• Police seek suspects in deadly birthday party shooting
  • Lawmakers launch inquires into U.S. boat strike
  • Nov. 29, 2025, 10:07 PM EST / Updated Nov. 30, 2025,…
  • Mark Kelly says troops ‘can tell’ what orders…

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Nov. 15, 2025, 5:15 AM ESTBy Richie Duchon and Nigel ChiwayaA former soccer boss gets a pelting, plus a costly name change and tough-to-swallow tariffs. Test your knowledge of the week in news, and take last week’s quiz here.Richie DuchonRichie Duchon is an NBC News digital editor in the Los Angeles bureau. Nigel ChiwayaNigel Chiwaya is the Senior Editor, Data Viz for NBC News Digital.

admin - Latest News - November 15, 2025
admin
11 views 9 secs 0 Comments




A former soccer boss gets a pelting, plus a costly name change and tough-to-swallow tariffs.



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Transgender Air Force members sue federal government
NEXT
Nov. 15, 2025, 5:00 AM ESTBy Alexandra MarquezDemocrats were knocked back on their heels in 2024 by the party’s erosion of support among young men. They were gratified to see improvement with that group in key elections earlier this month.In between, the party has been on a mission to stop its erosion among young voters, launching research efforts, piloting different styles of communication and elevating new voices. And it has already come to one important conclusion, according to interviews in October with a range of people on the left working on the issue: The solution to Democrats’ struggle to appeal to young men won’t come from one national figure who will instantly, magically draw them in.“If not Trump, then who? And the question for the Democratic Party that I think is one of the challenges we have right now is, we don’t have a great answer for that,” Amanda Litman, the founder and executive director of Run for Something, a group that recruits young Democratic candidates for downballot races, told NBC News. “I don’t think Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have the answer to that,” she added, referring to the Senate and House minority leaders respectively.But while Democrats may not have one leading figure they can rely on to recruit young male voters, one overarching belief is that they do have popular policies that — if communicated well and in the right spaces — could put the party on a path to victory with young voters.“I don’t think that there is a lack of popularity with Democratic policies. It’s a lack of the ability to appropriately communicate those policies in a way that actually breaks through and resonates with these voters, right?” Danielle Butterfield, the executive director of Priorities USA, told NBC News. “We know that we are always going to be the party that has a more favorable, popular stance on health care and health care costs. The question is, do voters know that, and are we talking about it in places where they’re actually spending time?”The power of the ‘manosphere’In the year since the presidential election, Democrats have aimed to learn why their messaging to young men failed in 2024 and how to fix it.Some, like former Democratic Rep. Colin Allred, who was a collegiate and professional football player in the NFL before running for office, say it’s because Democrats alienated young men with their messaging.“If you listen to many Democratic speeches over the last few years, and you kind of listen to the recitation of policies, if you’re a young man listening into that, you might think that none of those were directed towards you. And I think that was a mistake,” Allred, who is running for Senate again in Texas next year after losing to GOP Sen. Ted Cruz last year, told NBC News.“What I’ve seen is that if somebody agrees with you on policy, but thinks that you don’t understand them, their culture, what they’re going through and where they come from, then they’re still not going to want to support you,” he added.One place that young male voters found a sense of community and culture, Democrats say, is in the loose collection of podcasts often dubbed the “manosphere.”These podcasts — hosted by comedians such as Joe Rogan, Theo Von, Tim Dillon and Andrew Schulz — often make “you feel like you’re not alone,” Litman said.“It’s funny, often very funny. It’s a little subversive or often very subversive. It feels intimate. You get to know the hosts over the course of hours and hours of conversation: their lives and their, their personalities and their quirks, and I think that is really special. Like, the parasocial relationship can be very powerful,” she added.Litman’s conclusions about the power of these podcasts are backed up by a Priorities USA research project called Warbler, which works to understand voters’ online habits and media consumption.“One of the things I think that we were struck by in the research that we did is, people are looking for long-form , by and large,” said Jeff Horwitt from Hart Research, a Democratic polling firm that partnered with Priorities USA on some of the research. (Horwitt and his firm also partner with a Republican polling outfit on the NBC News poll.) “They want a conversational back and forth. They want to learn something new rather than be told something old.”Butterfield added that media consumption behavior among young voters is “fundamentally different” than even a decade ago.“We were teaching our candidates to, like, ‘Get in and get out,’ ‘Say what you need to say, and let that voter move on,’ because their attention spans are like goldfish,” she said.Now, Butterfield added, “that’s actually not the case. If you can get their attention, you’ll have their attention, right? It’s not about a lack of, a lack of eyeballs.”A Priorities poll of 5,000 voters conducted in September found that while a majority — 66% — of voters who reported listening to or watching certain “manosphere” podcasts in the past month voted for Trump in 2024, there was still a bright spot for Democrats in the research: an emerging break with Trump among this cohort.Of those “manosphere” Trump voters, 8% said they now disapproved of his performance as president, while 7% said they would vote for a Democrat on a generic congressional ballot.Meanwhile, some “manosphere” podcasters have broken with Trump on issues such as deportations, Israel’s war in Gaza and the Jeffrey Epstein files in recent months.Still, Butterfield warned, Democrats can’t take these cracks in Trump’s coalition as an automatic sign of support for Democrats.“We’re not going to just earn back all of these voters right away just because of their opposition to Trump. We’re going to have to make sure we are offering an alternative point of view, alternative policies that solve their economic anxieties, visions for the future, etc.,” she said.“That’s going to be the difference between an okay midterm and a really amazing midterm,” Butterfield continued, adding: “We’re not going to just get by on people hating Trump alone. We’ll get far-ish, but not as far as we need to go.”In last week’s New Jersey and Virginia elections, for example, Democratic Govs.-elect Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger won by larger-than-expected margins and made gains among young men in both states, exit polls show. But those margins among young men were still in line with their overall margins of victory, among an age group in which Democrats for years ran up the score compared to the overall electorate.‘Message, messenger and medium’ are the keysIn some ways, Democratic strategists and candidates say, the solution to their party’s concerns about its performance among young men — or at least the start of it — is as easy as just appearing on these podcasts and in other male-friendly spaces.It’s something several potential 2028 presidential candidates have already dabbled in. In April, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg sat for a nearly three-hour-long interview with the hosts of “Flagrant.” In July, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, participated in a four-hour-long podcast taping of the “Shawn Ryan Show.” Both these podcasts hosted Trump in 2024.The problem with this strategy, Litman pointed out, is that not all Democratic leaders are comfortable with appearing on such programs.“You shouldn’t force it, but for the leaders who are capable of having those kinds of conversations, I think they should absolutely go into those environments and be a little bit risk averse or a little bit risk tolerant, rather,” she said.“It’s both message, messenger and medium — it’s all of the above,” Litman added later.One 2025 election winner who embraced this strategy was New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who gained popularity on TikTok, appeared on popular social media shows like “Subway Takes,” and joined the “manosphere” podcast “Flagrant.”Allred cited these “manosphere” podcasts as one place more Democrats should be going, but said there are local spaces with the same informal, intimate environment — like high school football games — that many of his fellow Democrats should feel comfortable in but don’t.“I think that in the Democratic Party, there’s almost been a reluctance to engage in things like football, and I don’t really get that. I don’t think you have to be the biggest fan of it to know that this is a place where the community is gathering and people are having, at least for me, these are some of the realest conversations I have in the entire week,” he said.Appearing in these spaces would go a long way “in terms of people seeing us, not as, kind of, elite ivory tower policy wonks,” Allred added. “At a football game, you can have the same conversation about policy. It might be a little bit less wonkish, but it’ll be more authentic … I think it’s what most people are looking for in their leaders.”Looking ahead to 2026 and 2028, Butterfield said that a priority “is making sure that we’re not sticking out like sore thumbs in these kind of ‘entertainment-first’ spaces.”“I think that your ability to authentically communicate in these spaces should be a requirement to be a good candidate in today’s world, right?” she added. “We need to be holding our candidates to a high standard of electability, such that if you can’t come across as yourself on social media, maybe we need to pick a different candidate.”Alexandra MarquezAlexandra Marquez is a politics reporter for NBC News.
Related Post
October 28, 2025
18th-inning home run lifts Dodgers over Blue Jays
October 2, 2025
Robert Morris, Texas megachurch pastor, pleads guilty to sexually abusing a child
November 11, 2025
Savewith a NBCUniversal ProfileCreate your free profile or log in to save this articleNov. 11, 2025, 5:00 AM ESTBy Jonathan Allen, Matt Dixon and Henry J. GomezPresident Donald Trump is confident that he drew the right battle lines when he launched a nationwide redistricting fight to try to preserve the Republican House majority, GOP strategists familiar with the White House’s thinking say — even after Tuesday’s election results gave Democrats openings to counterstrike in California and Virginia.“The president understands intuitively, in a way that other Republicans don’t … that Democrats are always assaulting us, always, and mostly much of the Republican Party never fights back,” said one of the strategists familiar with the White House approach. “The redistricting fight is proof that they are not that way. So this is in his DNA in a way that is not in other Republicans’ DNA.”The strategist, like others in this article, was granted anonymity to speak candidly about private conversations.But two other Republicans close to the White House told NBC News that there are growing concerns in the party that the political war is not going as planned — that the juice may not have been worth the squeeze and could, in a nightmare scenario, result in a net gain for Democrats. And within broader GOP circles, misgivings about the strategy heightened last week after California voters overwhelmingly approved Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to redraw the state’s congressional districts in a manner that Democrats hope will flip five House seats in their direction. Still, White House officials say that the president remains in fight mode when it comes to redistricting.President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on Nov. 5 at Joint Base Andrews.Kevin Dietsch / Getty ImagesIn recent days, aides have presented Trump with three scenarios for the overall outcome of the redistricting fight, none of which include Republicans losing seats when all the maps are finalized, according to the GOP strategist familiar with the White House approach. The variables include how the Supreme Court rules on an upcoming case about the Voting Rights Act, which impedes states from diluting the voting power of minorities, and whether courts will block Democratic plans in California and Virginia.The strategist said there was a “bad-luck Republicans, good-luck Democrats” scenario, which would result in “basically a wash of seats” but with some Republican-held seats in red states becoming more secure than they are now.The two other scenarios, the person said, would result in Republicans picking up between five and nine seats, and a third, best-case scenario would see the GOP pick up seats “into double digits substantially.” The range of scenarios depends not only on a surprise Democratic push to redraw Virginia, but also on outcomes in several red states. A compromise plan in Ohio and delays in Indiana and Kansas, where the White House hopes Republicans can squeeze more GOP seats out of new maps, coupled with California’s ballot initiative win, left Democrats with momentum last week — and Trump with some degree of heartburn, one of the sources said.“For a few weeks now, he’s had the understanding that they were going to lose Prop 50,” a Republican operative close to the White House said, adding that Trump has been planning to sue California over the ballot measure while believing it was a bad idea to get involved in the fight. The original impetus for Trump’s unprecedented campaign to draw new district lines in the middle of the decade was the fear that Republicans’ meager two-seat cushion in the House after the 2024 election might be too narrow to withstand the winds of a midterm election, which historically favors the out-of-power party. Republicans familiar with the origins of the strategy say that it stemmed from a view that past redistricting in Democratic-held states had put the GOP at an unfair disadvantage.“It’s a fact that the Democrat Party has been redistricting maps in their favor for decades — just look at Illinois,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, pointing to a state where Democrats hold 14 of 17 House seats despite Trump having won 43% of the vote in the state in 2024. “President Trump wants Republicans to play tough and smart.” To counter that, Trump and his advisers pressed Republican-led states to redraw their lines — starting with Texas, where Trump’s ability to connect with Hispanic voters in 2024 opened up the possibility of adding as many as five seats to the Republican column.The redistricting state of playThe stakes could hardly be higher.Not only would Trump’s legislative agenda be imperiled by a Democratic takeover of the House, but also his administration would surely face myriad investigations and he could be impeached for a third time. Twice during his first term, the Democratic-run House voted to impeach him — and each time, Senate Republicans produced enough votes to prevent his conviction.“With a narrow majority heading into a midterm, they need more seats for a buffer in order to hold the House. If they can ultimately net five or six seats, then it will be the story of the midterms of success for Republicans,” said one GOP strategist who is deeply involved in House races. “If the whole thing here was to net one seat across the country, then it will not have been worth it.”Fresh off a sweep in Virginia’s off-year elections last week, including Abigail Spanberger’s 15-point win for the governor’s office, Democrats are threatening to redraw that state’s map to flip several more seats into their column. Their confidence in their ability to win newly drawn districts in California and other states — and to minimize GOP gains in Texas and elsewhere — was buoyed by the margins Spanberger and New Jersey Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill racked up Tuesday.Erin Covey, a nonpartisan election analyst who is the House editor at The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, said that after the latest elections, there’s a risk for Republicans that their redistricting push may not net them as many seats as they hoped.Pointing to strong Democratic showings in predominantly Hispanic areas of Virginia and New Jersey, Covey said there’s a clear “uncertainty” as to whether Hispanic voters will show up for the GOP next year like they did for Trump in 2024, particularly in states like Texas.“That does not bode well for Republicans banking on Hispanic voters to help them keep their majority next year — but it doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll see Republican incumbents who would be in safe seats suddenly look vulnerable all of a sudden,” she said, adding she believes the results among Hispanic voters this November stem from a combination of them coming back around for Democrats as well as others just not turning out for Republicans.The truth is that the net effect of all the gerrymandering won’t be fully known until elections are held in the new districts, some of which are drawn with such narrow advantage for either Republicans or Democrats that a slight shift in the national political environment — or the quality of candidates running in them — could be pivotal to the outcomes.“I think ‘concern’ is a fair way to say it,” a second Republican who is close to the White House said of the president’s sentiments, adding: ”In Texas, I do think there is some sense those seats will be ours, but nothing is guaranteed, so some concern there.” Still, proponents of the White House’s tack say they see no reason to back off or point fingers.“I remain pretty optimistic about everything,” said one person familiar with the White House goals in pressing for new maps. “In addition to inaccurate, it’s premature to say that it hasn’t been a success.”With the tight margins in the House and the possibility of squeezing more seats out of redistricting, this person said, “How can you not try?” “At that point,” the person added, “it becomes malpractice.” Bumps in the roadTrump is also finding that executing rewrites of congressional districts requires at least as much political muscle as it does cartographic skill.While Democrats have faced obstacles to redrawing many blue states in the form of state constitutions, courts and some of their own legislators, some Republicans have not gone along with the White House’s plans. Over the summer, New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte threw cold water on the idea of redrawing the state’s two congressional districts to try to take one from Democrats.In Ohio, Republican legislators have agreed to a new map that is more generous to Democrats than initially expected — the result of fears that an overly aggressive approach could have unintended consequences.While the contours of that realignment were being debated, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries signaled interest in supporting a statewide redistricting referendum in 2026, which could have frozen the current map in place until voters had their say, all while flooding the state with Democratic money and organizers that could have helped lift the party’s midterm candidates for governor and Senate. That scenario was very much on White House officials’ minds as they sorted out redistricting options with Ohio Republicans, two people familiar with the discussions said.“That was very directly communicated,” said one person who was involved in the talks and granted anonymity to share details from private conversations. “I was told specifically that they felt like if they weighed in and made this the ‘White House map’ or ‘Trump’s map,’ that the Democrats would balk and that the whole deal would blow up. So I do think that was part of the calculation.”“The fact that you’ve seen, essentially, no comment, I think that sort of corroborates it,” this person added.Some Republicans, including several Trump-aligned activists, have criticized the compromise map in Ohio because it makes a toss-up district represented by Democratic Rep. Emilia Sykes even more favorable to Democrats while presenting only one solid pickup opportunity. No one from the White House, including Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who represented the state in the Senate, has weighed in publicly on the map. But the person involved in the talks described Trump administration officials as fine with the deal.“The White House just sort of took a position of, we’ll call it neutrality — where it was like, ‘We’re not going to go out and have a parade, but we’re comfortable with what’s been explained to us,” this person said.The dynamics of a potential backfire are different in Texas, the first battlefront in Trump’s redistricting war. Even as Trump pressured Texas legislators to redraw their maps, and gave short shrift to their concerns, some Republican members of Congress from the state expressed worry that shifting GOP voters into new districts could endanger some incumbents in the state. Aggressive redistricting plans tend to create friction between the party’s interest in winning a greater number of seats and the increased electoral risk for incumbents who have to give up loyal constituents in order to make new districts more competitive.The Texas linesDemocrats, and some critics inside the Republican Party, say that the Texas methodology — which redrew the lines so that each GOP candidate would run in a district in which Trump won by at least 10 percentage points in 2024 — relies too heavily on the president’s most recent performance as a metric for House races in the 2026 midterms. If congressional candidates can’t replicate that, they could be in for competitive races.For example, Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Texas, now sits in a district that Trump won by almost 18 percentage points last year. But Trump won it by only 2 percentage points in 2020. In 2018, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott lost that turf by 11 percentage points. And Abbott won it by only 6 percentage points in 2022.The trend line is clearly Republican red, but some in the GOP fear that Trump’s 2024 results with Latinos were a high-water mark, especially at a time when voters say they are worried about the state of the economy and Trump’s immigration policies have roiled Latino communities across the country.Trump’s team is satisfied that Texas will go as planned.“They are very, very cognizant of what the maps look like in Texas,” the person familiar with the White House approach said, pushing back on the wisdom of critics.Still, the results of Tuesday’s elections — which showed GOP gains among Hispanic voters receding in New Jersey and Virginia — could be a red flag for the GOP in Texas.In Texas, GOP consultant and data scientist John Eakin told NBC News that some Republicans in the state are regretting their aggressive new map already, worried that overconfidence in the 2024 results for Trump — which he describes as an exception, rather than a reliable baseline — could backfire.“They should have never drawn maps based on the 2024 outcome. You can’t stress test that. You have to find the most vulnerable election and build the premise around that,” he said.Eakin went on to point to eyepopping results in a Dallas-area special state Senate election, where the top Democrat there significantly overperformed, compared to the 2024 results, and advanced to the runoff as the race’s top vote-getter. It’s results like that, he says, that make him nervous about 2026.“”Nobody wants to go against Trump in this district map because they fear him. They’ve pushed the envelope and it’s going to come back to bite them in the ass,” he said.“They’re high as a f—ing kite off of 2024,” he added.Jonathan AllenJonathan Allen is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News. Matt DixonMatt Dixon is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News, based in Florida.Henry J. GomezHenry J. Gomez is a senior national political reporter for NBC NewsBen Kamisar, Ryan Chandler and Jane C. Timm contributed.
November 21, 2025
Nov. 20, 2025, 6:36 PM ESTBy Michael KosnarIn just 24 hours, the Justice Department has done a complete reversal on its position about whether the full grand jury in the James Comey criminal case reviewed the indictment before it was handed up to a federal judge in September.Lindsey Halligan, the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, presented the case by herself to the grand jury on Sept. 25. She testified Wednesday that when jurors voted to indict Comey on two of the three counts submitted in the original indictment, the full grand jury hadn’t reviewed a final revised document showing the two counts the former FBI director was charged with. Instead, its viewing was limited to the jury foreperson and an additional grand juror.Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons, who is leading the prosecution of Comey, also said the full grand jury hadn’t reviewed the final indictment.Justice Department admits not all grand jury members saw final Comey indictment02:49But in a court filing Thursday titled “Government’s Notice Correcting the Record,” federal prosecutors said the full grand jury did review the final indictment. In doing so, the Justice Department disputed the argument by Comey’s defense team that the indictment was invalid because of the missteps acknowledged in court Wednesday.“The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim,” prosecutors said in Thursday’s filing. Judge Lindsey Vaala presided over the filing of Comey’s indictment.The defense team argued at Wednesday’s hearing that the confusion over the grand jury issue required the judge to throw out the case.Comey was indicted in September on charges of lying to Congress relating to Senate testimony he gave in 2020. He has pleaded not guilty.Lindsey Halligan, then an attorney for President Donald Trump, in the Oval Office of the White House on March 31.Al Drago / Getty Images fileThe hearing Wednesday focused on the defense’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it is a vindictive and selective prosecution.Halligan, Trump’s former personal attorney, who has no experience in criminal matters, lashed out at U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is overseeing the case, after he questioned whether the defense’s position was that Halligan was serving as a “puppet” or a “stalking horse” for Trump and his demands for retribution against perceived enemies like Comey.In a highly unusual move, Halligan released a statement Thursday criticizing the judge.“Personal attacks — like Judge Nachmanoff referring to me as a ‘puppet’ — don’t change the facts or the law,” she said. “The Judicial Canons require judges to be ‘patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity’ … and to ‘act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.’ My focus remains on the record and the law, and I will continue to fulfill my responsibilities with professionalism.”Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin also attacked Nachmanoff.“A federal judge should be neutral and impartial. Instead, this judge launched an outrageous and unprofessional personal attack yesterday in open court against US Attorney Lindsey Halligan,” Gilmartin said on X. “DOJ will continue to follow the facts and the law.” Michael KosnarMichael Kosnar is the Justice Department Producer for NBC News.
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved