Political Uncertainty: Recent events include an assassination attempt on Trump and a critical debate with Kamala Harris. A small but significant group of undecided voters, like Bob and Sharon Reed, holds crucial influence on the election, reflecting broader political uncertainties.
Recent events have highlighted significant political tensions. An attempted assassination of former President Trump while he golfed in Florida has raised security concerns, as law enforcement apprehended the armed suspect, who had ties to volunteer work in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the political climate is also charged, with a focus on the recent debate between Trump and Kamala Harris, which has given rise to discussions around undecided voters. This small group of voters, especially in key swing states, holds considerable influence over the upcoming election. Voters like Bob and Sharon Reed are finding it difficult to choose between candidates, indicating a deeper discontent with the current political landscape. Their reservations towards both Trump and Harris reflect a broader uncertainty that could impact election outcomes, as undecided voters are crucial in closely contested states.
Political Discontent: Bob and Sharon, retired Republicans, are open to supporting a Democrat after feeling disappointed by Trump and Harris in the debate. They seek practical solutions for inflation but found neither candidate addressed their concerns, leaving them unsatisfied with current political options.
Bob and Sharon, a retired couple living on a fixed income from their pensions in Pennsylvania, have been loyal Republicans but are feeling disillusioned with Trump’s unpredictability. They voted for Nikki Haley in the primaries and think it’s possible they could vote for a Democrat, having supported moderate Governor Josh Shapiro. Watching the recent presidential debate, they were disappointed as neither candidate addressed their pressing concerns about inflation and economic stability for older adults. They found both Trump’s attacks and Harris’s proposals lacking, feeling that her tax credits and plans did not resonate with their current needs. They continue to seek specific, practical solutions to help them manage rising costs and were left feeling underserved by both candidates in the debate.
Voter Dilemma: Bob and Sharon, disillusioned Republicans, found both Trump and Harris unsatisfactory in the debate, lacking specific policies on immigration and the economy, and remain unsure about supporting Harris despite their discomfort with Trump.
In a recent debate, two disillusioned Republican voters, Bob and Sharon, expressed concerns about both candidates. They found Trump's immigration policies unrealistic and felt he didn't take responsibility for the January 6 events. Although they appreciated efforts by Harris to appeal to anti-Trump Republicans, they still wanted more specific policy proposals. The economy is their main concern, but neither candidate provided satisfactory answers. Sharon worried that Trump would be too lenient with Putin in the Ukraine conflict, while Bob was skeptical of Harris's ability to confront global leaders. In short, while Trump's performance distanced them from him, they still don't feel ready to support Harris, as they seek assurance of her readiness and solid policies from a candidate they can trust.
Voter Uncertainty: Undecided voters like Emily are feeling conflicted in the upcoming election, expressing dissatisfaction with available choices and seeking candidates focused on cooperation and the middle class.
Many voters, like Bob, Sharon, and Emily, are feeling uncertain as they approach the upcoming election, with some leaning slightly towards one candidate but lacking strong enthusiasm. Emily, a longtime Republican voter, expresses dissatisfaction with the current options, and is even considering writing in a candidate. Throughout the conversation, it becomes clear that debates and candidate performances are essential for undecided voters like her, as they seek leaders who prioritize cooperation and the middle class. This election is unique for Emily, as she has never felt this torn about her choices before, reflecting a broader trend among voters who are struggling to identify with their traditional party affiliations amidst extreme political divides.
Debate Insights: Debate highlights show a need for civility and effective solutions in addressing economic challenges and reproductive rights, beyond mere positions.
In the recent debate, the former President's lack of decorum and connection with the audience, especially the 16-year-old moderator, was off-putting. His focus on tariffs without a broader economic strategy left many disappointed. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris's proposals were seen as not addressing the needs of current homeowners and small business owners. Discussions around reproductive rights were complicated, with individuals feeling pressured to choose a side. Overall, voters are looking for leaders who can foster civility and address their real concerns, including economic issues and rights, instead of falling back into divisive rhetoric or oversimplified solutions.
Voting Dilemmas: Abortion views vary, with some seeking exceptions. A recent debate influenced a voter, who now feels more inclined to support Kamala for her approach and civility, highlighting the impact of debates on voter choice.
The conversation highlights the complexity of abortion and voting decisions. The speaker feels conflicted about being pro-life but understands exceptions are necessary. They express frustration with misleading rhetoric about abortion, particularly late-term abortion. In the end, after reflecting on a debate, they lean towards voting for Kamala. This shows how debates and personal beliefs can influence voter decisions, signaling a shift towards prioritizing civility in politics over rigid adherence to past ideologies.
Media Accountability: Concern is rising over false claims made by politicians and reported by media, emphasizing the need for accountability and truthful narratives about the real struggles of the American people.
There is a strong concern about the accuracy of information reported by media and politicians. During a discussion, a Democratic governor addressed false claims being spread, highlighting that local officials have denied these inaccuracies. The conversation reflects the need for accountability in media narratives that shape public opinion and the importance of truthful reporting concerning the struggles faced by everyday Americans. It emphasizes that misleading statements can have real consequences on the lives of people and challenges the narrative pushed by some politicians who evade responsibility for their words. Ultimately, this dialogue urges the media and political figures to focus on genuine issues affecting communities rather than perpetuating falsehoods. The closing credits of the episode also give recognition to the team behind the show, illustrating the collaborative effort in creating impactful media that aims to shed light on critical subjects.
Three Undecided Voters, Two Swing States, One Big Decision
Recent Episodes from The Daily
The Day Thousands of Pagers Exploded in Lebanon
Hundreds of electronic devices carried by Hezbollah members exploded simultaneously across Lebanon on Tuesday and Wednesday in an audacious plot by Israel.
Patrick Kingsley, the Jerusalem bureau chief for The New York Times, discusses what the attack accomplished, and what it cost.
Guest: Patrick Kingsley, the Jerusalem bureau chief for The New York Times.
Background reading:
- What we know about the deadly wireless-device explosions in Lebanon.
- Israel’s pager attack was a tactical success without a strategic goal, analysts say.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Israel's Existential Threat From Within
Warning: this episode contains descriptions of violence.
In the last year, the world’s eyes have been on the war in Gaza, which still has no end in sight. But there is a conflict in another Palestinian territory that has gotten far less attention, where life has become increasingly untenable: the West Bank.
Ronen Bergman, who has been covering the conflict, explains why things are likely to get worse, and the long history of extremist political forces inside Israel that he says are leading the country to an existential crisis.
Guest: Ronen Bergman, a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine.
Background reading:
- How extremist settlers took over Israel.
- What is the West Bank and who controls it?
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
A Second Assassination Plot and the New Era of Political Violence
A suspect was charged on Monday in connection with what appears to be a second assassination attempt on Donald J. Trump.
Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Glenn Thrush, who have been covering the case, and Peter Baker, The Times’s chief White House correspondent, discuss the suspect’s background, the Secret Service’s struggle to protect the former president, and this new era of political violence.
Guests:
- Thomas Gibbons-Neff, a correspondent on the National desk of The New York Times.
- Glenn Thrush, who reports on the Justice Department for The New York Times.
- Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times.
Background reading:
- What we know about the latest apparent assassination attempt.
- The case is another sign of how much the American political landscape has been shaped by anger stirred by Mr. Trump and against him.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Three Undecided Voters, Two Swing States, One Big Decision
From the moment Donald Trump and Kamala Harris walked off the debate stage, both their campaigns have argued about who won the showdown.
But the real question is what the debate meant to a small sliver of voters in a handful of swing states.
Campbell Robertson, a reporter on The Times’s National desk, and Stella Tan, a producer on “The Daily,” speak to three undecided voters about what they saw during the debate, and how much closer it brought them to a decision.
Guest:
- Campbell Robertson, a reporter for the National desk at The New York Times, who has been tracking undecided voters in Pennsylvania.
- Stella Tan, an audio producer for “The Daily,” who spoke to an undecided voter in Wisconsin.
Background reading:
- Voters said the vice president talked about a sweeping vision to fix the country’s most stubborn problems. But they wanted to hear more.
- “The Run-Up”: Here’s what undecided voters are thinking.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
The Sunday Read: ‘The For-Profit City That Might Come Crashing Down’
If Próspera were a normal town, Jorge Colindres, a freshly cologned and shaven lawyer, would be considered its mayor. His title here is “technical secretary.” Looking out over a clearing in the trees in February, he pointed to the small office complex where he works collecting taxes and managing public finances for the city’s 2,000 or so physical residents and e-residents, many of whom have paid a fee for the option of living in Próspera, on the Honduran island of Roatán, or remotely incorporating a business there.
Nearby is a manufacturing plant that is slated to build modular houses along the coast. About a mile in the other direction are some of the city’s businesses: a Bitcoin cafe and education center, a genetics clinic, a scuba shop. A delivery service for food and medical supplies will deploy its drones from this rooftop.
Próspera was built in a semiautonomous jurisdiction known as a ZEDE (a Spanish acronym for Zone for Employment and Economic Development). It is a private, for-profit city, with its own government that courts foreign investors through low taxes and light regulation. Now, the Honduran government wants it gone.
'The Interview': Demi Moore Is Done With the Male Gaze
The Story Behind ‘They’re Eating the Pets’
At this week’s presidential debate, Donald J. Trump went into an unprompted digression about immigrants eating people’s pets. While the claims were debunked, the topic was left unexplained.
Miriam Jordan, who covers the impact of immigration policies for The Times, explains the story behind the shocking claims and the tragedy that gave rise to them.
Guest: Miriam Jordan, a national immigration correspondent for The New York Times.
Background reading:
- A local official said there was “absolutely no evidence” for the outlandish claim about Haitian migrants that Mr. Trump and his campaign have amplified.
- How an Ohio town landed in the middle of the immigration debate.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
How the Election Is Sinking a $15 Billion Business Deal
In a highly unusual move, the Biden administration signaled last week that it would block a Japanese company from buying an iconic American company in a critical swing state.
Alan Rappeport, who covers the Treasury Department for The Times, discusses the politics that could doom the multibillion-dollar deal, and what it says about the new power of American labor.
Guest: Alan Rappeport, an economic policy reporter for The New York Times.
Background reading:
- President Biden is expected to block Nippon Steel’s takeover of U.S. Steel.
- How swing-state politics are sinking a global steel deal.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Harris Baits Trump: Inside Their Fiery Debate
In their first and possibly only presidential debate, Vice President Kamala Harris dominated and enraged former President Donald J. Trump.
Jonathan Swan, who covers politics and the Trump campaign for The Times, explains how a night that could have been about Ms. Harris’s record instead became about Mr. Trump’s temperament.
Guest: Jonathan Swan, a political correspondent for The New York Times.
Background reading:
- Read The Times’s live coverage of the debate as it happened.
- Who won? Here’s a sampling of the reaction.
- And here’s a fact-check on Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Judge Delays Trump Sentencing Until After Election
Last week, a judge in Manhattan announced that he was delaying the sentencing of Donald J. Trump until after the election. It is the only one of the four criminal cases against the former president that will have gone to trial before voters go to the polls.
Ben Protess, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, discusses Mr. Trump’s remarkable legal win and its limits.
Guest: Ben Protess, an investigative reporter for The New York Times.
Background reading:
- Judge Juan M. Merchan delayed Trump’s sentencing until Nov. 26, after Election Day.
- Mr. Trump owes the delay in part to his legal resources and political status. It raised a question: Is he above the law?
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.