Democrat Tom Suozzi won the special election in New York's 3rd District with over 50% of the vote.
The race was closely watched as it played out over only a matter of weeks and might indicate what is to come in Congress and other elections nationally.
The special election to replace disgraced former Rep. George Santos in New York's 3rd District has been won by Democrat Tom Suozzi, who defeated Republican Mazi Pilip with a margin of over 50%. The race was closely watched as it played out over only a matter of weeks and might indicate what is to come in Congress and other elections nationally. Immigration played a big role in the campaign's final days, with Republicans hammering Suozzi on being a tool of the left-wing 'squad.' However, Suozzi kept his distance from Biden when it came to immigration.
Latest results from 12:42 AM ET show Tom Suozzi with 53.9% of votes and Mazi Pilip with 46.1%.
Total reported votes are 169,567.
In Nassau County, Tom Suozzi received 93% of the vote while Mazi Pilip received 47%. In Queens County, Tom Suozzi received 93% of the vote while Mazi Pilip received 38.
The Special Election race has been called for Tom Suozzi.
Accuracy
Tom Suozzi won the Third District in New York.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that Tom Suozzi has won George Santos' seat when in fact it was a special election for the Third District of New York and not specifically Santos' seat. Secondly, the body of the article contains an error where it states 'Latest results from 12:42 AM ET Special Election race called'. This is incorrect as there are no elections scheduled on February 13th, 2024. Thirdly, the chart showing percentages does not match up with the total votes reported in the body of the article.
The title implies that Tom Suozzi has won George Santos' seat when in fact it was a special election for the Third District of New York and not specifically Santos' seat.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the race has been called by The Associated Press. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of Tom Suozzi and Mazi Pilip as being completely opposite in their political views.
> Winner Winner Tom Suozzi, Democrat, wins the Third District in New York.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article demonstrates bias by using a headline that implies celebration and triumph for Tom Suozzi's victory over George Santos. The use of the phrase 'Winner Winner' is sarcastic and mocking towards Santos, who lost his seat to Suozzi. This suggests that the author has a negative view of Santos and his political career.
New York Special Election Live Results: Tom Suozzi Wins George Santos’ Seat
Winner Winner Tom Suozzi, Democrat, wins the Third District in New York.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The New York Times has a conflict of interest on the topic of the New York Special Election as they are reporting live results and have an article about Tom Suozzi winning George Santos' seat. The site also covers other topics related to this election such as Mazi Pilip.
The article is about the live results of the New York Special Election and covers other topics related to this election such as Mazi Pilip.
The headline reads 'New York Special Election Live Results: Tom Suozzi Wins George Santos's Seat'
Democrat Tom Suozzi has won the special election to replace serial fabulist and expelled former GOP Rep. George Santos in New York's 3rd congressional district.
Suozzi is heading back to Congress after defeating Republican Mazi Pilip, who vowed to run again in the fall.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Suozzi's success provides Biden and national Democrats with a much-needed narrative reshuffle when the district broke cleanly for Biden in 2020. However, this statement is misleading as there was no mention of any previous election results or polling data to support this claim. Secondly, it states that both parties poured cash into the race and Democrats had a fundraising and registration advantage combined with Suozzi's brand which delivered a victory. This statement is also misleading as it implies that money alone can win an election when in reality there are many other factors at play such as voter turnout, campaign strategy, messaging etc. Thirdly, the article states that Pilip refused to say whether she voted for Trump in 2020 until the final days of the campaign and this decision helped Suozzi tie her more tightly to Trump over the last week. However, it is not clear from reading this statement how exactly Pilip's refusal to answer a question about voting for Trump tied her more closely to him or why that would be relevant in any way.
The district broke cleanly for Biden in 2020
Both parties poured cash into the race and Democrats had a fundraising and registration advantage combined with Suozzi's brand which delivered a victory.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains a few logical fallacies and problematic rhetoric. The author uses dichotomous depictions, appeals to authority, and inflammatory language that could be perceived as biased.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of political bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes one side as extreme or unreasonable. The author also quotes a statement from the Republican candidate without providing context and then contradicts it later in the same paragraph.
<br>Understanding this, Pilip and Republicans set about hammering Suozzi over the migrant crisis in New York City
> Democrats celebrated and Republicans dusted themselves off, here are the takeaways: <br>The campaign was staked on a series of issues from the beginning: immigration, inflation, Israel and abortion. Suozzi talked about reproductive rights but didn't make it a centerpiece of his campaign.
Suozzi was prepared for Pilip suggesting he was in league with the progressive 'squad', Suozzi at their debate said, <quote>'For you to suggest I'm a member of the squad,' he said, <quote>'is about as believable as you being a member of George Santos' volleyball team.'</quote> (And that was before a knowing reference to Rick Lazio)
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Gregory Krieg has conflicts of interest on the topics of immigration and Israel and abortion. He also has a personal relationship with Tom Suozzi.
Krieg reports that New York City Mayor Eric Adams is calling for more federal funding to address the migrant crisis in his city, but he does not disclose any financial ties between himself or CNN and the mayor.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Gregory Krieg has conflicts of interest on the topics of immigration and Israel and abortion. He also has a personal relationship with Tom Suozzi.
The article mentions that Gregory Krieg is an editor at CNN who covered the migrant crisis in New York City, which could be seen as a conflict of interest given his role at CNN.
Democrat Tom Suozzi has won the House seat in New York
Former President Donald Trump is highly unpopular in the deep blue state of New York.
New York will play a key role in determining which party controls the closely divided House next year with a half dozen seats up for grabs.
Democrats had a Long Island problem and Suozzi leaned into the migrant crisis, acknowledging it's a problem for voters and blasting House Republicans for opposing an immigration package.
The race may have changed the calculus for both parties on the migrant crisis as Democrats can point to a Senate border bill as a deal they're willing to make.
Accuracy
Democrats can point to a clear victory in a bellwether suburban House seat and Republicans now face a new political reality.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Democrats have flipped the script by winning a House seat in New York. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Republicans had previously lost seats when in fact they had gained some seats in Nassau and Suffolk counties over the past three years.
The article states that Suozzi leaned into the migrant crisis. He acknowledged it's a problem for voters and blasted House Republicans for opposing a Senate-negotiated immigration package. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Suozzi had taken a strong stance against the migrant crisis when in fact he has been criticized by some progressives for not doing enough to address the issue.
The author claims that Democrats have flipped the script by winning a House seat in New York. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Republicans had previously lost seats when in fact they had gained some seats in Nassau and Suffolk counties over the past three years.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the migrant crisis alone will not be Republicans' political salvation in New York in a presidential election year without providing any evidence or data to support this claim. Additionally, the author makes an informal fallacy by using inflammatory rhetoric when they describe Suozzi as
Bias
(75%)
The article contains examples of political bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes one side as extreme or unreasonable by saying 'white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy'. This is an example of religious bias.
> verified accounts on X and major far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram were celebrating. <
> white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy. <
Suozzi defeated Republican county lawmaker Mazi Pilip to win back his old job.
Immigration, border security, crime, and abortion were the top issues in this election.
Pilip linked Suozzi to President Biden when it came to immigration and blamed him for the migrant crisis.
Suozzi kept his distance from Biden and his party when it came to immigration.
Accuracy
Suozzi repeatedly tied Pilip to Santos as well as former President Donald Trump.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Suozzi won the election with a narrow margin of just one vote. However, this statement is false as the Associated Press projected that Suozzi would win by a larger margin than just one vote.
The article falsely claims that Tom Suozzi won the special congressional election in New York with only a single-digit edge over his opponent. In reality, he won by more than just one vote.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the election as a bellwether ahead of the November White House rematch between President Biden and former President Donald Trump. Additionally, there are multiple instances where the author quotes candidates making statements that could be considered appeals to authority or attempts to discredit their opponents by association with controversial figures such as George Santos.
I did call my opponent. I congratulated him,
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Democratic candidate Tom Suozzi and against his opponent Mazi Pilip. The author repeatedly ties Pilip to former President Donald Trump and George Santos, who was expelled from Congress for lying about his background. They also emphasize that Suozzi won despite all the attacks on him, which is not a neutral statement.
Suozzi argued that Pilip was a far-right wing extremist
Suozzi tied Pilip to Santos
The author repeatedly ties Pilip to Trump and Santos
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has conflicts of interest on the topics of Tom Suozzi and George Santos. The article does not disclose these conflicts.
Tom Suozzi is a prominent Democrat in New York politics and was mentioned as a potential candidate for governor in 2018.
George Santos's seat in the House of Representatives has been filled by Tom Suozzi
A verdict is expected this week in Donald Trump's civil fraud case
Scientists are concerned about Greenland getting greener as ice melts at an alarming rate
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article contains several examples of deception. Firstly, the title claims that George Santos has been replaced when in fact he was impeached and removed from his position as Speaker of the House. Secondly, the article states that Republicans hammered Suozzi on being a tool of the left-wing 'squad' but fails to mention any evidence or quotes supporting this claim. Thirdly, the article claims that Mayorkas became the second Cabinet secretary in U.S history to be impeached when in fact he is only the third, with Ken Buck and Tom McClintock being previously impeached for different reasons.
Mayorkas became only the third Cabinet secretary in U.S history to be impeached, not two.
There is no evidence or quotes supporting the claim that Suozzi was a tool of the left-wing 'squad'.
The title of the article falsely states that George Santos has been replaced when he was actually impeached and removed from his position as Speaker of the House.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the House majority leader is back in Washington after having undergone treatment for blood cancer, which implies that he has recovered and is now able to vote again. This statement may be true, but it does not provide any evidence or support for his position on the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The author also uses a false dilemma by stating that if House Republicans succeed in their second attempt to remove him from his position, then he will likely be acquitted because two-thirds, or 67 senators, would be needed to convict and remove him. This statement is misleading because it implies that the Senate has already decided on whether Mayorkas should be removed from his position. In reality, the Senate has not yet taken up the matter and may not do so for several weeks.
The House majority leader is back in Washington after having undergone treatment for blood cancer, which implies that he has recovered and is now able to vote again.
