L.A. gynecologist accused of unwanted 'religious counseling' surrenders license

The party’s current strategy will only lead to more losses. Here’s what they need to do to win.

Hurricane Rafael continues to intensify and is expected to be near major hurricane strength when the late-season tropical system makes landfall in Cuba on Wednesday.

As projections indicate a Trump victory, Vice President Harris' team reflects on the campaign outcome. CBS News' Nancy Cordes shares insights from Washington on the campaign's reaction and future plans.

Dennis Allen couldn't coach his way through a grueling run of injuries.

Following a projected GOP Senate victory, former President Trump declared an "unprecedented mandate" and applauded JD Vance for his commitment to lead an economic revival. Trump credited Vance for his willingness to engage with mainstream media and his support.

CBS News projects that former President Trump will return to the White House with 276 electoral votes as he surpasses the 270 needed to win. Trump's path to victory included pivotal wins in North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as he flipped states he lost in 2020.

World leaders swiftly weighed in, ranging from early and enthusiastic congratulations to more somber and circumspect assurances of continuity in the relationship with Trump, whose mercurial first presidency upended many longstanding diplomatic norms.

With Republicans projected to control the Senate and potentially the House, Robert Costa and Ed O'Keefe break down what a Trump agenda might look like in a united GOP government.

Right after Harrison Ford's Marvelous Mrs. Maisel reference ?

Ranked choice primary advocates deliver supporters’ signatures to the Idaho Secretary of State at the Idaho Statehouse in Boise, Idaho, on Tuesday, July 2, 2024. | Darin Oswald/Idaho Statesman/Tribune News Service via Getty Images Tuesday might have been the last traditional Election Day of my life in Washington, DC, where I’ve been voting for the past 12 years.  The ballot included Initiative 83, a measure adopting ranked choice voting (RCV); it passed overwhelmingly. While it’s possible that the DC government could just refuse to implement the measure (they’ve done it before), it’s more likely that from now on, I’ll be ranking candidates for the DC Council and mayor — not just voting for one candidate per post. This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Ranked choice is an electoral reform that felt like a pipe dream only a few years ago, but has been becoming mainstream over the past decade or so. Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine, have adopted it for some elections to Congress or statewide office. While a small handful of municipalities like San Francisco and Minneapolis have used it for decades, they were recently joined by New York City, Seattle, and Portland, Oregon. Alongside DC, the states of Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon all voted Tuesday on adopting the system, and Alaska voted on whether to keep it. Full disclosure: I voted yes on the DC initiative. I think it probably does more good than harm in the context of our city. First-past-the-post voting clearly has deep flaws, which is why so many places are jumping on the RCV bandwagon. But I also think RCV’s benefits have been oversold and that we should experiment with other ways to make our elections more proportional. Ranked choice voting, explained In ranked choice voting (also called “instant runoff”), voters rank candidates in order. All the first-choice ballots are counted. If no candidate has a majority of first-choice votes, then the candidate with the smallest share is eliminated; their votes are then redistributed based on who their supporters ranked second. This continues until a candidate has an outright majority. I first encountered the idea after the 2000 election. In Florida, 97,488 people voted for Ralph Nader; of whom only 537 would have had to vote for Al Gore to give him the win in the state and thus the presidency. What if those Nader voters — who were overwhelmingly liberal — had been able to rank Gore second? Then this would’ve happened naturally, and the failure of left-of-center voters to coordinate wouldn’t have resulted in George W. Bush’s presidency, the war in Iraq, etc. This rationale is also why I support the idea in DC. Here, like a lot of coastal cities, almost all the political competition occurs in the Democratic primary, which is often incredibly crowded. Every four years, good-government folks here try to unseat Anita Bonds, our notoriously ineffective and incompetent at-large city councilor, and every time, multiple challengers wind up dividing the anti-Bonds vote. Two years ago, she won renomination with 36 percent of the vote, while two challengers each got 28 percent. RCV would make it harder for unpopular incumbents to get renominated by dividing the opposition. As a narrow tool to avoid spoiler effects, RCV works quite well. But its supporters also have grander ambitions.  Katherine Gehl, a wealthy former CEO who has bankrolled many recent RCV initiatives, argues that her particular version (called “final five” voting) will almost single-handedly make politicians work together again. Gehl wrote two years ago: Barriers to cooperation fall. Senators and representatives are liberated from the constraints of negative partisanship. They are free to enact solutions to complex problems by reaching across the aisle, innovating and negotiating. The theory is elegant. In final five voting, all candidates — regardless of party — participate in a primary. The top five contenders are then placed on the general election ballot, where voters can rank them.  The hope is that this eliminates the dynamic where partisan primaries push party nominees to ideological extremes, and where fear of such a primary prevents incumbents from compromising or defying their party (see the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, of whom four lost renomination when challenged by a pro-Trump Republican). Then, ranked-choice voting in the general election means candidates compete for No. 2 and No. 3 votes, reducing the incentive to negatively campaign. The case(s) against RCV Sounds great! So why would someone oppose RCV? One possible reason is the finding by political scientist Nolan McCarty that under RCV, precincts with more ethnic minorities see more “ballot exhaustion” (failing to rank as many candidates as one is allowed to). That means, McCarty has argued, that the reform tends to “reduce the electoral influence of racial and ethnic minority communities.”  Work by Lindsey Cormack, an associate professor at Stevens Institute of Technology, has similarly found that “overvoting” (using the same ranking more than once, which means ballots can’t be counted accurately) is more common in minority communities, while University of Pennsylvania’s Stephen Pettigrew and Dylan Radley have found that ballot errors in general are much more common in ranked choice than traditional elections. Anything that raises the specter of reducing electoral influence for minority communities in the US is worth worrying about. That said, I’m not sure this case is disqualifying either. Ranked choice is a significant change that takes time for an electorate to understand and adjust to. I’m not sure that higher error rates for a newly adopted approach to voting indicate these error rates will persist as the practice becomes normalized. To me the more compelling counterargument is that RCV seems unlikely to do anything to reduce partisanship and encourage cross-party compromise. The reason why has to do with the classic case against instant-runoff voting, which you might have heard if you’re friends with social choice theory nerds (as, alas, I am).  One thing you’d want a voting system to do is elect the person who would win in a one-on-one race against every other candidate. This is called the “Condorcet winner,” and while there isn’t always one in an election, when there is one, it seems like a good election system should give them the win, as the person the electorate prefers to all alternatives. Ranked choice voting does not always pick the Condorcet winner, and we’ve now seen multiple real-world elections in which the Condorcet winner (which you can figure out from ranked-choice ballot records) lost. In Alaska’s US House special election in 2022, which used ranked choice, the Condorcet winner was Republican Nick Begich, but Democrat Mary Peltola won. Something similar happened in the 2009 Burlington, Vermont, mayoral race. Importantly, in both cases the Condorcet winner was the most moderate of the three main candidates. Begich was to the right of Peltola, but to the left of Sarah Palin (!), the third candidate. In Burlington, the left-wing Progressive Party nominee beat both the Democratic and Republican nominees, though the Democrat (a centrist in Burlington terms) was the Condorcet winner. RCV advocates note that these are two cases out of thousands of RCV elections, and that in practice, Condorcet failures are rare. I’m not so sure about that.  Research from Nathan Atkinson, Edward Foley, and Scott Ganz used a national ranked choice survey of American voters to simulate what elections would look like under the system nationwide. For each state, they simulate 100,000 elections with four candidates. They find that in 40 percent of cases, the Condorcet winner loses, which suggests that the rarity of Condorcet failures in practice may just be an artifact of RCV being relatively new, and that such outcomes would become more common in time as the method spreads. Worse, the simulation paper finds that the system results in much more extreme winners (that is, winners who are farther away from the median voter) than one that picks the Condorcet winner. Indeed, “the states where [the system] performs worst (including Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia) are among the most polarized, whereas the states where [it] performs the best (including Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Vermont) are among the least polarized.” The system seems to actually encourage polarization, not avoid it. New America political scientist Lee Drutman was once such a great fan of RCV that he wrote a book calling for it, but has in recent years come to think it’s hardly the cure for polarization and dysfunction he once viewed it as, in part due to findings like Atkinson, et al. A better solution, he argues, is to strengthen parties and encourage more of them to form.  States should allow “fusion voting,” in which candidates can run on multiple parties’ lines (New York already does this), and for legislatures, seats should be allocated proportionally: If there are 100 seats, and Democrats and Republicans each get 45 percent of the vote and Greens and Libertarians each get 5, then they should get 45, 45, 5, and 5 seats, respectively. This is a much more radical change than ranked choice voting, and requires a real rethinking by politicians. It’s hard to imagine a DC with multiple functional political parties, or where anyone important isn’t a Democrat. But it’s worth trying it and experimenting. We have learned a lot from trying RCV, and we can learn even more.

Docenas de líderes europeos evaluarán el jueves el nuevo panorama mundial durante una cumbre de un día en la capital de Hungría, conscientes de que la elección de Donald Trump como próximo presidente de Estados Unidos podría tener consecuencias de gran alcance para el continente.

Donald Trump received 45% of the Latino vote, which is an 11% increase from 2020. Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez explores how this helped seal his win.

U.S. stock futures rallied as Donald Trump appeared to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris in one of the most contentious elections in U.S. history. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson's prediction for a GOP Senate majority is coming true as key seats flip red. CBS News' Scott MacFarlane explains what these results mean for Congress as we look ahead to January.

Donald Trump logró una victoria decisiva en una nación profundamente dividida.

Donald Trump flipped critical battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia. CBS News executive director of elections and surveys Anthony Salvanto and Chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett break down how these states shifted to deliver Trump the presidency and a Republican-controlled Senate.

CBS News projects Donald Trump's return to the White House after key battleground wins and popular vote victory. The historic comeback makes Trump the oldest president-elect and the first since Grover Cleveland to serve non-consecutive terms. CBS News campaign reporter Olivia Rinaldi joins reports from Florida.

"The voters of Los Angeles County have spoken and have said enough is enough of D.A. Gascón's pro-criminal extreme policies."

CBS News projects that Donald Trump will return to the White House after a landmark victory in what his running mate, JD Vance, called "the greatest political comeback in history." Vice President Kamala Harris postpones her speech and Republicans secure control of the Senate. All that and all that matters in today's Eye Opener.

Blues trainer Ray Barile and medical staff from both teams tended to Holloway for several minutes before emergency medical technicians carted him off the bench on a stretcher.

Brian Daboll admits he must make sure the rookies are not allowing all the losing to invade their headspace.

Sarah Whitcomb Foss broke her silence on the "Jeopardy!" clue about women wearing glasses that stirred up controversy.

Stocks and cryptocurrency prices set to power higher after Donald Trump is projected winner in U.S. presidential election.

Trump overcame an assassination attempt and a shift from Biden to Harris to win. Ferocity and extreme views that alienated some sounded 'authentic' to many others.

Democrat Kristen McDonald Rivet is projected to win Michigan's 8th Congressional District, beating out Republican Paul Junge with 51.3% of the vote to his 44.6%.

Abortion-related measures were on the ballot in 10 states Tuesday, with advocates claiming seven victories and three states voting to keep restrictions.

Trump gana un segundo mandato en una remontada histórica y se convierte en el Prsidente 47 de los Estados Unidos

In 2008, my Laguna Beach street was lined with signs for Proposition 8, a gay marriage ban. This year's Proposition 3 is to undo the unenforced measure.

Where We Live | Residents say history and an international vibe contribute to the area’s welcoming quality.

"The next moon landing will be fire," according to NASA+ Executive Producer Rebecca Sirmonds.

Hurricane Rafael has grown into a Category 2 storm with maximum sustained winds of 100 mph as it heads for landfall on Cuba's southern coast.

The retired Philadelphia Eagles player smashed a college student's phone over the weekend following an insult about Travis and girlfriend Taylor Swift.

Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka made her first appearance of the 2024 campaign as she joined her father on stage for his victory speech early Wednesday -- backed up by a bevvy of other glamorous Trump women.

Phoenix Mercury star Natasha Cloud was upset with how the election played out and expressed her dismay on social media, as former President Donald Trump was re-elected.

What is the East going to look like when the dust begins to settle?

As the evening wore on, the news got worse—and the guest of honor never showed.

Sophomore Jayden Maiava will get his first start when the Trojans return from their bye to host Nebraska on Nov. 16.

Can Newbury Park remain unbeaten? Why does being seeded No. 1 not mean much, especially in lower divisions? These and other storylines for the playoffs.

The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas says Donald Trump and his new administration must "work seriously" to stop the war in the Gaza Strip.

Jason Kelce went into detail about an incident in which he smashed a fan’s phone onto the ground after a homophobic slur was used in his direction Saturday while outside Beaver Stadium before the Penn State-Ohio State game.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper was left dumbfounded Wednesday morning after learning that Vice President Kamala Harris could not outperform President Joe Biden's 2020 record in any state.

Sotheby's International Realty broker Diana Rice is saying it — and selling it — with flowers.

The four-story red brick home was recently featured in the World of Interiors magazine. 

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign rally on November 4, 2024, in Allentown, Pennsylvania. | Michael Santiago/Getty Images Four years after Donald Trump tried to steal the 2020 election and left office in disgrace, the American people returned him to power in the 2024 election. Major news outlets called most of the major swing states — North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — for Trump late Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning, giving him an Electoral College majority. Vice President Kamala Harris no longer has a path to victory. The trend was broader than the swing states; there was a shift toward Trump across the nation, as he significantly improved on his performance in the 2020 election.  Indeed, it looks quite plausible that Trump could end up winning the national popular vote for the first time ever, though that will take some time to determine for sure, as it depends on the exact margin in slow-counting states like California. Trump’s win will come with a new Republican Senate majority, as Democratic incumbents lost in Ohio and Montana. But as of Wednesday morning it is not yet clear which party will control the House of Representatives, and it could take some time to find out.  What is clear is that Trump won. How did this happen?The blame game among Democrats will come fast and furious. But though the Harris campaign’s strategy is sure to be second-guessed, the extent and nationwide nature of the shift in Trump’s favor suggest she had an uphill battle all around — because of the widespread unpopularity of President Joe Biden and public disapproval of his record in office. Harris inherited a tough situation from Biden – and ultimately could not overcome it When Harris unexpectedly joined the presidential race in July after Biden stepped aside, she faced three formidable obstacles. The first was a global trend: In the years since the pandemic, incumbent parties have been struggling in wealthy democracies across the world. The reasons for this are debated, though post-reopening inflation is likely a big one. But to win, Harris would have to defy this trend. The second was Biden’s unpopularity. The president was historically unpopular long before his disastrous debate with Trump, and poll after poll showed voters irate with his handling of the economy and immigration. Foreign policy, particularly the Israel-Gaza war that divided Democrats’ coalition, was a problem too. And since Harris had served in his administration as vice president, she had to figure out what to do about that. Typically, such dynamics would seem to point to a “change” election where the incumbent party is booted. In such elections, the opposition can often put the blame for the current state of affairs on the incumbents, make vague promises that they’ll do things differently, and ride to victory. Yet there was nothing typical about Harris’s opponent: Donald Trump. The fact that Trump had recently served as president in his own controversial term, with his own controversial record, seemed to present Harris with an opening. Perhaps she could brand herself the change candidate who would deliver a fresh, new approach, breaking from the failed politics of the past.  That brings us to the third obstacle: Harris’s own record. While running for president in 2019, Harris embraced a set of very progressive policy positions that Democrats now view as politically toxic, including banning fracking and decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing. So she had a choice to make: Should she stand by her old positions and promise bold progressive change, or should she tack to the center? In the end, Harris took a kind of middle path. She downplayed, disavowed, or simply avoided mention of many of the progressive policies she’d supported back in 2019 — but she didn’t deliberately pick fights with the left in search of centrist cred, like Bill Clinton did in his 1992 presidential campaign. Harris wanted to keep the Democratic coalition happy, pleasing as many people as she could, rather than taking sides in any factional fights. In addressing Biden’s record, too, Harris tried to strike a balance. She decided not to criticize Biden, throw him under the bus, or break with him — or the Biden-Harris administration’s policies — in any significant way. When pressed about voter anger over inflation and unauthorized immigration, she did not acknowledge error. Rather, she tried to argue that the economy was doing well now, and blamed Trump for not supporting a bipartisan immigration bill. And she did not shift on Israel-Gaza. Harris’s hope was that she’d done enough to present herself as a new face, and that the fundamental unfitness of Donald Trump — and his unpopular record on issues like abortion and his attempt to steal the 2020 election — would ultimately prove to be decisive to voters disgruntled with both parties.  That hope was in vain.  Ultimately, much of the public was more resentful of inflation under Biden than they were about Trump’s attempted election theft. And so voters turned back to the candidate they kicked out of office just four years ago.

The rapper, who went viral for a teleprompter glitch while speaking at Harris' Wisconsin rally on Friday, shared her thoughts on social media.

Navy ships arrived to intercept the boat, which was carrying 102 packages filled with bricks of cocaine, authorities said.

Vegan entrepreneur and billionaire Scripps heir Sam Logan has taken a $2 million hit on the sale of his Miami Beach home. 

Super Bowl champion head coach Tony Dungy cheered the failure of the abortion amendment push in Florida. The amendment did not reach the 60% threshold it needed.