DiscoverThe Daily
The Daily

The Daily

Author: The New York Times

Subscribed: 1,096,043Played: 49,454,799
Share

Description

This is what the news should sound like. The biggest stories of our time, told by the best journalists in the world. Hosted by Michael Barbaro. Twenty minutes a day, five days a week, ready by 6 a.m.

1053 Episodes
Reverse
What does the specter of the 2000 election mean for the upcoming election? The race between George W. Bush and Al Gore that year turned on the result in Florida, where the vote was incredibly close and mired in balloting issues. After initially conceding, Mr. Gore, the Democratic nominee, contested the count.What followed was a flurry of court cases, recounts, partisan fury and confusion. It would be months until — after a Supreme Court decision — Mr. Bush would become the 43rd president of the United States.The confrontation held political lessons for both sides. Lessons that could be put to the test next week in an election likely to be shrouded in uncertainty: The pandemic, the volume of mail-in voters and questions around mail delivery could result in legal disputes.Today, we take a look back at the contest between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush.Guest: Jim Rutenberg, a writer-at-large for The New York Times and The Times Magazine. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: A number of legal battles over voting rights are in the pipeline. Any ruling could resonate nationwide.Elections supervisors say they have learned the hard lessons of the 2000 presidential recount and other messes. But challenges are already apparent.
In America’s increasingly divided political landscape, it can be hard to imagine almost any voter switching sides. One demographic group has provided plenty of exceptions: white suburban women.In the past four years, the group has turned away from the president in astonishing numbers. And many of them are organizing — Red, Wine and Blue is a group made up of suburban women from Ohio hoping to swing the election for Joe Biden. The organization draws on women who voted for the president and third parties in 2016, as well as existing Democratic voters.In today’s episode, Lisa Lerer, who covers campaigns, elections and political power for The New York Times, speaks to white suburban women on the ground in Ohio and explores their shifting allegiances and values.Guest: Lisa Lerer, a reporter for The New York Times covering campaigns, elections and political power.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: The white suburban voters the president needs to carve a path to victory have turned away from him, often for deeply personal reasons.
During months of pandemic isolation, Wesley Morris, a critic at large for The New York Times, decided to grow a mustache.The reviews were mixed and predictable. He heard it described as “porny” and “creepy,” as well as “rugged” and “extra gay.”It was a comment on a group call, however, that gave him pause. Someone noted that his mustache made him look like a lawyer for the N.A.A.C.P.’s legal defense fund.“It was said as a winking correction and an earnest clarification — Y’all, this is what it is,” Wesley said. “The call moved on, but I didn’t. That is what it is: one of the sweetest, truest things anybody had said about me in a long time.”On today’s episode of The Sunday Read, Wesley Morris’s story about self-identity and the symbolic power of the mustache.This story was written by Wesley Morris and recorded by Audm. To hear more audio stories from publishers like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.
At the start of Thursday night’s debate its moderator, Kristen Welker of NBC News, delivered a polite but firm instruction: The matchup should not be a repeat of the chaos of last month’s debate. It was a calmer affair and, for the first few segments, a more structured and linear exchange of views. President Trump, whose interruptions came to define the first debate, was more restrained, seemingly heeding advice that keeping to the rules of the debate would render his message more effective. And while there were no breakthrough moments for Joseph R. Biden Jr., the former vice president managed to make more of a case for himself than he did last month, on issues such as the coronavirus and economic support for families and businesses in distress. Alexander Burns, a national political correspondent, gives us a recap of the night’s events and explores what it means for an election that is just 11 days away. Guest: Alexander Burns, a national political correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: While the tenor of Thursday’s forum was more sedate, the conflict in matters of substance and vision could not have been more dramatic.Here are some highlights from last night’s debate. 
The winner-take-all system used by the Electoral College in the United States appears nowhere in the Constitution. It awards all of a state’s electors to the candidate with the most votes, no matter how small the margin of victory. Critics say that means millions of votes are effectively ignored.The fairness of the Electoral College was seriously questioned in the 1960s. Amid the civil rights push, changes to the system were framed as the last step of democratization. But a constitutional amendment to introduce a national popular vote for president was eventually killed by segregationist senators in 1970.Desire for an overhaul dwindled until the elections of 2000 and 2016, when the system’s flaws again came to the fore. In both instances, the men who became president had lost the popular vote.Jesse Wegman, a member of The Times’s editorial board, describes how the winner-take-all system came about and how the Electoral College could be modified.Guest: Jesse Wegman, a member of The New York Times’s editorial board.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Here’s a guide to how the Electoral College works.Watch Jesse’s explainer, from our Opinion section, on how President Trump could win the election — even if he loses.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have invested a significant amount of time and money trying to avoid the mistakes made during the 2016 election.A test of those new policies came last week, when The New York Post published a story that contained supposedly incriminating documents and pictures taken from the laptop of Hunter Biden. The provenance and authenticity of that information is still in question, and Joe Biden’s campaign has rejected the assertions.We speak to Kevin Roose, a technology columnist for The Times, about how the episode reveals the tension between fighting misinformation and protecting free speech.Guest: Kevin Roose, a technology columnist for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Here’s Kevin’s full report on the efforts by Twitter and Facebook to limit the spread of the Hunter Biden story.The New York Post published the piece despite doubts within the paper’s newsroom — some reporters withheld their bylines and questioned the credibility of the article.Joe Biden’s campaign has rejected the assertions made in the story.
In the struggle to control the U.S. Senate, one race in North Carolina — where the Republican incumbent, Thom Tillis, is trying to hold off his Democratic challenger, Cal Cunningham — could be crucial.North Carolina is a classic purple state with a split political mind: progressive in some quarters, while firmly steeped in Southern conservative tradition in others.Two bombshells have recently upended the race: Mr. Tillis fell ill with the coronavirus after attending an event for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination without a mask. And Mr. Cunningham’s image was sullied by the emergence of text messages showing that he had engaged in an extramarital affair.Jonathan Martin, a national political correspondent for The Times, talks us through the race and examines the factors that could determine who prevails.Guest: Jonathan Martin, a national political correspondent for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: North Carolina is a linchpin in the 2020 election — the presidency and the Senate could hinge on results in the state.Here’s how the critical senate race was engulfed in chaos in a single night.
This episode contains strong language. In the last decade, elections have tightened in Arizona, a traditionally Republican stronghold, as Democrats gain ground.According to polls, Joe Biden is leading in the state — partly because of white suburban women moving away from President Trump, but also because of efforts to activate the Latino vote.Will that turn states like Arizona blue? And do enough Hispanic voters actually want Mr. Biden as president?To gauge the atmosphere, Jennifer Medina, a national politics reporter for The New York Times, spoke to Democratic activists and Trump supporters in Arizona.Guests: Jennifer Medina, a national politics reporter for The Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Though a majority of Latino voters favors Democrats, Hispanic men are a small but enduring part of Trump’s base. Those supporters see him as forceful, unapologetic and a symbol of economic success.If Joe Biden wins Arizona, he would be only the second Democratic presidential candidate to have done so since 1952. But the state has been trending more friendly to the party for years.
Jim Dwyer, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for The New York Times, died earlier this month. He was 63.Throughout his nearly 40-year career, Jim was drawn to stories about discrimination, wrongly convicted prisoners and society’s mistreated outcasts. From 2007, he wrote The Times’s “About New York” column — when asked whether he had the best job in journalism, he responded, “I believe I do.”Dan Barry, a reporter for The Times who also wrote for the column, has called Jim a “newsman of consequence” and “a determined voice for the vulnerable.” Today, he reads two stories written by Jim, his friend and colleague.These stories were written by Jim Dwyer and read by Dan Barry. To hear more audio stories from publishers like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.
In the second of a two-part examination of the presidential candidates’ policies, we turn to Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s agenda and how he plans to govern a nation wracked by a public health and economic crisis.The themes of Mr. Biden’s Democratic primary campaign were broad as he eschewed the policy-intensive approach of opponents like Senator Elizabeth Warren. But the onset of the pandemic helped shape and crystallize his policy plans.His approach stands in stark contrast to that of President Trump: Mr. Biden wants to actively mobilize federal resources in addressing the pandemic, an expansion to health care that he hopes will endure beyond the coronavirus.Today, we speak to Alexander Burns, a national political correspondent, about Mr. Biden’s plans for dealing with the current crisis and beyond.Guest: Alexander Burns, a national political reporter at The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: We delve into the candidates’ backgrounds and present key questions about the campaigns of Donald Trump and Joe Biden.With 18 days to go, here’s a guide to the 2020 election with the latest updates, polling news and information on how to vote.
In a two-part examination of the policies of the president and of the man seeking to replace him, Joe Biden, we first take a look at what Donald Trump said he would do four years ago — and what he’s actually accomplished.On some of the big issues, Mr. Trump has been the president he told us he was going to be, keeping commitments on deregulation, taxes, military spending and the judiciary.But other potent promises — such as replacing Obamacare, draining “the swamp” in Washington and forcing Mexico to pay for a border wall — have withered.Today, we speak to Peter Baker, The Times’s chief White House correspondent, about Mr. Trump’s record. Tomorrow, we scrutinize Mr. Biden’s plans for the presidency.Guest: Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: We delve into the background of the candidates and present key questions about the campaigns of Donald Trump and Joe Biden.With 19 days to go, here’s a guide to the 2020 election with the latest updates, polling news and information on how to vote.
It was a 12-hour session. Twenty-two senators took turns questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett on her record and beliefs.Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, evoked personal experience of life before Roe v. Wade and asked Judge Barrett whether she would vote to overturn abortion rights.On that question, Judge Barrett demurred — an approach she would take to other contentious issues, including whether she would recuse herself if a presidential election dispute came before the court.With Judge Barrett’s confirmation all but certain, Democratic senators pressed her more with the election in mind than out of any hope of derailing her rise.Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, gives us a rundown of the second day of the hearings.Guest: Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: In declining to detail her legal views, Judge Barrett said she would not be “a pawn” of President Trump.With the hearing taking place closer to an election than any other Supreme Court confirmation — and with the Senate Republican majority at real risk — the proceeding was riddled with electoral politics.Judge Barrett’s testimony was a deft mix of expertise and evasion. She demonstrated easy familiarity with Supreme Court precedents but said almost nothing about whether they should stand.
In March, Congress pushed through a relief package that preserved the U.S. economy during the pandemic. It felt like government functioning at its best.But now, that money is running out and bipartisanship has given way to an ideological stalemate.While Republicans balk at plans for further significant government spending — even those coming from the White House — Democrats are holding out for more money and a broader package of measures.The absence of a deal could have dire consequences. One economist estimates that without a stimulus package, there could be four million fewer jobs next year.We talk to Jim Tankersley, who covers the economy for The Times, about what’s getting in the way of an agreement.Guest: Jim Tankersley, who covers economic and tax policy for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: After posting on Twitter that he was ending talks, President Trump reversed course, raising the stimulus offer to $1.8 trillion. But his own party may reject that plan, handing Democrats fresh leverage.While Democrats hold out for more concessions, deep divisions among Senate Republicans stand in the way of any relief bill.
Most Americans say that abortion should be legal with some restrictions, but President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, signed a statement in a 2006 newspaper advertisement opposing “abortion on demand.” Her accession would bolster a conservative majority among the justices.How did that happen? According to Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, abortion rights advocates have for too long taken Roe v. Wade for granted.Ms. Hogue describes how Republican attacks on abortion were not countered forcefully enough. “I think most people in elected positions had been taught for a long time to sort of ‘check the box’ on being what we would call pro-choice and then move on,” she said.Guest: Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: The 2006 statement signed by Amy Coney Barrett appears to be the most direct evidence of her personal views, ones she has vowed to set aside on the bench.The issue of abortion contains political risks for both Democrats and Republicans, even as it energizes parts of their bases.
“We are conditioned to believe that art is safe,” Sam Anderson, a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, explained in this week’s The Sunday Read. “Destruction happens in a number of ways, for any number of reasons, at any number of speeds — and it will happen, and no amount of reverence will stop it.”Today, Sam explores his personal relationship with Michelangelo's David and the imperfections that could bring down the world’s most “perfect” statue.This story was written by Sam Anderson and recorded by Audm. To hear more audio stories from publishers like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.
This episode contains strong language.Over the summer, Dave Mitchko started a makeshift pro-Trump sign operation from his garage. By his estimate he has handed out around 26,000 signs, put together with the help of his family.Mr. Mitchko might seem like the kind of voter Joseph R. Biden Jr. wants to peel away from the Republicans in November. He had always been a Democrat — he voted for Barack Obama twice — but opted for Donald Trump in 2016.Today, we speak to voters and politicians on the ground in northeastern Pennsylvania, exploring the factors that swung former Democratic strongholds toward Mr. Trump and asking whether Mr. Biden can win them back.  Guest: Shane Goldmacher, a national political reporter for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: After the turbulent first presidential debate, Mr. Biden embarked on an old-fashioned train tour to cities where the president won over working-class white voters four years ago.
During most campaigns, the job of the vice-presidential candidates focuses on boosting the person heading the ticket. Proving their suitability for the top job is secondary.But this year is different. The president is 74 and spent much of the past week in the hospital, and his Democratic rival is 77. So it was vital for their running mates, Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris, to show in Wednesday night’s debate that they would be capable of stepping up if necessary.We speak to Alexander Burns, a Times national political correspondent, about the candidates’ strategies and whether anything new emerged four weeks before the election.Guest: Alexander Burns, a national political correspondent for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: The back-and-forth between Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris was more civil than the unruly presidential event, but featured sharp exchanges over the coronavirus, China policy, job creation and health care.Here are six takeaways from the night.
The pandemic has killed more than one million people around the world, at least 210,000 in the United States alone. The illness has infiltrated the White House and infected the president.Today, we offer an update on measures to fight the coronavirus and try to predict the outbreak’s course.Guest: Donald G. McNeil Jr., a science and health reporter for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Fearing a “twindemic” — the onset of both the flu and the coronavirus — health experts are pushing people to get influenza shots.Here’s how to identify the different symptoms of the flu and Covid-19.Donald tells us about his job trying to “cover the future.”
This episode contains strong language. Jack Nicas, a technology reporter for The New York Times, moved to Oakland, Calif., five years ago. When he arrived, he set out to find a bar of choice. It quickly became the Hatch.Unpretentious, cheap and relaxed, the Hatch was a successful small business until the coronavirus hit.After the announcement in March that California would order bars and restaurants to shut down, Jack decided to follow the fortunes of the Hatch. Over six months, he charted the struggle to keep the tavern afloat and the hardship suffered by its staff.“I can’t afford to be down in the dumps about it,” Louwenda Kachingwe, the Hatch’s owner, told Jack as he struggled to come up with ideas to keep the bar running during the shutdown. “I have to be proactive, because literally people are depending on it.”Guest: Jack Nicas, a technology reporter for The Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Here’s the full story of the Oakland tavern and its staff as they try to weather the fallout from the pandemic. 
On Saturday morning, the doctors treating President Trump for the coronavirus held a news conference outside Walter Reed National Military Medical Center — a show of strength, aimed at reassuring the American public that he was in capable hands.But instead of allaying concern, it raised questions, casting doubt on the timeline of the president’s illness and the seriousness of his condition. We speak to Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker, White House correspondents for The Times, about the efforts to control the narrative, and pick through what is known about the president’s condition a month before the election.Guest:Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker, White House correspondents for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: The president made a surprise outing from the hospital in an effort to show his improvement, but the murky and shifting narrative of his illness was rewritten again with grim new details.Dr. Sean P. Conley, who acknowledged that he had misled the public about the president’s treatment, has lost credibility with some colleagues.We have a timeline of the president’s symptoms and treatment.
loading
Comments (4340)

Andi-Roo Libecap

WOW - such a great episode - excellent reporting and a really inspiring group of women! This piece gave me immense hope. Just for a moment I could sit down my heavy burden and feel peace and joy. ty NYT!

Oct 28th
Reply

Socio Logie

superb field reporting. Powerful. Politics can includes emotions is a really poweful way.

Oct 28th
Reply

Rebecca Bennett

Thank you so much for this story 💜

Oct 27th
Reply

Rebecca Bennett

I've always been a proud nonpartisan voter. This is the first ballot I've ever voted along party lines alone. I don't think I'll ever be able to vote for a republican candidate ever again. They've stood by, lied, cheated and stolen at every move. They have shown their true colors of amorality and I believe they should all be tried for treason against the American people.

Oct 27th
Reply (3)

Alex Mercedes

wow! the ripple effect: this story about women whose eyes were opened has also opened my eyes. Watching the new film The Way I See It yesterday lifted my spirits; this episode of The Daily brings a similar elation.

Oct 26th
Reply

Andrea A

the respect these women have for each other, as they discussed divergent viewpoints, their candor with vulnerable feelings, was refreshing, amazing, and should serve as a role model for everyone. maybe because I'm a mom too, and had many many difficult discussions with my young children explaining current world events, I want to hold up a mirror to [insert lawmaker] and ask, "have you been a good role model today? please, specifically, tell me how." a few can answer honestly, yes, but not enough. be worthy.

Oct 26th
Reply

The Rabbit Hole

There should never be any question of how masculine a mustache is, regardless of how porny or gay it may look.

Oct 26th
Reply

Jean Lugrin Ferlesch

This story gave me more hope than any I've heard in a long time. Suburban mothers compared their child-rearing values to the behavior of the Republican party and DT and saw the horrible discrepancies prompting them to change themselves...well that's profound. I watched the Borat Subsequent Moviefilm right after. Havent felt so happy since 2015

Oct 26th
Reply (1)

Rebecca Bennett

I've never in my life voted per party affiliation, this year I've voted Democrat down the line. I 100% agree with the feeling that I don't think I'll ever be able to vote for a Republican again. They allowed this, they stood by his side and lied, and cheated. Especially with the supreme court appointment this close to the election, a huge middle finger to RBG. Plus the race AND the absolute apathy for human life. They'll save a few cells, but allow racist brutality and refuse to wear a mask. They're all despicable and I can never trust that side of the line again.

Oct 26th
Reply

ToliG

Wow.. this was beautiful. That was emotionally filled, smart and exceeded my expectations. Now I want some red wine too :p.

Oct 26th
Reply

Todd Hansen

Not even a passing reference to what some might see as benefits of the Electoral College - e.g., states' rights, ensuring votes are geographically distributed and not hyper-concentrated, etc. Currently, the States elect the president based on the popular vote of their citizens. This is not an inherently flawed system as framed in this presentation. (I hesitate to refer to it as a "discussion.") It would seem the NYT is continuing its effort to frame Trump's 2016 victory as illegitimate and plant the seeds of illegitimacy in the event he pulls a rabbit out of a hat again. After the EC is eliminated, they'll start arguing that it is time to eliminate states, nationalize everything and end federalism.

Oct 22nd
Reply

Jonathan Petherbridge

I wonder why none of these systems kicked in for the Trump tax returns?

Oct 22nd
Reply

John Hopkin

I love how they tied it all together and put a little bow on top with slavery and segregation.. amazing.. these stupid hacks just cannot stop acting as propagandists for the democrat party. you idiots think the candidates only cater to six swing states? wait until the electoral college is gone and they only need to go to california and New york! pathetic disgrace for journalists

Oct 22nd
Reply (1)

ToliG

This is a real tragedy of the modern era. Social Media companies becoming the referees pretty much highlights how divisive and damaging people are in general. Those in power will use lies towards people who jump to it like its true, without an inch of skepticizm. It highlights the very flawed nature of people around the world who fail to see the bigger picture. You can definitely peel away and see who is selfish and who makes sacrifices. If some company handles truth vs false, they have the right of it because they own the company, they don't run our government. If they help people figure out what is false, in the long run, it may make some people less selfish and look at the world from a global perspective. Accept that it is flawed and that their not always right. As a child fleeing a genocide in Kosovo, don't let this be a genocide of truth where we have to beg for it like our lives depend on it. Chill out and be humbled. Help guide you're own life by helping others, you will find that it may help you too.

Oct 21st
Reply

markesssssss

Don't you think it is messed up enough that these companies get to decide what you see and what you don't? Nationalizing US Twitter should be a bipartisan goal right now. Currently it is more lucrative to cater to a left leaning audience but this could change any time.

Oct 21st
Reply

Marcy Cox

This is a horrible episode. Why aren't you talking about actual facts and not Russian propaganda? What about Ttumps taxes as and all the money he is making in China?

Oct 21st
Reply

John Hopkin

wow @nytimes way to go! you managed to beat ALLL THE WAY AROUND the bush without ever hitting it. Hack and leak campaign?? did you idiots see the reciept with hunter biden's signature on it from the repair shop? that came out yesterday you gigantic moronic clowns! libs, please you ppl are so so painfully stupid...

Oct 21st
Reply (2)

Alex Mercedes

Republican politicians in purple states are not so much afraid of alienating Independents as they are of pissing off 45. over and over, faced with the decision, they choose Orange Menace.

Oct 21st
Reply

markesssssss

It's "Latinx" now, Latino was deemed offensive by people who care about that kind of nonsense. Better fix that before you get canceled

Oct 20th
Reply

Alex Mercedes

although this report was for me a depressing story in many ways, i am impressed by the quality and integrity of the reporting. thanks (?) for broadening my awareness and understanding of Trumpist and Latinx psychology. the depth of coverage is due in large part to the patience and perseverance of the reporter.

Oct 19th
Reply
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store