Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman had a stroke four days before winning the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, and his campaign has been dogged by questions about his health.
As Mehmet Oz, the Republican nominee, continues to flounder in polls and fundraising, he’s taunted Fetterman about initially declining to debate and questioned whether his rival is using his stroke as an excuse to avoid a public faceoff. Now, Fetterman’s health is in the news again after the candidate — who’s currently serving as the state’s lieutenant governor — used closed-captioning technology during a recent interview with NBC News.
Fetterman said that as part of his recovery he needed the technology, which transcribed the reporters’ questions and displayed them on a screen for him to read, because of a temporary difficulty with auditory processing; in the aftermath of the stroke, Fetterman still doesn’t understand everything that’s said to him. With the captioning, however, he was able to respond to the reporter’s questions (with the occasional verbal slip-up). During the interview, Fetterman said that the stroke has changed his life — but that it wouldn’t affect his ability to serve as an elected official. Still, the interview prompted a new spate of questions and digs from Republicans about whether his recovery makes him unfit for a seat in Congress.
The lines of attack used against Fetterman, many of which are ableist (meaning they convey prejudice, either overt or subtle, against people with disabilities), tap into long-standing stereotypes about people with disabilities and could affect voters’ perceptions of him. That’s because there continues to be stigma against people with disabilities, according to Lisa Schur, a co-director of the Rutgers Program for Disability Research. As a result, she said, political “candidates with disabilities have to work extra hard to ensure voters that, yes, I’m competent and capable of doing the job.” This stigma can be particularly intense for candidates with mental or cognitive disabilities — or even for candidates where questions are raised about their cognitive function.
To be sure, we don’t have enough evidence to say for certain whether candidates with disabilities have a lower chance of winning elections. We do know, however, that people with disabilities are dramatically underrepresented in government. That’s especially true at the federal level where just over 6 percent of elected officials reported having a disability compared with 12 percent at the local level, according to a study from Schur and her co-director Douglas Kruse.
Despite his health challenges over the past few months, Fetterman’s odds against Oz still look good. Fetterman’s lead in the race is narrowing, according to recent polls, but FiveThirtyEight’s 2022 midterm election forecast still gives the Democrat a more than 7-in-10 chance of beating his Republican opponent. And that’s probably why Oz has ramped up attacks on Fetterman’s health, Kruse suggested. “Oz is … behind right now and wants to bring up this issue of competence,” he said.
Indeed, with Fetterman still leading in most polls, it only helps Republicans to amplify ableist stereotypes about chronic illness and the use of accessibility aids to argue that Fetterman is unfit for office. The media’s coverage of Fetterman’s condition is arguably bolstering them, too: The NBC interview focused mostly on his health and the reporter who conducted the interview made an offhand comment that Fetterman appeared to struggle to understand small talk beforehand, which drew criticism from other reporters who had spoken with the candidate and said he did not exhibit issues with comprehension.
As a result, it’s been easy to keep people focused on Fetterman’s health: His ability to speak and understand, rather than his policy positions, were the subject ofmanystoriesand tweets posted in reaction to the interview.
According to Richard Scotch, a professor of sociology and public policy at the University of Texas at Dallas who researches disability rights and social inequality, some of the stigma surrounding physical disabilities has decreased over time. “They’re not viewed as negatively as they were 60 or even 30 years ago,” he said. That, in part, could be one reason why a spate of public officials with physical disabilities across the political spectrum — including Republicans Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas and Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, and Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois — have run successful campaigns. “There aren’t many critics who would say that their disability hampers their ability to hold public office,” Scotch said. Still, he added, the same isn’t true for all disabilities: “Impairments that affect one’s ability to communicate effectively may be more stigmatizing than those that do not.”
Having a disability like Fetterman’s, which he and his doctors believe will improve over time, could fall into that category. That’s because having an “invisible” disability versus a “visible” one — having trouble understanding speech, as opposed to using a wheelchair — could get linked in voters’ minds to issues like mental capacity or a cognitive decline, “which are scarier for people to digest,” Schur said.
Fetterman is not the only politician of late who has had to field questions about his mental abilities. While not physically disabled, older politicians like President Biden or Sen. Dianne Feinstein (the oldest sitting U.S. Senator who is reportedly experiencing a decline in her cognitive health) have been repeatedly told that they should step down from or not seek additional terms in public office.
But disability discrimination is not always covered equally: Several former presidents, for instance, have been in apparent cognitive decline while in office without much question. What might make Fetterman’s case different, however, is that he’s both publicly discussing his condition (unlike other politicians who have hid theirs) and is in an ongoing and competitive race. “There’s this image in America, especially, that the goal is to be completely independent and self-sufficient: All those values that supposedly go along with this kind of ‘capability,’” Schur told me. “Whenever you see somebody dependent on technology, or accommodations, I think some people, especially those with more traditional values, might question whether that person is fit for a particular job.”
Oz’s attacks have drawn on these stereotypes: Last month, the Republican released his medical records and has been repeatedly challenging Fetterman to do the same, despite the fact that doing so is a fading tradition — and typically employed in presidential races, not Senate races. “If John Fetterman had ever eaten a vegetable in his life, then maybe he wouldn’t have had a major stroke and wouldn’t be in the position of having to lie about it constantly,” a senior communications adviser to Oz’s campaign said earlier this year.
On the other hand, Fetterman’s health journey could resonate with some people. According to estimates from Kruse and Schur, 69 million people in the 2020 electorate either had a disability themselves or lived with someone with a disability. “So almost one-third of people have very direct experience with disability,” Kruse said. “And when a politician says they have a disability, I think a lot of people with disabilities and those who are close to them will say, you know, that’s me. That’s part of my identity.”
In his interview this week, Fetterman said that his experience gave him an even greater ability to understand the challenges that voters face. “In some ways, having an impairment has some positive valence for candidates because recovering from a serious illness demonstrates grit and resilience,” Scotch said.
At this point, we don’t know enough to say for certain whether Fetterman’s interview and the ongoing recovery from his stroke will change the way he’s perceived. It’s very possible that it won’t, Kruse predicted, since the Democrat utilized widely available closed-captioning technology he said most voters could see as “reasonable.” And despite the fact that our metrics show a tightening race in Pennsylvania, that could be due to a number of factors, including both campaigns ratcheting up attack ads on a host of issues as Election Day approaches or Republican voters coalescing behind Oz.
Overall, though, voters still overwhelmingly have a positive view of Fetterman, according to recent polls. A September Marist Poll of registered voters in Pennsylvania, for instance, found that a plurality of adults in the state (45 percent) said they had a favorable view of Fetterman compared with 39 percent who had an unfavorable view. Oz, meanwhile, was underwater: Just 30 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the former TV personality versus 51 percent who viewed him unfavorably.
That said, we would expect that this issue will come up again — especially as the race could well determine which party controls the Senate. Fetterman and Oz are slated to debate on Oct. 25, so there’s time for Oz’s attacks to sink in — but also time for Fetterman to respond.
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
