Presidential Election of 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Television

      Without Another Debate, the Campaign Became a Duel of TV Scenes

      by

      As the candidates raced to claim different corners of the national screen this week, it was “Undercover Boss” vs. “Roll the clip.”In a typical election season — remember those? — right about now we would be preparing for, or recovering from, the final presidential debate. But Oct. 23, the date of a proposed CNN showdown that Kamala Harris accepted and Donald J. Trump declined, came and went without one.Instead, as Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump raced to claim different corners of the national screen, they were essentially staging a virtual debate, presenting competing versions of themselves on strikingly different stages.Mr. Trump substituted the debate podium with a takeout window, performing a shift on the fry cooker at a closed McDonald’s franchise and violating the occasional job protocol. It was a familiar kind of reality-TV stunt for a reality-TV candidate.This time, however, he was not emulating “The Apprentice” but staging a political version of “Undercover Boss.”On the CBS reality series, which aired 11 seasons from 2010 to 2022, company executives went incognito to work low-level jobs at their companies. The premise was to show bigwigs how the grunts lived. But it also served, in the years after the financial collapse and Great Recession, as a form of prime-time crisis P.R. Chief executives were people too, it told us; they shared common purpose and mutual respect with the rank and file.Mr. Trump’s shift, which lasted less time than a single “Undercover Boss” episode, had different aims. Most overtly, it was a way of using virality — what news producer can resist footage of Donald Trump shoveling fries into a container? — to spread his unsubstantiated claim that Ms. Harris had lied about working at McDonald’s while in college. (As with his birtherism campaign against Barack Obama, media coverage generally noted that his charges were baseless, but the dust still got kicked up, the doubts potentially sown.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in Movies

      Presidents in Movies Always Seem to Know What They’re Doing. In Real Life …

      by

      Hollywood’s polished leaders and legible story arcs never quite imagined the places real-life American politics would go.In October 1960, when the novelist Philip Roth was just 27, he shared an unsettling revelation: Reality was outstripping fiction. “The American writer,” he wrote, “has his hands full in trying to understand, and then describe, and then make credible much of the American reality.” He ticked off examples of newsmakers that novelists couldn’t dream up: men like the quiz-show scammer Charles Van Doren; the Eisenhower chief of staff Sherman Adams, who resigned after accepting improper gifts; and, presciently, Roy Cohn, the sinister McCarthyite prosecutor who would become, in later years, mentor to a young Donald Trump.In the 64 years since Roth first made this observation, it has become an oft-repeated refrain that the novel can do only so much to approximate reality’s madness. Cinema and television, though, haven’t done much better. The spectacle of the screen, in some sense, was supposed to — the edict is entertainment and often entertainment alone. Shouldn’t Hollywood have offered us, at some point, a president like one of our last two, Trump and Joe Biden? Or a plot twist akin to this summer’s, in which an incumbent presidential candidate was effectively toppled and his vice president took his place without winning a single primary vote? But showrunners and moviemakers never really foresaw a presidency quite like either of the last two or a campaign like this one. Their work has underestimated both what the American political system is capable of producing and what voters could ultimately stomach.Consider the American president on film. Morgan Freeman in “Deep Impact,” stoically guiding the nation through the approach of a civilization-annihilating comet. Michael Douglas in “The American President,” as a popular, introspective widower straining to date again. Or Bill Pullman’s President Thomas Whitmore in “Independence Day”: a swaggering Air Force veteran, leading his makeshift squadron into combat against the alien invaders.The generic cinema president of the 20th century was informed by politicians of that era and the sensibilities they cultivated. In style and rhetoric, the two parties often bled together. In the 1980s and ’90s, to be “presidential” was to be well coifed, almost glossy — the Kennedyesque ethos adopted by Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in equal measure. Each, for a certain segment of the populace, was a nigh-heroic figure; even for those who disagreed, there remained a halo of dignity around the office itself. It helped that the parties were converging on policy, with Clinton’s Democrats swerving rightward after the rise of Reaganomics: Hollywood’s presidents, Democrat or Republican, didn’t even need to seem so different from one another.It is difficult to imagine Trump, or Biden, risking his life in the skies to save humanity or summoning the gravitas to inspire a nation. Biden, of course, is hampered by advanced age, something no well-known Hollywood depictions of the American presidency ever reckoned with — that a president in his 80s might, say, struggle to perform in a single televised debate and find his party in revolt, pressing him to stand down. Prestige-film presidents do not forget the names of world leaders or how their sons actually died; they don’t shout out to politicians at a White House event who aren’t there because they are dead. That stuff is more Shakespearean.And Trump, of course, is sui generis. What movie fathomed a fading reality-TV star’s running for president, winning, eventually trying to steal the next election, inciting a deadly riot at the Capitol, being indicted for falsifying business records, winning the Republican nomination anyway, almost being assassinated, blathering in another televised debate about the fictional consumption of cats and dogs in Ohio — and still running almost even in the polls? Even in the most surreal comedy, this would seem too absurd. TV presidents don’t lie with so much impunity. They possess a degree of tact and reserve that is utterly alien to Trump. In a film, something like the “Access Hollywood” tape might be the pivotal plot device that decides an election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Movies

      Sebastian Stan and Jeremy Strong Say ‘The Apprentice’ Is a ‘Human Tragedy’

      by

      It’s natural to feel nervous before presenting your movie at a major film festival. But in late August, when the director Ali Abbasi boarded a flight to the Telluride Film Festival, he wasn’t even sure if his new movie “The Apprentice” — a fictionalized look at the Machiavellian bond between the young Donald J. Trump (Sebastian Stan) and the lawyer and fixer Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong) — would be permitted to play there at all.“It was really crazy what happened, and I spared Jeremy and Sebastian some of it, but it is a demoralizing feeling,” Abbasi admitted during a recent video call with his two stars. The former president had been threatening legal action against “The Apprentice” since its May debut at the Cannes Film Festival, which chilled distributor interest in the movie for months and made it a controversial prospect for any subsequent festival willing to show it.“If a movie comes out and people think it’s bad or it’s flawed, you can deal with that,” Abbasi said. “But when it goes into a safe box indefinitely, that was heavy.”In the end, Trump failed to follow through on his threats, Telluride played the movie without incident and “The Apprentice” ultimately found a distributor in Briarcliff Entertainment, which will release the film on Friday. Still, Strong was perturbed by how many major studios were unwilling to take on the film and potentially incur the presidential candidate’s wrath.“You think that things could be banned in North Korea or Russia or certain places, but you don’t think that will ever happen here,” Strong said. “It’s a real dark harbinger that it even nearly happened.”Written by Gabriel Sherman, “The Apprentice” begins with Trump in his 20s as he toils under his real-estate magnate father and aspires to become a momentous figure in his own right. Still, Trump’s ambition exceeds his ability until he meets the savvy Cohn, who takes the young man under his wing and imparts ruthless rules for success that will eventually launch Trump onto the highest stage imaginable.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Television

      Vance and Walz’s Battle of the Network Co-Stars

      by

      In what could be the last prime-time showdown of the 2024 campaign, the supporting players performed against type.If a presidential election is a TV series — and partly it is, like it or not — then the vice-presidential debate is usually a departure episode: an installment that briefly shifts focus to a couple of side characters. It might be memorable or forgettable, but it is generally skippable.Tuesday’s debate between Senator JD Vance of Ohio and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota was a bit different. With only Kamala Harris having committed to an Oct. 23 debate proffered by CNN and Donald J. Trump having thus far declined, it may well have been the last big prime-time moment until election night.It was not, however, a bombshell-packed season-ender. The change in cast produced a change in style, in a spirited but often surprisingly collegial debate whose attacks were largely aimed offstage, at the leaders of the ticket.This was not the debate one might have expected from these candidates, each chosen in part for his media presence. Mr. Vance has been combative in TV interviews, embodying the trolling spirit of Mr. Trump’s most extremely online surrogates. Mr. Walz shot to fame on the strength of his cable news appearances and quirky viral videos, playing the down-to-earth happy warrior who mocked opponents as “weird.”Neither performed to type on the CBS stage. Mr. Vance, who can be cutting and snide in TV interviews (and has been notorious for insults like “childless cat ladies”), answered smoothly and kept mainly cordial to his opponent. Mr. Walz, while peppering his answers with folksy touches — “My pro tip of the day is this” — spoke in a nervous rush, with fewer flashes of “Coach Walz” pep.A decade of Trump has conditioned us to think of debates as rounds of Mortal Kombat, with dire rhetoric and imagery to match. Here, there was a lot of “I agree” and “I think this is a healthy conversation” amid the factual disputes and prepared critiques of the top of the ticket. You might briefly have forgotten this was America in the year 2024.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Television

      Calling ‘Survivor’ Contestants From Tim Walz’s Motorcade

      by

      Covering an election year can be stressful. But instead of binge-watching “Survivor” to decompress, two reporters wrote about the politics — or, lack thereof — on the show instead.Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.When I first heard that Jon Lovett, the prominent political podcast host and former speechwriter for Barack Obama, would be a contestant on the new season of “Survivor,” I pleaded with my editor to write about it.(To answer your question, yes, “that show” is still on.)Covering politics during a tense election year in a closely divided country is often deadly serious, and rife with animosity. This seemed like an opportunity to write something lighter.To my surprise, my editor was game.I have vague memories of watching “Survivor” as a kid with my parents in the early 2000s, somewhere around the tail end of the show’s initial run of popularity. I rediscovered it when I started high school in 2012 — season 25 was airing — and was hooked. I began watching religiously, first on my own, and now with a group of friends on Wednesday nights, when the episodes air on CBS.It’s a remarkable run for a series with a relatively simple premise: A group of strangers are marooned on a remote tropical island and must work together to build shelter, forage for food and endure the elements, all while forming alliances and voting someone off the show each week. Though “Survivor” has, on occasion, injected new twists to keep seasons feeling fresh, something about the original format has stuck with viewers like me.For all the various real-life societal issues that have played out on the “Survivor” beach — racial tensions, discussions over gender and sexuality, generational divides — the announcement about Mr. Lovett, one of the hosts of the liberal podcast “Pod Save America,” made me realize that partisan politics had never been prominently featured on the show.I knew my colleague on the Politics desk, Alexandra Berzon, was also a “Survivor” fan, and would be eager to collaborate. At a Wisconsin bar one night in July, after a long day covering the Republican National Convention, Ali and I huddled in a corner, geeking out over “Survivor” factoids while our colleagues swapped political gossip.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Music

      Chappell Roan Cancels a Pair of Big Shows After Tumultuous Weeks

      by

      The pop star said things had “gotten overwhelming” and bowed out of festivals in New York and Maryland after a period in which her politics came under scrutiny.Chappell Roan, the pop star who has rocketed to stardom over the summer, abruptly canceled a pair of major festival performances scheduled for this weekend, citing “pressures” and the need to prioritize her health.The sudden cancellations of the shows in New York and Columbia, Md., come after a tumultuous few weeks for Roan, in which she called out aggressive fan behavior, engaged in a verbal spat with a photographer on the red carpet at MTV’s Video Music Awards and became entangled in politics as fans scrutinized her leanings in the 2024 presidential election.In a statement posted on her Instagram Stories on Friday, Roan said she had become overwhelmed by it all and needed to bow out her performances at the All Things Go festival.“I apologize to people who have been waiting to see me in NYC & DC this weekend at All Things Go, but I am unable to perform,” Roan said. “Things have gotten overwhelming over the past few weeks and I am really feeling it.“I feel pressures to prioritize a lot of things right now and I need a few days to prioritize my health. I want to be present when I perform and give the best shows possible. Thank you for understanding.”In the festival’s own statement, which was placed at the end of an Instagram Story that included posts from fans sharing their eagerness to see Roan, All Things Go said it was “heartbroken” by the news but supported “artists prioritizing their well-being.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Music

      Janet Jackson Repeats False Claims About Kamala Harris’s Race

      by

      After Ms. Jackson told The Guardian that Ms. Harris is “not Black,” her representatives said a man who apologized on her behalf was not authorized to speak for her.There was a swift backlash on Saturday after the pop star Janet Jackson challenged Vice President Kamala Harris’s racial identity in an interview with The Guardian. On Sunday, a man who identified himself as her manager apologized for her statements.Then Ms. Jackson’s representatives quickly distanced her from that man and his apology, saying he was not her manager and was not authorized to speak for her.The unusual turn of events began when The Guardian published a wide-ranging interview with Ms. Jackson timed to promote the European leg of her concert tour. When the reporter, Nosheen Iqbal, said the United States “could be on the verge of voting in its first Black female president,” referring to Ms. Harris, Ms. Jackson responded by saying: “Well, you know what they supposedly said? She’s not Black. That’s what I heard. That she’s Indian.”When Ms. Iqbal replied that Ms. Harris, the Democratic nominee, is the daughter of an Indian woman and a Jamaican father who is Black, Ms. Jackson responded, “Her father’s white.”“That’s what I was told,” she added. “I mean, I haven’t watched the news in a few days. I was told that they discovered her father was white.”Across social media, people expressed bewilderment over Ms. Jackson’s comments. On “The View” on Monday, one of the hosts, Ana Navarro, said Ms. Jackson had been “very irresponsible” and had used the Guardian interview “carelessly, to spread misinformation.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Television

      In the Presidential Debate, Kamala Harris Produced the Show She Wanted

      by

      In Tuesday’s debate, the vice president made herself the studio audience for a cringe comedy starring her opponent.At the ABC presidential debate, Kamala Harris had a programming challenge. Working against an experienced reality-TV professional, a savant of live broadcasts, she had to pull off a successful reboot of Democrats’ least-favorite TV show of the 2024 season: the June debate that saw the self-immolation of President Biden.There were some hurdles. The same rules in place on CNN in June still held. There was no studio audience, and each candidate’s microphone would be turned off when the other was speaking. When Mr. Biden was still running, these guardrails were meant to avoid the dumpster fire of cross-talk and shouting that marked the first 2020 debate. But that would frustrate Ms. Harris’s campaign goal, which was to encourage Mr. Trump to be his own worst enemy.So she, and whoever prepared her for Tuesday’s showdown, did what prime-time producers have done since TV’s early days: They worked within the constraints of the medium to produce the show they wanted.If Mr. Trump could not bluster and shout over her, she would need to get him to melt down on his own time. If he could not stalk her onstage, as he did with Hillary Clinton in 2016, she would have to use the staging and the split-screen to create a dominance contest on her own terms.It began before the first question was asked. Ms. Harris crossed the stage toward Mr. Trump and offered her hand. The handshake was a small exercise of control, designed to be seen by a prime-time audience: She was the active party, initiating the encounter, and he the reactive one, accepting. She introduced herself — “Kamala Harris” — as if to anticipate his habit of mispronouncing her first name. Visually, she made herself the focus of attention, the protagonist of the drama.Then she set about making Mr. Trump into the antagonist she wanted, needling and baiting him, pulling his levers and pushing his buttons.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More