More stories

  • in

    Republicans Denounce Inflation, but Few Economists Expect Their Plans to Help

    WASHINGTON — Republicans are riding a wave of anger over inflation as they seek to recapture the House and the Senate this fall, hammering Democrats on President Biden’s economic policies, which they say have fueled the fastest price gains in 40 years.Republican candidates have centered their economic agenda on promises to help Americans cope with everyday price increases and to increase growth. They have pledged to reduce government spending and to make permanent parts of the 2017 Republican tax cuts that are set to expire over the next three years — including incentives for corporate investment and tax reductions for individuals.And they have vowed to repeal the corporate tax increases that Mr. Biden signed into law in August while gutting funding for the Internal Revenue Service, which was given more money to help the United States go after high-earning and corporate tax cheats.“The very fact that Republicans are poised to take back majorities in both chambers is an indictment of the policies of this administration,” said Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, noting that “if you look at the spending that they did on a partisan basis, we certainly would be able to stop that.”But while Republicans insist they will be better stewards of the economy, few economists on either end of the ideological spectrum expect the party’s proposals to meaningfully reduce inflation in the short term. Instead, many say some of what Republicans are proposing — including tax cuts for high earners and businesses — could actually make price pressures worse by pumping more money into the economy.“It is unlikely that any of the policies proposed by Republicans would meaningfully reduce inflation in 2023, when rapidly rising prices will still be a major problem for the economy and for consumers,” said Michael R. Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.As they position themselves for the midterm elections, Republicans have also indicated that they might try to hold the nation’s borrowing limit hostage to achieve spending cuts. The debt ceiling, which caps how much the federal government can borrow, has increasingly become a fraught arena for political brinkmanship.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.Multiple top Republicans have signaled that unless Mr. Biden agrees to reduce future government spending, they will refuse to lift the borrowing cap. That would effectively bar the federal government from issuing new bonds to finance its deficit spending, potentially jeopardizing on-time payments for military salaries and safety-net benefits, and roiling bond markets.Mr. Biden has tried to push back against the Republicans and cast the election not as a referendum on his economic policies, but as a choice between Democratic policies to reduce costs on health care and electricity and Republican efforts to repeal those policies. He has accused Republicans of stoking further price increases with tax cuts that could add to the federal budget deficit, and of risking financial calamity by refusing to raise the debt limit.“We, the Democrats, are the ones that are fiscally responsible. Let’s get that straight now, OK?” Mr. Biden said during remarks on Monday to workers at the Democratic National Committee. “We’re investing in all of America, reducing everyday costs while also lowering the deficit at the same time. Republicans are fiscally reckless, pushing tax cuts for the very wealthy that aren’t paid for, and exploiting the deficit that is making inflation worse.”The challenge for Mr. Biden is that voters do not seem to be demanding details from Republicans and are instead putting their trust in them to turn around an economy that voters believe is headed in the wrong direction. Polls suggest Americans trust Republicans by a wide margin to handle inflation and other economic issues.In a nationwide deluge of campaign ads and in public remarks, Republicans have pinned much of their inflation-fighting agenda on halting a stimulus spending spree that began under President Donald J. Trump and continued under Mr. Biden, in an effort to help people and businesses survive the pandemic recession. Those efforts have largely ended, and Mr. Biden has shown no desire to pass further stimulus legislation at a time of rapid price growth.Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement that “the first step in combating inflation is to stop the historically reckless spending spree occurring under one-party Democrat rule in Washington, and that will only happen with a Republican majority in Congress.”.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.“Republicans,” he added, “will fight to bring down the cost of living and impose fiscal restraint in Washington, and that begins by ensuring Democrats are not able to impose round after round of new inflationary spending.”Economists largely agree that the Federal Reserve is most responsible for fighting inflation, which policymakers are trying to do with rapid interest rates increases. But they say Congress could plausibly help the Fed by reducing budget deficits, in order to slow the amount of consumer spending power in the economy.One way to do that would be to significantly and quickly reduce federal spending. Such a move could result in widespread government layoffs and reduced support for low-income individuals — who would be less able to afford increasingly expensive food and other staples — and could prompt a recession. “The amount of cuts you’d have to do to move the needle on inflation are completely off the table,” said Jon Lieber, a former aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky who is now the Eurasia Group’s managing director for the United States.Still, Mr. Lieber said that likelihood would not sully the Republican pitch to voters this fall. “Midterm votes are a referendum on the party in power,” he said, “and the party in power has responsibility for inflation.”“The very fact that Republicans are poised to take back majorities in both chambers is an indictment of the policies of this administration,” said Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesBiden administration officials contend that the Republican plans, rather than curbing inflation, could worsen America’s fiscal situation.Administration economists estimate that two policies favored by Republicans — repealing a new minimum tax on large corporations included in the Inflation Reduction Act and extending some business tax cuts from Mr. Trump’s 2017 legislation — could collectively increase the federal budget deficit by about $90 billion next year.Such an increase could cause the Federal Reserve to raise rates even faster than it already is, further choking economic growth. Or, alternatively, it could add a small amount to the annual inflation rate — perhaps as much as 0.2 percentage points. Fully repealing the Inflation Reduction Act would also mean raising future costs for prescription drugs for seniors on Medicare, including for insulin, and potentially raising future electricity costs.“Their plan to repeal the I.R.A. and double down on the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy will worsen inflation,” said Jared Bernstein, a member of Mr. Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers. “On top of that, they’re also explicit that they’re coming for Social Security and Medicare, making this a terribly destructive agenda that starts by fighting the Fed and moves on to devastating vulnerable seniors.”Conservative economists say the inflation impact of extending Mr. Trump’s tax cuts could be much smaller, because those extensions could lead businesses to invest more, people to work more and growth to increase across the economy. They also say Republicans could help relieve price pressures, particularly for electricity and gasoline, by following through on their proposals to reduce federal regulations governing new energy development.“Those things are going to be positive for investment, job creation and capacity” in the economy, said Donald Schneider, a former chief economist for Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee and the deputy head of U.S. policy at Piper Sandler.A budget proposal unveiled this year by the Republican Study Committee, a conservative policy group within the House Republican conference, included plans to permanently extend the Trump tax cuts and to impose work requirements on federal benefits programs, in hopes of reducing federal spending on the programs and increasing the number of workers in the economy.“We know for a fact that federal spending continues to keep inflation high, which is why a top priority in next year’s Republican majority will be to root out waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money,” Representative Kevin Hern, Republican of Oklahoma, said in a statement. Mr. Hern, who helped devise the budget, called it “one of many proposals to address the dire situation we’re in.”As they eye the majority, top Republicans have suggested that they will consider an economically risky strategy to potentially force Mr. Biden to agree to spending cuts, including for safety-net programs. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, who is the minority leader and is seen as the clear pick to be speaker should Republicans win control of the House, suggested to Punchbowl News this month that he would be open to withholding Republican votes to raise the federal borrowing limit unless Mr. Biden and Democrats agreed to policy changes that curb spending.How to use that leverage has divided Republicans. Some, like Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who fended off a Trump-backed primary challenger, are supportive of that option.But other Republicans — particularly candidates laboring to present a more centrist platform in swing districts held by Democrats — have shied away from openly supporting cuts to safety-net programs.“Absolutely not,” Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a Republican and former mayor running in Oregon’s Fifth Congressional District, said when asked if she would support cuts to Medicare and Social Security as a way to rein in federal spending. “Cutting those programs is not where I, as a Republican, see myself. I want to make sure that we can fill those coffers.” More

  • in

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

    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

  • in

    Campaign Press Aides Move From the Shadows to Social Media Stardom

    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

  • in

    ‘Maybe Gen Z Is Just Kinder’: How America’s Youngest Voters are Shaping Politics

    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 argument@nytimes.com 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

  • in

    5 Takeaways From the Pennsylvania Senate Debate

    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

    Rishi Sunak’s Challenge: Unifying the Party and Fixing the Economy

    The Conservative Party is fractured and Britain’s public finances are battered. That will test the political skills of a leader who has been involved in national politics for only seven years.LONDON — Rishi Sunak took over as Britain’s prime minister on Tuesday, the third in seven weeks, hoping to slow the revolving door at 10 Downing Street and restore stability to a government in turmoil.But as he assembled a cabinet and began to confront a grave economic crisis, Mr. Sunak faced formidable political challenges, for which analysts said his seven-year career in national politics had not fully prepared him. The swift, truncated nature of his election may further complicate his task.Having been elected with the votes of some 200 Conservative Party lawmakers, but not the party’s rank-and-file members, Mr. Sunak could have trouble claiming a mandate to lead a deeply fractured party, let alone the whole country. With his government forced into spending cuts and tax increases, he will have few resources with which to reward either his lawmakers or the public.“He’s inheriting a divided party with a large number of Conservative M.P.s and members who believe he has no legitimate mandate,” said Matthew Goodwin, a professor of politics at the University of Kent. “That’s compounded by the fact that the party is in a free-fall and it’s not clear it has a parachute.”And yet, on a day of now-familiar rituals, as Mr. Sunak, the fifth prime minister in six years, traveled to Buckingham Palace to be anointed by King Charles III, there was also a calm in British politics — something that had been missing since Boris Johnson’s chaotic departure this past summer.Much of that owed to the 42-year-old prime minister himself: His well-received address to the nation on Tuesday showed a degree of political awareness, conceding the mistakes of his predecessor, Liz Truss, and promising improvement, while also reaching out to her and Mr. Johnson.“I will place economic stability and confidence at the heart of this government’s agenda,” a somber and solitary Mr. Sunak said on Downing Street, after returning from the palace. “This will mean difficult decisions to come.”Mr. Sunak and King Charles III in Buckingham Palace on Tuesday.Pool photo by Aaron ChownHis decision to appear there without his wife or daughters, and to dispense with the cheering staff members that greeted Ms. Truss last month, lent his arrival a brisk, businesslike tone. It also underlined the contrast between Mr. Sunak and his predecessor, which he said would extend beyond optics.A former chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Sunak is expected to pull Britain back to more mainstream policies after Ms. Truss’s experiment in trickle-down economics, which rattled financial markets and badly damaged Britain’s fiscal reputation.More on the Political Turmoil in BritainMaking History: Rishi Sunak is the first person of color and the first Hindu to become prime minister of Britain — a milestone for a nation that is more and more ethnically diverse but also roiled by occasional anti-immigrant fervor.Economic Challenges: Sunak already has experience steering Britain’s public finances as chancellor of the Exchequer. That won’t make tackling the current crisis any easier.Political Primaries: Are primary elections of British leaders driving Britain’s dysfunction? The rise and fall of Liz Truss offers some lessons.Lifelong Allowance: As a former prime minister, Ms. Truss is eligible for a taxpayer-funded annual payout for the rest of her life. Some say she shouldn’t be allowed to receive it.“Mistakes were made,” Mr. Sunak said. “Not borne of ill will or bad intentions. Quite the opposite, in fact. But mistakes, nonetheless. And I have been elected as leader of my party, and your prime minister, in part, to fix them.”Mr. Sunak quickly set about selecting a cabinet remarkable for its familiar faces. He retained Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor whom Ms. Truss installed after ousting Kwasi Kwarteng, the architect of ill-fated tax cuts. Mr. Hunt, who has soothed the markets, is scheduled to present a more detailed fiscal plan on Oct. 31.Mr. Sunak also kept on Ben Wallace as defense secretary and James Cleverly as foreign secretary, even though both had backed Mr. Johnson over him in the leadership race. And he retained Penny Mordaunt, who mounted a spirited challenge to him in that contest, as leader of the House of Commons.It was a striking contrast to Ms. Truss, whose cabinet consisted almost entirely of people who had backed her for leader, and it seemed to signal a recognition by Mr. Sunak that he could not succeed by drawing dividing lines in the party.Clockwise from top left: Jeremy Hunt, Ben Wallace, Dominic Raab, Michael Gove, Suella Braverman, James Cleverly.AFP — Getty; EPA, via Shutterstock; EPA, via Shutterstock; EPA, via Shutterstock; AFP — Getty; AFP — GettyMost conspicuously, Mr. Sunak reappointed Suella Braverman as home secretary, a job she had been forced out of only a week ago, ostensibly because she breached security rules. Her appointment was a gesture to the Conservative Party’s right flank: Ms. Braverman is a hard-liner who wants to cut immigration numbers. She said her “dream” was to see flights deporting asylum seekers from Britain to Rwanda.Mr. Sunak did reward some loyalists, naming Dominic Raab, who campaigned faithfully for him, as deputy prime minister and justice minister, posts he held under Mr. Johnson.Ms. Truss made her own appearance at Downing Street in the morning with her family, after formally submitting her resignation to the king, just seven weeks after she had been anointed by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in one of her last official acts, two days before her death.In defiant, unapologetic farewell remarks, Ms. Truss took credit for protecting people from rising energy bills. Reiterating her belief in lower taxes and a fast-growing economy, she said, “I am more convinced than ever we need to be bold and confront the challenges that we face.”Taking a page from Mr. Johnson, who likened himself to the retiring fifth-century Roman politician Cincinnatus, Ms. Truss quoted the Roman philosopher Seneca: “It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare. It is because we do not dare that they are difficult.”Liz Truss after her farewell remarks on Downing Street on Tuesday.Justin Tallis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMs. Truss’s misfires have made Mr. Sunak’s job even more difficult. Britain’s straitened public finances and its higher borrowing costs — a consequence, in part, of rising interest rates in reaction to her policies — will require painful spending cuts. That will further test Mr. Sunak’s political skills. Last summer, he struggled to sell his tough-love message to party members, who preferred Ms. Truss’s supply-side remedies.“The ideological riddle that Sunak has to try to solve is how the Conservative Party, amid a profound and prolonged economic crisis, can reconnect with the voters it attracted after Brexit,” Professor Goodwin said.Mr. Sunak did reappoint Michael Gove, a seasoned minister, to a post overseeing efforts to “level up” struggling cities in the Midlands and north of England with more prosperous London. That is important to retaining working-class voters who propelled the Conservatives to their landslide general election victory in 2019.As chancellor, Mr. Sunak was lionized when he doled out billions of pounds to people who had lost their jobs because of the coronavirus pandemic. He sponsored another good-news program, “Eat Out to Help Out,” which subsidized meals at restaurants to revive the industry after lockdowns.But when it came to withdrawing those benefits and raising taxes, Mr. Sunak’s reputation unsurprisingly suffered. During his campaign against Ms. Truss, he struggled to stick to his message of fiscal conservatism. Under pressure from her promises of tax cuts, he said he would temporarily suspend the value-added tax, a sales tax, on energy bills — something that he had earlier rejected.“He doesn’t have a lot of what I’d call trench-fighting experience,” said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London. “His progress through the party has been so rapid that he hasn’t spent years forging friendships with colleagues who’ve got his back come what may.”Mr. Sunak and his wife Akshata Murty at the British Asian Trust Reception at the British Museum in London, in February.Vickie Flores/EPA, via ShutterstockProfessor Bale said Mr. Sunak was also thin-skinned about criticism he faced last spring of his wife, Akshata Murty, the daughter of an Indian technology billionaire, for her privileged tax status. Her so-called non-domicile status allowed her to avoid paying taxes in Britain on millions of pounds of her global income (she eventually agreed to pay British taxes).While Mr. Sunak’s sensitive reaction to the attacks against his wife may have been understandable, he is likely to face many more of them in the coming months from an opposition Labour Party that will seize on his extreme wealth to paint him as out of touch with the anxieties of ordinary people.“They don’t care that he and his family are filthy rich,” Professor Bale said. “They do care they didn’t seem to be paying their fair share. That — and his heated outdoor swimming pool and his house in Santa Monica — is going to make it difficult for him to argue, ‘We’re all in this together.’”Political analysts said the sheer magnitude of Ms. Truss’s failure was Mr. Sunak’s biggest asset. The Conservatives are trailing Labour by more than 30 percentage points in some polls. Even those who ardently opposed Mr. Sunak recognize that he is likely their last hope of avoiding a general election rout that would sweep hundreds of Conservative lawmakers out of their seats.“His M.P.s have looked over the edge of the precipice and know that, unless they get behind the guy, who is basically their last chance, they’re heading for a huge fall,” Professor Bale said. “Basically, it’s Rishi or bust.”Mr. Sunak is Britain’s third prime minister in seven weeks. Hannah Mckay/Reuters More

  • in

    How Saudi Arabia’s Blowup With Biden Threatens Democrats in 2022

    Democrats and administration officials are furious at the Saudis’ move to cut oil production, seeing it as an attempt to meddle in a U.S. election.Only three months have gone by since President Biden gave Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, the fist bump heard ’round the world.But relations between the United States and the world’s top swing producer have deteriorated markedly since then, precipitated by OPEC’s decision this month to reduce oil production. The Saudis argued that the falling price of crude oil, which had dropped to $80 a barrel, mandated the cut; U.S. officials disagreed.But coming at the height of a U.S. election season characterized by public anger over high gas prices, it looked to many Democrats like a partisan move. The U.S. had asked for a one-month delay, to no avail.The Biden administration was “blindsided by this,” said Steven Cook, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations. “And now the Saudis are dug in.”National security officials insist they weren’t blindsided. But other officials, including John Podesta, the climate czar, were furious. Many saw the move as a Saudi attempt to meddle in a U.S. election, and they viewed the Saudis as reneging on a mutual understanding the two countries had reached after the war in Ukraine took Russian oil off the market. The president said there would be “consequences,” and John Kirby, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the U.S. would be “re-evaluating our relationship with Saudi Arabia in light of these actions.”Jared Kushner’s front-row seat at an investor meeting in Riyadh this week will probably only heighten Democrats’ suspicions, as will the kingdom’s recent agreement to strengthen energy ties with Beijing. Notably, no U.S. officials were invited to the Riyadh meeting.“The White House has taken this very personally, and for understandable reasons,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He speculated that OPEC might not ultimately cut production by the full two million barrels a day that it said it would; member countries often fail to meet their production quotas anyway.“More important,” Riedel added, “is the symbolism of the president trying to reset U.S.-Saudi relations and the Saudis essentially repudiating him and humiliating him.”Riedel urged the White House to take action before the midterms, possibly by revoking maintenance contracts for Saudi warplanes or by withdrawing the U.S. troops stationed in the kingdom.Many Democrats in Congress, and some Republicans, would support a rebuke to Riyadh. Several leaders of key committees have already announced that they will refuse to approve future arms sales without a change in Saudi attitudes.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.But Representative Tom Malinowski, a Democrat from New Jersey who is on the Armed Services Committee, said he “found it a bit puzzling that the administration was pushing this on Congress at a time when Congress was out of session.”The most likely vehicle for congressional action would be an amendment attached to the annual defense authorization bill, which has passed the House but not the Senate. Saudi Arabia, Malinowski said, had become a “partisan actor” in U.S. politics, and it was time to move to punitive actions.“Any move like this would send a very powerful signal to the kingdom that the U.S. is unhappy with the crown prince,” Riedel said, noting that the young Saudi leader “has many enemies inside the kingdom.”None of that has happened yet, however; U.S. officials viewed some of the ideas kicking around Congress as impractical, and thought it was important to consult with both parties.Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said he appreciated that the administration had not acted rashly to punish Saudi Arabia, arguing in favor of a deeper reassessment of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. And if the Saudi decision accelerated U.S. moves toward alternate sources of energy, he added, it might turn out to be a “blessing in disguise.”As for fears that Saudi Arabia might turn to other security partners, such as China, Murphy and others noted the kingdom’s utter reliance on U.S. support for its military. The United States, he said, needed to get out of a situation in which “Saudi Arabia benefits from this deep security relationship, but then knifes us in the back.”A crown prince who ‘much preferred’ TrumpFor the Biden administration and the kingdom, the mutual animosity appears to be personal.The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the crown prince “mocks President Biden in private, making fun of the 79-year-old’s gaffes and questioning his mental acuity” and that he “much preferred former President Donald Trump.”For his part, Biden vowed during the 2020 campaign to make the Saudi government a “pariah” — making his fist bump with the crown prince all the more striking.But the clash with Democrats has also been long in the making. As the U.S. diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks showed, Saudi rulers were enraged by the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Iran. And they were further outraged by President Barack Obama’s decision to nudge aside Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian dictator, during the Arab Spring.Trump made it a priority to patch up U.S. ties with the Gulf. He visited Riyadh on his first presidential visit abroad — a trip defined by the famous photo of him touching a glowing orb at a counterterrorism conference.And he endorsed a Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, a tiny, iconoclastic Gulf state that was a cheerleader for the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011. A close Trump friend who became the chairman of his inaugural committee, the investor Thomas J. Barrack Jr., is currently on trial on charges that he acted as an undisclosed agent for the United Arab Emirates.The Saudis have underscored their diplomatic hostility to Biden by throwing money at Trump and his family. Kushner’s investment fund has taken on at least $2 billion in Saudi cash. And this weekend, Trump is hosting a Saudi-backed rival to the P.G.A. Tour at his golf course in Balmedie, Scotland — his second such event in recent months.Now, the Gulf nations’ budding relationship with President Vladimir Putin of Russia has become another flash point.During the Cold War, the United States leaned on Saudi Arabia to ramp up oil production, undermining high-cost Soviet producers in an effort to bankrupt the Kremlin. But in recent years, the Gulf countries have developed cordial ties with Russia.This photograph made available by Russian state media shows President Vladimir Putin meeting with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president of the United Arab Emirates, in St. Petersburg.Pavel Bednyakov/SputnikThis month, for instance, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president of the United Arab Emirates, made a high-profile visit to Moscow to meet with Putin. Foreign policy analysts saw the move as yet another slap in the face to Biden, who has backed the Ukrainian government with weapons, intelligence and heavy diplomatic support in the face of Russia’s invasion.Part of Biden’s problem in the Gulf, Cook said, is “wanting to have it both ways.”Biden began his term by embracing Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump exited and the Saudis vigorously oppose. He also reversed Trump’s policies on the bloody Saudi-led war in Yemen, blasted the Saudi government for killing the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and talked up the shift away from hydrocarbon-based energy — only to backtrack this summer as gasoline prices squeezed U.S. consumers.“The kingdom and its neighbors view the appeasement of Iran as the foundational error preventing cooperation on many other issues,” said Rob Greenway, a former senior Middle East official on Trump’s National Security Council.In the long run, though, Saudi Arabia might have less leverage than its leaders assume. High oil prices are a momentary annoyance for Americans, but the future of energy is an existential one for Riyadh — and the United States has become a significant producer over the last decade. As Riedel put it, “We don’t need them the way we used to need them.”Malinowski, noting that Saudi Arabia had snapped to attention in 2020 after Trump threatened to pull out U.S. troops, said, “It’s time to act like a superpower, not a supplicant.”What to readOne of this year’s most anticipated debates is tonight in Pennsylvania, where Lt. Gov. John Fetterman will face Mehmet Oz in their pivotal Senate race. Here’s what we’re watching for, and you can follow live updates here.As Republican candidates make crime a central midterm issue, they are running ads against Black candidates that appeal to white fears and resentments — and they are brushing off criticism of such tactics with unabashed defiance, Jonathan Weisman writes.Many political observers trying to forecast the midterms note that as gas prices go up and down, the public’s mood tends to follow. Why, our Upshot team asks, does the cost of fuel have such power over us?The governor’s race in New York, where Gov. Kathy Hochul was expected to coast to victory, is now too close for Democrats’ comfort, Nicholas Fandos reports.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More