Bucs star Chris Godwin suffers gruesome ankle injury broadcast won't show in loss to Ravens

Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign rally at Washington Crossing Historic Park in Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, on October 16, 2024. | Nathan Morris/NurPhoto via Getty Images Democrats are currently focused on the fight against Donald Trump. But quietly, factions within the party are preparing contingency plans for a different battle: the one over how to interpret a Kamala Harris loss.  Polls of the 2024 election show the closest presidential race in modern memory. For Harris, defeat is roughly as likely as victory. The former outcome is sure to trigger a fierce, intra-Democratic debate over what the party should learn from losing the White House (twice) to an unpopular demagogue. Already, moderates in the party are seeding the narrative that Harris was doomed by the Biden administration’s excessive deference to left-wing interest groups and aversion to orthodox economics. Some progressives suggest that Harris may be undone by her ties to big business, failure to articulate a “vision for the country,” and complicity in Israeli atrocities in Gaza.  It’s impossible to say with absolute certainty which — if any — of these theories would become conventional wisdom in the event of a second Trump victory.  Often, when a party suffers an electoral rebuke, the faction that led it into the wilderness loses influence within the coalition. After Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, the Democratic Party became more progressive, ceding influence to some of her left-wing critics.  Yet no wing of the Democratic Party can claim full ownership of either the Biden presidency or Harris campaign. On the one hand, Biden was the moderate candidate in the 2020 primary. And Kamala Harris is now running to the right of Biden 2020, touting a more modest fiscal agenda than the president’s, championing a conservative border security bill, promising to appoint a bipartisan council of advisers, and pledging to solicit input from “the business sector” while in office.  On the other hand, progressives wielded tremendous influence over economic policy in the Biden White House. And Harris is only five years removed from campaigning as a proponent of Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal — issue positions that Trump’s team has relentlessly highlighted. What’s more, the fact that Harris secured the Democratic nomination without competing in a primary makes the question of who within the party owns her success or failure even more ambiguous. All this said, I suspect that anyone who believes a Harris defeat would strengthen the party’s progressive wing is kidding themselves. On the contrary, I think Trump’s election would push the Democrats rightward or at least consolidate the moderate turn that the party has already taken.  This would not be a happy development, from my perspective. Under Biden, the Democratic Party’s positioning on many issues has been to the right of my own preferences. I believe the United States would be best served by a more generous social welfare state, higher levels of immigration, and a foreign policy that showed less tolerance for the human rights violations of US allies. But the political case for some degree of moderation in the wake of a Harris loss will be plausible. And I believe that case will win out for three reasons: First, the unusual conditions that led Democrats to move left after their first loss to Trump no longer hold.  Second, one of progressives’ perennial arguments against the political necessity of moderation — that Democrats can mobilize low-propensity young and nonwhite voters through bold progressivism — has grown less credible over the past eight years. Finally, a Trump victory would almost certainly lead to a full extension of his 2017 tax cuts — and, if the Republican gets his way, new reductions in corporations’ tax liabilities. This would swell the federal deficit, thereby rendering moderate Democrats more averse to ambitious new social welfare spending, such as that proposed by Biden during his first year in office. This is not to say that a Harris loss would cause Democrats to re-embrace the across-the-board centrism of Bill Clinton’s second term. Rather, Democrats would likely remain staunchly progressive in areas where left-wing positioning has little political cost. But losing a second election to an undisciplined reactionary probably won’t convince Democrats that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were insufficiently left-wing on immigration, criminal justice, or fiscal policy. A second Trump victory would therefore probably mean not only a more conservative federal government, but also, in all likelihood, a more moderate Democratic Party. We’re not in 2017 anymore The last time Democrats lost to Trump, they proceeded to move left: Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-all bill gained sponsors in Congress, nearly every Democrat with presidential ambitions embraced more progressive issue positions, and the party ultimately nominated a candidate with a more left-wing platform than Hillary Clinton’s four years earlier. But this history is unlikely to repeat, should Harris lose in November.  Three factors enabled the Democrats’ progressive pivot after 2016. First, Trump’s victory and Sanders’s strong general election poll numbers briefly threw conventional political wisdom into doubt. Second, the Vermont Senator’s surprising strength in the 2016 primary led many Democratic presidential hopefuls to court his constituency. And third, the party knew that it would be running against an exceptionally unpopular Republican in 2020. None of these conditions would hold following a Harris loss. In 2016, most mainstream commentators understood Trump as an extremist and expected him to lose partly for that reason. After all, the right-wing demagogue praised political violence, called for ethnic discrimination, and promised to imprison his presidential rival. The fact that Trump nevertheless won the presidency naturally invited suspicions that the realm of politically tenable positions was wider than previously thought.  This sense was reinforced by Sanders’s apparent popularity. During the 2016 campaign, polls frequently showed the socialist senator performing better against Trump than Clinton did. Taken together, Trump and Sanders’s apparent electability suggested that the benefits of moderation may have been greatly exaggerated. In the intervening years, however, conventional political wisdom regained credibility. Democratic politicos came to appreciate that swing voters did not see Trump the same way they did: Voters saw Trump in 2016 as the most “moderate” Republican nominee since 1972. This perception wasn’t entirely baseless. Although Trump adopted some far-right positions, he also pulled his party to the left on entitlement spending and trade. At various points in his 2016 campaign, he also offered rhetorical support for center-left positions on Planned Parenthood, LGBTQ rights, and foreign policy.  Meanwhile, Sanders’s poll numbers softened. By 2020, the senator’s favorability rating was underwater, with non-college-educated white voters disapproving of him by more than 25 points in some polls. Sanders remained more popular and electorally competitive than socialists were traditionally presumed to be. This likely reflected the popular appeal of many progressive positions, including a $15 minimum wage and support for organized labor. Nevertheless, in many high-quality polls in 2020, Biden performed better against Trump than Sanders did.  The second condition that led Democrats to move left after 2016 was the apparent strength of progressives in presidential primaries. Despite Hillary Clinton’s enormous edge in party support, Sanders still managed to make the 2016 primary highly competitive. In a more open race, it stood to reason that a progressive in Sanders’s mold might have the inside track to the nomination. This led Democratic presidential hopefuls to bid against each other for the left’s support. Ultimately, that progressive fervor influenced even the race’s moderate, Joe Biden. But Sanders and Warren both put up underwhelming performances in the 2020 primary. Once the party’s moderates unified behind Biden, he won easily. The race’s ultimate lesson was that a majority of Democratic primary voters care more about perceived electability than ideological purity.  Further, if Harris loses — after Trump spent months assailing her for positions she took in 2020 — Democrats will take a second lesson from that primary: Getting into bidding wars for progressive support is electorally damaging. Put these two takeaways together, and the Democrats’ 2028 field following a Harris loss is likely to be more moderate than its 2020 one.  Finally, after 2016, Democrats knew that they would be running against an exceptionally unpopular and undisciplined Republican candidate four years later. This made it possible for the party to indulge its activists and advocacy groups while remaining highly competitive in the polls.  Assuming a second Trump presidency doesn’t end the republic, Democrats would face a non-Trump Republican in 2028, for the first time in more than a decade. One shouldn’t put it past conservatives to find an even more repellent standard-bearer, but odds are a post-Trump GOP nominee would be more capable of adhering to a message and avoiding personal scandal than the party’s current leader. And that could force Democrats to exercise greater ideological discipline.  Juicing turnout through bold progressivism is no longer a plausible alternative to placating swing voters In the wake of a Harris loss, progressives would also lack one weapon that they had long possessed in intra-party skirmishes over strategy: a halfway plausible theory of how Democrats can make moderation unnecessary by mobilizing their base. The idea that Democrats could forgo winning over skeptical swing voters by increasing turnout was long central to progressive political thinking. And it’s not hard to see why: An American who would consider voting Republican is one who does not share the progressive movement’s worldview, by definition. Such a person might have progressive views on some issues (swing voters often have ideologically heterodox views), but they are unlikely to believe that the Democratic Party is insufficiently aligned with the left on all major issues. To the contrary, according to polling from the New York Times, swing voters are more likely to identify as conservative than liberal. And this is liable to be even more true of those nonpartisan voters who ultimately do cast a ballot for the GOP nominee. Thus, if Democratic officials conclude that their party must win over some voters who backed Republicans in the last election, then those officials are liable to moderate ideologically, at least on some issues.  In the wake of past defeats, progressives tried to dissuade Democrats from reaching that conclusion by offering an alternative path to a new electoral majority: Instead of placating Republican-curious voters, Democrats could mobilize young and nonwhite voters who already favored their party but hadn’t previously shown up at the polls. Achieving the latter task required championing a bold vision for progressive change. This pitch always had its flaws. For one thing, persuading a Republican-leaning voter is twice as valuable as turning out a Democrat: Doing the former not only adds a vote to your party’s column, it subtracts one from your opponent’s tally. For another, evidence that nonvoting people of color were uniformly progressive has never been especially strong. Still, the idea that mobilization could serve as a substitute for moderation had some plausibility in the 2010s. In the Obama era, Democrats thrived in high-turnout presidential elections while struggling in low-turnout midterms. The demographic groups with the lowest turnout rates — including young and Hispanic voters — were overwhelmingly Democratic. But two developments have weakened this case in recent years. First, young and nonwhite Americans have become less reliably Democratic, according to the polls. Second, it’s become clear that the subset of young and nonwhite Americans with a low propensity to vote isn’t especially left-wing.  In polls of the 2024 race, Democrats’ margin with young voters has fallen sharply. In some surveys, Trump has opened up a roughly 20-point lead with young men, and he has also made substantial gains with Black and Hispanic voters. More importantly, it’s become apparent that low-propensity young and nonwhite voters — the typical targets for a progressive mobilization strategy — are particularly open to the Republican message and not particularly liberal.  Nate Cohn of the New York Times first flagged this reality in 2019. In a study of battleground state nonvoters, Cohn found that Biden’s margin over Trump with nonvoting Black respondents was 44 points smaller than his margin with Black voters who turned out in both 2016 and 2018.  Cohn’s analysis also found that young nonvoters who leaned Democratic had more conservative opinions on immigration, health care, and gender than young Democrats who showed up for elections. All in all, Cohn found that nonvoters’ views didn’t differ substantially from those of the electorate at large.  Subsequent polling and election results have lent credence to these findings. In the Biden era, Democrats have performed better in low-turnout special elections than relatively high-turnout presidential and midterm elections. And polls have consistently found Trump performing better with low-propensity voters than reliable ones, a pattern that holds within the nonwhite and young subsets of the electorate.  This doesn’t mean that Democrats have nothing to gain from mobilizing low-propensity voters who lean left. Even if nonvoting Black Americans are less Democratic than Black Americans in general, they’re still majority Democratic. To the extent the party can target its supporters — without accidentally mobilizing conservative voters — turnout operations can aid Democratic candidates. But the fact that nonvoters aren’t overwhelmingly Democratic and that nonvoting Democrats aren’t especially progressive makes it harder to argue that mobilization can serve as a substitute for winning over swing voters, or that moderating is antithetical to increasing Democratic turnout. For these reasons, progressives would likely have a harder time preventing Democrats from moderating, at least on some issues, after a 2024 defeat than they did after Clinton’s loss in 2016. Trump’s tax cuts would likely constrain future Democrats’ fiscal ambitions Kamala Harris’s Democratic Party is already less fiscally ambitious than Joe Biden’s was when he took office.  The Democratic nominee still supports a wide range of new social programs, from increased funding for long-term care to universal pre-kindergarten to family and medical leave. But Harris is nevertheless proposing fewer progressive economic initiatives than Biden did upon taking office and has dropped the public health insurance option that the president campaigned on in 2020. The most expensive item on Harris’s fiscal agenda is the extension of Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for households earning less than $400,000 (Harris would offset some of these costs with tax increases on corporations and high earners). If Trump wins, it’s likely that the next Democratic president’s economic ambitions would be even more modest than Harris’s are today. Should Trump win the presidency, Republicans will have an excellent shot of controlling both the House and Senate. In that scenario, the party would likely enact the bulk of Trump’s proposed tax cuts, adding as much as $7.5 trillion to the deficit.  Even if Trump only manages to increase the deficit by a fraction of this sum, it would likely constrain moderate Democrats’ appetite for new social spending the next time the party takes power. Already in 2021, a significantly lower national debt total rendered Sen. Joe Manchin unwilling to endorse more than a sliver of Biden’s program. Since then, following the post-pandemic spike in inflation and interest rates, Democratic wonks have grown significantly more concerned about America’s long-term fiscal trajectory. As we get closer to 2032 — when, according to projections, Social Security will cease taking in enough revenue to cover its benefits — anxieties about how the government will sustain its existing commitments will increase.  The easiest way for Congress to cover Social Security’s shortfall in 2033 would be to pay for the program’s unfunded benefits with general revenue. But this would cost $440.1 billion that year, according to the Congressional Research Service, with the sum increasing steadily over time. To put that in context, merely sustaining Social Security’s existing benefits would cost more than all of Harris’s current proposals for expanding social welfare combined, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s score of the latter.   By itself, Social Security’s trajectory is enough to threaten Democrats’ fiscal ambitions. Add in another round of deficit-swelling tax cuts, and Biden’s Build Back Better agenda may come to seem as politically moribund in 2029 as Bernie Sanders’s health care plans do today.  Democrats aren’t going to party like it’s 1999 There are three caveats to this analysis. The first is that anticipating how American politics will change over four years is not easy, as any pundit who followed both the 2012 and 2016 elections can tell you. The second is that, should Harris lose, there would probably be tight limits to the Democrats’ moderation. Unlike during Bill Clinton’s tenure, the Democratic Party no longer has the remnants of a center-right Southern wing. And unlike during much of the 20th century, socially conservative union heads and urban machines have no clout in blue America. Rather, the Democratic coalition is more uniformly liberal than at any point in its history, and the same can be said of the party’s major advocacy groups. The contemporary leadership of the AFL-CIO is progressive on both economic and social issues, having forfeited the organization’s historic opposition to immigration in 2000. Meanwhile, progressive foundations, think tanks, and nonprofits have extraordinary influence in the party, effectively crafting much of Biden’s domestic agenda for him. And by most accounts, the rising generation of Democratic staffers is quite left-wing, their progressive impulses reinforced and sharpened by social media’s tendency toward group polarization.  The personal liberalism of Democratic elites will act as a check on any rightward pivot. Where there is no apparent political cost to upholding progressive principles, Democrats are likely to retain their current positioning or perhaps even move left. This category of issues would include abortion rights, minimum wage hikes, and pro-labor policies, among other things.  The third caveat is that this is not intended as a case for fatalism. I think Americans have a strong interest in higher levels of legal immigration and a more expansive welfare state. Neither Social Security’s impending shortfall nor another round of tax cuts will make it impossible for Democrats to create ambitious new social welfare programs. The party could simply enact large tax increases if it found the political will.  Progressives should try to forge that will by persuading the public of their views and discouraging Democrats from giving unnecessary ground. The ideological trajectory of America and the Democratic Party is not fixed.  But should Harris lose, the path of least resistance will cut to the right.

Widespread cheating at the polls is a myth. So what are election deniers really after?

I think there’s an answer. But it’s not age — or, at least, it’s not just age.

With two weeks until Election Day, officials say the 2024 race is already the most litigated in history as the Trump and Harris campaigns face off over election claims.

It resists all attempts at moderation and compromise.

Black men reacted to the Harris campaign struggling with Black men in the polls at a rally held at Huntington Place by former President Donald Trump in Detroit, Michigan.

Temperatures cool to normal levels by the weekend.

"Trucker Liam" Houghton has made a name for himself on social media by posting videos of the meals he makes from the dashboard of his truck while he's on the road.

Politically, there are three reasons why Trump is right to double down on the immigration issue as he campaigns against Vice President Kamala Harris.

Aerial view of Denver skyline and State Capitol Dome. | Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images Since the pandemic, cities across the country have faced a frustrating contradiction. On one hand, housing costs have soared, worsening homelessness and pushing residents to the edges of metropolitan areas. On the other hand, the rise of remote work has left once-thriving downtown office buildings standing eerily empty, with the national office vacancy rate set to reach nearly 20 percent by this year’s end, according to commercial real estate firm CBRE. The US is estimated to be short nearly 4 million to more than 7 million homes, fueling an affordability crisis that both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have talked about on the campaign trail. The median national rent hit $1,411 this summer, marking a 22 percent increase since January 2020. More than half of tenants are now cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30 percent of their income on rent — a record high. At first glance, repurposing these vacant office buildings in downtown areas — close to public transit and local retail shops struggling with reduced foot traffic — seems like a perfect solution.  Yet, despite the intuitive appeal of converting offices to apartments, cities have found these “adaptive reuse” projects to be far more difficult and costly than expected. Strict zoning laws, high interest rates, rising construction costs, and the need for significant updates to plumbing and electrical systems have made it nearly impossible for most developers to make these conversions financially viable.  But new research out Tuesday from the Pew Charitable Trusts and Gensler, a global architecture firm, lays out a fundamentally different approach for turning offices into apartments. Their plan centers on converting offices into co-living, dorm-style units, featuring private “micro-apartments” around the perimeter of each floor, with shared kitchens, bathrooms, laundry, and living spaces in the center. This model would not only reduce construction costs by 25 to 35 percent compared to traditional office conversions, but it would also offer rents affordable to people earning well below the area’s median income, and not require hefty security deposits, lowering barriers to entry even further.  Not all cities are ideal for this co-living model, but the report identifies Denver, Seattle, and Minneapolis as three prime candidates, with dozens of existing buildings in each that could make this housing model work right now. These cities share several characteristics: high median rents, elevated rates of homelessness, high downtown office vacancy rates, and, crucially, minimal barriers to construction. A second report on Los Angeles and Houston is forthcoming, and researchers note that more places, including Washington, DC, or New York City, could become viable candidates if they amend their zoning codes, particularly around parking requirements and rules over whether windows have to open or not.  The researchers sketch out three similar but distinct models that conform to the rules and constraints of each city. In Denver, for example, they outline a co-living model that costs renters between $500 and $1,000 per month — a significantly lower price than the city’s median rent of $1,771 and still a profit for developers. These smaller apartments, ranging from 122 to 208 square feet, would come pre-furnished with a twin bed, desk, chair, nightstand, microwave, and a mini-fridge. By contrast, traditional studios in the city average around 440 square feet and include a full kitchen and private bathroom.Each floor in the proposed Denver repurposed office building would feature four shared kitchens, two living rooms, one laundry room, a central storage area, and communal bathrooms, along with four single-occupant bathrooms for added privacy. Every building would also have a gym for residents on the second floor, and offer leases for shorter periods than 12 months. Even just a few years ago, none of these cities would have been able to make the math work on such “co-living products,” said Alex Horowitz, the project director of Pew’s housing policy initiative. But the economics of office buildings are changing, and local governments are passing new laws to help facilitate the construction. In 2023, for example, Denver authorized a new adaptive reuse pilot that streamlined permitting and eased regulatory barriers. This past spring in Washington state, lawmakers passed a law legalizing co-housing, suddenly making Seattle a strong candidate for the model. Minneapolis’s zoning rules, revised in late 2018, also paved the way for co-housing, which had previously been prohibited in the city. Offering market-rate housing at lower rents in desirable, opportunity-rich areas could be transformative for cities and their residents. The co-living model could not only help address and prevent homelessness, but also could provide new affordable housing options for a diverse range of people, including students, young professionals, service industry workers, retirees, and urban newcomers. Nonprofit and for-profit stakeholders in Denver, Seattle, and Minneapolis are currently “organizing themselves” and vetting properties, according to Wes LeBlanc, the strategy director at Gensler. It will ultimately be up to city leaders and governors to run with these ideas. “But the upside seems frankly enormous so I anticipate that this will happen,” Horowitz told me. “There are no obvious regulatory barriers in any of those three cities.” Single-room occupancies (SROs) were plentiful in cities before they became illegal At the turn of the 20th century, as US cities rapidly expanded, immigrants, day laborers, and factory workers gravitated toward downtown urban areas, often finding temporary, cheap housing. Small, inexpensive rooms could easily be rented for a day, a week, or longer. Some individuals “boarded” in private homes, while others stayed in ultra-cheap hotels called flophouses. These flexible and communal housing arrangements became widely known as single-room occupancies (SROs). After World War II, as middle-class white families left cities for spacious new suburban homes, SROs were increasingly stigmatized, viewed as shoddy housing for the poor and deviant. By the 1950s, cities like New York began passing laws to ban SRO construction and to prevent the conversion of existing homes into smaller units. By the 1970s, SROs were regularly vilified in the media, despite still serving as crucial housing for hundreds of thousands of people, including those with mental illness who were booted from the deinstitutionalization of asylums.  Over time, cities incentivized landlords to convert their existing SROs into luxury apartments, resulting in the destruction of 1 million affordable units between the mid-1970s and 1990s.  The idea that cities may have erred in banning these lower-cost housing options has been percolating in urbanist discussions for more than a decade, especially as the homelessness crisis has worsened. The Furman Center at NYU argued in a 2018 report that reintroducing SROs could help address the affordable housing shortage. There was a misunderstanding that “a housing type that met the needs of a lot of people on society’s margins was responsible for a set of problems that existed on those same margins,” wrote the architecture critic Karrie Jacobs in 2021. “The notion took hold that if you eliminated the housing, the marginal people would simply vanish.” Even as SROs continue to carry stigma, co-living arrangements are not uncommon, especially in densely populated Asian countries. Startups catering to affluent young US professionals also began to emerge in the late 2010s, offering co-living options for those who sought the social benefits of roommates with modern tech amenities. One such company, Starcity, earned New York Times attention in 2018 for bringing “dorm living for professionals” to San Francisco. Starcity ultimately filed for bankruptcy in 2021, as did another more up-scale co-living company, Common, this past summer. The SRO model could move the needle on homelessness  So why would the Gensler/Pew model succeed when these other co-living startups failed? The biggest difference, by far, is the proposed rent levels. The Pew/Gensler model aims to target renters who earn far below median income, a far larger and more diverse group than just affluent young professionals.  The Pew/Gensler SRO model also optimizes for privacy more than the co-living startup alternatives did. “Those other models were more akin to renting a bedroom in a two-or-three bedroom apartment with other roommates, while this is quite literally like a [studio] apartment-style, where the units don’t open up into a common area, they have their own hallways and corridors, and more separation,” explained Gensler’s LeBlanc.  The economics of office conversions have also changed considerably compared to five years ago, when the prices for office buildings were much greater. And with politicians under immense pressure to solve their spiraling housing crises, cities and states are also passing new incentives for adaptive reuse.“Washington state legalized microunits this past session, Oregon did it the year before, Hawaii did it for adaptive reuse this session, and even this year in Colorado they ended local restrictions on how many people could live together,” said Pew’s Horowitz. “I think there is a real trend of allowing housing like this.” One defining feature is that existing housing subsidies have the potential to stretch much further with this co-living model. In Seattle, according to the report, the co-living model could be developed at roughly $190,000 per unit, which is well below the price of developing a traditional studio apartment at $400,000 or more. In Denver, the model could be produced at roughly $123,300 per unit, the researchers estimate. In total, Pew and Gensler project that Minneapolis and Seattle could construct four times as many affordable housing units with this model, and Denver could get a staggering 13 times as many.  Some low-income housing advocates may object to using public subsidy to construct smaller, bare-bones options. When the New York Times featured Starcity dorms in 2018, many readers mocked the proposal online, describing it as “depressing” and insulting. In more recent years, as cities have turned to “tiny houses” as homeless shelter alternatives for people sleeping outside, some critics have raised concerns that the tiny shelter model is degrading, especially those that are located in remote parts of town. Pew and Gensler believe the devil is in the details, and stress that what they’re proposing comes with many amenities, as well as prime central locations. More than three-quarters of people experiencing homelessness are unhoused for less than a year, so building affordable housing for those facing rent hikes or emergencies could help significantly reduce new cases of homelessness. “It sounds like a good idea generally speaking,” said Dan Emmanuel, the research manager at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, though he added that he doesn’t see this solution as obviating the need for a rental assistance entitlement.  Embracing an affordable, dorm-style living option will require Americans to accept that people may very well desire different kinds of housing at different stages of their lives. That may not be as hard to do as it once was. In 2023, Pew released a nationally representative survey finding that large majorities of Americans back policies that would allow for more and different types of housing, including 81 percent who support office-to-residential conversions.  A return to single-room occupancies doesn’t mean an inevitable return to unsafe, unsanitary housing, either. Banning decent versions of this model, advocates say, is actually what fuels illicit and dangerous options. The Pew/Gensler model would come with more costs baked in for security and maintenance, something LeBlanc said can help remedy SRO problems from earlier decades.  “Our communities won’t become diverse without a diverse housing stock,” as urban writer Alex Baca put it a few years back. Making cities more affordable is an essential first step.

Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig's new book, Lucky Loser, shows how the former president scammed America

With income-driven repayment plans tied up by the courts, the Education Department on Monday scrambled to give millions of borrowers options.

A study published in August found that more than half the world doesn't consume enough micronutrients essential to health, including calcium, iron and vitamins C and E.

Another Hamas leader falls, but the war continues.

Vice President Harris says she would grow the middle class if elected, but an economist says her administration's push for an EV mandate is not practical for middle-class citizens.

Bergen Barbers, a program led by Rutgers New Jersey Medical School students, provides haircutting, shaving and detangling services for hospitalized patients in a local hospital.

A young man was shot and killed Monday afternoon on a Southeast street where several men have been fatally shot in earlier years.

“The Office” alum -- who played Pam Beesly on the hit NBC sitcom -- revealed earlier this month was diagnosed with breast cancer last year.

Many travelers today are opting for alcohol-free trips and participating in sober travels or "dry tripping" so they can be more aware and absorb experiences better.

Fox News Digital spoke to Ohio GOP State Rep. Derek Merrin about his attempt to unseat Dem. Rep. Marcy Kaptur who has served in Congress for 41 years.

Nearly a month after Hurricane Helene struck western North Carolina, locals are sleeping in tents where homes once stood, and volunteers from across the U.S. are helping.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Frankie Muniz explained his reasoning behind the now-viral tweet slamming LA and shared details of what life is like now as a professional race car driver.

Maxim Lott of ElectionBettingOdds.com explained election betting markets to Fox News Digital and how they can be a better predictor of the outcome than polls.

John Lennon was gunned down outside his New York City apartment building, The Dakota, on Dec. 8, 1980, at age 40. Elliot Mintz wrote a memoir about their friendship.

A Texas teacher is facing charges over accusations she had a sexual relationship with a child off-campus over the summer. The school district placed her on administrative leave.

King Charles III ends the first visit to Australia by a reigning British monarch in 13 years Tuesday with anti-monarchists hoping his journey is a step toward an Australian citizen becoming head of state.

“The craziest purchase I ever made was immediately giving all that tuition money to NYU.”

Peru’s former President Alejandro Toledo was sentenced to 20 years and six months in prison in a case involving construction giant Odebrecht that became synonymous with corruption in Latin America.

Disgraced Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein has been diagnosed with bone marrow cancer, according to numerous reports.

In Peru, authorities accused Toledo and three other former presidents of receiving payments from the construction giant.

In the shadow of war, Armenia seeks to recast itself as a global technology hub.

Dear Abby advises an estranged sibling on how to reconnect with their dying sister.

Parenting a kid who will never leave the nest.

“This child has suffered trauma and we will do all we can to help him through this ordeal," Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark said.

Con el aumento del 2,5% se pretende ayudar a cubrir los precios más altos de los alimentos, el combustible y otros bienes y servicios.

Después de tres meses, los familiares de Frank Daniel Guzmán y Caroline Katba no tienen noticias de su paradero

A "thicc boi" black bear packing on the fluff for hibernation seen near Durango, Colorado by the state's Parks and Wildlife Southwest Division went viral online for his astounding build.

Parents at a Canadian school yanked their kids out of class last week after discovering a drag queen gave a presentation about gender identity, and students who were uncomfortable during the event were allegedly not allowed to leave.

Mountain Metropolitan Transit driver taken to hospital, dies despite efforts of first responders.

Los documentos, con sellos de ultrasecretos, aparecieron por primera vez en línea el viernes en la app de mensajes Telegram

For a year, Project 2025 has endured as a persistent force in the presidential election

In-person early voting kicks off Tuesday across battleground Wisconsin, with former President Barack Obama and Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz hosting a rally in liberal Madison

One person was arrested at UCLA Monday night for failing to disperse after the university's police department ordered around 40 protesters to leave Dickson Court where they had established a "Gaza solidarity Sukkah" and handful of tents.

Police tape blocked off part of a sidewalk that was under scaffolding as more than a dozen cops and investigators worked the scene.

“I don’t want to see a women’s march with pussy hats come January if something doesn’t go right."

The Baltimore Ravens won 5 straight games after Lamar Jackson threw 5 touchdowns in the team's victory over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Monday night.

The Arizona Cardinals kicked a game-winning field goal as time expired to beat the Los Angeles Chargers, but a controversial call that helped them get there has fans reeling.

Todo comenzó con una fiesta de cumpleaños.