logo
NSEA, lawmakers outline 2025 priorities after survey of nearly 10,000 Nebraska teachers

NSEA, lawmakers outline 2025 priorities after survey of nearly 10,000 Nebraska teachers

Yahoo29-01-2025

Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, leads a news conference highlighting 2025 priorities for teachers statewide. Jan. 28, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN — The Nebraska State Education Association sought to rally support Tuesday for a package of legislation designed after a survey of nearly 10,000 teachers statewide.
Tim Royers, president of the state teacher's union, joined with seven lawmakers to unveil the top 2025 priorities for the NSEA. The proposals generally seek to increase state support for teachers, such as retention bonuses, stipends for student teachers, reimbursements for school supplies and paid family and medical leave.
'One of the things that we know in Nebraska is that without our teachers, Nebraska has no future,' State Sen. Wendy DeBoer of Omaha said at a morning news conference.
The eight bills presented Tuesday were introduced by State Sens. Margo Juarez of Omaha, Jason Prokop of Lincoln, George Dungan of Lincoln, Ashlei Spivey of Omaha and Danielle Conrad of Lincoln. All are Democrats in the officially nonpartisan Legislature.
Royers said the legislation is part of NSEA's goal to ensure all Nebraska children get to receive a great public education, which he said often depends on highly qualified teachers.
In the fall, the NSEA received written comments from thousands of teachers, whose feedback ranged from workplace conditions to compensation and teachers' plans for the future.
Royers said only 8% of respondents reported feeling that the Legislature takes them into account when crafting education policy, and about 11% said the state currently incentivizes them to stay in the profession.
More than a quarter of educators, Royers continued, are unsure if they want to continue teaching after this school year 'unless something meaningfully changes.'
'Candidly, educators don't really feel like they have folks in their corner right now,' Royers said.
One of the 'boldest' 2025 ideas, Royers said, comes from Spivey's Legislative Bill 440. It would establish an additional 0.35% payroll tax on teachers, matched by local school districts, to offer teachers six weeks of paid family and medical leave by funding long-term substitute teachers.
For a teacher making $60,000, that would amount to a monthly fee of $17.50.
'For less than $20 a month out of a teacher's paycheck, they would get access to a profound benefit,' Royers said.
The focus of the Spivey legislation started on young women in teaching sometimes being forced to leave the profession after taking one or two months of unpaid leave because they had a child early in their career.
But the NSEA began to see other needs, too, Royers said, such as teachers who faced cancer diagnoses or teachers who waited seven years to even attempt having kids, trying to save up enough days off 'so they wouldn't take that hit.'
'No person should have to make family decisions based on when their paid leave is sufficient for them to do that,' Royers said.
Juarez, a former school board member for Omaha Public Schools and former paraeducator, is seeking to create retention bonuses for paraeducators through LB 524, $1,000 for a para working an average of 28 hours per week, or proportional for a paraeducator working less.
Her LB 523 would establish a statewide student teacher stipend program, paying them $4,000 per teaching semester.
Juarez said the underpaid and unpaid labor that teachers are expected to offer when training for the job is 'extreme,' which begins with student teaching.
Quality educators, she said, are sometimes turned away because the financial burden.
Another Juarez bill, LB 161, would increase how much the state pays school districts for full-time early childhood students. The bill does not yet have a cost estimate from the Legislature.
Currently, all school districts get about $1,500 in state aid for each K-12 student, but districts receive roughly 60% of that amount, or $900, for each early childhood student. Juarez's bill would raise that to 100% for the foundation aid.
'Education is more likely for early childhood students to earn higher wages later on, live healthier lives and avoid incarceration, raise strong families and contribute to society,' Juarez said.
Prokop's LB 282 would similarly seek to support teachers who 'pour their hearts and souls' into their classrooms and students as well as their wallets, with one study indicating teachers annually pay average out-of-pocket costs on school supplies of about $860.
His bill would establish up to $300 in reimbursements through the State Board of Education for qualified teaching supplies. If all of Nebraska's approximate 27,000 teachers applied for the reimbursement, the Nebraska Department of Education estimates it would cost $8.1 million annually.
The Legislature's fiscal office estimated that 60% of teachers might use the funds, which would also gain $300,000 to $400,000 in additional state revenue through increased teacher income.
'While it's about acknowledging that financial commitment they've made to the students, it's really more about the acknowledgment that they just really care about their kids and the students that they are teaching,' Prokop said.
LB 411, from State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln, would establish baseline retention grants for all teachers, beginning at $2,500 for teachers in years one through six of service and increasing to $4,000 for teachers in their 16th or later.
'One of the things that we know in Nebraska is that without our teachers, Nebraska has no future.'
– State Sen. Wendy DeBoer of Omaha
Excluding high-need retention grants, Dungan's program could annually cost between $66 million (if all teachers were in their first to sixth year of teaching) and $106 million (if all teachers were in their 16th year of teaching or beyond).
If all teachers received one high-need retention grant before 2028, as allowed under the bill for certain subject area endorsements, that would cost an additional $132 million.
DeBoer's LB 598 would increase state funding for school districts that provide teachers at least 60 minutes of non-instructional planning time daily.
The bill would also allow school districts to apply for additional limited English proficiency program funding, based on need, and get additional funds based on the number of students with disabilities who are on Section 504 support plans.
The last bill, LB 589, from State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, would allow school districts to be reimbursed for the costs of substitute teachers who cover special education teachers if they take a 'paperwork day' to complete documentation, reporting and compliance requirements. The bill does not yet have a cost estimate from the Legislature. Four such days could be reimbursed annually.
'Making small changes like that, that don't come with a big price tag to state taxpayers, can make a world of difference for the teachers and the children that they are serving,' Conrad said.
Conrad and Royers indicated the proposed legislation is in direct response to legislation that they said would undermine teachers' ability to serve kids. That includes continued efforts to divert state funds for private schools, which Conrad described as a 'slap in the face' to voters.
'Let's be clear: We're not content to just play defense when it comes to standing up for our schools and our kids and our teachers and our incredible public education system,' she said.
Royers said the NSEA will also partner with State Sens. Kathleen Kauth and John Fredrickson, both of Omaha, on studies that could inform possible future legislation around alternate certification pathways for high school teachers and for high behavioral needs care facilities.
A third planned interim study would examine how to improve higher education compensation.
Royers said even with a projected budget shortfall for the state, he and senators are confident they'll find the support for proposals that are 'perfectly in line' with the Education Future Fund that Gov. Jim Pillen carved out in 2023 to ensure continued state support for education.
'Some of these bills that you just heard about today aren't going to get over the finish line this year,' Royers said. 'It might take us a few tries, but I can tell you that by simply introducing all of these proposals, it's already making a difference in how educators feel in this state.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Popular Stephen Starr restaurants boycotted by Democrats
Popular Stephen Starr restaurants boycotted by Democrats

Axios

time17 minutes ago

  • Axios

Popular Stephen Starr restaurants boycotted by Democrats

Top Democrats in the House and Senate are boycotting hot Washington, D.C. restaurants that include those owned by famed Philadelphia restaurateur Stephen Starr over labor disputes. Why it matters: The targeted restaurants in Starr's empire include some of the buzziest spots for Democratic fundraisers. Driving the news: More than 50 House and Senate Democrats have signed onto Unite Here Local 25's pledge to avoid six D.C. venues. Zoom in: Starr, who is a Democratic donor, is facing boycotts of his Le Diplomate, Osteria Mozza and The Occidental. The other three boycotted restaurants are founded by chef Ashok Bajaj of Knightsbridge Restaurant Group. The list: Among the signers are some of Democrats' top fundraisers and biggest names, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are also on the list. Meanwhile, Philly Reps. Brendan Boyle, Dwight Evans and Mary Gay Scanlon signed the boycott list, per Unite Here's website. U.S. Sen. John Fetterman and Philly-regional Rep. Madeleine Dean were not on the pledge list as of Friday. Between the lines: Political groups and candidates have spent thousands of dollars at those spots over the past year, federal campaign records show. Former President Obama and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos made headlines when they dined at Osteria Mozza in January. Then-President Biden was a repeat customer at Le Diplomate during his presidency. What they're saying: Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Axios: "We can have big policy debates, but we also have to show the American people some concrete examples." He added: "This is our opportunity when we're here in Washington, D.C. to not just go vote in the Capitol but actually go out in the community and make a difference." "We can say that all members on the list are personally boycotting," Benjy Cannon, a spokesperson for the union, told Axios in a message. "Many of them have been meeting personally with STARR and Knightsbridge workers all year." The other side:"Local 25's call for a boycott is baseless," Starr restaurants said in a statement. "A boycott of any kind can result in lost hours, wages, and tips that hardworking employees rely upon." "It is unfortunate that an organization that claims to want to represent employees would call for an action that would harm them." "We respect our employees' wishes," Bajaj said. "How many of these congress members even know themselves that they're signing?" Zoom out: Starr's restaurant group has accused Unite Here Local 25 of overly aggressive tactics. That includes union reps showing up with petitions outside employees' homes, leading one bartender to sign it even though she planned to vote against a union, as Eater reported in February. Francisco López, a Le Diplomate server of five years, told Axios some employees are holding counter protests to the union.

Republican lawmaker's raucous town hall reflects challenges in promoting Trump's bill
Republican lawmaker's raucous town hall reflects challenges in promoting Trump's bill

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Republican lawmaker's raucous town hall reflects challenges in promoting Trump's bill

By Helen Coster MAHOPAC, New York (Reuters) -Democratic voter Joe Mayhew, a union representative living in a New York swing district, was one of several people at a rowdy town hall with Republican Representative Mike Lawler on Sunday keen to point out potential pitfalls with President Donald Trump's budget. He fears proposed changes to Medicaid requirements could have a devastating effect on people unable to work through no fault of their own. "If your cuts to Medicaid pass, a person working in a low-paying job as an individual contractor who falls ill or has work interrupted because it's seasonal, or because it was a job shutdown - something not of any fault of their own - could not make your 80-hour requirement on a particular month," Mayhew, 63, told Lawler at the town hall in Mahopac, New York. Lawler defended the bill's Medicaid provision, which requires recipients age 19-64 who have no dependents to work, volunteer or be in school at least 80 hours a month starting in 2027. "The objective is to help people get into the workforce ultimately," he said. The exchange at the Sunday night event, where boos were more common than cheers, reflects the kinds of issues that are vexing some Republicans as they seek to promote and defend Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill. The two-hour-long town hall, attended by roughly 500 people, was also an indication of how voters in a swing district that narrowly voted for Lawler feel about the bill and Trump's agenda more broadly. Topics ranged from the justification of Trump's June 14 military parade to attacks on higher education, to whether ICE agents should wear masks during raids and how to fund social security in the future. A moderate Republican representing New York's 17th District, Lawler won re-election in November, defeating former Democratic Representative Mondaire Jones with over 52% of votes. He has expressed interest in running for governor. Lawler's district was the scene of one of the 2022 general election's biggest upsets when he beat Democratic Representative Sean Patrick Maloney – who was head of the Democrats' House campaign arm. Lawler has scheduled four public town hall meetings with voters this year, despite guidance from U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who urged fellow Republican lawmakers to avoid them after some events turned into angry confrontations over Trump's moves to fire federal workers and defund government programs. Lawler's two previous town halls were even more raucous events where several attendees were removed by law enforcement. FIELDING JEERS Trump's 1,100-page bill passed in May in a 215-214 vote, and will add about $3.8 trillion to the federal government's $36.2 trillion in debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It would extend corporate and individual tax cuts passed in 2017 during Trump's first term in office, cancel many green-energy incentives passed by Democratic former President Joe Biden and tighten eligibility for health and food programs for the poor. Tesla and SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk denounced Trump's bill as a "disgusting abomination" last week, prior to the two men exchanging public insults. Other Republican representatives have also had to field jeers at town halls. During a May 28 town hall in Decorah, Iowa, Republican Congresswoman Ashley Hinson was booed after she told attendees: 'I was also proud to vote for President Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' last week.' The previous day, Republican Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska told attendees at his town hall that when he voted for the bill, he was unaware it would limit judges' power to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. The response was met with boos from the crowd, with one attendee calling his behavior 'ridiculous.' Flood said he would work to ensure the provision isn't in the final version of the bill. That said, such town halls have been few and far between. Lawler said he felt it was important to have this type of forum. "Almost all of my colleagues are not doing it, and I've been asked why I would do it. But this is your right to come and engage in this dialog. So that's why we're here." He also noted his work on pushing for increases in the so-called SALT deduction for state and local tax payments. He and other Republicans from Democratic-led, high-tax states had previously threatened to oppose Trump's legislation unless there were increases. Trump's current bill would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $40,000 for state and local tax (SALT) payments, up from $10,000 now, with benefits phasing out for households that make more than $500,000. A previous version of the bill had a cap of $30,000. Lawmakers next need to pass the bill in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority and are planning to use a legislative maneuver to bypass the chamber's 60-vote filibuster threshold for most legislation.

The Real Problem With the Democrats' Ground Game
The Real Problem With the Democrats' Ground Game

Atlantic

time29 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

The Real Problem With the Democrats' Ground Game

They called it the 'Big Send.' Democrats gathered in living rooms, libraries, and coffee shops across the country to write letters to millions of potential voters in swing states and competitive congressional districts, urging them to vote in November. During the 2020 pandemic election, the novel but decidedly 20th-century tactic had cut through the glut of digital messages that inundated Americans' cellphones and inboxes, and organizers hoped it would similarly boost turnout for Democrats in 2024. It did not. In a study set to be released later today, the group behind the letter-writing effort, the nonpartisan Vote Forward, found that personal messages sent to more than 5 million occasional voters deemed at risk of staying home last fall had no effect on turnout. (The group's campaign produced a modest increase in turnout among a second, slightly smaller set of low-propensity voters, but it still fell short of previous Vote Forward programs.) What's unusual is not Vote Forward's lackluster findings, but that the group is ready to tell the world about them. Every election, a constellation of progressive organizations sells donors and volunteers on the promise that their data-driven turnout programs will deliver victory at the polls. These mobilization efforts have taken on ever-greater importance in an era of tight elections, where the presidency and majorities in Congress can hinge on just a few thousand votes. Progressive groups are only too happy to brag about their wins; they're much less likely to divulge details about their campaigns that flopped. Driving this reticence is a fear that donations will dry up—or go to other organizations in a highly competitive campaign industry—if funders find out their money made little difference on the ground. In several instances, researchers told me, Democratic firms have either pushed them to suppress the results of studies that didn't produce desired findings or cherry-picked data to make the numbers look better. 'We have a people-pleasing problem in our party,' Max Wood, a progressive data scientist, told me. Yasmin Radjy, the executive director of Vote Forward and its progressive campaign arm, Swing Left, is trying to change that culture. Just as Democrats are now debating, sometimes fiercely, why their party's message failed last year, Radjy believes that to emerge from 'the political wilderness,' they need to have candid conversations about their organizing and turnout efforts. Radjy has been frustrated by what she describes as Democrats' lack of introspection and transparency. For months, she's been asking party organizers and consultants what they learned in 2024, and what they're going to do differently going forward. 'We've got to actually be honest about both what works and what doesn't work,' she told me. In the next election, 'if we are serving volunteers, donors, and voters reheated leftovers from 2024, we are doing it wrong.' The risks of a bad field operation are greater than people might think. The goal of any persuasion or get-out-the-vote program is to boost support for your party's candidate. Many make only a small difference in turnout, or none at all—especially in presidential elections, for which most people already know plenty about the candidates. The worst of these efforts, however, can backfire entirely. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama built the largest field operation in history, relying on both data-driven targeting and community-organizing tactics in a way that revolutionized presidential campaigning. But a study involving more than 56,000 targeted voters in Wisconsin found that a visit from a volunteer supporting Obama appears to have turned some potential voters away from Obama's candidacy—in a state the Democrat won handily that year. The researchers suggested that people who rarely engaged in elections found the visits bothersome. During the Obama era, Democrats relied on support from infrequent voters to capture the presidency, although they struggled in low-turnout, off-year elections. They poured millions of dollars into research and organizing programs to identify and mobilize those voters. But since then, the parties' bases have shifted, and many of these hard-to-reach voters became Donald Trump supporters—especially working-class white voters and, in 2024, a large number of young and nonwhite people. Some Democrats worry that their party's vaunted turnout operation has, in recent years, produced a significant number of votes for Trump, reducing, if not negating, the benefits for their own candidates. Early last year, a top progressive data scientist warned donors in a memo that if Democratic mobilization groups 'were to blindly register nonvoters,' they could be 'distinctly aiding Trump's quest for a personal dictatorship,' The Washington Post reported. Radjy acknowledged that had been a concern, but she said Vote Forward's postelection study found no evidence that its letter-writing campaign helped Trump or Republicans. 'If we found that, it would hurt, but we would also share it transparently,' she told me. It's not clear that everyone else would. The biggest spenders in Democratic politics frequently test their turnout operations, in many cases through randomized controlled trials in which one group of people receives a particular form of engagement—a door knock, phone call, or text message, for example—while another gets nothing. (This is what Vote Forward did to test its letter-writing success.) After the election, organizers can check to see which group voted at a higher rate. These findings have shown that in presidential-election years, traditional canvassing methods have become less effective as voters get bombarded with campaign ads and reminders to vote. 'In a saturated environment, it's getting harder and harder for individual pieces of campaign communication to break through,' David Broockman, a political scientist at UC Berkeley who studies voting behavior, told me. 'I expect the effects of everything are just going to keep on going down.' Occasionally, the studies that groups conduct are widely shared, but some political organizations suffer from a phenomenon known as the 'file-drawer problem': 'A lot of bad results never see the light of day,' Joshua Kalla, a political scientist at Yale University who studies voter persuasion, told me. Wood, the data scientist, learned that firsthand. He told me he's worked with Democrats who have urged him not to publish studies with unfavorable findings: 'Basically the attitude is, There's a lot of hype and a lot of willingness to fund this work. And if you put this out, all the funders are going to clam up and point to this as a reason not to do it.' In other cases, he said, clients have misused data to make tactics seem more effective than they really are. Another researcher, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating allies in the party, told me about working on a study that found a campaign tactic had produced no boost in turnout. When the researcher later saw a published version of the report with their name attached, however, the findings made it seem as if the experiment had been successful. 'The big problem,' the researcher told me, is that in addition to using research to improve campaigning, Democratic groups 'also use it as effective marketing or to try to get clients. People's incentives are misaligned.' Democrats have become much more sophisticated over the past decade in understanding how to assess the effectiveness of campaigns, said Yoni Landau, the CEO of Movement Labs, an anti-Trump operation that ran dozens of large-scale experiments last year. 'The challenge now is about political will,' he told me, 'whether the people making the decisions—the funders and the organization leaders—want to know whether it worked.' To incentivize rigorous studies, which can help address the file-drawer problem, Landau said Movement Labs is launching a program it's calling the Prove It Prize, which will encourage groups to test campaign tactics by offering money for experiments that produce positive results. For now, he said, many of the largest investments aren't tested, and the reluctance to share poor results remains 'very prevalent.' When I called around to some of the largest progressive campaign organizations, most of them told me they had done extensive studies on their field programs in 2024, or were in the process of conducting them. Hardly any would share details of what they learned. Jenny Lawson, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes, told me the group would not risk sharing 'trade secrets with political entities that exist to end Planned Parenthood.' An official with another major group plainly acknowledged, on the condition of anonymity, that it feared a loss of donations and was unlikely to publish a study showing poor results. A spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee told me it is conducting its own extensive postelection audit, incorporating 'insights from inside the DNC and from external partners in the ecosystem' that the committee will make public in the coming months. Many progressive groups, including Planned Parenthood, do submit their findings to the Analyst Institute, an organization founded in 2007 that both runs and collects experiments on voter-contact programs. The institute serves as a database for Democratic-aligned groups to share research on campaign tactics—successes as well as failures. But some people told me the party's file-drawer problem extended there too. Christina Coloroso, the Analyst Institute's executive director, told me its officials coach Democratic organizations to not expect huge positive results in presidential-campaign years. She acknowledged that groups can be reluctant to share data even within the Democratic community 'when the results don't look great,' but she said the institute allows its members to submit research anonymously to allay fears. 'It's true that we may not see every single test that exists across the ecosystem, but all the work that we do is to try to get to a critical mass of studies,' Coloroso said. The search for the decisive edge in political campaigns has always been a hunt for novelty. Any new tactic that works doesn't work that well for long. Everybody starts doing it. Voters get tired of—and sometimes quite annoyed at—the calls, the texts, the emails. 'The first time that people got direct mail, it was like printing money,' recalled Michael Podhorzer, a former political director of the AFL-CIO who has been working on campaigns since the 1970s. 'Oh my God. I just got this letter from George McGovern or from Ronald Reagan. I'm going to read it, and I'm going to send a check here.' A generation ago, helped pioneer the use of email to raise money and drive engagement, Podhorzer said. 'Then it's quickly like, Who opens an email?' More recently, the new thing was text messages, which took off in 2020, when Democrats in particular relied more on digital communications—and old-fashioned letter writing. 'You just keep finding some way that people aren't expecting to hear about politics, and so they are actually open to it and listen to you. But then it gets completely swamped,' Podhorzer said. Conventional turnout methods—door knocking and phone calls, for example—can still have a big impact in low-turnout races, such as primaries, special elections, and campaigns for local office. But with the parties now spending more than $1 billion on the presidential campaign every four years, they've seen diminishing returns on each individual mobilization tactic. Vote Forward emerged out of a letter-writing experiment conducted during the 2017 special Senate election in Alabama, a deep-red state where the Democrat Doug Jones narrowly defeated Roy Moore, a former judge who had been accused of sexual assault or misconduct by several women. The turnout rate for people who received handwritten messages was three points higher than for those who did not. 'That was the holy cow,' Radjy said. 'This is a tactic that can really, really move the needle.' The impact of the group's letter-writing program has decreased over time, Radjy told me. Vote Forward found that its letters had no effect on the initial group of 'surge voters,' people who had participated in at least one major election since 2016. But the organization was able to expand its program to additional groups, mainly newly registered voters. Among these groups, the campaign boosted turnout by 0.16 percentage points, enough for Radjy to consider that part of the effort a success, because it was similar to the average effect for all previous measured presidential-election turnout programs. Vote Forward estimates that it drove an additional 9,000 voters to the polls nationwide. As paltry as that number might seem, it's larger than the total margin of victory in the battle for control of the House during each of the past two elections. The letter-writing program is also relatively inexpensive, costing about $175,000. The group has concluded that although it will still use the tactic in small campaigns, it likely will not do so in the same way in 2028. Democrats can take some solace in the fact that the nation's rightward shift last year was much smaller in the states where they campaigned most aggressively. That suggests that the hundreds of millions of dollars they poured into advertising and voter-turnout efforts did make a difference. And even the best ground game cannot overcome a flawed candidate or message. But the party's defeat is accelerating a broader questioning of its organizing and ability to connect with the millions of voters who are up for grabs in presidential-election years. 'Democrats have much bigger problems on their hands than what they're doing on the doors at the end of the election,' said Billy Wimsatt, the founder of the progressive Movement Voter Project, a clearinghouse for donors to Democratic groups. He said the party needs to learn from the success of the well-funded MAGA movement, which he calls a 'vertically integrated meta church' that, 'feels like one big purpose-driven team,' even with all its faults. 'Their billionaires are savvier than our billionaires,' Wimsatt told me, 'and they're more interested in winning.' Wimsatt is one of many Democrats who believe that the party needs to invest in much deeper engagement with voters—outreach that must start long before an election. So does Radjy: 'We need to be talking to people earlier,' she said. 'We need to be talking to people in a more curious and reciprocal way.' But first comes honesty about what went wrong in 2024. Democrats will appreciate it. They might even demand it. 'Even candor that is not rosy,' Radjy told me, 'is more appealing than rosy bullshit.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store