s no reason to think he can’t win this race.”The decision puzzled some Republicans. Tom Rath, a longtime Republican activist and leader in New Hampshire, wrote on Twitter of the ad cancellation, “Seems odd given recent polling showing race within the margin.”Matt Schlapp, the chair of the American Conservative Union, called the move “odd” as well, saying the race was “almost tied.”Of Mr. Bolduc, Mr. Schlapp wrote on Twitter while misspelling his name: “If he does pull it out without Senate help he will become their worst nightmare. Keep your eyes on NH.”An internal poll released on Thursday by the Bolduc campaign showed Ms. Hassan leading Mr. Bolduc by 49 percent to 47 percent among likely voters, within the margin of error.Ms. Hassan entered October with $4.8 million. Mr. Bolduc had less than $800,000. More