Midterm Elections (2022)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 50 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Misinformation Beat, Translated

      by

      To report an article on the spread of false narratives in non-English languages, the journalist Tiffany Hsu spent time on fringe platforms — and Google Translate.Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.Facts are facts no matter the language in which they are shared. Ahead of the midterm elections, misleading translations and blatant falsehoods about topics such as inflation and election fraud are swirling in non-English languages on social media — and multilingual fact checkers are struggling to keep up.The Times journalist Tiffany Hsu tackled this topic in a recent report. After spending several years on the media beat for The Times, she joined the team covering disinformation and misinformation this summer. (Disinformation means a coordinated campaign by people or organizations that generally know the information is false; misinformation, as Ms. Hsu puts it, is when your uncle repeats something he read on Facebook, not realizing the post wasn’t factual.) For the article, Ms. Hsu spoke with about a dozen researchers — and spent time on Google Translate — to understand how the spread of falsehoods may target immigrant communities and affect the vote.In an interview on Thursday, Ms. Hsu shared more about her recent reporting. This conversation has been edited.When did you start to hear about misinformation in other languages?My family is from Taiwan, and for several years now there has been this interesting flow of content from not only Taiwanese producers, but also Taiwanese American producers and mainland Chinese producers that reaches immigrants like my parents in this country. Often a lot of that information is twisted or is just flat-out wrong.Misinformation, especially in Spanish, was a big problem in 2020. Jennifer Medina wrote a great couple of stories for us on this during that election. I was talking to researchers and many of them were pointing out that the problem had not only not gone away, it had gotten worse. We were entering the midterm season with more fact checkers working in different languages, but also with more misinformation on more topics in more languages on more platforms.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With elections next month, a Times/Siena poll shows that independents, especially women, are swinging toward the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights as voters worry about the economy.Questioning 2020: Hundreds of Republicans on the ballot this November have cast doubt on the 2020 election, a Times analysis found. Many of these candidates are favored to win their races.Georgia Senate Race: The contest, which could determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate, has become increasingly focused on the private life and alleged hypocrisy of Herschel Walker, the Republican nominee.Jill Biden: The first lady, who has become a lifeline for Democratic candidates trying to draw attention and money in the midterms, is the most popular surrogate in the Biden administration.Do you spend a lot of time on fringe services?For this particular story, because it covered so many different languages that I’m not familiar with, the researchers were a fantastic lifeline. I would reach out to them and say, “This narrative is circulating in English language communities. Are you seeing this in Spanish or Chinese or Vietnamese or Hindi?” They would tell me if they had, and often, they had.Generally in my reporting, I spend a lot of time on various platforms like Gab, Telegram, Truth Social, Rumble and TikTok. This morning, I was commuting on the train, and I spent an hour scrolling through TikTok, looking at videos that were tagged with the midterm hashtag and seeing quite a lot that were not fully factual.Has your work changed the way that you use social media?Absolutely. I had been on Facebook for a while. I was on Instagram for a long time, and I used to look at it just as entertainment. But ever since taking on the media beat and now the misinformation beat, I’m hyperconscious of what’s being served to me. Covering this beat has personally been helpful to me because it’s trained me to stop and think about what it is I’m seeing on these platforms and to not take everything at face value.In your reporting, you already have to cut through what’s true and what’s not. Now you have to do that in languages that you don’t speak. What tools did you use?Every time a researcher, tipster or my editor sends me a post, I try to find it myself either on one of the platforms or through Wayback Machine, which often can find deleted posts. I try to confirm for myself the post does in fact exist in the form that it was sent to me.And a lot of Google Translate. I’m lucky in that I know a lot of people who speak these popular languages, so I run a lot of the content by them. A lot of what ended up in the story had already been independently fact-checked by many excellent fact-checking groups like Factchequeado and Viet Fact Check. The key with all stories is to find the authoritative sources and then try to double check them.What audience are you thinking about?I don’t think about audience per se, because I’m not coming into this with an angle. I’m not trying to convince a disbelieving audience, and I’m not trying to back up what a supportive audience might think. What I’m trying to do is look at the content that’s out there and determine whether or not it’s accurate. If it’s not accurate, I’m trying to prove why and then explain what some of the consequences might be. My job is to lay out the evidence and readers will determine for themselves whether or not that’s convincing to them.As we approach the midterms, what most concerns you?There’s a lot of chatter still on a lot of these platforms and in other mediums about the integrity of elections. That, from everything I’ve heard, is very dangerous. There’s a piece of research that says that new voters are most likely to be Latino. Primarily Spanish-speaking voters are at risk of being exposed to disinformation about voting. There have been changes in voting policies that make the election process confusing, even to a native English speaker. To have this doubt swirling in the environment heading into a really consequential election is problematic, especially when so many diasporic communities are going to become or are becoming very powerful voting centers.The midterms are important, which is why a lot of our coverage right now is focused on political misinformation. But misinformation is everywhere. It touches every single topic you can think of: Parenting groups, education, crime. I really do think it’s important to have a lot of reporting firepower behind it. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      5 Takeaways From the Utah Senate Debate

      by

      Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, and his independent challenger, Evan McMullin, a former C.I.A. officer, met Monday evening for their only debate, a largely genteel affair that showed flashes of tension mainly around Mr. Lee’s role in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election and keep Donald J. Trump in the presidency.Here are five takeaways from an unusual debate in an unusual Senate race.Jan. 6 remains center stage.No race in the country has spotlighted the events after the 2020 election quite so much as the Senate contest in Utah. In part, that’s because Mr. McMullin and Mr. Lee agree on so many other issues. But it’s primarily because of the prominent role Mr. Lee played in cheerleading various efforts to use legal battles to keep Mr. Trump in power. Much of that cheerleading surfaced in text messages the senator sent to to the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.Mr. McMullin called Mr. Lee’s actions “the most egregious betrayal of our nation’s constitution in its history by a U.S. senator,” adding: “It will be your legacy.”Mr. Lee did ultimately vote to affirm President Biden’s election, and he fell back on the language that many Republicans have used when asked if the president was fairly elected. “Joe Biden is our president,” he said. “He was chosen in the only election that matters, the election held by the Electoral College.”But he strongly denied any wrongdoing before his vote to certify the election, saying his discussions about a search for “alternative” electors who would deny the election result was merely an exploration of rumors of such electors — rumors, he said, that proved to be untrue. He accused Mr. McMullin of “a cavalier, reckless disregard for the truth” and demanded an apology.The advantage of independence.Mr. McMullin took full advantage of his status as an independent running in a conservative state, agreeing with his Republican opponent on limiting abortion, castigating Mr. Biden for stoking inflation and saying the White House’s student debt relief program would only worsen inflation. And he vowed that he would not be a “bootlicker” for Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump.That caught Mr. Lee’s ear: “The suggestion that I’m beholden to either party, that I’ve been a bootlicker for either party, is folly,” he protested.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With elections next month, a Times/Siena poll shows that independents, especially women, are swinging toward the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights as voters worry about the economy.Questioning 2020: Hundreds of Republicans on the ballot this November have cast doubt on the 2020 election, a Times analysis found. Many of these candidates are favored to win their races.Georgia Senate Race: The contest, which could determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate, has become increasingly focused on the private life and alleged hypocrisy of Herschel Walker, the Republican nominee.Jill Biden: The first lady, who has become a lifeline for Democratic candidates trying to draw attention and money in the midterms, is the most popular surrogate in the Biden administration.Mr. McMullin was also free to embrace the most popular elements of the Democrats’ achievements, like allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices.He portrayed Mr. Lee — largely accurately — as an outlier in the Senate for his consistent votes against bills, even those with broad bipartisan support, and put himself forward as a problem-solver in the mold of the Utahn he hopes to join in the Senate, Mitt Romney.“If we prevail, it will make Utah the most influential state in the nation, because nothing will get through the Senate without Utah’s support,” Mr. McMullin 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.But there is a problem with his vow to be a true independent who would not caucus with either party: Without choosing sides at all, he might not be able to get any committee assignments, severely limiting his ability to wield influence.Mr. Lee was cutting in his dismissal of his opponent’s independent bid: “Supporting an opportunistic gadfly who is supported by the Democrat Party might make for interesting dinner party conversation,” he argued, but in such trying times, it made no sense for the people of Utah.Searching for distinctions on abortion.In virtually every other contested race this year, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has elevated abortion to the top of the agenda, especially for the Democrat in the race. The Senate contest in Utah has no Democrat, and no abortion-rights candidate.In conservative Utah, that allowed Mr. Lee to openly proclaim his joy over the end of Roe v. Wade and his support for allowing the states to decide whether abortion should be legal. “Roe v. Wade,” Mr. Lee said, “was a legal fiction.”Mr. McMullin said he, too, was “pro-life” and struggled to distinguish himself from his opponent, saying he opposed politicians at the extremes of both parties on the issue, those who would ban all abortions without exceptions and those who oppose all restrictions. But he did not say when he thought abortion should be legal or at what point in a pregnancy his opposition to abortion would kick in.Russia, Russia, Russia.Given Mr. McMullin’s C.I.A. background, Russia seemed like a fruitful avenue to pursue his prosecution of Mr. Lee as an extremist outlier, even in right-leaning Utah. He said the senator was the only member of Utah’s all-Republican congressional delegation not to be blacklisted by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and he castigated Mr. Lee for going to Moscow in 2019 to discuss relaxing some sanctions on the Putin regime.But Mr. Lee deftly eluded the attack, saying he had gone to Russia at the invitation of the nation’s ambassador to Moscow at the time, Jon Huntsman Jr. — a popular former Utah governor.Closing the gap? Not likely.Mr. McMullin has waged a surprisingly effective campaign against Mr. Lee in a state that gave Mr. Trump 58 percent of the vote in 2020. But to beat Mr. Lee, he must win over the state’s Democrats, most of its independents and every disaffected Republican he can find. And no one is sure such a coalition will add up to 50 percent of the vote.It is also not clear Monday night’s debate will advance Mr. McMullin’s cause. The audience was stacked with supporters of Mr. Lee, who booed Mr. McMullin’s jabs, especially about Jan. 6 and the 2020 election, and cheered on the incumbent. At times, Mr. McMullin seemed flustered that he was not getting traction with his most practiced lines of attack, especially his appeals to the Mormon faithful whose ancestors “trekked across the plains and the Rockies to achieve freedom here.”“I think about all the men and women, the 14 generations of Americans who have sacrificed for this grand experiment in freedom,” he said. “They trusted you, we trusted you, and with that trust and with your knowledge of the Constitution, Senator Lee, you sought to find a weakness in our system” to “overturn the will of the people.”But the Utahns who Hillary Clinton thought would recoil in 2016 from Mr. Trump’s immoralities did not come to her aid. And they were even less in evidence for Mr. Biden in 2020.Ultimately, Mr. Lee may have had the most effective attack line, one he used often: Mr. McMullin voted for Mr. Biden. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      5 Takeaways From Vance and Ryan’s Final Ohio Senate Debate

      by

      Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, a Democrat, and J.D. Vance, a Republican, clashed bitterly over issues of ideology and fitness for office in their final debate in the state’s marquee Senate race, as Mr. Ryan painted his opponent as extreme, and Mr. Vance lashed Mr. Ryan as ineffective and more liberal than he lets on.The contest in a state that former President Donald J. Trump comfortably won twice has remained more competitive than national observers initially expected with Mr. Ryan, a strong fund-raiser, casting himself as an independent voice. Still, he has an uphill climb, and he has not had much assistance so far from national Democrats.Here are five takeaways from their heated hourlong debate in Youngstown, Ohio:A strikingly contentious and sometimes personal hour.The debate crackled with condescension as the two men sparred, reflecting the close nature of the race. At times they referred to each other as “pal,” “our guy” or “buddy.” Mr. Ryan even accused his opponent, in two languages, of being a fraud.“J.D. Vance, all due respect, is a fraud,” Mr. Ryan said as they discussed immigration. Then he invoked a saying from his “little Italian grandmother” that he said translated into, “‘You have two faces.’ One for the camera, and one for your business dealings.”Mr. Vance, for his part, argued that Mr. Ryan was only masquerading as a moderate, and that, for all of his years in government, he had not delivered.J.D. Vance supporters gathered in Youngstown before the Senate debate on Monday.Gaelen Morse for The New York TimesEach man tried to saddle the other with the problems of their national parties.Mr. Vance sought to paint Mr. Ryan as a generic Democrat closely tied to President Biden as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — whom, Mr. Ryan noted, he once challenged for a leadership role.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With elections next month, a Times/Siena poll shows that independents, especially women, are swinging toward the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights as voters worry about the economy.Questioning 2020: Hundreds of Republicans on the ballot this November have cast doubt on the 2020 election, a Times analysis found. Many of these candidates are favored to win their races.Georgia Senate Race: The contest, which could determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate, has become increasingly focused on the private life and alleged hypocrisy of Herschel Walker, the Republican nominee.Jill Biden: The first lady, who has become a lifeline for Democratic candidates trying to draw attention and money in the midterms, is the most popular surrogate in the Biden administration.“You can’t run from the policies that she supported, that she has shoved down the throat of the people in Ohio,” Mr. Vance said.Mr. Ryan declared, “If you want to run against Nancy Pelosi, move back to San Francisco and run against Nancy Pelosi,” alluding to Mr. Vance’s time there as a venture capitalist.Mr. Ryan, for his part, sought to tie Mr. Vance to the far-right congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has campaigned with Mr. Vance. And he looked for ways to highlight his independence from his party, saying, for instance, that “I disagree with President Biden when he’s talking about relaxing some of the regulations down on the border, completely disagree with that.”He also sharply criticized Mr. Vance’s evolution in supporting Mr. Trump. “You were calling Trump America’s Hitler,” he said, adding later that “then he endorsed you and you said he’s the greatest president of all time.”Mr. Vance disputed the characterization. When he was pressed to name an area of disagreement with Mr. Trump, he expressed concerns with some of the more hawkish members of the administration.“The thing that was wrong about the Trump administration is they put a lot of people in the administration, a lot of bad personnel folks, who actually advocated limitless nonstop wars,” he said.A supporter of Mr. Ryan before the debate.Gaelen Morse for The New York TimesA fight over what it means to be extreme on abortion.Ohio became the center of a debate over abortion rights earlier this year when a 10-year-old girl who had been raped traveled across state lines to receive an abortion because of Ohio’s ban on the procedure in many instances. The issue was a flash point in the debate.“J.D. and his extreme crew, they want to have a national abortion ban,” Mr. Ryan said as he pushed for codifying Roe v. Wade, which the Supreme Court overturned in June. “They’re not happy with people having to go to Illinois. They want people to get a passport and have to go to Canada. Largest governmental overreach in the history of our lifetime.”It was language reminiscent of the privacy-focused message used in Kansas by defenders of abortion rights ahead of a ballot measure on the issue this summer.Mr. Vance has said the 10-year-old should have been able to get an abortion and tried to cast Mr. Ryan as being extreme in his support for abortion rights. He also tried to change the subject by noting that the man who was arrested and charged in the Ohio case was an undocumented immigrant. A spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement previously confirmed his undocumented status.Mr. Vance, in an extraordinary leap, tried to pin the blame for the attack on Mr. Ryan: “She would never have been raped in the first place if Tim Ryan had done his job on border security.”Mr. Vance spoke supportively of Senator Lindsey Graham’s proposed 15-week national abortion ban, but like many Republicans, was reluctant to discuss specifics on abortion exceptions he supported, saying that, for example, while many support exceptions in instances of incest, “an incest exception looks different at three weeks of pregnancy versus 39 weeks of pregnancy.”A question about “great replacement theory” led to the most raw exchange of the night.The candidates were asked about a racist conspiracy theory that concerns the notion of white people being replaced by nonwhite people and has helped inspire mass shootings across the country.Replacement theory has crept into right-wing media, most notably Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News, where Mr. Vance has been a favorite guest. Mr. Ryan lashed Mr. Vance for spending time with lawmakers who “stoke this racial violence” as he described the role the theory played in the Buffalo mass shooting.“You are so desperate for political power that you’ll accuse me, the father of three beautiful biracial babies, of engaging in racism,” shot back Mr. Vance, who added that he is “married to the daughter of South Asian immigrants.”He has warned of an “invasion” from immigrants, and in a campaign ad, suggested loose border policies ensured “more Democrat voters pouring into this country.” But he said on Monday that the issue was not “about whites or nonwhites,” but that he was concerned about illegal immigration. “You can believe in a border without being a racist,” he said.“I would never talk about your family, J.D.,” Mr. Ryan said. “You don’t want to talk about the fact that you’re with the extremists in that belief.”“That’s disgusting and I’ve never endorsed it,” Mr. Vance insisted.Senator Rob Portman was the most popular person onstage.Mr. Vance and Mr. Ryan are vying to replace Mr. Portman, the center-right Ohio Republican who is retiring — and while he has endorsed Mr. Vance, both invoked him repeatedly.For Mr. Ryan, doing so signals his interest in bipartisanship. For Mr. Vance, who won the primary with strength from the right, it is a nod to the mainstream.Mr. Vance repeatedly invoked the endorsement. Mr. Ryan noted times when they have collaborated.“I’m not quite sure why Rob Portman endorsed you,” Mr. Ryan said at one point. “You don’t agree with any of the compromises that he’s been able to make in the last year.”Trip Gabriel More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      For Abrams and Kemp, a Debate Rematch Recalls a 2018 Exchange

      by

      ATLANTA — When they meet on the debate stage on Monday evening, Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, a Republican, and Stacey Abrams, his Democratic opponent, will mount a rematch from the 2018 campaign for governor.Their 2018 debate took place during Georgia’s early voting period, as it is again this year, against the backdrop of heightened attention to voting rights and access to the ballot. As Georgians took to the polls, many complained of hourslong lines and faulty voting equipment. According to an investigation by The Associated Press, thousands found their voter registrations in limbo as they tried to cast ballots. A majority of them were Black.Ms. Abrams, who founded the voting rights group New Georgia Project before running for governor, underlined those faults and placed the blame on Mr. Kemp, further criticizing him for remaining in his post as secretary of state while also running for office. But it was a back-and-forth exchange between Ms. Abrams and Mr. Kemp on who they believed should have access to the ballot that caught the most attention then and is still reverberating four years later.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With elections next month, a Times/Siena poll shows that independents, especially women, are swinging toward the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights as voters worry about the economy.Questioning 2020: Hundreds of Republicans on the ballot this November have cast doubt on the 2020 election, a Times analysis found. Many of these candidates are favored to win their races.Georgia Senate Race: The contest, which could determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate, has become increasingly focused on the private life and alleged hypocrisy of Herschel Walker, the Republican nominee.Jill Biden: The first lady, who has become a lifeline for Democratic candidates trying to draw attention and money in the midterms, is the most popular surrogate in the Biden administration.During the 2018 debate, Mr. Kemp accused Ms. Abrams of “encouraging people to break the law” on her behalf, suggesting that she had asked undocumented immigrants to vote for her in a video clip that was widely circulated in Republican circles. Ms. Abrams responded with a full-throated rebuke of the accusation and referred to a 2016 lawsuit that she and several voting rights groups had brought against Mr. Kemp to challenge his office’s voter registration regulations.“I have never in my life asked for anyone who is not legally eligible to vote to be able to cast a ballot. What I have asked for is that you allow those who are legally eligible to vote — to allow them to cast their ballots,” Ms. Abrams responded in the debate.“I realize that in the next response you’re going to say that it’s a function of my organization,” she continued, referring to the New Georgia Project, “because your tendency is to blame everyone else for the mistakes that you make. My responsibility as a leader is to see a problem and try to solve it.”For his part, Mr. Kemp responded by asking viewers to look up the video clip of her remarks, calling them “outrageous.” The moment in the debate exploded onto social media sites. It still draws attention, including in early September, when many social media users mistakenly believed a resurfaced clip came from a 2022 debate.Ms. Abrams lost to Mr. Kemp in November 2018 by fewer than 60,000 votes — a loss she owed in part to what she described as unfair voting laws. This year, the two candidates have paid less attention to ballot access as a campaign issue and focused more on abortion and the economy.Still, Georgia remains a battleground state after Ms. Abrams’s narrow loss in the 2018 race and Democrats’ winning both the presidency and two Senate seats in the state during the 2020 cycle. And the specter of Georgia’s new voting law, S.B. 202, looms large as voting rights groups and Ms. Abrams’s campaign warn that is disenfranchising voters.Monday’s debate also coincides with the first day of Georgia’s early voting period. Ms. Abrams, who is trailing Mr. Kemp by five to 10 points in most polls, has joined state Democrats in encouraging voters to cast ballots before Election Day. At the same time, Mr. Kemp has implored Republicans in the state not to trust the polls and instead to turn out en masse as his campaign works to shore up the party’s voter outreach strategy.The debate between Mr. Kemp, Ms. Abrams and the Libertarian candidate, Shane Hazel, will be broadcast on Georgia public television at 7 p.m. Eastern time. It will also be livestreamed on The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s website and The Atlanta Press Club’s Facebook page. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Fall of Liz Cheney and the Rise of Marjorie Taylor Greene

      by

      The Jan. 6 committee, which held its ninth and likely final hearing last Thursday, has lionized the figure of the Decent Republican.Liz Cheney, the vice chair of the committee, was its obvious star, imbued with moral authority by the fact that she’d sacrificed her position in Republican leadership, and possibly her political career, to stand up to Donald Trump. But there were many others.Rusty Bowers, the Trump-supporting speaker of the Arizona House who refused to help the former president subvert his state’s election results, was a portrait of rectitude, reading from his journal, “I will not play with laws I swore allegiance to.” Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump’s chief of staff, defied attempts at intimidation to describe a president at once calculating and berserk.“When you look back at what has come out through this committee’s work, the most striking fact is that all this evidence comes almost entirely from Republicans,” the committee’s Democratic chairman, Bennie Thompson, said on Thursday.This attempt to separate Trump from the Republican Party made political sense. The committee was trying to reach beyond committed Democratic voters who were already appalled by Trump, and the Republicans who testified had the credibility that comes with acting against their own political interest. But the emphasis on Republican valor meant that the story the committee told, while compelling, was incomplete. Going forward, the threat to the American experiment comes not just from Trump but from the Republican base, which is making the figure of the Decent Republican a quaint curiosity.The problem for Decent Republicans is that their party’s internal democracy makes a commitment to democracy writ large impossible. For decades, prominent right-wing politicians, pastors and pundits — Cheney very much included — cultivated in their base the belief that Democrats represent totalitarian evil. Not surprisingly, the base came to see Democratic victories as intolerable, and rejected candidates who would respect the results of general elections. As The Washington Post reported, a majority of Republican nominees for House, Senate and important statewide offices either doubt or deny that Joe Biden won in 2020.Liz CheneyMark Peterson for The New York TimesQueen of the election deniers is Marjorie Taylor Greene. In his engrossing new book “Weapons of Mass Delusion,” Robert Draper chronicles Greene’s rise in parallel with Cheney’s fall. (An adapted excerpt was just published by The Times Magazine.)Plenty of Republican officials, and ex-officials, wish it were the reverse. Draper has a detailed re-creation of the Feb. 3, 2021, meeting where House Republicans first voted on removing Cheney from her position as Republican conference chair, a vote she survived. “How is it going to look if we kick out Liz Cheney and keep Marjorie Taylor Greene?” asked Tom Reed, a moderate Republican from upstate New York.Initially, Kevin McCarthy, House minority leader, persuaded the party to close ranks behind both Cheney and Greene. “I’m not letting Dems pick us off one by one,” he said, adding: “You elected me leader. Let. Me. Lead.”But McCarthy is, fundamentally, a follower. By May, Draper writes, House Republicans were telling him that “Cheney was becoming a major distraction and a problem for their voters back home.” Greene, meanwhile, had a deep connection to those voters, who considered Democrats demonic and the elections they win fake. This gave her power that McCarthy deferred to.According to Draper, McCarthy invited Greene “to high-level conferences in his office, making a show of sitting next to her and soliciting her opinions.” Last year Democrats stripped Greene of her committee assignments for promoting conspiracy theories and suggesting that the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, should be executed. If Republicans win the House, McCarthy has promised to put Greene on more powerful committees than she was on before. A source told Draper that McCarthy even offered Greene a leadership position.The truth is, if Republicans win — a recent New York Times/Siena College poll shows them ahead by three points among likely voters — Greene will be a leader no matter what McCarthy does. Chances are she’ll be at the forefront of an expanding MAGA squad, with at least one Republican who was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and maybe more. A Georgia Republican who has promised to be a “great teammate” for Greene, Mike Collins, has a campaign video in which he shoots a gun at what looks like a garbage can full of explosives marked “Voting Machine.”It goes without saying that these Republicans will disband the Jan. 6 committee and impeach Joe Biden. They’ll probably seek vengeance for Greene — and Paul Gosar, who lost his committee assignments for tweeting an anime video altered to show him killing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — by stripping Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives of their committee assignments. Expect them to shut down the government more than once and to launch investigations into the Department of Justice over its investigation of Trump. If the 2024 election is disputed, they’ll do all they can to swing it to Republicans. It’s what their voters are sending them to Congress to do.“Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold, regardless of the political cost,” Cheney said at the most recent Jan. 6 hearing. “We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time.” Indeed, we have a guarantee that many of them won’t be.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

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Preparing for Republican Debt Blackmail

      by

      Nobody knows for sure what will happen in the midterm elections. But if Republicans take one or both houses of Congress, the most important question will be one that is getting hardly any public attention: What will the Biden administration do when the G.O.P. threatens to blow up the world economy by refusing to raise the debt limit?In particular, will Democrats be prepared to take the extraordinary actions the situation will demand, doing whatever it takes to avoid being blackmailed?Notice that I said “when,” not “if.” After Republicans took the House in 2010, they quickly weaponized the debt limit against the Obama administration, using it to extract spending cuts they couldn’t have achieved through normal legislative means. And that was a pre-MAGA G.O.P., one that for the most part didn’t deny the legitimacy of the president and didn’t make excuses for violent insurrections.In fact, I wonder whether Republicans will even seriously try to extract concessions this time around, as opposed to creating chaos for its own sake.Notice also that I said “blow up the world economy,” not merely hamstring the U.S. government. For the consequences of forcing a federal debt default, which is what refusing to raise the limit would do, would extend far beyond the operations of the federal government itself.Let’s back up and talk about why any of this is an issue. U.S. law, for historical reasons, requires in effect that Congress vote on the budget twice. First, senators and representatives enact legislation that sets tax rates and authorizes spending. This legislation ends up determining the federal budget balance. But if we end up running a deficit, Congress must vote a second time, to authorize borrowing to cover that deficit.It’s not clear that this procedure ever made sense. In any case, in modern times the debt limit empowers cowardly posturing: Politicians can claim to be for fiscal responsibility, refusing to vote for a higher debt limit, without specifying how the budget should be balanced.And no, “we should eliminate wasteful spending” isn’t an honest answer. The federal government is basically a giant insurance company with an army: Spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the military, and voters want to maintain all of these programs. There’s surely waste in the government, as there is in any large organization, but even if we could somehow make that waste disappear, it wouldn’t do much to reduce the deficit.Someone seriously worried about the deficit could call for higher taxes. After all, the U.S. tax burden is low compared with other wealthy countries. But Republicans aren’t going to go there.Where will they go? There’s lots of evidence that Republicans will, if they can, try to use the debt limit to extort major cuts in Social Security and Medicare. They probably couldn’t pass such cuts — which would be deeply unpopular — through the normal legislative process, and they certainly wouldn’t have enough votes to override a Biden veto. But the idea would be to force Democrats into complicity, so that the public doesn’t realize who’s responsible for the pain.And that’s a best-case scenario. As I said, the G.O.P. is far more radical now than it was more than a decade ago, and it might well be less interested in achieving policy goals than in blowing up the world economy on a Democratic president’s watch.Why would refusing to raise the debt limit blow up the economy? In the modern world, U.S. debt plays a crucial role: It is the ultimate safe asset, easily converted into cash, and there are no good alternatives. If investors lose confidence that the U.S. government will honor its obligations, the resulting financial storm will make the recent chaos in Britain look like a passing shower.So what should be done to avert this threat? If Republicans do gain control of one or both houses in November, Democrats should use the lame-duck session to enact a very large rise in the debt limit, enough to put the issue on ice for years. Republicans and pundits who don’t understand the stakes would furiously attack this move, but it would be far better than enabling extortion — and would probably be forgotten by the time of the 2024 election.If for some reason Democrats don’t take this obvious step, the Biden administration should be prepared to turn to legal strategies for bypassing the debt limit. There appear to be several loopholes the administration could exploit — minting trillion-dollar platinum coins is the most famous, but there are others, like issuing bonds with no maturity date and hence no face value.The Obama administration was unwilling to go any of these routes, largely, I think, because it believed that they would look gimmicky and undignified, and it preferred to seek compromise. But surely Democrats don’t need to worry about dignity when the other party is ruled by Donald Trump. And in any case, they’re now confronting opponents who aren’t just radical but also anti-democracy; no real compromise is possible.Of course, none of this will be relevant if Democrats hold Congress. But they should prepare for the worst.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

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Behind Oz’s Crime Attacks Is a Play for the Philly Suburbs

      by

      An impeachment vote against Larry Krasner, the Philadelphia district attorney, points to the potency of an issue that works against Lt. Gov. John Fetterman.There’s an oft-repeated maxim about the political geography of Pennsylvania: It’s Philadelphia and Pittsburgh on each end with Alabama (or Kentucky) in between.In broad strokes, it’s not wrong. Although Pennsylvania was one of the original 13 colonies, it is mountainous and overwhelmingly rural. In today’s political climate, that means a map of the state’s election results looks like a sea of red with a few blue islands.But maps and clichés can be misleading. The southeastern corner of the state, with Philadelphia and its surrounding “collar counties,” is far more populous than Pittsburgh or any of the other blue spots. It’s where statewide elections are won and lost.That geography explains why Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Republican nominee for Senate, and allied groups are spending millions of dollars in the Philadelphia media market to attack Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic candidate.And it helps explain why, in mid-September, Republicans — to the puzzlement of some Democrats — largely stopped running ads hammering Fetterman on inflation and increasingly accused him of being soft on crime.One ad sponsored by the Senate Leadership Fund, a group close to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, raps Fetterman as “dangerously liberal on crime” for his votes in favor of clemency while he served on a statewide parole board. Another accuses him of “releasing felony murderers.” In perhaps the most over-the-top ad, underwritten by the Trump-linked group MAGA Inc., a narrator says, “John Fetterman wants ruthless killers, muggers and rapists back on our streets, and he wants them back now.”Altogether, since Labor Day, Republicans have spent at least $5 million on television ads portraying Fetterman as a far-left radical who wants to let criminals out of jail, according to AdImpact, a media-tracking company.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With elections next month, a Times/Siena poll shows that independents, especially women, are swinging toward the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights as voters worry about the economy.Questioning 2020: Hundreds of Republicans on the ballot this November have cast doubt on the 2020 election, a Times analysis found. Many of these candidates are favored to win their races.Georgia Senate Race: The contest, which could determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate, has become increasingly focused on the private life and alleged hypocrisy of Herschel Walker, the Republican nominee.Jill Biden: The first lady, who has become a lifeline for Democratic candidates trying to draw attention and money in the midterms, is the most popular surrogate in the Biden administration.Fetterman angrily disputes those accusations. But the amount of money pouring in and the ads’ focus on Philadelphia voters suggest that the G.O.P. groups behind them believe they’re working.Why the Philly suburbs matterConsider the difference between Hillary Clinton’s performance in Pennsylvania in 2016, when she lost the state to Donald Trump by more than 44,000 votes, and Joe Biden’s showing there four years later, when he beat Trump by more than 81,000 votes.The main reason Biden did so much better: He ran up huge margins in Philadelphia and its inner-ring suburbs in Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery Counties, where Trump’s political brand was toxic. Even when you include Berks County, a Republican exurban stronghold, Biden gained nearly 131,000 votes over Clinton’s 2016 results. That number is not far off the total ground — 124,000 votes — that he made up against Trump across the state.But that was a presidential election, with record-shattering turnout and Trump on the ballot. Consider instead the 2016 Senate race, in which Patrick J. Toomey, the Republican, defeated Katie McGinty, the Democrat, by about 87,000 votes. Toomey won Bucks and Chester Counties and kept Delaware and Montgomery Counties relatively close.“Absolutely, crime is hurting Fetterman,” said Josh Novotney, a former Toomey chief of staff who is now a partner at SBL Strategies, a lobbying firm based in Philadelphia.The big question in this year’s Senate race, then, is this: Can Fetterman, a tattooed and hoodie-wearing Bernie Sanders supporter from southwestern Pennsylvania, run up the score in and around Philadelphia as Biden did? And to do that, can he defuse the G.O.P.’s attacks over his crime record?The crime connectionIf there’s one thing we know about suburban voters, it’s that crime is important to them. Along with schools and taxes, it’s often an important reason they don’t live within city boundaries. And if you’ve ever watched the local television news, which millions of older voters still do, you know that crime often leads the broadcast.Polls are one way to measure whether Oz’s attacks are landing. But another is to watch the behavior of suburban politicians on the crime issue. And here, the signs are worrying for Fetterman.In mid-September, the Pennsylvania Statehouse voted to hold Larry Krasner, the progressive district attorney of Philadelphia, in contempt of the legislative body during an impeachment inquiry that has riveted the state’s political class. Republicans blame Krasner for the rise in violent crime in the city, and, fairly or unfairly, many Democrats seem to agree.Last month, the Pennsylvania Statehouse voted to hold Larry Krasner, the progressive district attorney of Philadelphia, in contempt. Republicans blame Krasner for a rise in violent crime.Michelle Gustafson for The New York TimesOf the 58 lawmakers who represent state districts in the collar counties, 37 voted to impeach Krasner on Sept. 13. Twenty-seven of those were Democrats. Even in Philadelphia, where Krasner was re-elected by roughly 40 percentage points last year, nine representatives voted for impeachment.Austin Davis, who is running on Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s ticket to replace Fetterman as lieutenant governor, voted for contempt, too. In 2018, Davis was elected to represent McKeesport in the Statehouse with nearly three-quarters of the vote.The contempt vote was a telling sign that these politicians — who we must assume are focused on their own political survival — view the crime issue as a dangerous one for them politically.After the vote, Krasner held a news conference at which he criticized the Democrats who voted against him as “uninformed.” Others, he said in a revealing comment, were driven by “what they perceive to be the short-term political consequences.”“Certainly, Krasner is the poster child that the G.O.P. uses,” said Larry Ceisler, a Democratic media consultant based in Philadelphia. But he expressed some uncertainty that crime was the main factor driving the poll numbers closer together, as opposed to Fetterman’s inability to campaign as vigorously as he ordinarily might and the natural contours of a marquee Senate race.“Is crime an issue? Yeah,” Ceisler said. But he noted that Fetterman had never been subject to a barrage of negative ads in previous races and that the question for him over the last few weeks of the campaign was: “Does he have a glass jaw or not?”What to readThe Times is offering live coverage of two debates tonight at 7. Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, a Republican who is seeking a second term, is facing off against Stacey Abrams, his Democratic opponent. In Ohio, Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, and J.D. Vance, a Republican, are holding a forum for the state’s marquee Senate race.Right-wing activists, driven by conspiracy theories about voter fraud, are inserting themselves in the election process, which has put officials on alert for disruptions and a wave of misinformation, Alexandra Berzon and Nick Corasaniti report.In Oregon’s wild governor’s race, an independent candidate is siphoning Democratic votes and Phil Knight, the billionaire Nike co-founder, is pouring in money. Mike Baker and Reid J. Epstein tell us how this may give an anti-abortion Republican a path to victory.A new breed of veterans is running for the House on the far right. Jonathan Weisman writes about the trend, which challenges assumptions that adding veterans to Congress fosters bipartisanship and cooperation.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

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Rise of Salem Media, a Conservative Radio Juggernaut

      by

      In recent months, the conservative personalities Eric Metaxas, Sebastian Gorka and Charlie Kirk have used their nationally syndicated radio shows to discuss baseless claims of rigged voting machines, accuse election officials of corruption and espouse ballot fraud conspiracy theories.Now, the three men are joining a live speaking tour that will take them across Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and other battleground states to promote those views — and Republican candidates — ahead of the Nov. 8 midterm elections.The radio hosts and their tour are united by a common backer: Salem Media Group, a publicly traded media company in Irving, Texas. Mr. Metaxas, Mr. Gorka and Mr. Kirk have contracts with the company, which is also hosting the Battleground Talkers trip. The tour features more than half a dozen other conservative media personalities as well, including Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager, who also have deals with Salem.Created as a Christian radio network nearly 50 years ago by two brothers-in-law, Salem has quietly turned into a conservative media juggernaut as it increasingly takes an activist stance in the midterm elections. The company has publicly said it wants a strong turnout of conservative voters for Nov. 8, and its hosts have amplified the messages of conspiracy theorists, including misinformation about the voting process.“The war for America’s soul is on the line,” Salem said in promotional materials for the tour. It added that the radio hosts were traveling to “influence those who are undecided.”Salem, which has a market capitalization of nearly $45 million, is smaller than audio competitors like Cumulus Media and iHeartMedia, as well as conservative media organizations such as Fox News. But it stands out for its blend of right-leaning politics and Christian content and its vast network of 100 radio stations and more than 3,000 affiliates, many of them reaching deep into parts of America that don’t engage with most mainstream media outlets.Salem also operates dozens of religious and conservative websites, as well as podcasts, television news, book publishing and a social media influencer network. The company, which describes its news content as “the antidote to the mainstream media,” has said it reaches 11 million radio listeners.Salem expanded into film this year by financing “2000 Mules,” a widely debunked but popular movie that claimed voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.Charity Rachelle for The New York TimesThis year, it expanded into film by financing “2000 Mules,” a widely debunked but popular movie that claimed significant voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. It was directed by Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative figure who has a deal with Salem, and features interviews with others who have shows on Salem. The company plans to publish a book version of the film this month.The general public may not be familiar with Salem, “but their hosts are big names and they have huge reach, which makes them one of the most powerful forces in conservative media that hardly anyone knows about,” said Craig Aaron, president of Free Press, a nonprofit that fights misinformation and supports media competition.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With less than one month until Election Day, Republicans remain favored to take over the House, but momentum in the pitched battle for the Senate has seesawed back and forth.A Surprising Battleground: New York has emerged from a haywire redistricting cycle as perhaps the most consequential congressional battleground in the country. For Democrats, the uncertainty is particularly jarring.Arizona’s Governor’s Race: Democrats are openly expressing their alarm that Katie Hobbs, the party’s nominee for governor in the state, is fumbling a chance to defeat Kari Lake in one of the most closely watched races.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but members of his party have learned to tolerate his behavior.Salem did not respond to requests for interviews. Phil Boyce, the company’s senior vice president of spoken word, said in a news release for the battleground states tour that “there has never been a more important midterm election than this one, and Salem is thrilled to be front and center, leading the charge.”Mr. Metaxas, Mr. Prager, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Hewitt and Mr. D’Souza did not respond to requests for comment. In his response for comment, Mr. Gorka said The New York Times was “FAKENEWS fraud.”Sebastian Gorka, a right-wing personality who has a radio show on Salem Media, had former President Donald J. Trump on his show this year.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesSalem has faced legal challenges as its hosts have discussed conspiracy theories about voter fraud. Eric Coomer, a former executive of Dominion Voting Systems, a maker of election technology, has filed lawsuits against Salem, Mr. Metaxas and several media outlets since 2020 for defamation after being accused on air of perpetuating voter fraud and joining the left-wing antifa movement. Nicole Hemmer, a political historian at Vanderbilt University and author of “Messengers of Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics,” said Salem’s effect was far-reaching.“They are using their many different properties for coordinated messaging to promote misinformation, which is undermining democracy,” she said.Salem was started in 1974 with two tiny radio stations in North Carolina owned by two brothers-in-law, Edward G. Atsinger III and Stuart W. Epperson. Over time, they steadily added more stations across the country and sold blocks of airtime for sermons. Salem is now in most major radio markets..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.The company went public in 1999 as the internet was rising. In its public offering prospectus, Salem said it would focus on acquiring digital platforms and cross-promoting content across its channels to attract new audiences.In 2006, Salem bought the conservative political website Townhall.com; other deals for conservative sites followed, including HotAir, Twitchy and PJ Media. It purchased a publishing company, Eagle Publishing, in 2014 in a deal that included RedState, a conservative blog, and Regnery, a publisher with conservative authors like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. Regnery said last year that it was “proud to stand in the breach” with Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, when it agreed to print his book after Simon & Schuster dropped the title in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.This summer, Salem said it had added a podcast hosted by two “culture warriors,” Rob McCoy and Bryce Eddy of the talk show “Liberty Station.” In January, the company awarded its Culture Warrior of the Year award to Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, who has made a point of goading liberals.More recently, Salem has promoted to advertisers its “360-degree deals,” meaning that it can amplify messages across radio, podcasts, books, film and websites.Salem has said it is “thrilled to be front and center, leading the charge” in next month’s midterm elections.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesPolitics were not new to Salem’s founders. Mr. Epperson unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 1984 and 1986 as a Republican. Mr. Atsinger contributed to Republican candidates like George W. Bush and Larry Elder, a Salem radio host who mounted a failed campaign in the California governor’s recall election last year. In Washington, Salem fought to remove regulatory hurdles that complicated its acquisition spree.At the beginning of the year, Mr. Atsinger stepped down as Salem’s chief executive and became chairman, succeeding Mr. Epperson, who took on the title of chairman emeritus.Salem’s executives largely stayed out of editorial decisions — until the Trump administration, said Ben Howe, a former employee of RedState; Craig Silverman, a former Salem radio commentator in Denver; and a third former employee, who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation.In July 2017, Salem held an event at the White House, and several radio hosts interviewed top Trump administration officials. At a Salem reception at the Capitol the next day, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, and the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, gave speeches.“There was a lot of closeness,” said Mr. Silverman, who attended the events. “McConnell and McCarthy praised Salem, and vice versa. It felt like some sort of team effort.”In April 2018, Salem’s RedState blog fired several employees who had been vocal critics of Mr. Trump. The site’s unofficial slogan had long been “Take on the left. Clean up the right,” said Mr. Howe, a writer for the site who was one of those fired. “But one to two years into office, everything changed. It was like it was no longer good for business to be critical of Trump.”Mr. Silverman said his radio show was cut off in November 2019 as he excoriated Mr. Trump over accusations that the president had pressured Ukraine to investigate Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a Democratic presidential candidate, by withholding aid to the country. Mr. Silverman said he was then fired.“The political environment has never been as interesting and as heated and intense as it is right now,” David Santrella, Salem’s chief executive, said on a recent earnings call.Business Wire, via Associated PressSalem said in press reports at the time that such dismissals were not politically motivated, explaining that it had fired the RedState employees because of financial considerations and Mr. Silverman because he had appeared on non-Salem shows. Mr. Silverman said those appearances were allowed under his contract.As Mr. Trump’s term wound down, Salem ran into financial pressure. In 2019, the company said four board members, including two of the co-founders’ sons, had resigned because “Salem has faced several unique financial headwinds and we are looking for ways to cut costs while not impacting revenue.” Both sons have since returned to the board.In May 2020, the company moved to eliminate new hiring, suspend its dividend, reduce head count, cut pay and request discounts from vendors, blaming the pandemic for forcing it to conserve cash. It reported $11.2 million in forgiven loans from the government’s Paycheck Protection Program.But Salem’s finances have improved since then. Its net income rose to $41.5 million in 2021 from a loss in 2020, while revenue increased to $258.2 million from $236.2 million a year earlier.Salem’s political platforms are a bright spot. On an earnings call in August, Salem executives said that so far this year, political advertisers had spent nearly twice as much on Salem platforms as they did over the same period in the presidential election year of 2020, which had been the “biggest political year ever.” David Santrella, the chief executive, has predicted that “hot button” issues like abortion would probably boost ad revenue.“The political environment has never been as interesting and as heated and intense as it is right now,” he said.Kitty Bennett More