Chick-fil-A employees fulfill Texas couple’s all-American dream: ‘Bucket list’

David Axelrod, a chief strategist during the Obama administration, stressed in a CNN appearance Thursday that the 2024 election results proved the left was at risk of losing the working class vote altogether after President-elect Donald Trump's landslide victory.

Netflix fans have been left raging on social media after the latest episodes of Outer Banks hit the platform and a wild detail was spotted.

Bryan Kohberger is accused of the Nov. 13, 2022, killings of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves.

The author who wrote a recent biography on President Biden admitted that President-elect Trump's victory is the biggest "legacy" of Biden's time in office.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss looks less like bad luck than the byproduct of deep, structural trends that will be difficult to reverse. The Democratic Party lost the presidency to an unpopular, indisciplined authoritarian with a penchant for rambling incoherently about Hannibal Lecter — again. Despite January 6, the Dobbs decision, and the GOP ticket’s many forays into racial incitement, Americans not only elected Donald Trump on Tuesday, but — by all appearances — gave him a popular mandate: Ballots still need to be tabulated but, as of this writing, Trump is poised to win the popular vote by a hefty margin.  Democrats also lost their Senate majority. If current results hold, Republicans will enjoy a 53-to-47 seat advantage in Congress’s upper chamber, and likely narrow the House advantage.  All this amounts to a crisis for Democrats. The only question is the scale of their challenge.  The optimistic read of Election Day results is that the party drew a bad hand. Democrats faced a series of contingent headwinds in this particular election cycle — voter outrage over post-pandemic inflation, a rhetorically inept president, and an electorally undistinguished nominee — none of which are likely to burden them going forward. In this read, Democrats may need to adjust their tactics. But their basic strategic orientation remains sound.  Yet there is another, bleaker interpretation of Tuesday’s returns. From this vantage, Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss looks less like bad luck than the byproduct of deep, structural trends that will be difficult to reverse, especially once the GOP gets out from under Trump’s grip. For this reason, Democrats cannot realistically hope to wield control of the federal government without substantially revising the party’s agenda and messaging.  Both perspectives are plausible. It is impossible to say with certainty which of these readings is closer to the truth. But I suspect that the Democrats’ problems are larger than the peculiar disadvantages they faced this election cycle. If the party does not take that possibility seriously, it risks condemning the United States to a period of reactionary rule that extends well beyond Trump’s second term — assuming it has not already done so.   Why Democrats might be bound to bounce back The case for chalking up Trump’s victory to contingent, ephemeral factors is fivefold.  First, the past four years were a very bad time to be in power. The pandemic did real damage to the global economy, which governments papered over through deficit spending in 2020. But the bill for Covid-19 was always going to come due in 2021 and 2022. And virtually every party that happened to be in power at that time proceeded to suffer at the ballot box. Since the onset of post-pandemic inflation, ruling parties either lost seats or control of government altogether in Austria, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan, among other nations. If polls hold steady, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s governing Liberal Party is poised for a landslide defeat in next year’s Canadian election. Given this transcontinental desire for change, Democrats keeping the election close could be seen as a credit to the party’s political health.  Second, the Democrats’ senescent president compounded the harms of their unfortunate timing. The party spent the first leg of the general election campaign tethered to an octogenarian who lacked basic proficiency in public speaking. Biden’s conspicuous feebleness — and the Democrats’ initial compulsion to unite behind him, in defiance of the public’s wishes — made it all the more difficult to overcome the public’s discontent with elevated prices. Third, Harris was a suboptimal standard-bearer who owed her nomination more to circumstance than demonstrable electoral success.  Harris’s electoral track record prior to 2024 was unimpressive. In her first statewide election in 2010, she defeated a Republican in the California attorney general race by less than 1 percentage point (two years earlier, Barack Obama had bested John McCain by more than 23 points in that state). In 2020, Harris began her run for the Democratic nomination with strong fundraising and an early surge in the polls. Yet her campaign collapsed before the primary’s first ballots were cast. Further, as a Californian whose Senate voting record put her on the left wing of her caucus, Harris was not an ideal figurehead for a party anxious to appeal to Trump-curious Midwesterners. And she compounded these liabilities by taking several unpopular stances during her 2020 primary campaign in a bid for progressive support, which the Trump campaign highlighted incessantly. Next time around, there will be an open Democratic primary, in which no sitting vice president (nor former one) will enjoy an advantage in name-recognition or party support. And if 2020 is any guide, the Democratic electorate will be eager to nominate a maximally electable nominee. Fourth, Democratic Senate candidates in swing states ran far ahead of Harris on Tuesday night. As of this writing, it looks like Democrats will win the Senate races in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin. This suggests that swing-state voters may have been more discounted with the Biden-Harris administration than with the Democratic Party writ large.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Trump is all but certain to do many things that the public won’t like. His team is already signaling it intends to move forward with mass deportation, a concept voters may like in the abstract, but which will yield price increases they are sure to loathe and humanitarian nightmares that many will struggle to stomach.  Free of Biden and Harris’s personal liabilities — and from culpability for any economic discontents — Democrats will have an excellent shot of regaining the White House on a wave of anti-Trump backlash in 2028. Why the path of least resistance could lead Democrats deeper into the wilderness There are reasons for fearing that the Democrats’ problems are deeper and more abiding than inflation, Biden’s age, or Harris’s imperfections.  All the data available to us right now is imperfect. But the returns and voter surveys tell a consistent story: In 2024, two long-term trends in American voting behavior — that are highly unfavorable for Democrats — accelerated.  The first is the rightward drift of working-class voters. Americans without college degrees have been shifting rightward for decades, but Trump’s conquest of the GOP in 2016 greatly accelerated that trend. Biden fended off further erosion in his party’s working-class support four years later. But in 2024, working-class defections from blue America resumed. According to AP VoteCast, Trump won non-college-educated voters by 4 points in 2020 — and by 12 points four years later.  To a large extent, Democrats have compensated for losses with working-class voters through gains with college graduates. But this did not happen in 2024: Harris did remarkably well with college educated, given her overall performance, but still lost about one point of support with the demographic relative to 2020, according to the AP survey.  Meanwhile, in a distinct — but likely related — development, Democrats lost ground with nonwhite voters. Harris actually won the same share of the white vote as Biden did in 2020 (43 percent), according to the AP’s figures. But her margin over Trump with Black voters was 14 points lower than Biden’s, while her advantage with Hispanic voters was 13 points smaller than the last Democratic nominees.  The AP VoteCast’s data is highly imperfect. But its basic story is consistent with the geographic pattern of Tuesday’s results. Florida, where only 52 percent of the population is non-Hispanic white, went for Trump by 13 points. In Hazleton, Pennsylvania — where 62 percent of residents are Hispanic — Democrats went from winning the presidential vote by 5 points in 2016 to losing it by 25 on Tuesday night. In Queens, one of the most diverse counties in the United States, the Democratic nominee’s margin over Trump was roughly 20 points lower than it had been in 2020.  Democrats lost ground almost everywhere. But they maintained support — or grew it — in some overwhelmingly white and affluent enclaves, such as Cumberland County, Maine, and the Northwest Hills Planning Region of Connecticut.  These trends are concerning for at least two reasons.  First, there is a theoretical basis for believing that the trends derive from deep-seated, structural changes in American life and will therefore be difficult to fully reverse.  Working-class voters have not only been drifting right in the United States for decades — they’ve also been doing so in virtually every Western nation. The reasons for this are complex, but they relate to the weakening of trade unions amid deindustrialization, and the tendency of highly educated people to hold unusually cosmopolitan values — an inclination that spurs social conflict when college graduates become numerous enough to dominate cultural production and center-left politics. And trade unions are not going to become drastically more powerful — nor educated professionals, less multitudinous — anytime soon. Meanwhile, there’s long been reason to suspect that Hispanic and Black voters would grow less Democratic over time. For decades, Democrats have been relying on the votes of conservative nonwhites, whose support for the party derived less from ideological affinity than inherited allegiances.  As many Hispanic American families enter their third and fourth generations, however, they tend to grow more assimilated. And if the political trajectory of previous immigrant groups was any guide, Latinos were liable to become more Republican (and white identifying) as they gained more distance from the immigrant experience. And this would be especially true of the subset that was already temperamentally disposed to conservative politics. Similarly, Democrats’ capacity to win roughly 90 percent of the Black vote, year in and year out, was arguably rooted in historical conditions that are gradually fading. As the political scientists Ismail K. White and Cheryl N. Laird argued in their 2020 book, Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political Behavior, the Black voting bloc is a product of African American communities internally policing norms of political behavior through social rewards and penalties. And such norm enforcement has historically been exceptionally effective due to the extraordinary degree of social cohesion that slavery and segregation fostered. As American society grows more integrated, and attendance declines at community institutions like the Black church, Laird and White predicted that there would be a “slow but steady diversification of Black partisanship,” as the norm of supporting Democrats grew harder to enforce. Tuesday’s result is consistent with that hypothesis. The second cause for concern about these trends is that Trump’s retirement from politics could plausibly exacerbate them.  Democrats weren’t the only party facing unusual liabilities in 2024. The GOP was once again saddled with an unpopular, exceptionally undisciplined, and explicitly racist nominee.  To be sure, Trump likely helped Republicans gain ground with non-college-educated voters in 2016 by forcing the party to embrace stances on immigration and entitlement spending that are popular with that demographic. And it is possible that his personal celebrity and charisma rendered him uniquely capable of reaching politically disaffected or disengaged constituencies.  Nevertheless, given that the rightward drift of working-class voters is a transnational phenomenon, a future Republican standard-bearer would have a good chance of building on Trump’s gains, particularly if they retained his positioning and populist rhetoric. At the same time, were such a Republican to dispense with, say, allowing surrogates to liken nonwhite ethnic groups to garbage, they might do even better with Black and Hispanic voters than Trump did.  All this wouldn’t be so damaging for Democrats, if the rightward drift of nonwhite and working-class voters ensured the leftward movement of college-educated whites. But there is no such guarantee. In fact, it is hard to imagine a GOP nominee more offensive to the sensibilities of the highly educated than Trump, a vulgar, anti-intellectual, misogynist who evinces contempt for democracy. If the GOP nominates a more ordinary Republican in 2028 — a near certainty, given Trump’s ineligibility for a third term — then Democrats could see their share of the college-educated vote fall, even as structural forces prevent a rebound in their Black and Hispanic support. Finally and least ambiguously, both the Biden and Harris coalitions are poorly equipped to compete for Senate control. As of this writing, it looks like Republicans will have a 53-seat Senate majority in the new Congress — even with Democratic Senate candidates winning a majority of races in swing states. Looking ahead to the 2026 and 2028 Senate maps, it is not easy to chart a path back to Democratic control. To win back the chamber, Democrats would need to beat Republicans in states that both Biden and Harris lost, while reelecting Democratic incumbents in purple states like Georgia. The Democrats’ weak position in the Senate is not coincidental; the body heavily overrepresents non-college-educated voters.  Thus, unless the party can broaden its support, it will be incapable of appointing Supreme Court justices or passing major legislation without Republicans’ help.  Democrats should plan for the worst It is entirely possible that Trump’s misgovernance will solve the Democratic Party’s problems for it. If he follows through on his immigration and trade plans, he will engineer an economic disaster. But Democrats should not bank on that (not least because it’s their responsibility to do whatever they can to prevent such a calamity from happening). Prudence demands that Democrats take the grimmest interpretation of Tuesday’s results seriously. The party’s eroding support from both working-class and nonwhite voters could render it uncompetitive in future presidential elections, and has already put it at a large disadvantage in the fight for Senate control.  Democrats do not control their fate. A second Trump presidency threatens to pervert the democratic process in ways that entrench Republican power. But the party can try to make itself appealing to a broader share of Americans. And it must.

I don’t think anyone in the sport would be surprised if Cohen approved a $1 billion-plus offseason outlay.

Inflation has helped fuel a global backlash toward incumbents, experts say.

Fox News' "Antisemitism Exposed" newsletter brings you stories on the rising anti-Jewish prejudice across the U.S. and the world.

Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York has said that demonizing “voters of color as white supremacists" will push them further toward President-elect Trump.

Days after moving into their new Camarillo house, the Mountain fire leaves young parents with no home, no money and no belongings.

Through 12 games, Washington Capitals star Alex Ovechkin has eight goals and is on a five-game scoring streak.

In "Didion & Babitz," Lili Anolik reconsiders two Los Angeles icons.

Though not the primary concern of the founders, large-population states dominating federal policy is kept under control by the electoral college.

President-elect Donald Trump's win after a virulently anti-transgender campaign has left many queer and transgender people especially frightened about the future.

Everything you need to know about the Chargers facing the Tennessee Titans at SoFi Stadium on Sunday, including start time, TV channel and betting odds.

Guests will see Luke's Diner, Lorelai and Rory's house, the town's gazebo, Mrs. Kim’s Antiques and — yes — a Bjork-inspired snowperson.

"My evaluations by students were great, which I took as a success," says a former professor. "Now I wonder."

From a Japanese denim jacket to an ultra-flattering tee, these items will have you dressing stylish and smart.

Residents in the foothills above Camarillo are grappling with scenes of utter destruction after the Mountain fire flattened scores of homes.

When Jim McDonnell was L.A. County sheriff, he allowed federal immigration authorities to target people for deportation in the nation’s largest jail system. Now, with Donald Trump returning to office and McDonnell set to lead the LAPD, some advocates are bracing for a fight.

The number 47 has special meaning to Pomona College students and graduates. Now it will mean something completely different to the rest of the country.

Quincy Jones' first Oscar nomination, an Ariana Grande romance, a Dodger's surgery and a supermodel in disguise are all part of this week's News Quiz.

As Matthew Stafford keeps passing quarterbacks in record books, he's thrown Rams into playoff race with three consecutive victories ahead of Miami game.

From family planning to hospital bills, the new Trump administration has the potential to affect a wide range of policies in the Golden State and beyond.

I've biked the same route to and from my Los Angeles job for years. Then another cyclist made me see the downside of routine.

The former president of this Orange County school helped affluent students enter USC as walk-on athletes — a route that the university now acknowledges as fraud.

For the jazz artist, a blissful Sunday includes church, learning about dinosaurs with his daughter at the Natural History Museum and relaxing at Bruce's Beach.

President-elect Trump made history with his victory over Kamala Harris, and a famed pollster is "reviewing her data" after being wildly off on one state. Do you know the headlines?

Trump’s presidential term could bring sweeping changes to financial aid, impact UC research funding and eliminate protections for LGBTQ+ and undocumented students.

How walkable is your L.A. neighborhood? Consult our admittedly biased, wholly unscientific ranking that goes way beyond the numbers.

In this election, an estimated 55% of Latino male voters favored Trump, up from 32% in 2016, exit polls showed. That shift, experts say, is a sign that the immigrant experience is less of a factor in the diverse Latino population than pocketbook and quality-of-life issues like crime.

Michael Schneider founded the Great Los Angeles Walk in 2006. Now in its 19th year, it's still going strong.

Former Titans Elijah Molden, Kristian Fulton and Teair Tart face their former team Sunday as contributors to a Chargers defense that gives up the fewest points in the NFL.

An electrifying Danielle Deadwyler is the reason to see this Washington family production.

Arizona voters approved a ballot measure intended to force police to crack down on homeless encampments by giving property owners tax rebates if they can prove damages.

L.A.-area startups received $1.8 billion in the third quarter, the highest quarterly amount for the region, according to CB Insights. Most of it went to a single company.

Parents of color in Montgomery County say the district doesn’t clearly communicate if their child is behind academically. They want school officials to be more direct with parents.

Come January the District will contend with a president who has made more threats to D.C.’s autonomy than any other chief executive in modern history.

Top health researchers from the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI) in Australia have teamed with those from the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco on the Decoding Broken Hearts initiative.

Surely, the grainy image had to be Amelia Earhart’s long-lost plane, 16,000 feet beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean. This week, Tony Romeo announced that the discovery amounted to less than they had hoped.

Donald Trump has won the 2024 election. Why? What is he going to do? And what do Democrats do now? | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Election night 2024 felt like the sequel to Election 2016: Many of the beats were the same, but the particulars were different. The early returns were ominous, and prospects did not improve from there. I was not as surprised, and yet it affected me as deeply if not more so.  If you are anything like me, you have been trying to hold many different ideas in your head at once these past few days — and you still have a lot of questions. I won’t pretend to have all the answers, because nobody does. But we have collected your questions from the Vox Instagram page, our Explain It to Me inbox, and the Explain It to Me podcast phone line.  Here are four common queries from Vox’s readers and listeners, with my best read on them (with an assist from one of Vox’s most astute young political minds) as we sift through the fog of Election Week. Did Trump overperform or did Harris underperform?  We all want to apportion blame or credit. Was Kamala Harris doomed by the political environment? Or did her campaign make missteps? Both can be true. Which one determined the outcome more? The truth is, it’s hard to say what was determinative. Nate Silver can run 80,000 simulations of the election, but the rest of us only get to live through one reality. We can’t know the counterfactual and it will take time for the data that tells the story of this election to come into focus. With that caveat out of the way, I am skeptical that Harris ever had a chance — and I’m more inclined to pin her loss on the conditions under which she was running, rather than the choices she made as she ran. Something stuck out to me throughout election night: Whenever MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki would pull up some bellwether county in a swing state, he would compare the 2024 margins to 2020 and 2016. He would often point out Donald Trump was returning to his 2016 levels, while Harris trailed President Joe Biden’s 2020 performance, closer to (and yet usually above) Clinton in 2016. Look at this map from the Washington Post that charts the shift from 2020 to 2024 in the presidential race by county. It’s red arrows all over. You should read exit polls with caution, but it would appear Trump made gains with voters across the board. That suggests to me there was a structural problem, as much as any strategic one, for Harris.  Luckily, we don’t have to look far for structural explanations. Vox’s Zack Beauchamp wrote on the wave of anti-incumbency worldwide that seems to have carried Trump and sunk Harris. It’s damaged conservatives (in the UK) and liberals (in South Korea).  The constant is people being fed up with those in power after Covid-19 and the global inflation that followed. The aggregated economic indicators might still be solid, but wage growth has only narrowly outpaced inflation. Consumers aren’t feeling flush with cash and slowing inflation does not mean no inflation. Interest rates have also stayed high, adding to the sense that things are expensive. America might also be a little more conservative than Democrats thought, which is why Trump sought to portray Harris as an out-of-touch liberal. Maybe the Biden-Harris administration could have handled inflation better. But it’s vexed governments everywhere. More than anything, people were simply frustrated: In an October Gallup poll, 72 percent of US adults said they were dissatisfied with how things were going in the country. It’s going to be hard for any incumbent national leader to win in that environment. Let’s remember the state of the 2024 campaign after the Biden-Trump debate and the clear evidence of improvement in Democrats’ chances after Harris took over. She attempted to circumvent Americans’ anger with the status quo by running as the challenger even while she was the sitting vice president. But it didn’t work, and maybe it never could. People were sick of the Biden-Harris administration. They wanted a change. That’s what Trump was selling. What is Trump going to do?  Here’s the big takeaway, beyond any specifics that could be subject to change: Trump is less likely to be constrained by other Republicans, by advisers who are more loyal to the office than him personally, and by democratic norms than he was during his first term. Now for the specifics. The day after his victory, Trump’s campaign pledged to start “the largest mass deportation operation” in US history on his first day back in office, a signal that he may be even more aggressive on his signature issue. He could enact those tariffs as he pleases unless Congress stops him in the next two months. His team has telegraphed an immediate expansion of oil and gas exploration. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has brashly said that the Trump administration would advise the removal of fluoride from American water supplies on day one, a preview of the public health agenda likely to follow. We can also expect some kind of shake-up within the federal bureaucracy. It is worth sounding a note of caution, however. Trump signed the so-called “Muslim ban” on January 27, 2017, but it was blocked by the courts, including the Supreme Court. It took him a year and a half to get an altered version okayed by the judiciary. Likewise, Trump’s attempt to approve Medicaid work requirements was later stopped by a federal judge. One of the biggest questions of a second Trump term is: How much will the judiciary restrain him, if his own people won’t? In Congress, Trump and Republicans are already hankering to cut more taxes and slash the social safety net. But actually passing those plans is still going to be hard. Control of the House is still undecided and even if the GOP wins it, their margin will be extremely thin. The failure to repeal Obamacare in 2017 is a very recent example of a newly minted Republican majority’s top priority failing because of public backlash. What does Trump’s election mean for the world?  Before the election even occurred, one Vox reader asked us: Why do US elections matter so much for the rest of the world? The US has the most powerful military in the world, it is one of the two most important diplomatic players in global affairs (though China has caught up), and its foreign aid programs are a vital lifeline for humanitarian efforts around the world. On foreign policy in particular, Trump has plenty of discretion to do as he pleases without much or any input from Congress.  We know the consequences of this enormous power’s misuse. The US military has obviously been used for terrible ends, US diplomacy can be ineffectual, and US-funded humanitarianism has a mixed track record.  That is why the fate of not only 330 million Americans but many millions more around the world was altered by Trump’s election.  Israel’s war in Gaza, the effort to contain mpox in Africa, the famine in Sudan, the war in Ukraine, Taiwan’s future as an independent nation — these are some of the high-profile issues over which Donald Trump, rather than Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, will have significant leverage and influence. PEPFAR, the AIDS relief program that became the signature success of the bipartisan global health consensus that took shape under George W. Bush, will need to be reauthorized next year, and there are signs of Republican support wavering. Trump will hold the veto pen during that congressional debate. What will actually happen? I don’t know. But I know Trump’s election has defined what will be possible. What do Democrats do now?  I want to briefly hand the newsletter over to Vox senior political reporter Christian Paz, who sat down with Explain It To Me podcast host Jonquilyn Hill to analyze this year’s election and has as good of a read on the state of the Democratic Party as anyone: There’s still this assumption that a diversifying America would inevitably lead to progressive or liberal or Democratic dominance, regardless of other factors, which once again, keeps being proven wrong and wrong.  In fact, this election will be one where racial polarization decreases, especially among Latino voters. They voted similarly or in the similar direction or similar swing as white voters. The Democrats got the turnout they wanted, but it turns out that the voters that were turning out just didn’t want to vote for a Democrat. The Democrats bet a lot on educated and suburban voters, while expecting to maintain their previous margins with working-class voters of color and snagging enough white working-class voters to push them over the top. That bet didn’t pay off.  It will take months for Democrats to figure out how to recalibrate going forward, in the 2026 midterms and beyond. Looking at the 2024 fallout so far, Christian said, “There’s a mixed bag [in terms] of just what it is that the electorate wants.” This story was featured in the Explain It to Me newsletter. Sign up here. For more from Explain It to Me, check out the podcast. New episodes drop every Wednesday.

Federal employee advocates fear Donald Trump’s victory will lead to the politicization and weaponization of federal agencies, hurting public service.

Ready for some wordplay? Sharpen your skills with Slate’s puzzle for Nov. 8, 2024.

There’s a reason Hugh Grant makes such a good baddie.

Washington Commanders fans are calling on President-elect Donald Trump to help get the team's name changed back to "Redskins" despite the fact that he has no power over it.

There are quite a few problems with this theory.

The Texas-Oklahoma border has been redrawn the Texas Land Commissioner announced. The Red River Boundary Commission has redrawn the boundary in order to ensure safe water.

The 26-year-old Kingsbury vanished in March 2023 after dropping off her and Fravel’s two young children at daycare in Winona, a southeastern Minnesota town of about 26,000 residents.