Four weeks out from the election, and for most Americans, it’s time for football, foliage and flannel. For politics watchers, all eyes are on an October surprise.

They’ve been game-changers before. In 2008, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which ushered in the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, was a turning point in John McCain’s presidential campaign. He was even with Barack Obama when the news broke, then trailed in every survey after. He lost the popular vote by seven points.

Surprises have come from home and abroad. In 1980, it was President Jimmy Carter’s inability to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis. Eight years earlier, it was President Richard Nixon’s announcement that «peace was at hand» in Vietnam.

Some have more impact than others. It’s not clear that news about George W. Bush’s DUI changed much about the 2000 election, nor that James Comey’s letter to Congress about Hillary Clinton’s email server was the decider in President Trump’s 2016 win.

Still, these surprises all have one thing in common: they happened in presidential years.

EXPLOSIVE SLEEPER ISSUE COULD FUEL MIDTERM SHAKEUPS, TOP REPUBLICAN PREDICTS: ‘YOU’RE GONNA SEE SURPRISES’

It’s not as though we don’t get breaking news during the last month of a midterm cycle. Take 2018, when the GOP warned about a migrant caravan, Brett Kavanaugh sought a seat on the Supreme Court, and a gunman opened fire at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

But that was the exception, not the rule. For the most part, midterm October surprises affect individual races, not the overall trajectory of a party.

In the last midterm, for example, Herschel Walker faced damaging allegations about paying for former girlfriends’ abortions, while in Florida, the destruction caused by Hurricane Ian gave Gov. Ron DeSantis the opportunity to show Floridians that he could be trusted to handle a crisis.

POWER RANKINGS: FOR THE DEMOCRATS, WHERE COULD IT POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

Voters haven’t changed their minds about Trump or the party they’d prefer to elect to the House for several months now, so local stories like these are the ones to watch in the final weeks of the campaign.

Besides, the biggest surprises come after October.

For what still looks like a good – maybe great – year for the Democrats, the party is playing defense in some unexpected places.

DAVID MARCUS: IN DEEP BLUE MINNESOTA A RED DAWN MAY BE RISING AHEAD OF THE MIDTERMS

That starts with Minnesota, where Republicans have a star candidate in Michele Tafoya. The former NFL sideline reporter has been up and down the state with a message to «stop the fraud» if elected to the Senate. That’s been a hot issue in the state, and it’s allowed her to target the Democrat, Peggy Flanagan, who currently serves as lieutenant governor.

Then there’s New Hampshire, another state where Democrats are in the driver’s seat thanks to this political environment, but where the GOP has a favorable match up. Former U.S. Senator John E. Sununu is back on the ballot this year against Chris Pappas, who seems to have had trouble animating his voters.

Even Oregon’s gubernatorial race is competitive this year.

Meanwhile, Republicans are spending money in surprising places.

REPUBLICANS FACE BRUTAL MIDTERM HEADWINDS. SIX FORCES COULD HELP THEM DEFY HISTORY.

In Arkansas, Sen. Tom Cotton has thrown $13.6 million at his reelection bid, outspending his Democratic opponent Hallie Schoffner 65 to 1. Cotton may have ambitions beyond his current role in the Senate, but in 2020, his spending fell short of $1 million.

Idahoans got a letter in the mail from Vice President Vance last month warning them that Democrats could «pour millions of dollars» into independent challenger Todd Achilles; Vance called it an «urgent national race.»

Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith has been running ads attacking her Democratic challenger Scott Colom in recent weeks, calling him a «failed prosecutor» with a «chilling» record on crime; that state has seen $5 million in ad spending so far this year.

POLL: IT’S A LONE STAR SENATE SHOWDOWN BETWEEN TALARICO AND PAXTON

And Florida is full of election surprises. In 2018, Rick Scott won his Senate race by 0.1 percentage points while DeSantis won his by 0.4 points. Two years later, the presidential race was decided by just 3.4 points.

Nebraska and South Dakota could be closer-than-expected for Republicans as well.

In this week’s Power Rankings, one Carolina gets more competitive while another drifts away from the GOP, and Democrats get nervous about a governor’s race in Oregon.

The math is the same in the Senate. Each party has 47 seats to their name, leaving six toss-up races to determine control.

Those are Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas, which all look close in the flurry of surveys released by pollsters last week.

Two other races are highly competitive: New Hampshire (Lean D) and Kansas (Lean R).

On the polling alone, these look more like toss-up states: surveys released last week have the Democrat ahead by only five points in New Hampshire, and the Kansas race dead even. It’s the partisan makeup of these states that keeps them at «lean.»

North Carolina is less competitive than it was two weeks ago. confirmed on Friday that the Senate Leadership Fund, a powerful Super PAC aligned with Republican leadership, was pulling resources from the state. Earlier, Sen. Tim Scott left it off a list of states where Republicans were focusing spending.

GOP nominee Michael Whatley is running as strong a race as he can there, and the margin will probably be tighter than polls currently have it. But the Democrat, Roy Cooper, is also a strong candidate, and he has had double-digit leads in multiple surveys.

North Carolina moves from Lean D to Likely D.

Nearby South Carolina is getting more competitive. Darline Graham, appointed to the Senate after the death of her brother, Lindsey, is reportedly getting more help on the campaign trail from President Trump.

There are lingering questions about Graham’s ability to turn out a broad spectrum of Republican voters against a Democratic candidate who, like her counterparts in Kansas and Nebraska, is pushing hard on the price of diesel.

The state moves from Solid R to Likely R.

Four years ago, Oregonians sent Tina Kotek to the governor’s mansion for the first time, and it hasn’t gone smoothly.

Kotek faces four issues all at once in this campaign, as outlined in local reports and on the trail: a housing crisis, poor education outcomes, higher city crime rates than in neighboring states, and like other incumbents, she flip-flopped on data centers.

A lethargic debate performance last week didn’t help matters.

Drazan has lost this race before, and this time, won’t get help from a third-party candidate who drew votes from the Democrat. But this time around, she has created more distance both from Trump and conversations about abortion, which she calls a «settled issue.»

Democrats have every reason to hold on to this state in November, but it’s going to be tougher than the party wants. Oregon moves from Likely D to Lean D.

Elsewhere, two states are becoming more competitive for Democrats, beginning with Florida.

The Sunshine State is the home of the «MAGA» movement, and Rep. Byron Donalds easily locked up the Republican nomination in August. But he has stumbled, at times, on the campaign trail, and Hispanic voters continue to express frustration with this economy. Florida moves from Solid R to Likely R.

And in Vermont, longtime incumbent Republican Phil Scott might have raised an eyebrow at a new poll from the University of New Hampshire showing his Democratic opponent, Amanda Janoo, up six points against Scott, 49% to 43%.

Scott keeps winning elections comfortably in Vermont, but the party label could be a bigger problem this cycle. The Green Mountain State also moves from Solid R to Likely R.

power rankings, politics, midterm elections, elections, elections state and local

Porque “las ideas siempre vencen al odio”, lo peor es la indiferencia y el desconocimiento, en una sociedad que, lamentablemente, parece entregarse cada día un poco más a la estupidización colectiva.

El odio y el “votar contra” como idea jamás condujeron a solucionar los problemas en ningún país ni en el mundo; por el contrario, los empeoraron y sus consecuencias ocupan las páginas más negras de la historia. Una sociedad democrática debería estar movilizada por querer el bienestar del o de la compatriota, por la inquietud intelectual que nace de la lectura, de la escucha atenta a quienes la vida nos permite cruzarnos y saber más que uno y, naturalmente, de los aprendizajes que nos impone nuestra propia vida.

Lo que sucede en el mundo no son episodios aislados ni fenómenos inconexos. Son manifestaciones de procesos más profundos, pensados por unos pocos que, con un enorme poderío económico y a través de las pantallas, logran manipular las sociedades del hoy con éxito. Y en Uruguay, aunque casi todo llegue con cierto rezago, tarde o temprano también llega.

Días atrás vimos con preocupación una encuesta según la cual el 45% de quienes habitan este suelo no tendría inconvenientes en vivir bajo una dictadura si esta les solucionara sus problemas. Si el dato es correcto, no es una anécdota: es una señal inequívoca de algo que debería interpelarnos.

Cuando una sociedad comienza a relativizar el concepto de libertad, a despreciar el conocimiento y a sustituir las ideas por el resentimiento, el problema trasciende ampliamente una elección determinada. Son señales de un mundo que deja bastante que desear. Y deberían ocuparnos, al menos, si todavía lo que conservamos son dos dedos de frente.

La hostilidad insaciable del ser moderno irrumpe en las diferentes dimensiones urbanas y cumple actualmente con la responsabilidad de violar premisas de convivencia establecidas desde su juramento de ser políticamente correcto. El poder se enfrenta a profundos desafíos cuando debe construir permanentemente nuevas narrativas, en las que la verdad parece quedar subordinada a una realidad reductora que se teje en el sistema político. Imágenes, frases y expresiones visuales o auditivas vacías de significado intelectual terminan reduciendo el pensamiento a impresiones de satisfacción o insatisfacción.

Hubo un tiempo en que sostener una idea implicaba también estar dispuesto a someterla a prueba, confrontarla con los hechos y aceptar la posibilidad de que fuera refutada. Hoy, en cambio, muchas posiciones políticas funcionan de otra manera: la persona no necesariamente defiende una idea porque haya comprobado su validez, sino porque esa idea se ha convertido en parte de su identidad y de sus emociones. La realidad deja entonces de ser aquello que permite revisar nuestras convicciones y pasa a ser aquello que intentamos acomodar para confirmarlas.

Ya hemos visto cómo la humanidad asimiló el fascismo; también vimos cómo el comunismo se fascistizó desde la URSS a Cuba en el pasado y cómo esas variables dictatoriales y sus malas prácticas destruyeron la democracia en Venezuela y Nicaragua, pero también generaron imperfecciones estructurales en otras democracias regionales. Las “”” del siglo XXI introdujeron a la izquierda en una profunda confusión conceptual, constituyéndose en las dictaduras referidas o en el apoyo a ellas, lo cual le ha ocasionado este presente de costosas derrotas electorales.

Con el apoyo de Estados Unidos, los “gorilas” de los 70 dieron una serie de golpes de Estado y perpetraron las más horrendas violaciones de Derechos Humanos. Esa especie, de una manera u otra, se ha seguido reproduciendo, a veces en mayor cantidad, a veces en menor cantidad. Hoy varios sectores de la derecha de la región corren el riesgo de empantanarse en la imitación de las prácticas autoritarias del bukelismo, lo cual significaría también un golpe duro para la Democracia regional.

Ni las “morsas” representan a la izquierda ni los “gorilas” a la derecha, y las confusiones que el liderazgo político induce al respecto siempre son nefastas para la Democracia y los Derechos Humanos.

Estas diversas formas reducen mentalmente los conceptos a fragmentos aislados de un campo des-semantizado, en el que palabras y categorías como “crimenes de lesa humanidad”, “tortura”, “persecusión política” o “presos políticos” pierden su significado sustantivo en favor de prejuicios establecidos de antemano. Cuando el ataque contra los significados logra imponerse, las formas de conocimiento que de ellos se derivan quedan deslegitimadas, y con ellas, la posibilidad misma de construir una comprensión crítica de la realidad.

Como veremos, no es seguro que este sea el concepto o la idea central que “los nuevos juegos de la política” utilizan para atacar lo que se denomina “conciencia crítica”. Para explicar esa conciencia, podemos comenzar por un breve proceso mental que consiste en conceptualizar las diferencias, en lugar de convertirlas a priori en enemistades. Es posible imaginar así una confrontación política basada en el conocimiento y la argumentación, frente a otra que se transforma en un ataque directo, como una piedra lanzada contra el otro, mediante una descalificación que hace innecesaria toda argumentación conceptual. O cualquier otra forma de racionalización de las cuestiones sistémicas de la política que termine reducida a una lógica de discusión de tiempos escolares, cuando se intentaba hacer entender algo a otro niño que simplemente se tapaba los oídos y repetía, gritando: “leru leru”. Es en este punto donde resulta esencial reflexionar sobre lo que esto significa para el deterioro del discurso político, pero también para la elaboración ideológica y la gobernanza democrática.

Para visualizar el poder de la libertad debemos preguntarnos en qué sentido hace al funcionamiento sistémico y si el sistema apela realmente a la libertad de las personas para que tomen sus decisiones políticas. Con las nuevas lógicas mecanicistas se ejerce principalmente cómo influir o manipular a las personas, mientras principios y valores se pre condicionan ideológicamente. El resultado puede ser una forma de “comprensión ciega”: una manera de interpretar la realidad en la que los acontecimientos ya no se analizan por lo que son, sino por la reacción que producen. Si algo satisface nuestras expectativas, tendemos a justificarlo; si las contradice, tendemos a rechazarlo. En ese mecanismo reside uno de los mayores peligros de la política convertida en identidad: una persona puede terminar justificando una violencia, una dictadura o incluso un crimen de lesa humanidad simplemente porque proviene del lado que considera propio. Si una morsa o un gorila ataca, las demás “morsas” o “gorilas” aplaudirán en automático.

La verdad suele ser difícil de describir y comprender porque la instalación de narrativas es, precisamente, una forma de ataque político. Tal ataque se asimila a patrones de sociedad ideológica de prevalencia emocional, con una oscuridad total en la que no se ve, no se siente, no se oye ni se admite ninguna otra cosa: el NO absoluto a las demás formas de entender la política en una sociedad democrática.

La progresión emocional irracional y el ataque narrativo generan entonces “barreras de fuerza” ante la posibilidad de una decisión razonada. Para que exista una verdadera confrontación política vinculada a la libertad es necesario un medioambiente sano de Derechos Humanos. La lección política natural de que el mejor argumento debe prevalecer implica que las razones puedan ser expuestas y confrontadas en libertad. Para que la política y la gobernanza produzcan y trabajen ideas es necesaria una libertad igualitaria, una libertad para todos.

Según los actuales experimentos mentales de la política se demuestra que la mayoría de las personas en esta era digital tienen problemas para dominar la “comprensión conceptual”, requiriendo emociones claras a partir de emociones (generalmente negativas) preestablecidas o el conocimiento no comprendido que es dictado artificialmente. En el sistema político es necesario entonces trabajar siempre las diferencias entre las personas y agentes políticos en un marco en que no se controlan ni censuran ni los pensamientos ni la comprensión de las ideas y de las cosas. La posibilidad de cuestionar, criticar y disentir racionalmente hace siempre mejor al sistema, e igual resultado es el que genera la alternancia en el poder.

Uruguay,democracia,manifestación,pancarta

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu defended the police response to student protests after one teenager lost a hand in an incident involving a police grenade and another lost sight in one eye after being struck by a projectile.

Advertisement

In parliament on Tuesday, Lecornu pushed back on accusations of police brutality or state repression, adding that the term «police brutality» implies that officers had been instructed to use force, according to Politico.

«What triggers police action is the occurrence of urban violence,» Lecornu said.

«Can accidents happen? The answer is yes,» he added.

Advertisement

FRANCE EXPLODES AGAIN AS STUDENTS RIOT OVER EDUCATION

French riot police stand near burning objects during clashes with protesters in Paris on Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2026. (Reuters)

Lecornu and Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez have both argued that the police response was sparked by urban violence, arson and vandalism, while maintaining that officers have acted within their authority. Nuñez also called the police response proportionate in «almost all cases.»

Advertisement

The prime minister also accused opposition party France Unbowed of exploiting the student protests to sow chaos and score political points ahead of next year’s presidential election.

President Emmanuel Macron convened an emergency meeting with senior ministers to address the nationwide student protests and their potential political fallout.

The French government is facing mounting pressure after more than 6,500 people were arrested and hundreds were injured as students demand better funding and learning conditions in schools. Most of those arrested were minors, according to the Associated Press.

Advertisement

Riot police use a water cannon as they face students during a protest against under-resourced schools in Rennes, western France, on Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2026. (Jeremias Gonzalez/AP)

Lecornu said 215 students and 85 school staff members had been injured since the protests began, while his office said 715 police officers had also been injured.

«I hope we can provide a political response to a very real anxiety among high school students,» Lecornu acknowledged.

As Lecornu delivered his remarks on Tuesday, demonstrators from several French unions and teachers’ groups gathered with high school and university students. Members of France’s left-wing parties were also at the protest, according to Politico.

Advertisement

The Interior Ministry estimated that 266,000 people took part in demonstrations nationwide Tuesday, including 56,000 in Paris.

The Paris demonstration was largely peaceful, although smaller groups later clashed with riot police, according to the Associated Press.

The protesters’ movement began at high schools in the Paris region in mid-September before spreading nationwide.

Advertisement

TEEN’S HAND BLOWN OFF BY POLICE GRENADE DURING FRENCH STUDENT PROTESTS: REPORT

French riot police officers remove elements of a burning street barricade during a demonstration by French high school and university students in Lyon on Oct. 6, 2026. (Reuters)

On Monday, a 15-year-old boy in northern France lost a hand after a police grenade exploded during the protests, Politico reported. A prosecutor said he could not «say for certain whether the student picked up the grenade or whether it was thrown at him.»

In the city of Tours, a 16-year-old lost sight in one eye after being hit by a projectile, according to the outlet. The prosecutor said the projectile may have been fired from a sub-lethal riot-control weapon used by police.

Advertisement

Boris Vallaud, leader of the center-left Socialist group in parliament, said the group’s lawmakers would introduce legislation restricting the use of sub-lethal riot-control weapons at student demonstrations, warning that they can cause irreversible injuries, the outlet reported.

france, world protests, world, emmanuel macron, controversies education, police and law enforcement