8k8 ph
The Eagle Valley girls volleyball team had four players named to the Western Slope all-league team for the 2024 season. Aspen Misch and Taylor Hooper earned first-team recognition and Zakia Shreeve and Riley Weatherred were named to the second team. Misch was also invited to play in the Colorado Coaches of Girls Sports All-State game on Nov. 24. The Devils placed second in the league with an 8-4 record, finishing behind only Battle Mountain (12-0) in the Western Slope standings. They were ousted in the regional tournament on Nov. 11 after falling to Palmer Ridge 3-1 and Green Mountain 3-0. The Huskies later faced Palmer Ridge in the state tournament, but were swept by the defending state champions. “We challenged ourselves to be our best at regionals and I believe we did that,” head coach Mike Garvey stated. “We came out ready to play and stole the first set 25-14. “We competed all night, but just were not the better team.” Coming off an undefeated league record in 2022 and a 2023 season which saw a senior-heavy squad take the Devils to their first state tournament since 2016 , Garvey said before this year began that his current team would need to believe in themselves and embrace the opportunities at hand. In addition to the competitiveness displayed at regionals, the coach said he witnessed growth throughout the season. “We learned many things,” he stated. “The team always responded well when we made mistakes and had to go to the next level in both practice and matches.” Misch had the most blocks on the team (66) and finished tops in hitting percentage (0.264). Hooper — who also was an all-league honorable mention athlete as a sophomore in 2022 — was second in kills (151). Shreeve led the team in kills (163) and aces (61) while Weatherred was tops in assists (289) and second in digs (184) and aces (37). The Devils graduate seven seniors — including all of the above mentioned players except Weatherred, who will be a junior next year — but Garvey is optimistically looking ahead to next fall. “We return four players and our rising senior class is a positive and energetic group,” he said.
F1 expands grid, adds Cadillac brand and new American team for '26Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here . ••• “It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence which should be true in all situations. They presented him the words: ‘And this, too, shall pass away.’ “How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! — how consoling in the depths of affliction!” — Abraham Lincoln, 1859 ••• Weary and wary, Americans have emerged from yet another “most important election in the nation’s history.” By my count it was at least our 17th consecutive most-important-campaign-ever. (Dwight Eisenhower’s re-election in 1956 was something of a snoozer, particularly for us 4-year-olds.) Anyhow, we’re now fully engaged on at least our 17th consecutive post-vote debate over the causes and consequences of the most seismic political realignment in generations (or something like that) — an outcome the estimable Ross Douthat of the New York Times recently labeled “a real turning point in history, an irrevocable shift from one era to another.” Well, maybe. Donald Trump’s restoration might mark a watershed in American culture and governance. We have reached such moments before, and will again. And surely the president-elect’s comeback against an utterly unprecedented grand alliance of establishment institutions determined to stop him by almost any means (two impeachments, four indictments, untold investigations, trials and lawsuits, petitions to banish him from ballots, etc., etc.) does constitute the most astounding personal vindication in the annals of American rabble-rousing. And yet, it’s also quite possible that Trump’s hair-raising triumph remains at bottom a mere continuation of our decadeslong age of indecision and serial upheaval. Republicans have now won two of the last three presidential elections. But Democrats have won three of the last five. The parties have evenly split the last eight. And Republicans hold a one-election edge in the last 12. This is hardly an epoch in which political shifts, however striking, can safely be assumed to be “irrevocable.” The electorate’s affections weren’t always so fickle. Between 1896 and 1928 Republicans won seven of nine presidential contests. Democrats then won seven of the following nine (1932 to 1964) — after which the GOP took five out of six (1968 to 1988). According to Bruce Mehlman’s “Age of Disruption” Substack , the 2024 vote also was the sixth in a row, including off-year elections, to change party control of at least one of Washington’s three elective power centers — presidency, House and Senate. It’s the longest such streak of instability in American history. Meantime, Trump’s margins were shallow, if respectably widespread. And as a lame duck who can never be on the ballot again, he will have to defy historic norms once more to achieve transformative policy change in his final term. One hesitates in his case to say anything is impossible just because it’s unheard of — but still. All this being said in the somewhat forlorn hope of chastening MAGA end zone dancers and consoling afflicted progressives, the 2024 election actually may have revealed that on one big issue a turning point has already been reached. The results suggest that America may at long last be on its way toward a compromise on abortion. Perhaps “settlement” would be a better word for making a hard and bitter peace with differing state-by-state resolutions on legal access to abortion. But if any one public policy choice was squarely before voters this year, it was whether America would continue to tolerate being a “house divided” on abortion. Returning abortion regulation to the separate states was the essence of the Supreme Court’s landmark “Dobbs” decision in 2022, overturning nationwide legal abortion guaranteed for a half century by the Roe vs. Wade ruling. This year’s election was the second in which a vow to restore abortion rights coast to coast was the Democrats’ central, almost single-minded campaign theme. Kamala Harris and company also were foursquare for “Democracy,” of course. But it wasn’t clear what that meant beyond keeping Trump out of office. Otherwise, it was easier to list bold progressive positions Harris had abandoned than ones she championed. She had more to say about small-business subsidies than climate change. But restoring “reproductive freedom” — while preventing Republicans from imposing abortion bans on every state — was a clarion battle cry. Trump helped sharpen the issue when he declared that he did not favor any kind of federal one-size-fits-all policy. In the 2022 off-year election, Democrats’ abortion-centered campaign had enjoyed considerable success, blunting GOP gains in Congress. Along with voter approval of several state ballot measures favoring abortion rights — including one in Republican-leaning Ohio in 2023 — this led to high hopes that the anti-Dobbs backlash could boost Democratic prospects again in 2024. No fewer than 10 states had referenda guaranteeing abortion rights on their Nov. 5 ballots, measures pushed not least in hopes that they would fuel progressive turnout and provide “reverse coattails” for Democratic candidates from Harris on down. It didn’t turn out that way. The abortion rights ballot measures did well; seven out of 10 passed . But Trump carried four of those seven states, including two battleground states (Arizona and Nevada). And of course Trump also carried Ohio, along with Kentucky, Kansas and battleground Michigan, all states whose voters had earlier approved referenda protecting abortion rights. This could be evidence that as the state-by-state abortion debate has unfolded, more voters have accepted the idea of supporting abortion rights in their own states while letting other states go their own way. Or at least that fewer feel they must let the cause of nationwide abortion rights override other considerations in their votes for president and Congress. While 27% of voters in 2022 told exit polls that abortion was their most important issue, barely half that, 14%, said that Nov. 5 . Reinforcing this interpretation, an analysis for KFF Health News shows that in all 10 states with abortion referenda on the ballot, abortion rights polled significantly more votes than Harris did, “indicating that many people voted both to elect Donald Trump and to protect access to abortion.” In Arizona and Nevada, abortion rights outpolled Harris by 14 and 17 percentage points, respectively. If support for or opposition to legal abortion is becoming disconnected from partisan allegiances, at least at the national level, that’s a realignment of some note, with at least some potential to lower the ideological temperature in America. But it won’t necessarily please fevered advocates on either side of the issue. Following this year’s votes, 19 states across the South and Great Plains — what used to be called the Bible Belt — will have abortion bans or limits in place beyond what Roe permitted. The other 31 retain Roe-era laws or have enacted more spacious abortion rights. Hence America now enforces far too much restriction on reproductive freedom for some, and far too little protection for the unborn for others. Doubtless state-level battles will continue. In the near term it’s anti-abortion forces who will feel tempted to reimpose uniformity – to use the GOP’s trifecta control of Washington to enact a nationwide restriction. Despite Trump’s disavowal, I warned of this among other hazards in a recent column making an ill-fated wish for post-election gridlock . Clearly the sentiment that human rights cannot properly differ from one state to another is potent and pungent on both sides of the abortion divide. In “The Party of Lincoln Resurrects the Corpse of Stephen Douglas,” in the Claremont Review of Books, conservative essayist and novelist Mark Helprin denounces Trump and other Republicans who would disinter the pre-Civil War doctrine of “popular sovereignty,” which held that each state was free to decide the issue of slavery for itself. America, Helprin argues, must not again tolerate “two contradictory answers to a fundamental question that demands only one.” Is abortion that kind of question? Or is there some irreducible moral uncertainty, some room for different social settlements, about where to draw the line between a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and a fetus’ right to live? If nothing else, the 2024 election suggests America is irrevocably grappling with that question. D.J. Tice is a retired Minnesota Star Tribune commentary editor.
Trump Rips DOJ Indictments As ‘Empty And Lawless’ As Cases DroppedStock market today: Tech stocks and AI pull Wall Street toward more records
F1 expands grid, adds Cadillac brand and new American team for '26It is an ambitious social experiment of our moment in history — one that experts say could accomplish something that parents, schools and other governments have attempted with varying degrees of success: keeping kids off social media until they turn 16 . Australia's new law, approved by its Parliament last week, is an attempt to swim against many tides of modern life — formidable forces like technology, marketing, globalization and, of course, the iron will of a teenager. And like efforts of the past to protect kids from things that parents believe they're not ready for, the nation's move is both ambitious and not exactly simple, particularly in a world where young people are often shaped, defined and judged by the online company they keep. The ban won't go into effect for another year. But how will Australia be able to enforce it? That's not clear, nor will it be easy. TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram have become so ingrained in young people's lives that going cold turkey will be difficult. Other questions loom. Does the ban limit kids' free expression and — especially for those in vulnerable groups — isolate them and curtail their opportunity to connect with members of their community? And how will social sites verify people's ages, anyway? Can't kids just get around such technicalities, as they so often do? This is, after all, the 21st century — an era when social media is the primary communications tool for most of those born in the past 25 years who, in a fragmented world, seek the common cultures of trends, music and memes. What happens when big swaths of that fall away? Is Australia's initiative a good, long-time-coming development that will protect the vulnerable, or could it become a well-meaning experiment with unintended consequences? The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts. “It’s clear that social media companies have to be held accountable, which is what Australia is trying to do,” said Jim Steyer, president and CEO of the nonprofit Common Sense Media. Leaders and parents in countries around the world are watching Australia’s policy closely as many seek to protect young kids from the internet's dangerous corners — and, not incidentally, from each other. Most nations have taken different routes, from parental consent requirements to minimum age limits. Many child safety experts, parents and even teens who have waited to get on social media consider Australia's move a positive step. They say there’s ample reason to ensure that children wait. “What’s most important for kids, just like adults, is real human connection. Less time alone on the screen means more time to connect, not less," said Julie Scelfo, the founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, or MAMA, a grassroots group of parents aimed at combatting the harms of social media to children. “I’m confident we can support our kids in interacting in any number of ways aside from sharing the latest meme.” The harms to children from social media have been well documented in the two decades since Facebook’s launch ushered in a new era in how the world communicates. Kids who spend more time on social media, especially as tweens or young teenagers, are more likely to experience depression and anxiety, according to multiple studies — though it is not yet clear if there is a causal relationship. What's more, many are exposed to content that is not appropriate for their age, including pornography and violence, as well as social pressures about body image and makeup . They also face bullying, sexual harassment and unwanted advances from their peers as well as adult strangers. Because their brains are not fully developed, teenagers, especially younger ones the law is focused on, are also more affected by social comparisons than adults, so even happy posts from friends can send them into a negative spiral. Many major initiatives, particularly those aimed at social engineering, can produce side effects — often unintended. Could that happen here? What, if anything, do kids stand to lose by separating kids and the networks in which they participate? Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at the tech lobbying group NetChoice, says he considers the ban “one of the most extreme violations of free speech on the world stage today" even as he expressed relief that the First Amendment prevents such law in the United States "These restrictions would create a massive cultural shift,” Taske said. “Not only is the Australian government preventing young people from engaging with issues they’re passionate about, but they’re also doing so even if their parents are ok with them using digital services," he said. "Parents know their children and their needs the best, and they should be making these decisions for their families — not big government. That kind of forcible control over families inevitably will have downstream cultural impacts.” David Inserra, a fellow for Free Expression and Technology, Cato Institute, called the bill “about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike” in a recent blog post . While Australia's law doesn't require “hard verification” such as an uploaded ID, he said, it calls for effective “age assurance.” He said no verification system can ensure accuracy while also protecting privacy and not impacting adults in the process. Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the law's effect on online anonymity, a cornerstone of online communications — and something that can protect teens on social platforms. “Whether it be religious minorities and dissidents, LGBTQ youth, those in abusive situations, whistleblowers, or countless other speakers in tricky situations, anonymous speech is a critical tool to safely challenge authority and express controversial opinions,” Inserra said. A spot check of kids at one mall in the Australian city of Brisbane on Wednesday didn't turn up a great deal of worry, though. “Social media is still important because you get to talk to people, but I think it’s still good that they’re like limiting it,” said Swan Son, a 13-year-old student at Brisbane State High School. She said she has had limited exposure to social media and wouldn’t really miss it for a couple of years. Her parents already enforce a daily one-hour limit. And as for her friends? “I see them at school every day, so I think I’ll be fine.” Conor Negric, 16, said he felt he’d dodged a bullet because of his age. Still, he considers the law reasonable. “I think 16 is fine. Some kids, I know some kids like 10 who’re on Instagram, Snapchat. I only got Instagram when I was 14." His mom, Sive Negric, who has two teenage sons, said she was happy for her boys to avoid exposure to social media too early: “That aspect of the internet, it’s a bit `meanland.'" Parents in Britain and across Europe earlier this year organized on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram to promise not to buy smartphones for children younger than 12 or 13. This approach costs almost no money and requires no government enforcement. In the United States, some parents are keeping kids off social media either informally or as part of an organized campaign such as Wait Until 8th, a group that helps parents delay kids' access to social media and phones. This fall, Norway announced plans to ban kids under 15 from using social media, while France is testing a smartphone ban for kids under 15 in a limited number of schools — a policy that could be rolled out nationwide if successful. U.S. lawmakers have held multiple congressional hearings — most recently in January — on child online safety. Still, the last federal law aimed at protecting children online was enacted in 1998, six years before Facebook’s founding. In July, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation designed to protect children from dangerous online content , pushing forward with what would be the first major effort by Congress in decades to hold tech companies more accountable. But the Kids Online Safety Act has since stalled in the House. While several states have passed laws requiring age verification, those are stuck in court. Utah became the first state to pass laws regulating children’s social media use in 2023. In September, a judge issued the preliminary injunction against the law, which would have required social media companies to verify the ages of users, apply privacy settings and limit some features. NetChoice has also obtained injunctions temporarily halting similar laws in several other states. And last May, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said there is insufficient evidence to show social media is safe for kids. He urged policymakers to treat social media like car seats, baby formula, medication and other products children use. “Why should social media products be any different? Scelfo said. “Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children safe online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products.” Associated Press Writers John Pye in Brisbane, Australia and Laurie Kellman in London contributed to this story.
Howard Krane helped expand the offerings and guide the Chicago-based law firm of Kirkland & Ellis as it grew into a global powerhouse, and also served for seven years as chair of the University of Chicago board. Krane was “strong, creative, demanding but generous, resilient and indefatigably optimistic,” said Emily Nicklin, a Kirkland & Ellis partner and litigator who also served on the U. of C.’s board and chaired the university medical center’s board of trustees. “He evidenced these characteristics as a leader of both Kirkland and the University of Chicago board, (and) in both roles, he led folks who shared a mission to drive their respective organizations to greater successes and heightened eminence.” Howard G. Krane, who served as chair of the University of Chicago board and also taught classes at the U. of C. Law School, in an October 1984 photo. (University of Chicago). Krane, 90, died of natural causes on Nov. 23 at his home in Chicago’s Streeterville neighborhood, said his daughter Hilary. Born in Chicago, Krane grew up in the South Shore neighborhood and graduated from Hyde Park High School. He graduated from Grinnell College and then got his law degree from the U. of C. in 1957. Krane’s first attempt to get a job at Kirkland & Ellis failed. An associate at the firm overheard a partner saying that Krane was not hired because he was Jewish. The associate shared this eavesdropped information with a young antitrust law specialist at the firm, Robert Bork, who went to the firm’s leaders and urged them to give Krane a second look. The firm did so — hiring Krane later in 1957 — and Krane and Bork became close friends. Thirty years later, when President Ronald Reagan made his ill-fated nomination of Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court, Krane testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, on behalf of his friend, even while acknowledging their political differences. “I am the lawyer who as a young man was the immediate beneficiary of Bob Bork’s insistence to the senior partners of my law firm that it eliminate prejudice and discrimination from its hiring practice in 1957, a time regrettably when quotas and other discriminatory practices were not uncommon within the legal profession and most other parts of society and business,” Krane told senators at the hearing. As a lawyer, Krane’s attributes included a love for solving problems, a strong interest in understanding people’s motivations and a knack for anticipating the future, his daughter said. Stephen Neal, a former Kirkland partner, said that Krane was “frighteningly smart — quick with quips (that) were invariably funny even if you were on the receiving end, but equally quick in cutting through complex, often ambiguous, inevitably less-than-fully-informed situations, diagnosing them and articulating decisive actions and solutions.” “He did all this calmly and confidently and was almost always right, yet there never was a hint of arrogance. He also spoke with utter simplicity and clarity — no matter how complicated the situation or subject, Howard communicated with unambiguous, short words and sentences,” Neal said. Retired Kirkland partner and former Chicago Ald. Bill Singer credited Krane with having a commitment to expand Kirkland into new practice areas with in-house talent. “Howard was the leader of the firm at the time it was becoming not just a local firm but a national firm, and he was not willing to compromise size or even profits for the quality of the work we did,” Singer said. “He always insisted that hiring would be based on quality and that when we expanded, we would not just buy another firm or become a local office for an existing operation, but that any expansion had to be led by home-grown Kirkland talent.” In 1988, Krane joined the U. of C.’s board of trustees and was chair of the university’s medical center board from 1990 until 1992. He then chaired the university’s board from 1992 until 1999. He dealt with financial difficulties, the expansion of the school’s undergraduate program and decisions tied to new buildings and a new business school. Geoffrey Stone, the university’s provost during Krane’s time chairing the university’s board, called Krane “a truly brilliant leader who helped guide the university through a very challenging time.” In 1996, the university announced that a five-year fundraising campaign in search of $500 million wound up generating $676 million. “(The fundraising total) is a testimony to the greatness of the University of Chicago and its importance to this city,” Krane told the Tribune in 1996. “It is a world-class institution, and Chicagoans understand how important it is to the city.” Krane also taught business law classes at the U. of C. law school and chaired a capital campaign. He led the 1984 creation of the U. of C.’s endowed Kirkland & Ellis Professorship in Law. Krane retired first from Kirkland, and then, in 2007, he stepped down from the university’s board. “Howard understood that truly great leadership must be evidenced by great succession,” Nicklin said. “He made no exceptions. Great leaders transfer power with grace and vision. He did that as well, in both his roles.” A first marriage ended in divorce. Krane’s second wife, Janys Harvey, died in 2016. In addition to his daughter, Krane is survived by another daughter, Marie Krane; four grandchildren; three stepchildren, Bennet Harvey, Kyle Harvey and Sasha Mayoras; and four stepgrandchildren. A service is being planned for 2025. Goldsborough is a freelance reporter
WASHINGTON — For years, Pat Verhaeghe didn’t think highly of Donald Trump as a leader. Then Verhaeghe began seeing more of Trump’s campaign speeches online and his appearances at sporting events. There was even the former president’s pairing with Bryson DeChambeau as part of the pro golfer’s YouTube channel series to shoot an under-50 round of golf while engaging in chitchat with his partner. “I regret saying this, but a while ago I thought he was an idiot and that he wouldn’t be a good president,” said the 18-year-old first-time voter. “I think he’s a great guy now.” Verhaeghe isn’t alone among his friends in suburban Detroit or young men across America. Although much of the electorate shifted right to varying degrees in 2024, young men were one of the groups that swung sharply toward Trump. More than half of men under 30 supported Trump, according to AP VoteCast , a survey of more than 120,000 voters, while Democrat Joe Biden had won a similar share of this group four years earlier. White men under 30 were solidly in Trump’s camp this year — about 6 in 10 voted for Trump — while young Latino men were split between the two candidates. Most Black men under 30 supported Democrat Kamala Harris, but about one-third were behind Trump. Young Latino men’s views of the Democratic Party were much more negative than in 2020, while young Black men’s views of the party didn’t really move. About 6 in 10 Latino men under 30 had a somewhat or very favorable view of the Democrats in 2020, which fell to about 4 in 10 this year. On the other hand, about two-thirds of young Black men had a favorable view of the Democrats this year, which was almost identical to how they saw the party four years ago. “Young Hispanic men, and really young men in general, they want to feel valued,” said Rafael Struve, deputy communications director for Bienvenido, a conservative group that focused on reaching young Hispanic voters for Republicans this year. “They’re looking for someone who fights for them, who sees their potential and not just their struggles.” Struve cited the attempted assassination of Trump during a July rally in Pennsylvania as one of the catalyzing moments for Trump’s image among many young men. Trump, Struve said, was also able to reach young men more effectively by focusing on nontraditional platforms like podcasts and digital media outlets. “Getting to hear from Trump directly, I think, really made all the difference,” Struve said of the former president’s appearances on digital media platforms and media catering to Latino communities, like town halls and business roundtables Trump attended in Las Vegas and Miami. Not only did Trump spend three hours on Joe Rogan’s chart-topping podcast, but he took up DeChambeau’s “Break 50” challenge for the golfer’s more than 1.6 million YouTube subscribers. Trump already had an edge among young white men four years ago, although he widened the gap this year. About half of white men under 30 supported Trump in 2020, and slightly less than half supported Biden. Trump’s gains among young Latino and Black men were bigger. His support among both groups increased by about 20 percentage points, according to AP VoteCast — and their feelings toward Trump got warmer, too. It wasn’t just Trump. The share of young men who identified as Republicans in 2024 rose as well, mostly aligning with support for Trump across all three groups. “What is most alarming to me is that the election is clear that America has shifted right by a lot,” said William He, founder of Dream For America, a liberal group that works to turn out young voters and supported Harris’ presidential bid. With his bombastic demeanor and a policy agenda centered on a more macho understanding of culture, Trump framed much of his campaign as a pitch to men who felt scorned by the country’s economy, culture and political system. Young women also slightly swung toward the former president, though not to the degree of their male counterparts. It’s unclear how many men simply did not vote this year. But there’s no doubt the last four years brought changes in youth culture and how political campaigns set out to reach younger voters. Democrat Kamala Harris’ campaign rolled out policy agendas tailored to Black and Latino men, and the campaign enlisted a range of leaders in Black and Hispanic communities to make the case for the vice president. Her campaign began with a flurry of enthusiasm from many young voters, epitomized in memes and the campaign’s embrace of pop culture trends like the pop star Charli XCX’s “brat” aesthetic. Democrats hoped to channel that energy into their youth voter mobilization efforts. “I think most young voters just didn’t hear the message,” said Santiago Mayer, executive director of Voters of Tomorrow, a liberal group that engages younger voters. Mayer said the Harris campaign’s pitch to the country was “largely convoluted” and centered on economic messaging that he said wasn’t easily conveyed to younger voters who were not already coming to political media. “And I think that the policies themselves were also very narrow and targeted when what we really needed was a simple, bold economic vision,” said Mayer. Trump also embraced pop culture by appearing at UFC fights, football games and appearing alongside comedians, music stars and social media influencers. His strategists believed that the former president’s ability to grab attention and make his remarks go viral did more for the campaign than paid advertisements or traditional media appearances. Trump’s campaign also heavily cultivated networks of online conservative platforms and personalities supportive of him while also engaging a broader universe of podcasts, streaming sites, digital media channels and meme pages open to hearing him. “The right has been wildly successful in infiltrating youth political culture online and on campus in the last couple of years, thus radicalizing young people towards extremism,” said He, who cited conservative activist groups like Turning Point USA as having an outsize impact in online discourse. “And Democrats have been running campaigns in a very old fashioned way. The battleground these days is cultural and increasingly on the internet.” Republicans may lose their broad support if they don’t deliver on improving Americans’ lives, Struve cautioned. Young men, especially, may drift from the party in a post-Trump era if the party loses the president-elect’s authenticity and bravado. Bienvenido, for one group, will double down in the coming years to solidify and accelerate the voting pattern shifts seen this year, Struve said. “We don’t want this to be a one and done thing,” he said. Associated Press writer Joey Cappelletti in Lansing, Michigan, and AP polling editor Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux contributed to this report.StratomDolfen: Driving the Future of Digital Currency with Transparency and Innovation
LAS VEGAS — Formula 1 on Monday at last said it will expand its grid in 2026 to make room for an American team that is partnered with General Motors. "As the pinnacle of motorsports, F1 demands boundary-pushing innovation and excellence. It's an honor for General Motors and Cadillac to join the world's premier racing series, and we're committed to competing with passion and integrity to elevate the sport for race fans around the world," GM President Mark Reuss said. "This is a global stage for us to demonstrate GM's engineering expertise and technology leadership at an entirely new level." The approval ends years of wrangling that launched a U.S. Justice Department investigation into why Colorado-based Liberty Media, the commercial rights holder of F1, would not approve the team initially started by Michael Andretti. Andretti in September stepped aside from leading his namesake organization, so the 11th team will be called Cadillac F1 and be run by new Andretti Global majority owners Dan Towriss and Mark Walter. The team will use Ferrari engines its first two years until GM has a Cadillac engine built for competition in time for the 2028 season. Towriss is the the CEO and president of Group 1001 and entered motorsports via Andretti's IndyCar team when he signed on financial savings platform Gainbridge as a sponsor. Towriss is now a major part of the motorsports scene with ownership stakes in both Spire Motorsports' NASCAR team and Wayne Taylor Racing's sports car team. Walter is the chief executive of financial services firm Guggenheim Partners and the controlling owner of both the World Series champion Los Angeles Dodgers and Premier League club Chelsea. "We're excited to partner with General Motors in bringing a dynamic presence to Formula 1," Towriss said. "Together, we're assembling a world-class team that will embody American innovation and deliver unforgettable moments to race fans around the world." Mario Andretti, the 1978 F1 world champion, will have an ambassador role with Cadillac F1. But his son, Michael, will have no official position with the organization now that he has scaled back his involvement with Andretti Global. "The Cadillac F1 Team is made up of a strong group of people that have worked tirelessly to build an American works team," Michael Andretti posted on social media. "I'm very proud of the hard work they have put in and congratulate all involved on this momentous next step. I will be cheering for you!" The approval has been in works for weeks but was held until after last weekend's Las Vegas Grand Prix to not overshadow the showcase event of the Liberty Media portfolio. Max Verstappen won his fourth consecutive championship in Saturday night's race, the third and final stop in the United States for the top motorsports series in the world. Grid expansion in F1 is both infrequent and often unsuccessful. Four teams were granted entries in 2010 that should have pushed the grid to 13 teams and 26 cars for the first time since 1995. One team never made it to the grid and the other three had vanished by 2017. There is only one American team on the current F1 grid — owned by California businessman Gene Haas — but it is not particularly competitive and does not field American drivers. Andretti's dream was to field a truly American team with American drivers. The fight to add this team has been going on for three-plus years, and F1 initially denied the application despite approval from F1 sanctioning body FIA. The existing 10 teams, who have no voice in the matter, also largely opposed expansion because of the dilution in prize money and the billions of dollars they've already invested in the series. Andretti in 2020 tried and failed to buy the existing Sauber team. From there, he applied for grid expansion and partnered with GM, the top-selling manufacturer in the United States. The inclusion of GM was championed by the FIA and president Mohammed Ben Sulayem, who said Michael Andretti's application was the only one of seven applicants to meet all required criteria to expand F1's current grid. "General Motors is a huge global brand and powerhouse in the OEM world and is working with impressive partners," Ben Sulayem said Monday. "I am fully supportive of the efforts made by the FIA, Formula 1, GM and the team to maintain dialogue and work towards this outcome of an agreement in principle to progress this application." Despite the FIA's acceptance of Andretti and General Motors from the start, F1 wasn't interested in Andretti — but did want GM. At one point, F1 asked GM to find another team to partner with besides Andretti. GM refused and F1 said it would revisit the Andretti application if and when Cadillac had an engine ready to compete. "Formula 1 has maintained a dialogue with General Motors, and its partners at TWG Global, regarding the viability of an entry following the commercial assessment and decision made by Formula 1 in January 2024," F1 said in a statement. "Over the course of this year, they have achieved operational milestones and made clear their commitment to brand the 11th team GM/Cadillac, and that GM will enter as an engine supplier at a later time. Formula 1 is therefore pleased to move forward with this application process." Yet another major shift in the debate over grid expansion occurred earlier this month with the announced resignation of Liberty Media CEO Greg Maffei, who was largely believed to be one of the biggest opponents of the Andretti entry. "With Formula 1's continued growth plans in the US, we have always believed that welcoming an impressive US brand like GM/Cadillac to the grid and GM as a future power unit supplier could bring additional value and interest to the sport," Maffei said. "We credit the leadership of General Motors and their partners with significant progress in their readiness to enter Formula 1." Get local news delivered to your inbox!