The Daily

The Daily is going live today! Join us at 4 p.m. Eastern time for our first-ever Election Day broadcast. You can listen at nytimes.com/thedaily and on The New York Times iPhone app. Michael Barbaro and Carolyn Ryan, a deputy managing editor at The Times, will call our correspondents for the latest on a history-making day. We’ll get live updates from key battleground states and break down the state of the race. We hope to see you soon. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

There are many permutations of the U.S. presidential election — some messier than others.Joe Biden’s lead in national polls suggests he has a number of paths to victory. If states like Florida or Georgia break for him early on, then the Trump campaign could be in for a long night.The task for President Trump is to close those paths. If he can hold Florida and quickly add the likes of Arizona and North Carolina, then the signs could point to re-election.And then there is a third scenario. If fast-counting states are too close to call immediately and battlegrounds in the Midwest take a long time to tally votes, then a long wait for a final result — and bitter, lengthy legal challenges — could be on the cards.We speak to Alexander Burns, a national political correspondent for The Times, on the likely plotlines for election night.Guest: Alexander Burns, a national political correspondent for The New York Times, walks us through possible election night scenarios. In addition to our regular show on Election Day, The Daily is going LIVE tomorrow afternoon. Spend your Election Day with Michael Barbaro and Carolyn Ryan, deputy managing editor at The Times, as they call our correspondents for the latest on a history-making day.Tune in from 4 - 8 p.m. Eastern, only on nytimes.com/thedaily. Click here for more information. Background reading: The Trump and Biden campaigns are intensifying their efforts in Pennsylvania — an increasingly critical state.How long will counting take? We asked officials about their election results processes and about what share of the vote they expect to be finished by Wednesday. Americans are pushing through challenges like the pandemic and long lines to cast their ballot. The United States is on course to surpass 150 million votes for the first time. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

At 16, Reginald Dwayne Betts was sent to prison for nine years after pleading guilty to a carjacking, to having a gun, and to an attempted robbery.“Because Senator Kamala Harris is a prosecutor and I am a felon, I have been following her political rise, with the same focus that my younger son tracks Steph Curry threes,” Mr. Betts said in an essay he wrote for The New York Times Magazine.He had hoped that her presidential bid would be an opportunity for the country to grapple with the injustice of mass incarceration in a thoughtful way. Instead, he explained, the basic fact of her profession as a prosecutor was used by many as an indictment against her.On today’s “Sunday Read,” listen to Mr. Betts’s exploration of his experiences with the criminal justice system, Kamala Harris and the conversations that America needs to have about mass incarceration.This story was written and introduced by Reginald Dwayne Betts and recorded by Audm. To hear more audio stories from publishers like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Florida’s seniors played an important role in President Trump’s victory there in 2016. Older voters, who are mostly conservative, make up around 25 percent of the swing state’s electorate and turn out in astonishing numbers.They are also disproportionately affected by the pandemic, and polling suggests that Joe Biden is making inroads with Republican-leaning older voters.In Florida’s conservative retirement communities, however, the decision to switch from Mr. Trump can have consequences and many stay quiet for fear of reprisals.Some of these consequences are obvious: One resident who erected a sign in support of Mr. Biden woke up to “Trump” written in weedkiller on his lawn. Other effects are more personal, and more insidious.Today, Annie Brown, a senior audio producer at The Times, speaks to some of Florida’s seniors about their voting intentions — including one, Dave Niederkorn, who has turned his back on Mr. Trump and almost lost a close friend in the process.Guests: Annie Brown, a senior audio producer for The New York Times; and Patricia Mazzei, the Miami bureau chief of The Times, who covers Florida and Puerto Rico. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Older people are a crucial voting bloc in Florida. In a speech earlier this month, Joe Biden made his pitch to them.“If it’s here, it’s here” — how retirees in Florida’s Villages confronted the coronavirus in the summer. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode contains strong language.With an election in which uncertainty may abound, concerns are swirling around the possibility of political violence. Experts and officials — including those charged with the security of polling stations and ballot counting facilities — have been taking extra precautions.Americans across the political spectrum appear to be preparing themselves for this possibility, too: Eight of the 10 biggest weeks for gun sales since the late 1990s took place since March this year. Many of those sales were to people buying guns for the first time.Today’s episode examines these anxieties from two perspectives.Andy Mills, a senior audio producer for The New York Times, speaks to patrons of gun stores in Washington State about their motivations and sits down with a first-time gun owner who relays his anxiety, ignited by the unrest and protests in Seattle over the summer.And Alix Spiegel, a senior audio editor for The Times, visits three women of color in North Carolina, one of whom says the scenes in Charlottesville, the killing of Black people at the hands of the police and the threat of white militias have encouraged her to shift her anti-gun stance. Guests: Andy Mills, a senior audio producer for The New York Times; Alix Spiegel, a senior audio editor for The Times; and Reid J. Epstein, who covers campaigns and elections for The Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Gun buyers say they are motivated by a new sense of instability that is pushing them to purchase weapons for the first time, or if they already have them, to buy more. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Local news in America has long been widely trusted, and widely seen as objective. But as traditional local papers struggle, there have been attempts across the political spectrum to create more partisan outlets.Few can have been as ambitious or widespread as the nationwide network of 1,300 websites and newspapers run by Brian Timpone, a television reporter turned internet entrepreneur.He has said that he sees local news as a means of preserving American civil discourse. But a Times investigation has found that Republican operatives and public relations firms have been paying for articles in his outlets and intimately dictating the editorial direction of stories.Today, we speak to the Times journalists behind the investigation.Guests: Davey Alba, a technology reporter for The New York Times covering online misinformation and its global harms; and Jack Nicas, who covers technology for The Times from San Francisco. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Here’s the full investigation into a nationwide operation of 1,300 local sites that publishes coverage ordered up by Republican groups and corporate P.R. firms. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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.” Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

They came from Tel Aviv, Aleppo and a “small house by the river.” They were artists, whiskey drinkers and mbira players. They were also fathers, sisters and best friends.Today, we hear people from around the world reflect on those they’ve lost. For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

He assured the country the coronavirus would “disappear” soon. Then he tested positive. We explore how President Trump testing positive for the coronavirus could affect the last days of the 2020 race — and consider what might happen next.Guests: Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, White House correspondents for The Times.For more information about today's episode, visit: nytimes.com/thedaily. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode contains strong language. During much of this election cycle, Julius Irving of Gainesville, Fla., spent his days trying to get former felons registered to vote.He would tell them about Florida’s Amendment Four, a ballot initiative that extended the franchise to those who had, in the past, been convicted on felony charges — it added an estimated 1.5 million people to the electorate, the nation’s largest voting expansion in four decades.On today’s episode, Nicholas Casey, a national politics reporter, spends time with Mr. Irving in Gainesville and explores the voting rights battle in Florida.Guest: Nicholas Casey, a national politics reporter for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Former prisoners can now go to the polls in Florida. But fines remain one obstacle. Believing anything will make a difference is another. That’s where Julius Irving comes in. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The pandemic will mean that many more Americans vote by mail this year.All 50 states require people to register before they can cast a mail-in vote. But from there, the rules diverge wildly.And a lot could still change. Our correspondent Luke Broadwater, a reporter in Washington, says there are more than 300 challenges to voting-related rules winding through courts across the country.Americans should probably brace for a different kind of election night — it could be days or longer before the full picture of results emerges.Guest: Luke Broadwater, a congressional reporter for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Republicans fear that President Trump’s messaging on voting by mail could depress turnout. But Democrats worry an overreliance on the mail could leave more of their votes uncounted.A New York Times Magazine investigation found that misleading and false claims about widespread voter fraud are part of a long disinformation effort — one that Mr. Trump has taken to new extremes.Here’s how to vote in your state. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode contains strong language.Both presidential candidates had clear goals for their first debate on Tuesday.For Joseph R. Biden Jr., the contest was an opportunity to consolidate his lead in polls before Election Day. President Trump’s task was, politically, a taller order — to change the course of a race that he seems to be losing. His tactics for doing that emerged quickly: interrupt and destabilize.The result was a chaotic 90-minute back-and-forth, an often ugly melee in which the two major party nominees expressed levels of acrid contempt for each other.We speak to our correspondent Alexander Burns about the mood and themes of the debate and whether any of it moved the dial for 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: With cross talk, lies and mockery, President Trump made little attempt to reassure swing voters about his leadership. Mr. Biden hit back: “This is so unpresidential.”In his second time moderating a presidential debate, Chris Wallace of Fox News struggled to rein in the president’s behavior.Here are six takeaways from the debate. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, investigative reporters for The Times, have pored over two decades and thousands of pages of documents on Donald J. Trump’s tax information, up to and including his time in the White House.What they found was an existential threat to the image he has constructed about his wealth and lifestyle. The tax documents consistently appeared to call into question the business acumen he has cited in his presidential campaign and throughout his public life.The records suggest that whenever Mr. Trump was closely involved in the creation and running of a business, it was more likely to fail. They show no payments of federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years that The Times examined, and reveal a decade-long audit by the Internal Revenue Service that questions the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund. They also point to a reckoning on the horizon: The president appears to be personally on the hook for loans totaling $421 million, most of which is coming due within four years.We speak to Russ and Susanne about their findings and chart President Trump’s financial situation.Guest: Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, investigative reporters for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Long-concealed records on Mr. Trump’s tax information reveal struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.Here are some of the key findings from the previously hidden tax information.While the president’s Republican allies have mostly remained silent on the situation, Democrats have pounced. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s pick to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court, is a product of the conservative legal movement of the 1980s. She clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, a giant of conservative jurisprudence, and his influence is evident throughout her judicial career.Opponents of abortion, in particular, are hoping that her accession to the Supreme Court would be a crucial step forward for their movement.Her nomination ceremony in the Rose Garden this weekend appeared unremarkable. But it took place just weeks from a presidential election and barely eight days after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Republicans have the votes in the Senate to confirm Judge Barrett and a timetable that suggests that they would be able to do so before Election Day. With her path seemingly clear, we reflect on Judge Barrett’s career and her judicial philosophy.Guest: Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: In choosing Judge Barrett, President Trump opted for the candidate most likely to thrill his conservative base and outrage his liberal opponents.Judge Barrett’s record suggests that she would push the Supreme Court to the right. Here’s a guide to her stance on abortion, health care, gun rights and the death penalty. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In August, Abrahm Lustgarten, who reports on climate, watched fires burn just 12 miles from his home in Marin County, Calif.For two years, he had been studying the impact of the changing climate on global migration and recently turned some of his attention to the domestic situation.Suddenly, with fires raging so close to home, he had to ask himself the question he had been asking other people: Was it time to move?This week on The Sunday Read, Abrahm explores a nation on the cusp of transformation.This story was written by Abrahm Lustgarten and recorded by Audm. To hear more audio stories from publishers like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode contains strong language. In June, weeks after George Floyd was killed by the police, a veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council expressed support for dismantling the city’s police department.The councilors’ pledges to “abolish,” “dismantle” and “end policing as we know it” changed the local and national conversation about the police.President Trump has wielded this decision and law-and-order arguments in his campaigning — Midwestern states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota may be decisive in the general election.He has claimed that Joseph R. Biden Jr. wants to defund the police — which he does not — and told voters that they would not be safe in “Biden’s America.”On the ground in Minneapolis, Astead Herndon, a national politics reporter, speaks to activists, residents and local politicians about the complexities of trying to overhaul the city’s police.Guest: Astead W. Herndon, a national politics reporter for The New York Times, speaks to Black Visions Collective co-director, Miski Noor; Jordan Area Community Council executive director, Cathy Spann; and Minneapolis City Council president, Lisa Bender. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Across America there have been calls from some activists and elected officials to defund, downsize or abolish police departments. What would efforts to defund or disband the police really mean?In the wake of George Floyd’s killing, some cities asked if the police are being asked to do jobs they were never intended to do. Budgets are being re-evaluated. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode contains strong language.Breonna Taylor’s mother and her supporters had made their feelings clear: Nothing short of murder charges for all three officers involved in Ms. Taylor’s death would amount to justice.On Wednesday, one of the officers was indicted on a charge of “wanton endangerment.” No charges were brought against the two officers whose bullets actually struck Ms. Taylor.In response, protesters have again taken to the streets to demand justice for the 26-year-old who was killed in her apartment in March.We speak to our correspondent Rukmini Callimachi, who is on the ground in Louisville, Ky., about the reaction to the grand jury’s decision.Guest: Rukmini Callimachi, a correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: A former Louisville police detective has been charged with “reckless endangerment” for his role in the killing of Breonna Taylor. Protesters poured into the streets, and two officers were shot in Louisville after the announcement. The city’s police chief said that neither of the officers’ injuries were life-threatening.A Times investigation explores the events leading up to the shooting of Ms. Taylor and its consequences. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

President Trump appears to be on course to give conservatives a sixth vote on the Supreme Court, after several Republican senators who were previously on the fence said they would support quickly installing a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.In our interview today with Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, she says she senses a turning point. “No matter who you are, you feel the ground shaking underneath,” she said. “I’m feeling very optimistic for the mission that our organization launched 25 years ago.”In pursuit of that mission, the Susan B. Anthony List struck a partnership with Mr. Trump during the 2016 election. The group supported his campaign and provided organizational backup in battleground states in exchange for commitments that he would work to end abortion rights.Ms. Dannenfelser described the partnership as “prudential.”“Religious people use that term quite a lot because it acknowledges a hierarchy of goods and evils involved in any decision,” she said. “and your job is to figure out where the highest good is found.”Guest: Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: The transformation of groups like the Susan B. Anthony List from opponents of Mr. Trump early in the 2016 campaign into proud and unwavering backers of his presidency illustrates how intertwined the conservative movement has become with the president — and how much they need each other to survive politically.For months, abortion has been relegated to a back burner in the presidential campaign. The death of Justice Ginsburg and the battle to replace her has put the issue firmly back on the agenda. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode contains strong language and descriptions of sexual violence. The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the ensuing battle to fill her seat is set to dominate American politics in the lead up to the election. A poll conducted for The New York Times before Justice Ginsburg’s death found voters in the battleground states of Arizona, Maine and North Carolina placed greater trust in Joseph R. Biden Jr. than in President Trump to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy.Now that it’s longer a hypothetical scenario, what impact will the vacant seat have on the thinking of swing voters?We take a look at the polling and ask undecided voters whether the death of Justice Ginsburg and the president’s decision to nominate another justice have affected their voting intention.Guest: Nate Cohn, a domestic correspondent for The Upshot at The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: In surveys before Justice Ginsburg’s death, Joe Biden led by a slightly wider margin on choosing the next justice than he did over all against President Trump. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated from law school, she received no job offers from New York law firms, despite being an outstanding student. She spent two years clerking for a federal district judge, who agreed to hire her only after persuasion, and was rejected for a role working with Justice Felix Frankfurter because she was a woman.With her career apparently stuttering in the male-dominated legal world, she returned to Columbia University to work on a law project that required her to spend time in Sweden. There, she encountered a more egalitarian society. She also came across a magazine article in which a Swedish feminist said that men and women had one main role: being people. That sentiment would become her organizing principle.In the first of two episodes on the life of Justice Ginsburg, we chart her journey from her formative years to her late-life stardom on the Supreme Court. Guest: Linda Greenhouse, who writes about the Supreme Court for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in her home in Washington on Friday. She was 87. The second woman appointed to the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg’s pointed and powerful dissenting opinions made her a cultural icon.“Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life and landmark opinions moved us closer to a more perfect union,” former President Bill Clinton, who nominated her for the court, wrote on Twitter. Other tributes have poured in from leaders on all sides of the political spectrum. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In the second episode of a two-part special, we consider the ramifications of Justice Ginsburg’s death and the struggle over how, and when, to replace her on the bench.The stakes are high: If President Trump is able to name another member of the Supreme Court, he would be the first president since Ronald Reagan to appoint three justices, tipping the institution in a much more conservative direction.Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, a congressional editor for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: President Trump’s determination to confirm a replacement before the election set lawmakers in Congress on a collision course. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

According to Ludmila Savchuk, a former employee, every day at the Internet Research Agency was essentially the same.From an office complex in the Primorsky District of St. Petersburg, employees logged on to the internet via a proxy service and set about flooding Russia’s popular social networking sites with opinions handed to them by their bosses.The shadowy organization, which according to one employee filled 40 rooms, industrialized the art of “trolling.”On this week’s Sunday Read, Adrien Chen reports on trolling and the agency, and, eventually, becomes a victim of Russian misinformation himself.This story was written by Adrian Chen and recorded by Audm. To hear more audio stories from publishers like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“Nothing comes easily out here,” Terry Tempest Williams, a Utah-based writer, said of the American West. Her family was once almost taken by fire, and as a child of the West, she grew up with it.Our producer Bianca Giaever, who was working out of the West Coast when the wildfires started, woke up one day amid the smoke with the phrase “an obituary to the land” in her head. She called on Ms. Williams, a friend, to write one.“I will never write your obituary,” her poem reads. “Because even as you burn, you throw down seeds that will sprout and flower.”Guest: Bianca Giaever, a producer for The New York Times, speaks to the writer Terry Tempest Williams.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Iolani Grullon teaches dual-language kindergarten in Washington Heights in New York City, where she has worked for the last 15 years.She, like many colleagues, is leery about a return to in-person instruction amid reports of positive coronavirus cases in other schools. “I go through waves of anxiety and to being hopeful that it works out to just being worried,” she told our editor Lisa Chow.On top of mixed messaging from the city about the form teaching could take, her anxiety is compounded by a concern that she might bring the coronavirus home to her daughter, whose immune system is weaker as a result of an organ transplant.Today, we look at how one teacher’s concerns in the lead up to the first day back illustrates issues around New York City’s reopening of public schools. Guest: Lisa Chow, an audio editor for The New York Times, speaks to a kindergarten teacher in New York City. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: New York City was scheduled to reopen public schools on Monday. Mayor Bill de Blasio this week delayed the start of in-person instruction.Nearly 40 percent of parents have opted to have their children learn fully remotely through at least the first few months of the school year. That number reflects the deep divide among the city’s families about how to approach in-person learning. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Among the olive groves of Moria, on the Greek island of Lesbos, a makeshift city of tents and containers housed thousands of asylum seekers who had fled conflict and hardship in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere.Already frustrated at the deplorable conditions, inhabitants’ anger was compounded by coronavirus lockdown restrictions. The situation reached a breaking point this month when fires were set, probably by a small group of irate asylum seekers, according to the authorities. The flames decimated the camp and stranded nearly 12,000 of its residents in the wild among tombstones in a nearby cemetery and on rural and coastal roads.We chart the European refugee crisis and the events that led up to the blaze at Moria.Guest: Matina Stevis-Gridneff, who covers the European Union for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: The fires at the Moria camp have intensified what was already a humanitarian disaster. Originally built to hold 3,000 newly arrived people, it held more than 20,000 refugees six months agoThe camp’s inhabitants had for years resented the squalid conditions and the endless delays in resolving their fates. Those frustrations collided with the restrictions imposed to combat the coronavirus, and the combination has proved explosive. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode contains strong language.Infected with the coronavirus and separated from their peers in special dorms, some college students have taken to sharing their quarantine experiences on TikTok.In some videos posted to the social media app, food is a source of discontent; one student filmed a disappointing breakfast — warm grape juice, an unripe orange, a “mystery” vegan muffin and an oat bar. Others broach more profound issues like missed deliveries of food and supplie.It was within this TikTok community that Natasha Singer, our business technology reporter, found 19-year-old Zoie Terry, a sophomore at the University of Alabama, who was one of the first students to be sequestered at her college’s isolation facility.Today, we speak to Ms. Terry about her experience and explore what it tells us about the reopening of colleges. Guest: Natasha Singer, a technology reporter for The New York Times, spoke with Zoie Terry, a sophomore at the University of Alabama. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Across America, colleges that have reopened for in-person teaching are struggling to contain the spread of the coronavirus. To this end, the institutions are using one of the oldest infection control measures: quarantine.While universities in other states were closing their doors, the University of Alabama opened up to students, banking on its testing and technology program to prevent an outbreak. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“The entire state is burning.” That was the refrain Jack Healy, our national correspondent, kept hearing when he arrived in the fire zone in Oregon.The scale of the wildfires is dizzying — millions of acres have burned, 30 different blazes are raging and thousands of people have been displaced.Dry conditions, exacerbated by climate change and combined with a windstorm, created the deadly tinderbox.The disaster has proved a fertile ground for misinformation: Widely discredited rumors spread on social media claiming that antifa activists were setting fires and looting.Today, we hear from people living in the fire’s path who told Jack about the toll the flames had exacted.Guest: Jack Healy, a national correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading:“The long-term recovery is going to last years,” an emergency management director said as the fires left a humanitarian disaster in their wake.The fearmongering and false rumors that accompanied a tumultuous summer of protests in Oregon have become a volatile complication in the disaster. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode contains strong language.After Donald Trump was elected president, two filmmakers were granted rare access to the operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Since Mr. Trump had campaigned on a hard-line immigration agenda, the leaders of the usually secretive agency jumped at a chance to have their story told from the inside. Today, we speak to the filmmakers about what they saw during nearly three years at ICE and how the Trump administration reacted to a cut of the film. Guests: Christina Clusiau and Shaul Schwarz, the filmmakers behind the six-hour documentary series “Immigration Nation.”For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: The Trump administration has threatened the two filmmakers with legal action and fought to delay the release of “Immigration Nation” until after the election. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Prince is 9 years old, ebullient and bright; he has spent much of the pandemic navigating the Google Classroom app from his mother’s phone.The uncertainty and isolation of the coronavirus lockdown is not new to him — he is one of New York City’s more than 100,000 homeless schoolchildren, the largest demographic within the homeless population.Families like Prince’s are largely invisible.Samantha M. Shapiro, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, has spent the last two years speaking with over a dozen homeless families with children of school age. On this week’s The Sunday Read, she explores what their lives are like.This story was written by Samantha M. Shapiro and recorded by Audm. To hear more audio stories from publishers like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When many in California talk about this year’s wildfires, they describe the color — the apocalyptic, ominous, red-orange glow in the sky.The state’s current wildfires have seen two and a half million acres already burned.Climate change has made conditions ripe for fires: Temperatures are higher and the landscape drier. But the destruction has also become more acute because of the number of homes that are built on the wildland-urban interface — where development meets wild vegetation.The pressures of California’s population have meant that towns are encouraged to build in high-risk areas. And when a development is ravaged by a fire, it is often rebuilt, starting the cycle of destruction over again.Today, we explore the practice of building houses in fire zones and the role insurance companies could play in disrupting this cycle. Guest: Christopher Flavelle, who covers the impact of global warming on people, governments and industries for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedailyBackground reading: “People are always asking, ‘Is this the new normal?’” a climate scientist said. “I always say no. It’s going to get worse.” If climate change was an abstract notion a decade ago, today it is all too real for Californians.Research suggests that most Americans support restrictions on building homes in fire- or flood-prone areas. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode contains strong language. “So there’s just shooting, like we’re both on the ground,” Kenneth Walker, Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend, said of the raid on her home. “I don’t know where these shots are coming from, and I’m scared.”Much of what happened on the night the police killed Ms. Taylor is unclear.As part of an investigation for The New York Times, our correspondent Rukmini Callimachi and the filmmaker Yoruba Richen spoke to neighbors and trawled through legal documents, police records and call logs to understand what happened that night and why.In the second and final part of the series, Rukmini talks about her findings. Guest: Rukmini Callimachi, a correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Run-ins with the law by Jamarcus Glover, Ms. Taylor’s ex-boyfriend, entangled her even as she tried to move on. An investigation involving interviews, documents and jailhouse recordings helps explain what happened the night she was killed and how she landed in the middle of a deadly drug raid. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.