candidate

ARLINGTON, Texas — The NFL regular season is turning down the stretch and the playoff picture is coming into focus, and that means not just the teams but the league’s scheduling crew is hard at work.

The Chargers, who play at Dallas on Sunday, can secure a postseason berth with a victory and some help from a team or two. Coupled with a win over the Cowboys, the Chargers need Las Vegas to win at Houston (unlikely) or San Francisco to win at Indianapolis (more likely) so they can rest easy knowing they’re at least in the playoffs for the second consecutive season under Jim Harbaugh.

Although the Rams have already qualified for the playoffs, they need to regain their balance after a spirit-snapping loss at Seattle on Thursday that likely cost them a chance at the NFC’s No. 1 seed.

Here’s a look at the upcoming schedule for the end of this season and beginning of next, along with decisions that need to be made:

— Why did the league schedule Houston at the Chargers for Saturday of Week 17?

The game was always a candidate for that 1:30 p.m. slot on NFL Network, and Seattle at Carolina was also under consideration.

The league liked Texans-Chargers on Saturday because both of those clubs likely will be playing in January — maybe against each other again — and if that game were moved to Sunday afternoon, it would be going head-to-head against Fox’s national game, Philadelphia at Buffalo, a potential Super Bowl preview.

So the NFL wanted to do the Texans and Chargers a solid and give them the national stage to themselves.

— Rams at Atlanta in Week 17 isn’t a fantastic Monday night game for Week 17, especially with the Falcons currently at 5-9. But with all the games spread throughout the week of Christmas, there weren’t a lot of great replacement options.

The league didn’t move Texans-Chargers into that slot for good reason. Because whoever plays in that “Monday Night Football” slot — it’s staying Rams-Falcons — won’t be a candidate for a Saturday game in the final weekend.

So by moving Texans-Chargers to Saturday, both those teams are in play for the two Saturday spots in Week 18. The Chargers finish at Denver, and the Texans play host to Indianapolis. Either or both of those games could wind up on ESPN for those finishing Saturday games.

— The NFL originally slated Cincinnati at Miami for this week’s Sunday night game but last week decided to move New England at Baltimore into that time slot. That’s notable because it’s the first flex of the season, which is an unusually low number. Typically, there have been three or four flexes to this point.

Why only one? There are multiple reasons. First, the league’s scheduling crew had a pretty clear crystal ball in May, a good idea for which teams would still be in the mix. Credit to those folks.

But the bar for flexing games is also a little higher than it used to be. The NFL is cautious about inconveniencing 75,000 fans for a relatively small bump in viewership. What’s more, with all the new windows and partners — Netflix, Amazon Prime, Peacock, Paramount+ — there are fewer games to go around. Even if the league wanted to flex, there are fewer options. The traditional Sunday inventory is a lot thinner than it used to be.

— It’s worth noting that the league’s philosophy on moving games around is it flexes out of a game that’s falling apart, it doesn’t flex into a better game because the network or streaming service doesn’t happen to like the game it has.

Cincinnati-Miami was a no-brainer flex candidate back in October when both teams were reeling. But then Joe Burrow came back for the Bengals, and the Dolphins started winning, and it got interesting for a while. But then Cincinnati got shut out last week by Baltimore, and Miami just benched its quarterback. Flex was back on.

So what to flex into? The thought was, yes, the NFL can move Patriots-Ravens into that Sunday window for NBC, and at least it can leave behind Kansas City-Tennessee for CBS. Everybody figured the Chiefs would be fighting for their postseason lives. That wasn’t the case. Kansas City was eliminated last week and lost Patrick Mahomes to a season-ending knee injury. Chiefs-Titans isn’t nearly as interesting as anticipated.

It could have been an ugly Sunday for CBS, but the network wound up with Pittsburgh-Detroit for its national game. That very easily could have been the far-less-tantalizing Buffalo at Cleveland.

— We’re heading into a postseason with no Kansas City, no Dallas, maybe no Baltimore or Pittsburgh — one of them is going to miss out — and with the rise of Chicago, possibly no Green Bay or Detroit.

A lot of those traditional anchor teams could be watching from their couches.

That means the NFL will have to make some new decisions about who to prioritize in postseason scheduling, perhaps looking with fresh eyes at clubs such as Seattle, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Jacksonville and others. Who are the ones with the most national appeal?

And that rolls into next season. How does the league dole out those big national windows. With Kansas City missing the playoffs, and Mahomes recovering from a major knee injury, do the Chiefs recede into the background after a decade of division titles and deep playoff runs?

Have the Bears broken through? They’re 10-4. At 12-2, Denver looks to be back and set up to keep it going. Heading into Thursday night’s game, the Rams were as hot as any team in the league, and the Chargers could finally get Justin Herbert that inaugural playoff victory.

The Steelers have won two in a row, and could wind up making a postseason run. If so, what does Aaron Rodgers do next season, and how will the club move forward?

The NFL leaned heavily into Washington after one outstanding season, giving them eight nationally televised games this season. That bet didn’t pay off; the Commanders are 4-10.

It’s the game behind the games, and those decisions are taking shape.

ATLANTA — Democrats will not issue a postelection report on their 2024 shellacking after all.

The Democratic National Committee head has decided not to publish a formal assessment of the party’s defeat that returned Donald Trump to power and gave Republicans complete control in Washington.

Ken Martin, a Minnesota party leader who was elected national chair after Trump’s election, ordered a thorough review of what went wrong and what could be done differently, with the intent they would circulate a report as Republicans did after their 2012 election performance. Martin now says the inquiry, which included hundreds of interviews, was complete but that there is no value in a public release of findings that he believes could lead to continued infighting and recriminations before the 2026 midterms when control of Congress will be at stake.

“Does this help us win?” Martin said in a statement Thursday. “If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.”

Martin’s decision, first reported by the New York Times, spares top Democrats from more scrutiny about their campaigns, including former President Biden, who withdrew from the race after announcing his second-term run, and his vice president, Kamala Harris, who became the nominee and lost to Trump.

Keeping the report under wraps also means Martin does not have to take sides in the tug-of-war between moderates and progressives or make assessments about how candidates should handle issues that Trump capitalized on, such as transgender rights.

“We are winning again,” Martin said.

Martin’s announcement follows a successful string of 2025 races, both in special elections and off-year statewide votes, that suggest strong enthusiasm for Democratic candidates.

In November, Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill won races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. In New York’s mayoral election, Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, defeated establishment Democrat-turned-independent Andrew Cuomo.

In U.S. House special elections throughout 2025, Democratic nominees have consistently outperformed the party’s 2024 showing, often by double-digit percentages. Democrats have flipped state legislative districts and some statewide seats around the country, even in Republican-leaning places.

Although the DNC’s report will not be made public, a committee aide said some conclusions will be integrated into the party’s 2026 plans.

For example, the findings reflect a consensus that Democratic candidates did not adequately address voter concerns on public safety and immigration, two topics that Trump hammered in his comeback campaign. They also found that Democrats must overhaul their digital outreach, especially to younger voters, a group where Trump saw key gains over Harris compared with previous elections.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Far-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast has won a run-off election to become Chile’s 38th president, ousting the centre-left government currently in power.

On Sunday, with nearly all the ballots counted, Kast prevailed with nearly 58 percent of the vote, defeating former Labour Minister Jeannette Jara, a Communist Party politician who represented the governing centre-left coalition.

Jara and her coalition, Unity for Chile, conceded defeat shortly after the polls closed in the South American country.

“Democracy has spoken loud and clear. I have just spoken with President-elect [Kast] to wish him success for the good of Chile,” Jara wrote on social media.

“To those who supported us and were inspired by our candidacy, rest assured that we will continue working to build a better life in our country. Together and standing strong, as we always have.”

The result marks the latest victory for the far right in Latin America, which has seen a streak of right-wing leaders once considered political outsiders rise to power in countries like Argentina and Ecuador.

The tally also marks a significant comeback for Kast himself, the 59-year-old leader of the Republican Party. The 2025 election marks his third attempt to win the presidency — and his first successful bid.

During the last election, in 2021, he was trounced by outgoing President Gabriel Boric, who won by nearly a 10-point margin.

But Boric, a former student leader who became Chile’s youngest president, had seen his popularity slump to about 30 percent by the end of his four-year term. He was also ineligible to run for a second term under Chilean law.

In public opinion polls, voters also expressed frustration with recent spikes in crime and immigration, as well as a softening of Chile’s economy.

Kast, meanwhile, campaigned on the promise of change. He said he would address voter concerns by carrying out crackdowns on crime and immigration, including through a campaign of mass deportation, similar to what United States President Donald Trump has done in North America.

His security platform — dubbed the “Implacable Plan” — also proposes stiffer mandatory minimum sentencing, incarcerating more criminals in maximum security facilities, and putting cartel leaders in “total isolation” to cut them off from any communication with the outside world.

“Today, while criminals and drug traffickers walk freely through the streets, committing crimes and intimidating people, honest Chileans are locked in their homes, paralyzed by fear,” Kast writes in his security plan.

Kast has also taken a hard right stance towards social and health issues, including abortion, which he opposes even in cases of rape.

But those hardline policies earned Kast criticism on the campaign trail. Critics have also seized upon his own sympathetic comments about Chile’s former dictator, military leader Augusto Pinochet.

In 1973, Pinochet oversaw a right-wing military coup that ousted the democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende. He proceeded to rule the country until 1990. His government became known for its widespread human rights abuses and brutal oppression of political dissent, with thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured.

While Kast has rejected the label “far right”, he has repeatedly defended Pinochet’s government. Of Pinochet, Kast famously quipped, “If he were alive, he would vote for me.”

Opponents also sought to draw attention to Kast’s family ties: His father, Michael Martin Kast, was born in Germany and had been a member of the Nazi Party. The elder Kast immigrated to Chile in 1950.

Reporting from a polling site in the capital of Santiago, Al Jazeera correspondent Lucia Newman noted that Sunday’s victory was a historic one for Chile’s far right. But, she noted, Kast has sought to moderate his platform to better appeal to voters in the current election cycle.

“This is the first time since 1990 — since the military dictatorship before 1990, when Chile returned to democracy — that such a conservative government will be in power,” Newman explained.

“It’s really not certain just how conservative it will be. Jose Antonio Kast was a supporter of former dictator General Augusto Pinochet. He has shirked away from that in recent years, and certainly in this campaign.”

In the wake of Kast’s election victory, right-wing leaders from across the Americas offered their congratulations in statements on social media.

“Congratulations to Chilean President-Elect [Jose Antonio Kast] on his victory,” Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote. “The United States looks forward to partnering with his administration to strengthen regional security and revitalize our trade relationship.”

Argentina’s libertarian leader Javier Milei likewise chimed in, hailing it as a major win for his conservative political movement.

“FREEDOM IS ADVANCING,” Milei wrote, echoing his own campaign rallying cry.

“Enormous joy at the overwhelming victory of my friend [Jose Antonio Kast] in the Chilean presidential elections! One more step for our region in defense of life, liberty, and private property. I am sure that we will work together so that America embraces the ideas of freedom and we can free ourselves from the oppressive yoke of 21st-century socialism…!!!”

Ecuador’s right-wing President Daniel Noboa, meanwhile, said that “a new era is beginning for Chile and for the region”.

This year’s presidential race was the first time since 2012 that voting had been compulsory in the country. There are approximately 15.7 million eligible voters in the South American country.

Kast originally came in second place during the first round of voting on November 16. He scored about 23.9 percent of the vote, compared with Jara’s 26.8 percent.

But polls had widely favoured him to win in the run-off. While Chile’s left wing held a primary in June and coalesced around its victor, Jara, right-wing parties did not hold a primary to choose a coalition nominee.

The result was a fractured right in the first round of voting. But in the final contest, Kast was able to sweep up votes that had previously gone to his right-leaning adversaries, earning him a comfortable win.

Still, Kast faces a divided National Congress, which is expected to blunt some of his more hardline proposals. Kast will be sworn in on March 11.

Dec. 14 (UPI) — Chileans head to the polls Sunday in a presidential runoff election in which the son of a Nazi party member, who has pledged to build a border wall to keep migrants out of the country, is the leading candidate.

Far right former congressman Jose Antonio Kast, 59, built his campaign on a promise to remove tens of thousands of undocumented migrants from the country. He faces Jeannette Jara, 51, a former labor minister in the administration of center-left president Gabriel Boric.

Jara, the leading candidate of the left-wing coalition, finished the first round of polling with 27%, but right-wing candidates, including Kast, secured more than half of the votes.

Kast is a known admirer of Chilean military strongman Augusto Pinochet, and a staunch opponent of abortion rights and same sex marriage.

The campaign has featured a bitter fight between Jara and Kast, with each attacking the other’s ability to address crime, migration problems and a lagging economy.

Jara has pledged to attract more investment in the country and to secure the border while also addressing health care needs. Kast has campaigned on corporate tax cuts, deregulation and departing undocumented migrants.

Both are using the approval rating of the outgoing Boric’s approval rating, hovering at 30%, as a platform for their campaigns, pledging to improve on the job he has done.

Chile has seen a sharp upturn in murder and other violent crime in recent years as international criminal groups have stepped into a country that has long been considered relatively docile.

The feat has spread to other Latin American countries, including Costa Rica and Ecuador.

Boric is considered to have failed to fulfill most of his stated agenda to strengthen public services. He also failed to address problems brought on by organized crime, election watchers have said.

Voters have called for more migration reform, tighter security and for the country to distance itself from Boric’s failed policies.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives signaled Tuesday they are likely to rule for Republicans and President Trump by throwing out a Watergate-era limit on campaign funding by political parties.

The court has repeatedly said campaign money is protected as free speech, and the new ruling could allow parties to support their candidate’s campaigns with help from wealthy donors.

For the second day in a row, Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down a law passed by Congress.
And they appeared to have the support of most of the conservatives.

The only doubt arose over the question of whether the case was flawed because no current candidate was challenging the limits.

“The parties are very much weakened,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “This court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”

He was referring to rulings that upheld unlimited campaign spending by wealthy donors and so-called SuperPACs.

In the Citizens United case of 2010, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and four other conservatives struck down the long-standing limits on campaign spending, including by corporations and unions. They did so on the theory that such spending was “independent” of candidates and was protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.

They said the limits on contributions to candidates were not affected. Those limits could be justified because the danger of corruption where money bought political favors. This triggered a new era of ever-larger political spending but most of it was separate from the candidates and the parties.

Last year, Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to support Donald Trump’s campaign for reelection. He did so with money spent through political action committees, not directly to Trump or his campaign.

Meanwhile the campaign funding laws limit contributions to candidates to $3,500.

Lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointed out this trend and told the Supreme Court its decisions had “eroded” the basis for some of the remaining the 1970s limits on campaign funding.

At issue Tuesday were the limits on “coordinated party spending.” In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress added limits on campaign money that could be given to parties and used to fund their candidates. The current donation limit is $44,000, the lawyers said.

Washington attorney Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general during his first term, urged the court strike down these limits on grounds they are outdated and violate the freedom of speech.

“The theory is that they’re needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000 donation through the party to a particular candidate in exchange for official action,” he said.

If a big-money donor hopes for win a favor from a congressional candidate, the “would-be briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate’s favorite super PAC,” he said.

The suit heard Tuesday was launched by then Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and other Republican candidates, and it has continued in his role as vice president and possibly a presidential candidate in 2028.

Usually, the Justice Department defends federal laws, but in this instance, the Trump administration switched sides and joined the Republicans calling for the party spending limits to be struck down.

Precedents might have stood in the way.

In 2001, the Supreme Court had narrowly upheld these limits on the grounds that the party’s direct support was like a contribution, not independent spending. But the deputy solicitor general, Sarah Harris, told the justices Tuesday that the court’s recent decisions have “demolished” that precedent.

“Parties can’t corrupt candidates, and no evidence suggests donors launder bribes by co-opting parties’ coordinated spending with candidates,” she said.

Marc Elias, a Democratic attorney, joined the case in the support of the court limits. He said the outcome would have little to do with speech or campaign messages.

“I think we’re underselling the actual corruption” that could arise, he said. If an individual were to give $1 million to political party while that person has business matter before the House or Senate, he said, it’s plausible that could influence “a deciding or swing vote.”

The only apparent difficulty for the conservative justices arose over questions of procedure.

Washington attorney Roman Martinez was asked to defend the law, and he argued that neither Vance nor any other Republicans had legal standing to challenge the limits. Vance was not a current candidate, and he said the case should be dismissed for that reason.

Some legal observers noted that the limits on parties arose in response to evidence that huge campaign contributions to President Nixon’s reelection came from industry donors seeking government favors.

“Coordinated spending limits are one of the few remaining checks to curb the influence of wealthy special interests in our elections,” said Omar Noureldin, vice president for litigation at Common Cause. “If the Supreme Court dismantles them, party leaders and wealthy donors will be free to pour nearly unlimited money directly into federal campaigns, exactly the kind of corruption these rules were created to stop.”

Daniel I. Weiner, an elections law expert at the Brennan Center, said the justices were well aware of how striking down these limits could set the stage for further challenges.

“I was struck by how both sides had to acknowledge that this case has to be weighed not in isolation but as part of a decades-long push to strike down campaign finance rules,” he said. “Those other decisions have had many consequences the court itself failed to anticipate.”