A split federal appeals court panel again rejected the Trump administration’s bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots it says are likely noncitizens until they can be verified. The 2-1 majority on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit didn’t dispute a lower court’s finding that the list isn’t credible and ruled the…
A split federal appeals court panel again rejected the Trump administration’s bid to set aside 20,000 California ballots it says are likely noncitizens until they can be verified. The 2-1 majority on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit didn’t dispute a lower court’s finding that the list isn’t credible and ruled the…
Michigan Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed (D) on Thursday responded to President Trump’s suggestion that the Democratic candidate should be forced to go through a metal detector at the U.S. Capitol if elected to Congress. During a campaign rally in Kalamazoo, Mich., El-Sayed said he would accept the request if Trump agreed to “sit for a…
Michigan Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed (D) on Thursday responded to President Trump’s suggestion that the Democratic candidate should be forced to go through a metal detector at the U.S. Capitol if elected to Congress. During a campaign rally in Kalamazoo, Mich., El-Sayed said he would accept the request if Trump agreed to “sit for a…
Uma disputa eleitoral incomum chama a atenção no estado do Alasca, nos Estados Unidos. Dois candidatos com o mesmo nome, Dan Sullivan, aparecem na mesma cédula de votação para uma vaga no Senado americano, gerando confusão entre os eleitores e acusações mútuas entre o Partido Democrata e o Partido Republicano.
O caso ganhou ainda mais repercussão ao se tornar objeto de uma investigação criminal. O Departamento de Justiça já teria enviado intimações para apurar se os democratas agiram propositalmente ao colocar um segundo candidato homônimo na disputa.
A editora de Internacional da CNN, Mariana Catacci, detalhou a confusão durante o Live CNN desta sexta-feira (30). Ela explicou que, nos Estados Unidos, este caso está sendo visto como uma “supresa de outubro”.
“É uma expressão usada para um evento que acontece no mês que antecede a eleição, seja presidencial ou de meio de mandato, e que pode alterar o rumo da eleição no mês seguinte”, contou Catacci.
Como surgiu a candidatura de dois Dan Sullivans
O sistema eleitoral do Alasca permite que os quatro candidatos mais bem votados nas primárias, independentemente do partido, avancem para a eleição geral.
Foi assim que um candidato independente também chamado Dan Sullivan conseguiu se inserir na disputa e aparecer ao lado do candidato republicano de mesmo nome na cédula de eleição no Alasca.
Segundo uma reportagem do jornal The New York Times, a equipe da candidata democrata Mary Peltola teria recrutado propositalmente esse segundo Dan Sullivan para causar confusão entre os eleitores e diluir os votos do candidato republicano.
A prática, conhecida como ballot stacking, consiste em incluir candidatos com poucas chances reais de vitória na cédula com o objetivo de sobrecarregar a urna e fragmentar os votos do adversário.
Legalidade e repercussão política
Embora moralmente questionável, a tática do ballot stacking é considerada legal nos Estados Unidos e já foi utilizada tanto por democratas quanto por republicanos em diferentes eleições.
No entanto, o caso específico do Alasca gerou uma reação institucional: o Departamento de Justiça iniciou investigações para determinar se a conduta dos democratas configura algum tipo de violação legal.
O contexto político torna o episódio ainda mais sensível. O Alasca é um estado em que os republicanos lideram, mas onde os democratas têm conseguido se posicionar de forma competitiva nas pesquisas, com risco real de o estado eleger um senador democrata.
O presidente Donald Trump já alegou, sem apresentar provas, que há indícios de fraude eleitoral na disputa, o que deve alimentar ainda mais o debate político nos próximos dias.
Os textos gerados por inteligência artificial na CNN Brasil são feitos com base nos cortes de vídeos dos jornais de sua programação. Todas as informações são apuradas e checadas por jornalistas. O texto final também passa pela revisão da equipe de jornalismo da CNN. Clique aqui para saber mais.
O presidente Donald Trump cancelou de última hora dois comícios previstos para este fim de semana nos estados de Iowa e Kansas, ambos tradicionalmente republicanos. Com a mudança na agenda, Trump participará apenas de um evento de campanha na Flórida.
O cancelamento surpreendeu pela forma abrupta, mas não gerou desconforto interno no partido. Pelo contrário: fontes do Partido Republicano disseram à CNN que receberam a notícia com alívio.
Outra fonte apontou que os eventos consumiam um tempo precioso que os candidatos republicanos poderiam aproveitar para intensificar suas próprias campanhas, como a realização de atividades de porta em porta.
Ao ser questionado por um repórter sobre se o cansaço seria a razão por trás dos cancelamentos, Trump negou a afirmação de forma contundente. Segundo relatos, o republicano reagiu com irritação, ofendeu o jornalista que fez a pergunta e ainda o chamou de “fora de forma”.
Os cancelamentos ocorrem em meio à disputa pelas eleições de meio de mandato americanas, que serão realizadas na próxima terça-feira (3). As midterms preveem a renovação de todas as cadeiras da Câmara dos Representantes e de 35 das 100 cadeiras do Senado.
Hoje, os republicanos detêm a maioria nas duas casas do Congresso. As pesquisas apontam para uma possível virada nas duas casas, tornando a disputa ainda mais acirrada.
Entre os estados que concentram atenção está o Texas, historicamente republicano, mas onde a comunidade latina tem pesado nos resultados.
O candidato do Partido Democrata James Talarico aparece com margem de vantagem na região, impulsionado por uma injeção recorde de recursos financeiros da campanha democrata e pelo voto latino, que teria se distanciado de Trump em razão de sua política migratória.
O ex-presidente Barack Obama também tem atuado ativamente na campanha democrata, viajando por diversos estados em apoio aos candidatos do partido.
Os textos gerados por inteligência artificial na CNN Brasil são feitos com base nos cortes de vídeos dos jornais de sua programação. Todas as informações são apuradas e checadas por jornalistas. O texto final também passa pela revisão da equipe de jornalismo da CNN. Clique aqui para saber mais.
There’s only one problem with this narrative: It has zero empirical basis. It’s a total confection of US media and the pro-Israel lobby that isn’t supported by any data whatsoever. Two recent polls, one from Marist and one from RedBox Research, make it clear that El-Sayed’s support among Democratic voters in Michigan is both extremely high (95%) and the exact same percentage as Republican candidate Mike Rogers’ support with Republicans. And a new poll from Mitchell Research CBS complicates the narrative even further, finding that support for El-Sayed among Democrats is, in fact, 3 points higher than Rogers is among Republicans, at 94% versus 91%, respectively.
If El-Sayed and Rogers have the exact same percent of party dissent—or, as is the case in the CBS Detroit poll, Rogers has more—then why are there countless stories highlighting, handwringing, and scandalizing the trivially small dissent for only one of the candidates? Where are the breathless profiles of Republicans refusing to vote for Rogers? Where are the NPR and CNN segments focusing on “Republican divisions”?
There, of course, aren’t any, because this narrative wouldn’t advance an ideological agenda.
The “Michigan Democrats are divided” narrative has been pushed by local and national media alike, from Bridge Michigan to Reuters to Michigan Advocate to the New York Times, who reported Thursday (again, falsely), “Democrats in Michigan… remain far more divided than party leaders had hoped to be going into the election.” The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell said on Wednesday that El-Sayed is “having a lot of trouble putting [the Democratic] coalition back together again” after his defeat of Hayley Stevens in the Democratic primary in August. The AP insisted that “Democrats are still struggling to unite behind El-Sayed” which, again, is outright false: El-Sayed has the support of 95%of Democrats.
An April IMEU poll found that Michigan Democrats think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza 66%to 14%, at a ratio of almost 5-to-1. Does this seem like an issue Michigan democrats are “divided” over?
For another point of reference, El-Sayed’s support among Democrats of 95% is higher than other high-profile centrist Democrats, including Roy Cooper of North Carolina (94%), Sherrod Brown of Ohio (93%), Kathy Hochul of New York (85%), and even with Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. El-Sayed is even doing better with top Democrats in his own state, with Michigan gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson winning only 91.8% of Democrats versus El-Sayed’s 93.1%, according to a Michigan State Department of Political Science survey published on Thursday. Yet one is hard pressed to find any “divided Democrats” stories about any of these candidates.
The theme of “Democratic divisions” in Michigan, like the attendant assertion that Israel is “dividing Demcorats” more broadly, is a wholly concocted media narrative, pushed by the pro-Israel lobby and its media allies to create tensions and the appearance of a meaningful split where none exists. As I noted in the Intercept in June, the percentage of Democrats who have a positive view of Israel, 13%, is lower than the percent of Democrats who believe in young earth creationism or those who back a full abortion ban or Christian prayer in public schools. Yet these traditionally right-wing views are never said to be “dividing Democrats” because, by and large, they clearly are not.
Just the same, Israel doesn’t really “divide” Michigan Democrats either. An April IMEU poll found that Michigan Democrats think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza 66%to 14%, at a ratio of almost 5-to-1. Does this seem like an issue Michigan democrats are “divided” over? If it is, there are dozens of other traditionally 5-to-1 issues—from marriage equality to climate change to prayer in school—that they are also technically “divided” over, but they are never discussed in these terms because they are fringe opinions among liberals.
The myth of widespread liberal zionism among Democrats is too big to fail, so it continues in zombie form, propped up by an elite liberal class that simply needs it to exist.
That’s because it’s a playbook––a PR tactic––not an actual reflection of political reality. In this playbook, our media obsesses over a trivially small percent of anti-El-Sayed Democrats in Michigan while never mentioning Republicans disillusioned with Rogers despite their polls being statistically equal. As Michael Arria at Mondowiess notes in his analysis of this manufactured “division,” polls consistently “upend the narrative that Democratic voters are split on El-Sayed.” So why does it persist?
It persists because the myth of widespread liberal zionism among Democrats is too big to fail, so it continues in zombie form, propped up by an elite liberal class that simply needs it to exist so they can appear humanitarian, worldly, and sophisticated while continuing to back—albeit with the occasional wristslap—a genocidal state currently experiencing political paralysis because their nominal liberal wing is simply too racist to give Arab parties any power whatsoever.
The rebellion against El-Sayed in Michigan, such as it exists in reality, is largely driven by ideologically motivated donors and party elites, namely those whose primary issue is bipartisan support for Israel. But it’s tacky to point this out, to note that this opposition is largely coming from a small number of actual voters and is being amplified way beyond its objective news value because influential zionist advocacy groups are pushing it to media organizations and their internal allies. This is awkward and uncomfortable to discuss, so, like with the nonexistent “Democratic divisions over Israel,” it has to be reframed as some organic dissent among “voters” or “Democrats” when, in reality, the number of El-Sayed holdouts is statistically trivial. This isn’t to say media cannot focus on issues that matter to a small number of voters. What gives the game away is that this is literally not being done for Rogers, or other high-profile centrist Democrats, despite party dissent for these candidates being greater or roughly the same.
So where are the articles profiling angry Republicans refusing to vote for Rogers? Where are the countless CNN and PBS segments detailing their grievances and pundits demanding Rogers “reach out” to them? Where are the glib, unsourced throwaway lines in the New York Times about how “Republicans in Michigan remain far more divided than party leaders had hoped to be going into the election”—since, again, this is statistically just as true for the GOP as it is for El-Sayed? There aren’t any, because this angle doesn’t discipline Israel critics and drive up the negatives on a candidate most media elites clearly want to see underperform or, if at all possible, outright lose.
The US is delaying PAC-3 interceptors for Ukraine’s Patriot air defense systems while older PAC-2s keep arriving, a NATO source told Radio Svoboda on 29 October. PAC-3 is the Patriot missile built mainly to stop ballistic missiles.
The delay comes as Russia leans on ballistic missiles against the capital. In two weeks, Russia launched more than 100 at Kyiv and Kyiv Oblast, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his 27 October evening address. “And above all, we do not have enough missiles for Patriots,” he added. On 29 October, Zelenskyy said Ukraine has intelligence that Russia is preparing new ballistic missile attacks. Kyiv is “awaiting the relevant decisions” on interceptor packages, “primarily for Patriots,” he said.
A question for politicians
The PAC-2s, used mostly against aircraft and cruise missiles, arrive through PURL, the NATO mechanism under which allies pay for US weapons for Ukraine. The PAC-3 delay is under discussion at a high political level, the NATO source said. It is unclear when the situation will change.
What Washington said before
On 20 October, Hegseth said in Wisconsin: “We haven’t changed our posture in any way toward the Ukrainians, but certainly with things like interceptors, we want to make sure our guys have the most possible as well.”
“We haven’t changed our posture in any way toward the Ukrainians, but certainly with things like interceptors, we want to make sure our guys have the most possible as well.” Hegseth said in Wisconsin
The same day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio conceded that some interceptors bought for Ukraine through PURL may not have been delivered, Reuters reported. “There’s nothing being deliberately denied to Ukraine,” he said, adding: “We have our own needs, too.”
La doctora María Neira competirá por el cargo de directora general de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), junto a otros seis candidatos propuestos por los Estados miembros. España ha presentado oficialmente su candidatura para suceder a Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, cuyo mandato concluye en agosto de 2027.
Neira es una figura con una larga trayectoria en la OMS: dirigió entre 2005 y 2025 el Departamento de Medio Ambiente, Cambio Climático y Salud de la organización. Su perfil combina la salud pública internacional, la prevención primaria y la respuesta a los riesgos sanitarios vinculados al cambio climático.
Antes de su etapa en Ginebra, fue vice ministra de Salud de España y dirigió la Agencia Española de Seguridad Alimentaria. También inició su trabajo humanitario con Médicos Sin Fronteras en campamentos de refugiados en América Central.
Los siete aspirantes
Los candidatos propuestos son Hanan Mohammed Al-Kuwari, propuesta por Catar, Hanan Balkhy, propuesta por Arabia Saudí, Hans Henri P. Kluge, propuesto por Bélgica, María P. Neira, propuesta por España, Budi Gunadi Sadikin, propuesto por Indonesia, Li Song, propuesta por China, Gevorg Tamamyan, propuesto por Botsuana.
El proceso comenzará con un primer foro de candidatos los días 18 y 19 de noviembre de 2026 en la sede de la OMS en Ginebra, donde los aspirantes se reunirán con los Estados miembros y miembros asociados. El encuentro se retransmitirá en directo en la web de la OMS en todas las lenguas oficiales.
A principios de 2027, el Consejo Ejecutivo reducirá la lista a cinco candidatos, los entrevistará y propondrá un máximo de tres para la consideración final de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud. Un segundo foro con los candidatos seleccionados tendrá lugar el 15 de marzo de 2027. La 80.ª Asamblea Mundial de la Salud nombrará al nuevo director general en mayo de 2027. La persona elegida asumirá el cargo el 16 de agosto de 2027.
Login
