Nebraska

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares199 Views

    ‘It Got Everything’: Oklahoma Residents Who Escaped Fires Brace for Losses

    by

    Hundreds of homes and other buildings were destroyed in Oklahoma, as fierce winds and wildfires swept the region. More than 150 blazes were burning in Oklahoma alone, damaging many structures and hundreds of thousands of acres, and causing one death.Nick Oxford/ReutersWhen Geraldine and Charles Wyrick heard shouts ring out through their community of a dozen trailer homes on Friday afternoon near Wellston, Okla., they knew the fires were near. It was time to get out. As Ms. Wyrick rushed to her Chevy Tahoe, and Mr. Wyrick to his pickup truck, they noticed that a neighboring family of five did not have a working vehicle. They, too, scrambled into the truck, along with several dogs. In the chaos, there was no time to salvage any personal belongings.On Saturday, talking at an emergency shelter in Stillwater, Okla., Mr. Wyrick, a 70-year old retired mechanic, said their home and entire neighborhood had likely been destroyed by the fire, alongside many of his prized possessions: a pontoon boat, three trailers and a tractor.“It got everything,” his wife said.From the Texas Panhandle to the suburbs of Oklahoma City, residents braced on Saturday to assess the damage after wildfires and smoke forced many to evacuate.In Oklahoma, nearly 300 homes and other structures were destroyed, Gov. Kevin Stitt said at a news conference on Saturday. At least 50 of those structures were in Stillwater, home to about 50,000 people and Oklahoma State University.Videos on social media showed houses consumed by flames. He described visiting neighborhoods where just a few homes had been spared, while the rest were little more than rubble.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The US needs more working-class political candidates | Dustin Guastella and Bhaskar Sunkara

      by

      Dan Osborn’s performance this month was a bright spot in an otherwise bleak election cycle for progressives. Although he ultimately lost, the independent US Senate candidate outperformed Kamala Harris in Nebraska by 14 percentage points while running an assertively anti-establishment, pro-union platform. His formula was simple: connect with people about their economic problems, tell them who to blame for them, and tell them what he would do about it.Now he’s starting a new political action committee, Working Class Heroes Fund, to support working-class candidates, something our national politics direly needs.Throughout 2024, Osborn’s ideas shaped what should have been an uneventful race in a deep red state. He ran on a pro-union agenda that would have passed the Pro Act to aid organizing efforts, raised the minimum wage, and provided mandatory bereavement leave for all workers. His statement to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl – “I want to challenge the system because the system has to be challenged” – captured a common campaign theme.Osborn’s egalitarianism was profoundly connected to his personal experiences. “Thirty-thirty 16-hour shifts on Sundays,” he recalled in one of his closing campaign ads. “That’s what I had to do to provide for my family.” His story wasn’t unusual, but it wasn’t one reflected in Washington (a city he hadn’t even visited until April of this year).Osborn led a strike in 2021 at a Kellogg’s plant in Omaha and has spent most of his working life as an industrial mechanic – in fact, he’s already back working as a steamfitter. He made $48,000 last year, within a few thousand of the Nebraska median income. This background was highlighted by the Osborn campaign through the race, contrasting the candidate with a Congress where most members are wealthy: “My opponent, Deb Fischer, is … taking so much corporate cash she should wear [sponsor] patches like Nascar.”Osborn’s working-class identity isn’t just an affect; it’s something that connects him to the needs and aspirations of millions of other American workers. And the profound lack of people like him in Congress is one of the major reasons why working-class people have been treated as a political afterthought. Right now, fewer than 2% of congressmembers come from working-class backgrounds. There is virtually no one in government who speaks for, or speaks like, regular workers.But wait, isn’t advocating for more working-class candidates just another form of identity politics? That is, isn’t this just more of the same thing that hurt Democrats in the first place?It’s true that the emphasis on a person’s race, gender and sexuality as a demonstration of their moral and political rectitude has been an albatross for progressives in recent years. This has been especially true when it’s been presented as tales of personal trailblazing (think #ImWithHer and Hillary Clinton’s crusade to become the first female president) or to trumpet individuals simply because of qualities they were born with rather than the ideas they espouse. However, class is different. And, in the case of Osborn, his class background was key to his being able to deliver a credible populist appeal that challenged the rule of the wealthy.In other words, as a working-class populist, Osborn’s appeal could cut across the various divisions of race, gender, region and religion to unite working people, because to be working class, and to proudly identify as such, is not just to show voters that you “feel their pain”, as Bill Clinton once dramatized, but that you actually understand the world from their position. And that’s one reason Osborn thinks that getting more workers represented in office is such a good idea.We agree. After all, the fight for working-class political representation was part of the origin story of self-conscious workers’ movements everywhere in the world. In the United Kingdom and Australia, the battle to extend the franchise helped give rise to labor parties. In Germany, the Social Democratic party swelled under the leadership of August Bebel, a carpenter and woodturner. In Brazil, the Workers’ party, led by a metalworker with little formal education, rose to become a governing force.Even in the United States, at the height of the New Deal, the Congress of Industrial Organizations organized the first-ever political action committee with the explicit aim of getting workers into Congress.In each case, and there are many others, the simple argument that workers – their organizations, and their interests – deserved representation in government generated immense excitement. And in each case, the parties that pursued such a goal became, at least for a time, the undisputed representatives of working-class interests in government.There are similar political opportunities in the United States today. While Nebraska might have had a particularly effective worker populist, there is evidence that people want to vote for workers across the country. A study by the Center for Working-Class Politics found that among working-class voters, hypothetical candidates with elite or upper-class backgrounds performed significantly worse than candidates from humbler backgrounds.Yet, in reality, there were few working-class candidates to vote for. Only 2.3% of Democratic candidates worked exclusively in blue-collar jobs before entering politics. Even if we broaden out the category to professionals like teachers and nurses, the number is still under 6%. Why? Mainly because it’s extremely expensive to run for office. Most workers simply do not have the fundraising networks or the ability to take time away from their jobs to run for office.What’s more, as Duke University political scientist Nicholas Carnes has shown, the burdens of running for office are much higher for blue-collar workers than they are for those in white-collar professions because they also include the considerable challenges that working-class candidates have in persuading political gatekeepers to endorse their candidacies over much more familiar options in salaried professions who speak the same language and run in the same social circles. Osborn’s new effort to help ease some of these burdens is laudable for this reason.The lack of working-class representation in government is also one major factor in explaining the dysfunction in our politics and the persistence of economic policies that seem to only benefit the rich. Working-class voters have been cut adrift. Their views and voices are invisible in Washington, and they see no real champions for their interests. One reason these voters are likely to prefer working-class candidates is that these candidates are much more likely to advance an economic agenda that benefits them.Osborn’s appeal might not be so unique if we can encourage more working-class candidates to run. Here the labor movement has a role to play in recruiting talented candidates, protecting their day jobs during the campaign, providing training and working with organizations like Osborn’s to get these candidates the funds they need to win elections. It’s not a silver bullet to fixing our broken politics, but it’s a great start.During his campaign, Osborn reminded a crowd that “the Senate is a country club of millionaires that work for billionaires”. It’s high time that the people who created their wealth got a foot in the door.

      Dustin Guastella is a research associate at the Center for Working Class Politics and the director of operations for Teamsters Local 623

      Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of the Nation, founding editor of Jacobin and author of The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequalities More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Don Bacon Defeats Tony Vargas for House Seat in Nebraska

      by

      The victory of the four-term Republican, who has resisted his party’s veer to the right, dashed Democratic hopes of flipping a critical district.Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, one of the most politically vulnerable Republicans in the country, has defeated his Democratic challenger and won a fifth term, according to The Associated Press. His victory denies Democrats one of their best opportunities this year to pick up a seat and bolsters his party’s drive to hold its majority.The race was the second matchup between Mr. Bacon and Tony Vargas, who came within 6,000 votes of unseating the congressman in 2022. Mr. Vargas came up short again on Friday evening, even after top Democrats including Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, then the vice-presidential nominee, traveled to the Omaha district to support his campaign.The contest between Mr. Bacon, 61, a former brigadier general in the Air Force, and Mr. Vargas, 40, a former public-school teacher who is the son of Peruvian immigrants, featured debates over national issues including abortion rights, taxes and public safety.But it was also a test of whether there was still a place in the G.O.P. for a mainstream lawmaker like Mr. Bacon, who has staked out a reputation on Capitol Hill as an independent voice in a party increasingly dominated by the hard right — and whether he could survive in a liberal-leaning district won by President Biden.Nebraska’s Second Congressional District centers on Omaha, often referred to as the “blue dot,” in reference to its uniquely liberal leanings in an otherwise red state. But Republicans have represented it in the House since the mid-1990s, with the exception of one two-year term from 2015 to 2017.Mr. Bacon was first elected in 2016, in a year when Donald J. Trump also carried the district. But he was able to appeal to voters across the aisle; in 2020, when Mr. Biden won the district, Mr. Bacon was re-elected by the widest margin he has ever enjoyed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      In Nebraska, Separate Referendums on Abortion Create Confusion for Voters

      by

      On Tuesday, voters in Nebraska will be presented with dueling measures on abortion. While abortion is on the ballot in nearly a dozen states, and recent polling data appears to show support for measures that protect abortion rights, in Nebraska having two measures to choose from means many voters are simply confused.Referendum 434 would enshrine the existing 12-week abortion ban in the state constitution, banning abortion in the second and third trimesters, with exceptions for sexual assault, incest or medical emergencies. The constitutional protections would make it more difficult for these restrictions to be rolled back in the future.Referendum 439 would effectively allow abortions into the second trimester by creating a right to abortion “until fetal viability.”Many voters are having trouble parsing the wording on ballots as well as mixing up which measure aligns with their views. Local news outlets have offered lengthy explainers, and billboards and ads have tried to demystify the measures.But some advertising has offered such misleading information about Nebraska’s current abortion restrictions that last week the State Department of Health and Human Services issued an alert clarifying the current law, which passed in 2023 and limits most abortions after 12 weeks. The state’s chief medical officer did not specify which ads were misleading.A new ad featuring six female University of Nebraska athletes supporting abortion restrictions set off controversy; university officials told media outlets the athletes were exercising their First Amendment rights.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Contested state supreme court seats are site of hidden battle for abortion access

      by

      Abortion will be on the ballot in 10 states on Tuesday, and it’s one of the top issues in the presidential contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. But it is also key to less publicized but increasingly contested races for seats on state supreme courts, which often have the last word on whether a state will ban or protect access to the procedure.This year, voters in 33 states have the chance to decide who sits on their state supreme courts. Judges will be on the ballot in Arizona and Florida, where supreme courts have recently ruled to uphold abortion bans. They are also up for election in Montana, where the supreme court has backed abortion rights in the face of a deeply abortion-hostile state legislature.In addition, supreme court judges are on the ballot in Maryland, Nebraska and Nevada – all of which are holding votes on measures that could enshrine access to abortion in their state constitutions. Should those measures pass, state supreme courts will almost certainly determine how to interpret them.Indeed, anti-abortion groups are already gearing up for lawsuits.“We’re all going to end up in court, because they’re going to take vague language from these ballot initiatives to ask for specific things like funding for all abortions, abortion for minors without parental consent,” said Kristi Hamrick, chief media and policy strategist for the powerful anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, which is currently campaigning around state supreme court races in Arizona and Oklahoma. “Judges have become a very big, important step in how abortion law is actually realized.”In Michigan and Ohio, which voted in 2022 and 2023 respectively to amend their state constitution to include abortion rights, advocates are still fighting in court over whether those amendments can be used to strike down abortion restrictions. Come November, however, the ideological makeup of both courts may flip.Spending in state supreme court races has surged since Roe fell. In the 2021-2022 election cycle, candidates, interest groups and political parties spent more than $100m, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. After adjusting for inflation, that’s almost double the amount spent in any previous midterm cycle.View image in fullscreenIn 2023, a race for a single seat on the Wisconsin supreme court alone cost $51m – and hinged on abortion rights, as the liberal-leaning candidate talked up her support for the procedure. (As in many other – but not all – state supreme court races, the candidates in Wisconsin were technically non-partisan.) After that election, liberals assumed a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin supreme court. The court is now set to hear a case involving the state’s 19th-century abortion ban, which is not currently being enforced but is still on the books.It’s too early to tally up the money that has been dumped into these races this year, especially because much of it is usually spent in the final days of the election. But the spending is all but guaranteed to shatter records.In May, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and Planned Parenthood Votes announced that they were teaming up this cycle to devote $5m to ads, canvassing and get-out-the-vote efforts in supreme court races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. Meanwhile, the ACLU and its Pac, the ACLU Voter Education Fund, has this year spent $5.4m on non-partisan advertising and door-knocking efforts in supreme court races in Michigan, Montana, North Carolina and Ohio. The scale of these investments was unprecedented for both Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, according to Douglas Keith, a senior counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice’s Judiciary Program who tracks supreme court races.

      Don’t miss important US election coverage. Get our free app and sign up for election alerts
      “For a long time, judicial campaign ads often were just judges saying that they were fair and independent and had family values, and that was about it. Now, you’re seeing judges talk about abortion rights or voting rights or environmental rights in their campaign ads,” Keith said. By contrast, rightwing judicial candidates are largely avoiding talk of abortion, Keith said, as the issue has become ballot box poison for Republicans in the years since Roe fell. Still, the Judicial Fairness Initiative, the court-focused arm of the Republican State Leadership Committee, announced in August that it would make a “seven-figure investment” in judicial races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas.Balancing the federal benchAbortion is far from the only issue over which state courts hold enormous sway. They also play a key role in redistricting, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights and more. And with the US Congress so gridlocked, state-level legislation and its legality has only grown in importance.For years, conservative operatives have focused on remaking the federal judiciary in their ideological image – an effort that culminated in Donald Trump’s appointments of three US supreme court justices and has made federal courts generally more hostile to progressive causes. Now, the ACLU hopes to make state supreme courts into what Deirdre Schifeling, its chief political and advocacy officer, calls a “counterbalance” to this federal bench.“We have a plan through 2030 to work to build a more representative court,” said Schifeling, who has a spreadsheet of the supreme court races that will take place across eight states for years to come. (As a non-partisan organization, the ACLU focuses on voter education and candidates’ “civil rights and civil liberties” records.) This cycle, the organization’s messaging has centered on abortion.“Nationally, you’re seeing polling that shows the top thing that voters are voting on is the economy. But these judges don’t really influence the economy,” Schifeling said. “Of the issues that they can actually influence and have power over, reproductive rights is by far the most important to voters.”Abortion rights supporters are testing out this strategy even in some of the United States’ most anti-abortion states. In Texas, where ProPublica this week reported two women died after being denied emergency care due to the state’s abortion ban, former US air force undersecretary Gina Ortiz Jones has launched the Find Out Pac, which aims to unseat three state supreme court justices.Justices Jane Bland, Jimmy Blacklock and John Devine, the Pac has declared, “fucked around with our reproductive freedom” in cases upholding Texas’s abortion restrictions. Now, Jones wants them out.“Why would we not try to hold some folks accountable?” Jones said. “This is the most direct way in which Texas voters can have their voices heard on this issue.” (There is no way for citizens to initiate a ballot measure in Texas.) The Pac has been running digital ads statewide on how the Texas ban has imperiled access to medically necessary care.However, since state supreme court races have long languished in relative obscurity, voters don’t always know much about them and may very well default to voting on party lines in the seven states where the ballots list the affiliations of nominees for the bench. Although the majority of Texans believe abortions should be legal in all or some cases, nearly half of Texans don’t recall seeing or hearing anything about their supreme court in the last year, according to Find Out Pac’s own polling.“This conversation that we’re having in Texas, around the importance of judicial races, is new for us as Democrats,” Jones said. “It’s not for the Republicans.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Use Gas Station Kiosks to Say Trump Will Make Life More Expensive

      by

      Americans bagging up their purchases at hundreds of gas stations and convenience stores across the Midwest will hear a message from Democrats that former President Donald J. Trump’s policies will increase the price of fuel and add thousands of dollars to the cost of raising a family.The Democratic National Committee is paying for short, 15-second video advertisements to play on digital kiosks at checkout counters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska. The six-figure ad blitz, which starts on Monday, is meant to emphasize an argument that Vice President Kamala Harris has frequently made on the campaign trail: Mr. Trump is no ally of middle-class and working people, and his economic policies will badly hurt their wallets.“Trump’s Project 2025 agenda would spike gas prices by 75 cents a gallon, on top of the $7,600 more families could be paying each year,” the ad’s narrator says. “Billionaires like Trump can afford it.”With Election Day now just eight days away, political advertisements have become inescapable for voters in battleground states, with text messages pinging on phones and attacks reverberating across television, the radio and social media. The D.N.C. is hoping that catching voters as they pay for gas and snacks is a new way to break through. The ads will run at roughly 1,600 gas stations and convenience stores, it said, with many located in communities with a large number of union households or on or near college campuses. Union members and young people are key Democratic constituencies.The ad’s message is based on studies of the potential effect of Mr. Trump’s proposed tariffs on imported goods, including an analysis from the website GasBuddy and research by the Budget Lab at Yale, which found that households could see their costs rise between $1,900 and $7,600 per year. Inflation was a persistent problem for much of the Biden administration but has slowed significantly. Voters consistently rate the economy as their top concern of the 2024 election.The D.N.C. chose to air the ads in two of the top presidential battleground states, Michigan and Wisconsin, as well as in Nebraska, where Ms. Harris is leading in the race to pick up an electoral vote that is up for grabs in the state’s Second Congressional district. (Nebraska does not have a winner-take-all system like most states.) It is also investing in Minnesota, which is a light blue state, and Iowa, where there are competitive House races.“Donald Trump might’ve been handed a fortune on a silver platter by his daddy, but most of us have to work for a living,” Jaime Harrison, the chair of the D.N.C., said in a statement. “Vice President Harris is the only candidate in this race who understands the struggles working families face and will fight every day to make life more affordable.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Legal Challenges to Voting Rules Hit a Rough Patch

      by

      The legal wars over election rules are raging even as voters around the country cast ballots. And several recent efforts by groups aligned with former President Donald J. Trump to challenge voting rules have been coming up short in federal and state courts.Judges in a number of political battlegrounds and other states have rejected legal challenges this month to voter rolls and procedures by Republicans and their allies.The Nebraska State Supreme Court ruled that election officials cannot bar people with felony convictions from voting after their sentences are served.A Michigan state judge rejected a Republican attempt to prevent certain citizens living abroad, including military members, from being eligible to cast an absentee ballot in that swing state.And a federal judge in Arizona rejected a last-minute push by a conservative group to run citizenship checks on tens of thousands of voters.“They are hitting quite a losing streak,” said David Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, who advises both Democratic and Republican election officials on rules and procedures and has been tracking election-related litigation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More