Public disputes concerning the 2026 U.S. midterm election cycle, including campaigns, candidates, conventions, advertising, endorsements, and election-related policy promises.
Case
At an Atlanta rally, Jon Ossoff said Donald Trump wanted to “travel with Natalie” on a Qatari aircraft instead of doing presidential work. Trump allies alleged misogyny and an affair insinuation; Ossoff defended scrutiny of powerful, taxpayer-paid aides.
Case
At an August 11 event, Mike Collins said the federal government has a liability when it harms someone, answering a pardoned January 6 defendant’s question about compensation. Jon Ossoff called that support for taxpayer-funded payments to violent participants; Collins’s campaign denied automatic or blanket payouts.
Case
Jon Ossoff’s campaign used Mike Collins’s “get off of Social Security” remark to say he would push beneficiaries off the program. Collins’s campaign said he misspoke and meant Medicaid; Ossoff’s campaign said the ad fairly reflected his support for pressuring beneficiaries into work.
Case
Hasan Piker said he preferred Hamas over Israel in a hypothetical, using lesser-evil reasoning. Jon Favreau and the ADL rejected the comparison; Piker later acknowledged Hamas war crimes while maintaining that Israeli occupation was his overriding concern.
Role at the time: Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Georgia
Responding to
Did Mike Collins support compensation for January 6 defendants?
"“A lot of things have been politicized and weaponized. And when the federal government harms you, then yes, they have a liability to you. That’s easy, yes sir.”"
Collins’s answer is conditional on government harm and responds to a question broader than January 6 defendants, but the question was posed by a pardoned January 6 defendant who explicitly included January 6 participants.
Role at the time: Republican political strategist and CNN political commentator
Responding to
El-Sayed's cycle-of-violence framing rationalized the antisemitic attack or improperly shifted explanatory responsibility toward Israel and Jews.
"That's how you would justify any and all political violence. That is a dangerous mindset."
The statement directly rejects the explanation-versus-justification distinction at the center of the dispute.
Role at the time: Jon Ossoff U.S. Senate campaign
Responding to
Did Jon Ossoff’s Social Security ad fairly represent Mike Collins’s radio interview?
"“He wants to push you off Social Security.”"
The campaign uses the excerpt to make a critical policy characterization of Collins’s position on Social Security.
Role at the time: Host of The Bulwark Podcast
Responding to
El-Sayed's cycle-of-violence framing rationalized the antisemitic attack or improperly shifted explanatory responsibility toward Israel and Jews.
"Anyone who would think a statement condemning a terorrist attack on a synagogue is a 'risk' is insane and should be fired from the campaign."
The authored post directly rejects the political hesitation surrounding condemnation of the attack.
Role at the time: Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Michigan
Responding to
El-Sayed's cycle-of-violence framing rationalized the antisemitic attack or improperly shifted explanatory responsibility toward Israel and Jews.
"If you're having a moral crisis over whether to condemn terrorism, you're unfit for office."
The statement treats El-Sayed's contextualization as disqualifying sympathy for the assailant.
Role at the time: U.S. Senate candidate in Michigan
Responding to
The Temple Israel attack should be understood in part through the cycle of violence created by the regional war and the Israeli airstrike that killed members of the assailant's family.
"It was a risk."
He maintained the decision to provide causal context rather than accepting critics' characterization of the statement as excusing terrorism.
No older people are available on this page.
