hope

Self-centered news anchor Tulio Triviño and his reporter best friend Juan Carlos Bodoque, who has a gambling problem, have amused audiences for 22 years. Neither has aged a day. That’s because they are hand puppets — a monkey in a suit and a red rabbit in a striped shirt, respectively — at the forefront of the beloved Chilean TV show “31 Minutos.”

First conceived as a children’s program for Chile’s public television, “31 Minutos” debuted in March 2003, and now spans four seasons. A parody of a traditional newscast, the irreverent concept features dozens of peculiar puppets who populate the fictional town of Titirilquén. Their sharply absurdist misadventures and reportages are accompanied by pun-heavy, humorous original songs.

“The Muppets and ‘Sesame Street’ have been great inspirations for us,” says co-creator Pedro Peirano speaking in Spanish from Santiago, Chile, during a recent Zoom interview. “But we mixed that with a more Latin American idiosyncrasy, so it’s familiar but very different.”

Peirano voices and puppeteers Tulio, while Álvaro Díaz, the show’s other co-creator, gives life to Bodoque (who started out as a green toad before taking on his rabbit form). Among their fabric-made pals are Patana, Tulio’s niece who is a duck, field reporter Mario Hugo, a Chihuahua in a suit, and Juanín, a fuzzy white creature with no visible eyes, the newscast’s producer.

“What we set out to do, I don’t know if consciously, was to create characters who are not role models of anything,” says Peirano. “They have their flaws and their virtues; in fact, they have more flaws, especially Tulio, who is a villain, but he’s also the face of the show.”

Over the years, as the show’s popularity grew across Latin America, “31 Minutos” has transcended the small screen and spilled into other formats. Through Aplaplac, their production company, Díaz and Peirano have created “31 Minutos” live shows that tour the region, a theatrically released feature film, and even an ambitious museum exhibit.

This fall, “31 Minutos” sets its sights on the global market with the release of “Calurosa Navidad” (One Hot Christmas), their first special for Prime Video, streaming on Friday. The Spanish-language film comes on the heels of another big moment for the puppet troupe, when they performed some of their hits on NPR’s “Tiny Desk” last month.

Co-creators Álvaro Díaz, left, and Pedro Peirano on the set of “31 Minutos: Calurosa Navidad.” (Sebastian Utreras)

Although “31 Minutos” emerged as kids’ programming, Díaz and Peirano sidestepped expectations for message-driven storylines.

“In Latin America we tend to confuse children’s television with educational television, as if everything has to be an extension of school,” says Díaz. “We wanted to quickly transform it from that into more of a family show.”

The duo met while studying journalism at the Universidad de Chile in the late 1980s, as the country transitioned from a dictatorship to a democracy. It was their compatible humor, a shared interest in film, and a desire to explore a variety of mediums that brought them together.

“We had a lot of free time to develop our interests,” says Díaz. “And you connect through those interests, even more so that’s based on your personality or your origins.”

Before “31 Minutos,” Díaz and Peirano already had experience working in written media and television, so their impulse was to parody the news world they were familiar with.

When first developing the show, which they produced after winning public funding, the puppets appeared somewhat organically, Díaz says, because neither he nor Peirano wanted to be on camera. And since the project was originally geared toward children, it seemed appropriate.

A scene from Prime Video’s “31 Minutos: Calurosa Navidad.” “We believed that by putting puppets in front of the camera — initially very simple puppets — children would immediately identify with them,” says co-creator Álvaro Díaz.

(Amazon MGM Studios)

“We believed that by putting puppets in front of the camera — initially very simple puppets — children would immediately identify with them, and we wouldn’t be forced to emphasize the children’s tone so much,” recalls Díaz. “On the contrary, the puppets were a vehicle that allowed us to tell stories that interested us.”

And while it was Díaz who first suggested puppets, Peirano, who is also a comic book author, was a lifelong fan of Jim Henson and the worlds he created, including more adult fare like “The Dark Crystal.” The first puppets they used were those that Peirano had made as a child. As self-taught puppeteers, Díaz and Peirano honed their craft along the way.

“It’s much cheaper and faster to make puppets and create this fantastical world than to produce animation,” says Peirano. “Puppets have an immediacy that also makes them fun to perform with and to improvise with.”

As is often the case with children’s shows, they needed to incorporate music. Peirano brought along his friend Pablo Ilabaca, the guitarist and composer of Chilean rock band Chancho en Piedra, who tangentially had created tracks that could work for the show.

“He showed us that music, and we immediately felt that the sound of the ’31 Minutos’ was there,” says Díaz. “There was a lo-fi quality about it. It had something candid that didn’t necessarily have an infantile tone but had a lightness. And we could add lyrics to that music.”

The editorial line for the songs was to validate childhood experiences without trying to impart any life lessons, acknowledging those feelings through comedy.

“There is a song called ‘Diente Blanco’ [White Tooth], for example, which is not about the importance of brushing or taking care of your teeth but, rather, about a child saying goodbye to a tooth he was very fond of,” explains Díaz.

As a father of three (who he hopes will eventually take on the show’s mantle), Díaz operates from a conviction that young audiences deserve quality content that’s not patronizing nor simplistic.

“The entertainment options for children in Latin America, and generally everywhere, are very poor,” says Díaz. “It’s mostly about extracting money from parents with disappointing offerings. As kind of a governing principle for ’31 Minutos,’ we want these options to improve.”

“31 Minutos” rapidly became entrenched in Chilean popular culture. Peirano remembers the exact moment when he realized its cross-generational influence.

“I heard someone whistling the show’s theme song, and it wasn’t a child — it was an adult sweeping the street,” he says. “That was the first time I said, ‘How strange, someone is actually watching it!’ ”

Pedro Peirano remembers the moment he realized “31 Minutos” was becoming entrenched in Chilean pop culture. “I heard someone whistling the show’s theme song, and it wasn’t a child — it was an adult sweeping the street,” he says.

(Sebastian Utreras)

For Díaz, it was when he heard the album with the first batch of songs, released about four months after the show’s debut, playing in multiple record stores around Santiago. Not long after that, they saw the first bootleg merchandise: a toy version of Mico, el Micófono, a character that is just a microphone with googly eyes that street vendors could easily replicate.

Internationally, Mexico became a key market for “31 Minutos.” The creators first realized that country’s adoration for the show when an email address where viewers could write to Tulio was flooded with more messages from Mexico than Chile.

A tribute album, “Yo Nunca Vi Television” (I Never Watched Television), where Mexican and Chilean bands reinterpreted songs from “31 Minutos,” was released in 2009. The show’s museum exhibit, “Museo 31,” visited two Mexican cities (Mexico City and Monterrey) between 2024 and 2025 after its time in Santiago at Centro Cultural La Moneda.

Díaz believes that “31 Minutos” benefited from evolving in front of a young audience who accepted the show’s peculiarities at face value. The industry these days, he thinks, demands every narrative choice be justified with substantial meaning.

“You now have to write with an explicit intention and give everything coherence, as if life is a series of very coherent interconnections,” Díaz says. “It’s impossible to make something like ‘31 Minutos’ today.”

That’s especially true, in their eyes, of the U.S. entertainment industry where one must “understand fun down to its smallest detail” even before anything has been produced.

“Much of the fun of making ’31 Minutos’ has to do with spontaneity,” says Díaz.

Nevertheless, their “Tiny Desk” concert and the Christmas special have brought them to their closest proximity yet to American audiences.

To prepare for their “Tiny Desk” performance, which features some of the show’s most emblematic puppets, the “31 Minutos” team re-created the set in Santiago — a famously tight space where bands are sandwiched between a desk and overflowing bookshelves. “We had to reduce the idea of ‘31 minutes’ to 20 minutes in a small space, without lighting, without special effects,” explains Díaz.

Tapping into current events, the running joke of their “Tiny Desk” appearance is that their work visas will expire immediately after performing.

“We didn’t intend to make a political statement, but since we were in the United States, what’s the joke in the air? That they are going to kick us — as Latin Americans, the joke is always that the U.S. wants us out,” says Peirano. “In the end, it still ends up being a commentary, and we included this crocodile puppet [as an immigration agent] because that’s the satirical nature of ‘31 Minutos.’ ”

Meanwhile, making “Calurosa Navidad” for Prime Video fulfilled their goal of entering the streaming realm. Amazon was interested in genre films, and they opted for a Christmas one.

Fans of “31 Minutos” will recognize that the story, in which Bodoque has to search for Santa and bring him to heat-stricken Titirilquén; it’s the expansion of a story from an earlier special Christmas episode that later evolved into a Christmas live show. The cheeky charm remains intact, but now it’s going to be accessible to a global audience.

Currently, Peirano splits his time between Santiago and Los Angeles. In the U.S., away from the media empire that “31 Minutos” has built in Latin America, he works as a screenwriter. His credits include the HBO series “Perry Mason.” He’s working on a project for horror outfit Blumhouse with collaborator Mauricio Katz. The two recently signed an exclusive overall deal with Sony Pictures Television.

But don’t expect Tulio or Bodoque to speak English anytime soon or for their adventures to be crafted outside of their South American homeland. Díaz has no desire to leave Chile.

“I live five kilometers from the hospital where I was born. And that’s the farthest I can be,” he says. “Chile is the reality that I understand, and, above all, that nourishes us. I like to travel and go on tour, but I hope things always happen here, with the people we know here.”

Díaz cites director Peter Jackson’s ethos to establishing WETA FX, a world-renowned digital effects company, in his home country of New Zealand instead of moving abroad, as a mindset that resembles their own — in admittedly a smaller scale.

“What we advocate for in ‘31 Minutos’ is artistic excellence from Chile,” Díaz adds. “From Chile to Latin America first, and hopefully from Chile to the world.”

Trump praises Mamdani for ‘incredible’ victory in New York City mayoral election and focus on affordability.

United States President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani have held talks in the White House, expressing their hope for a productive and cordial relationship despite their history of mutual criticism.

Speaking to the press after their discussion on Friday, Trump praised Mamdani – the Muslim politician whom he once tarred as a “jihadist” and threatened to strip him of his US citizenship – for his successful campaign and emphasis on cost-of-living issues.

“We’ve just had a great meeting, a really productive meeting. We have one thing in common: we want this city of ours that we love to do very well,” said Trump, who grew up in New York, adding that Mamdani had run an “incredible race” and beat his rivals “easily”.

“I appreciated the meeting with the president, and as he said, it was a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City,” responded Mamdani, saying he discussed issues in areas such as rent, utilities and groceries.

Mamdani, a democratic socialist who embraced New York’s status as a community made up of people from around the world and offered a firm defence of Palestinian rights, is politically at odds with Trump, whose nativist politics have depicted immigrants as a dangerous internal threat and previously pushed for a ban on Muslims entering the US.

Asked about areas of disagreement with Trump, such as immigration enforcement, Mamdani said he hoped to work together towards shared goals despite their differences.

He referred to a video he shared in November 2024, in which he discussed issues such as affordability and US involvement in conflicts abroad with Trump voters after the 2024 presidential election. Mamdani said he now hopes to find common ground on ending US “forever wars” and bringing down the cost of living.

“I think both President Trump and I are very clear about our positions and our views. And what I really appreciate about the president is the meeting that we had focused not on places of disagreement, of which there are many, and focused on the shared purpose that we have of serving New Yorkers,” said Mamdani.

“That’s something that could transform the lives of 8.5 million people who are currently under a cost-of-living crisis, with one in four people living in poverty,” he said.

With polls showing growing concerns over the state of the US economy, Trump has recently spoken positively about Mamdani’s focus on cost-of-living issues, despite previous acrimony.

“He said a lot of my voters actually voted for him,” Trump told reporters. “And I’m ok with that.”

Stories will long be told about what Gazans have endured these last couple of years, and movies will be part of that unburdening. This spring, Iranian filmmaker Sepideh Farsi believed she would be unveiling a uniquely dignified portrait of one Palestinian woman’s experience when the Cannes Film Festival accepted her documentary “Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk,” which comprised her year of spirited video chats with positive-minded 25-year-old photojournalist and poet Fatma Hassona. The day after the Cannes news, Hassona and her family were killed by an Israeli missile.

It’s not unheard of for a completed movie to become something entirely different overnight. But what’s quietly miraculous about “Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk,” considering its added tragic weight, is what the force of Hassona’s personality and Farsi’s filmmaking choices still manage to do: speak to what’s ineffably beautiful about our human capacity for hope and connection.

In her opening narration, Farsi explains how she’d been looking for a way into Gaza to understand it beyond the media reports. Physically, that proved impossible, but through a refugee friend, she was connected to Hassona in April 2024. In their first video call, which Farsi, then in Cairo, recorded with a separate smartphone, Hassona’s beaming face immediately dispels any notion that all Palestinians must exist in a defeated state amid relentless bombing. Asked how she feels, Hassona — who had just witnessed a huge explosion the day prior — says, “I feel proud.” With unforced lightness, she assures Farsi that they will continue to live their lives and laugh, that they are “special people.” She knows every day is about actively not letting themselves get used to it. The documentary’s title is Hassona’s description of what she does when she leaves her house.

You believe her. That high-wattage smile registers as whatever the opposite of a bomb is. But it’s also easy to notice Farsi’s ingrained cynicism about the state of things, having once been imprisoned as a teenage dissident during the years following her country’s Islamic Revolution, now in exile. In her voice-over, Farsi describes meeting Hassona as if encountering a mirror, realizing “how much both our lives are conditioned by walls and wars.”

Farsi threads in many of Hassona’s photographs. The images of daily life amid destruction and rubble — children, bicyclists, workers, laundry drying from high floors in a half-destroyed building — hint at an inextinguishable flame carrying on through a campaign of death.

Though Farsi knows how to ask for details about her life in Gaza, the vibe isn’t one of interviews conducted to make a film, but a genuine curiosity and warmth, the ebb and flow of real interaction captured whenever possible. Meanwhile, war, politics and failed leadership can be glimpsed in brief interludes of news reports on Farsi’s television. But they’re always cut short, as if to say: I’d rather hear from my friend who’s living it.

Hassona’s face becomes so familiar to us, we can tell when her cheery disposition is hard to maintain. But her energy and hope never feel like depletable resources. “I want to be in a normal place!” she blurts out in one of their last conversations, almost as if she were a musical protagonist about to break into song. But Hassona never got more than a first act.

Farsi doesn’t draw the ending out: just sparsely worded text after witnessing their final chat, followed by a video Hassona had taken rolling through her devastated city, somehow grounded in a palpable, undying everydayness. You’ll feel loss, but the afterimage of this singular woman’s belief in finding light is what will burn.

Despite her injury, Warda Abu Jarad has started baking cookies and bread to help provide for her family.

A woman in Gaza blinded in an Israeli air strike has opened a bakery to make ends meet and keep her hopes for the future alive, she tells Al Jazeera.

Warda Abu Jarad, 51, is one of 170,698 Palestinians who have been wounded in Gaza since Israel began its genocidal war on the territory in October 2023.

Abu Jarad explained that she lost her sight when her house was bombed by the Israeli military, causing debris to fall into her eyes.

“The smoke from the bombing blinded me completely,” she said.

Speaking from a tent in Deir el-Balah in central Gaza, the mother told Al Jazeera that she was still adjusting to being blind and needs someone to guide her whenever she wants to move from one place to another.

“Even when I want to move inside the tent, I wait for someone to help me cross,” she said. “I tried to enter the tent once, hit my head and fell, … so now I feel the ground with my feet to know what’s in front of me.”

Her daughter has been her biggest support, she said.

Her blindness has been hard for her to take. “The most precious thing in life is sight. Every time I struggle to reach something I need, I start crying,” Abu Jarad said.

Despite such challenges, Abu Jarad is, like other Palestinians in Gaza, trying to rebuild her life amid the ruins, ongoing Israeli bombardment, restricted aid and grief.

“I decided to open a business to provide for my family. I opened a bakery and started to grow it. I started baking ma’amoul [filled butter cookies] and bread,” she said one month into a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

“I need to keep going because the situation here is so hard,” she added.

Since the ceasefire came into effect on October 10, there have been some small improvements in daily life in Gaza, but the United Nations and NGOs have warned that the amount of aid Israel is letting into Gaza remains wholly insufficient.

Israel claims it has adhered to the truce by permitting entry to 600 aid trucks each day while Hamas says the daily number is actually about 150.

On Wednesday, Israel said it had reopened the Zikim crossing to the northern Gaza Strip.

“The opening of direct crossings to the north is vital to ensure that sufficient aid reaches people as soon as possible,” the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said recently.

“All I want in life is to have my sight restored, and I want to see my daughter as a bride in her wedding dress. This is my greatest wish from God,” Abu Jarad said.

KIM Kardashian refuses to throw in the book as she returns to studying, after fuming that psychics incorrectly predicted she would pass her exam to qualify as a lawyer.

The billionaire entrepreneur and reality star, 45, posing in a bikini while revising with a textbook, failed her California bar exam after six years of studying.

In a TikTok video, she ranted to her famous family that their clairvoyants were “liars.”

She said: “I’m just letting you guys know that all of the f***ing psychics that we have met with, and that we’re obsessed with, are all f***ing full of s**t.

“They all collectively, maybe four of them, have told me I was going to pass the bar so they’re all full pathological liars. Don’t believe anything they say.”

It comes after her Disney+ drama All’s Fair, about a group of female lawyers, was critically panned and received a four percent rating on review-aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes.

READ MORE ON KIM KARDASHIAN

glam girl

Kim Kardashian looks incredible in sparkly dress for Kris Jenner’s 70th birthday

However, The U.S. Sun revealed how this took a drastic turn late Tuesday night heading into Wednesday, when reviews labeling the show the “worst of all time” began going viral.

“The show had a disappointing opening in the first 24 hours. 

“It wasn’t getting as much attention leading up because the media review embargoes weren’t allowed to go up until after the show had already dropped,” the source explained. 

“So all the 0% reviews came out at once, after the episode was already out, and helped draw droves of attention to it. 

“The reaction to all the bad reviews was the best thing that could’ve happened to the show. It basically, right away, doubled overall episode engagement. 

“Including viewership but also the amount of online mentions and social media activity.”

The insider added that producers are taking the critique well, as they know the show is meant to be “campy and fun” and is “not meant to be serious.” 

“No one likes their work being dunked on, but the show welcomes the chatter because it’s driving interest and the viewership is benefiting exponentially,” they added. 

Kim stars on the legal drama as a divorce attorney at an all-female law firm.

In addition to The Kardashians star, the series also includes Naomi Watts, Niecy Nash, Sarah Paulson, and Glenn Close.

NEW YORK — At the top of his victory speech at a Brooklyn theater late Tuesday, Zohran Mamdani — the 34-year-old democratic socialist just elected New York’s next mayor — spoke of power being gripped by the bruised and calloused hands of working Americans, away from the wealthy elite.

“Tonight, against all odds, we have grasped it,” he said. “The future is in our hands.”

The imagery was apropos of the night more broadly — when a beaten-down Democratic Party, still nursing its wounds from a wipeout by President Trump a year ago, forcefully took back what some had worried was lost to them for good: momentum.

From coast to coast Tuesday night, American voters delivered a sharp rebuke to Trump and his MAGA movement, electing Democrats in important state and local races in New York, New Jersey and Virginia and passing a major California ballot measure designed to put more Democrats in Congress in 2026.

The results — a reversal of the party’s fortunes in last year’s presidential election, when Trump swept the nation’s swing states — arrived amid deep political division and entrenched Republican power in Washington. Many voters cited Trump’s agenda, and related economic woes, as motivating their choices at the ballot box.

The wins hardly reflected a unified Democratic Party nationally, or even a shared left-wing vision for a future beyond Trump. If anything, Mamdani’s win was a challenge to the Democratic Party establishment as much as a rejection of Trump.

His vision for the future is decidedly different than that of other, more moderate Democrats who won elsewhere in the country, such as Abigail Spanberger, the 46-year-old former CIA officer whom Virginians elected as their first female governor, or Mikie Sherrill, the 53-year-old former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor who won the race for New Jersey governor.

Still, the cascade of victories did evoke for many Democrats and progressives a political hope that they hadn’t felt in a while: a sense of optimism that Trump and his MAGA movement aren’t unstoppable after all, and that their own party’s ability to resist isn’t just alive and well but gaining speed.

“Let me underscore, it’s been a good evening — for everybody, not just the Democratic Party. But what a night for the Democratic Party,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said during his own remarks on the national wins. “A party that is in its ascendancy, a party that’s on its toes, no longer on its heels.”

“I hope it’s the first of many dominoes that are going to happen across this country,” Noah Gotlib, 29, of Bushwick said late Tuesday at a victory party for Mamdani. “I hope there’s a hundred more Zohrans at a local, state, federal level.”

On a night of big wins, Mamdani’s nonetheless stood out as a thunderbolt from the progressive left — a full-throated rejection not just of Trump but of Mamdani’s mainstream Democratic opponent in the race: former Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Mamdani — a Muslim, Ugandan-born state assemblyman of Indian descent — beat Cuomo first in the Democratic ranked-choice primary in June. Cuomo, bolstered by many of New York’s moneyed interests afraid of Mamdani’s ideas for taxing the rich and spending for the poor, reentered the race as an independent.

Trump attacked Mamdani time and again as a threat. He said Monday that he would cut off federal funding to New York if Mamdani won. He even took the dramatic step of endorsing Cuomo over Curtis Sliwa, the Republican in the race, in a last-ditch effort to block Mamdani’s stunning political ascent.

Instead, city voters surged to the polls and delivered Mamdani a resounding win.

“To see him rise above all of these odds to actually deliver a vision of something that could be better, that was what really attracted me to the [Democratic Socialists of America] in the first place,” said Aminata Hughes, 31, of Harlem, who was dancing at an election-night party when Mamdani was announced the winner.

“A better world is possible,” the native New Yorker said, “and we’re not used to hearing that from our politicians.”

In trademark Trump fashion, the president dismissed the wins by his rival party, suggesting they were a result of two factors: the ongoing federal shutdown, which he has blamed on Democrats, and the fact that he wasn’t personally on people’s ballots.

Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s chief advisors, posted a paragraph to social media outlining the high number of mixed-status immigrant families in New York being impacted by the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and mass deportation campaign, which Miller has helped lead.

Democrats in some ways agreed. They pointed to the shutdown and other disruptions to Americans’ safety and financial security as motivating the vote. They pointed to Trump’s immigration tactics as being an affront to hard-working families. And they pointed to Trump himself — not on the ballot but definitely a factor for voters, especially after he threatened to cut off funds to New York if the city voted for Mamdani again.

“President Trump has threatened New York City if we dare stand up to him. The people of New York came together and we said, ‘You don’t threaten New York,’” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “We’re going to stand up to bullies and thugs in the White House.”

“Today we said ‘no’ to Donald Trump and ‘yes’ to democracy,” New Jersey Democratic Chair LeRoy J. Jones Jr. told a happy crowd at Sherrill’s watch party.

“Congratulations to all the Democratic candidates who won tonight. It’s a reminder that when we come together around strong, forward-looking leaders who care about the issues that matter, we can win,” former President Obama wrote on social media. “We’ve still got plenty of work to do, but the future looks a little bit brighter.”

In addition to winning the New York mayoral and New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, Democrats outperformed Republicans in races across the country. They held several seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and won the Virginia attorney general’s race. In California, voters passed Proposition 50, a ballot measure giving state Democrats the power to redraw congressional districts in their favor ahead of next year’s midterms.

Newsom and other Democrats had made Proposition 50 all about Trump from the beginning, framing it as a direct response to Trump trying to steal power by convincing red states such as Texas to redraw their own congressional lines in favor of Republicans.

Trump has been direct about trying to shore up Republicans’ slim majority in the House, to help ensure they retain power and are able to block Democrats from thwarting his agenda. And yet, he has suggested California’s own redistricting effort was illegal and a “GIANT SCAM” under “very serious legal and criminal review.”

Trump had also gone after several of the Democrats who won on Tuesday directly. In addition to Mamdani, Trump tried to paint Spanberger and Sherrill as out-of-touch liberals too, attacking them over some of his favorite wedge issues such as transgender rights, crime and energy costs. Similar messaging was deployed by the candidates’ Republican opponents.

In some ways, Trump was going out on a political limb, trying to sway elections in blue states where his grip on the electorate is smaller and his influence is often a major motivator for people to get out and vote against him and his allies.

His weighing in on the races only added to the sense that the Democrats’ wins marked something bigger — a broader repudiation of Trump, and a good sign for Democrats heading into next year’s midterms.

Marcus LaCroix, 42, who voted for Proposition 50 at a polling site in Lomita on Tuesday evening, described it as “a counterpunch” to what he sees as the excesses and overreach of the Trump administration, and Trump’s pressure on red states to redraw their lines.

“A lot of people are very concerned about the redistricting in Texas,” he said. “But we can actually fight back.”

Ed Razine, 27, a student who lives in the Bed-Stuy neighborhood of Brooklyn, was in class when he heard Mamdani won. Soon, he was celebrating with friends at Nowadays, a Bushwick dance club hosting an election watch party.

Razine said Mamdani’s win represented a “new dawn” in American politics that he hopes will spread to other cities and states across the country.

“For me, he does represent the future of the Democratic Party — the fact that billionaires can’t just buy our election, that if someone really cares to truly represent the everyday person, people will rise up and that money will not talk,” Razine said. “At the end of the day, people talk.”

The Associated Press and Times staff writer Connor Sheets contributed to this report.

For a historian who writes about war, Rick Atkinson is surprisingly optimistic. The Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former journalist — who recently released the second volume in a trilogy of books about the American Revolution — believes that the bedrock of American democracy is solid enough to withstand any assaults on its founding principles.

As the guest of honor at a Sunday night dinner sponsored by the Library Foundation of Los Angeles as part of its biennial Literary Feasts fundraiser, Atkinson was the most upbeat person at the event, which took place just before Election Day. Speaking to about 18 guests gathered around two circular tables carefully laid out on the back patio at the home of fellow writers and hosts Meenakshi and Liaquat Ahamed, Atkinson buoyed the flagging spirits of those certain that the country was currently dangling on the precipice of disaster at the hands of the Trump administration.

Book lovers attend a Literary Feast dinner featuring Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson at the home of writers Meenakshi and Liaquat Ahamed.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

“We’re the beneficiaries of an enlightened political heritage handed down to us from that founding generation, and it includes strictures on how to divide power and keep it from concentrating in the hands of authoritarians who think primarily of themselves,” Atkinson said with the cheery aplomb of a man who has spent the bulk of his time burrowing deep inside archives filled with harrowing stories of the darkest days the world has ever seen. “We can’t let that slip away. We can’t allow it to be taken away, and we can’t allow ourselves to forget the hundreds of thousands who’ve given their lives to affirm and sustain it over the past 250 years.”

The questions and conversation that followed Atkinson’s rousing speech about the history of the Revolution — including riveting details about key players like George Washington who Atkinson noted had “remarkably dead eyes” in order to not give away a scintilla of his inner life to curious onlookers — was what the evening’s book-loving guests had come for.

“We’re the beneficiaries of an enlightened political heritage handed down to us from that founding generation,” said Rick Atkinson.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

A total of 40 authors are hosted at salon-style events at 40 houses with more than 750 guests over the course of a single evening, raising more than $2 million for the Library Foundation, which is a separate entity from the public library. Founded in 1992 in the wake of the devastating 1986 fire at downtown’s Central Library, which destroyed more than 400,000 books, the foundation seeks to continue the community-driven mission of the library when funding runs short, including supporting adult education, early literacy programs for children, and services for immigrants and the unhoused.

“I often describe it as the dream-fueling work, the life-changing work,” said Stacy Lieberman, the Library Foundation’s president and chief executive. “Because it’s a lot of the one-on-one support that people will get.”

The Foundation typically raises about $7 million to $8 million a year, with an operating budget of nearly $11 million, so money raised through the Literary Feasts is a significant slice of the funding pie. The feasts began in 1997 and have continued apace every other year since then, featuring a who’s who of literary accomplishment across every genre. Writers past and present include Sue Grafton, Jane Fonda, Ann Patchett, Viet Thanh Nguyen, Abraham Verghese, Scott Turow and Michael Connelly.

Dinner hosts fund the events themselves — no small outlay considering the lavish offerings.

Guests were served steak with roasted carrots, turnips and potatoes.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

The Ahameds delighted guests with a tangy grapefruit and greens salad, followed by tender steak with roasted carrots, turnips and potatoes; a dessert of hot apple tart à la mode drizzled with caramel sauce; and plenty of crisp red and white wine. Both hosts are literary luminaries in their own right: Liaquat, a former investment manager, won the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for history for his book “Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World” and Meenakshi recently published “Indian Genius: The Meteoric Rise of Indians in America.”

The couple travels in bookish circles and enjoys hosting salons at their home, including one earlier this year in support of New Yorker political columnist Susan Glasser and her husband, New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker. As friends of Atkinson, the Ahameds did their part to introduce him, and later tried their best to entice him to stop taking questions and eat his dinner.

The guest of honor could not be persuaded. There was too much to say. “The Fate of the Day,” which explores the bloody middle years of the Revolution from 1777 to 1780, was released in April, and Atkinson has spent the past eight months touring and speaking on panels with documentarian Ken Burns to promote Burns’ six-part documentary series “The American Revolution,” which premieres Nov. 16 on PBS.

Atkinson is a featured speaker in the series and has been involved with it for about four years.

The dinner featuring Rick Atkinson was one of 40 taking place across town that evening. The events raised $2 million for the Library Foundation of Los Angeles.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

The week before the Literary Feast, Atkinson and Burns spoke to members of Congress in Washington, D.C., and also screened a 40-minute clip at Mount Vernon where Atkinson discussed Washington’s unique talents as a general.

“I’ve seen the whole thing several times and it’s fantastic,” Atkinson said of the 12-hour film. “It’s as you would expect: beautifully filmed, wonderfully told, great narrative.”

The country is now more than four months into its semiquincentennial, which Atkinson joked “sounds like a medical procedure,” but is actually the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. It’s well known that Trump is planning a splashy party, with festivities and commemorations intensifying over the next eight months, culminating in a grand celebration in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 2026.

Rick Atkinson’s book “The Fate of the Day,” which explores the bloody middle years of the Revolution from 1777 to 1780, was released in April.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

“My hope is that as a country, we use the opportunity to reflect on those basic questions of who we are, where we came from, what our forebears believed and what they were willing to die for,” said Atkinson. “I’m optimistic because I’m a historian, because I know our history. No matter how grim things seem in 2025, we have faced grimmer times in the past, existential threats of the first order, starting with the Revolution.”

The politically deflated might also consider World War II — the subject of Atkinson’s Liberation Trilogy — the second volume of which won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for history. The writer knows his stuff. Guests — and readers — take heart.

In January, 1991, as America stood on the edge of its first war in a generation, a quiet, bespectacled man stood in the well of the U.S. Senate and forced the nation to hesitate and think. George J. Mitchell, a former federal judge who was then Senate majority leader, had successfully pressed the Bush Administration into something Presidents had ignored for half a century: allowing Congress its constitutional authority to vote on making war.

Mitchell’s maneuver was politically perilous. Anyone who opposed the Gulf War risked appearing disloyal to the country and its then enormously popular President. Yet what followed, people in both parties now recall, was one of the finest moments in Senate history, a high-minded and highly emotional debate of conscience by a nation about to send its young people to war.

During George Bush’s four years as President, it was only one of many incidents when Mitchell, an intellectual politician in the era of three-second attack politics, drew sharp lines between Congress and the Republican Administration. For a time, the stoic New Englander, who avoided flashy TV sound bites and had a strong commitment to lighthouses and waterfowl, was the most important Democrat in the country.

Mitchell had risen to majority leader with historic speed. He was in only his eighth year when the Senate picked him as its leader. The former political protege of legendary Maine Democrat Edmund S. Muskie, Mitchell had spent much of his time in the Senate fighting to pass two liberal bills, a Clean Air Act and a law to clean up oil spills. He struck colleagues as uniquely decent and fair, disciplined, unemotional and deeply intellectual.

Early in 1994, he stunned Washington by announcing he would not seek almost certain reelection for a third term. He then turned down a seat on the Supreme Court in the spring of 1994. Some speculated that he was holding out to become commissioner of baseball. Still others linked his court demurrer to the fact that the 61-year-old divorce would marry 37-year-old Heather MacLachlan, a manager of professional athletes.

He dedicated the rest of his Senate career to passing health-care reform, but by October, that effort had collapsed. Then, on Election Day, his chosen successor for the Senate lost, the seat going to Republican Olympia Snowe. His party had lost the Senate after six years in the majority and the House after 40. On election night, Mitchell says, he never saw it coming.

During his last week in Washington, Mitchell sat down a t the polished conference table in his elegant Senate office to reflect on his leaving. He was still busy, juggling plans for his marriage in December and managing the passage of GATT , always dressed in crisp white shirt and dark suit, even on Saturday. But over the course of three long sessions, his reserve began to ease and his hands to wave as he reflected on what is right and wrong with the U.S Congress, on President Clinton, the Republican and Democratic parties, and about why so many Americans feel the nation is in political crisis.

*

I was taken by surprise. I’d hoped that we would retain control of both the Senate and House, although I knew that we would suffer some losses. In off-year elections, the party of the President usually loses about four seats in the Senate. We lost eight.

In retrospect, if the Administration and the congressional leadership had decided to forgo health care for this year and concentrated on welfare reform, it might have produced a different result.

But I think the Democrats are also suffering the effects of larger cultural, political and economic upheaval. Whenever a society is in transition, there’s uncertainty, anxiety, even fear. Clearly, we are a society undergoing major transition now. For most American families, incomes have either declined or remained stagnant. People see now that it is not inevitable or likely that incomes will continue to rise. Whenever there is a major transition, there is a natural desire, even a longing, for a simple, easy answer–Why is this so? How can it be corrected? There is a nostalgia for the past, often an inaccurate glorification of the past. We’ve had in our history times when seemingly simplistic answers have been offered, which in retrospect look ridiculous. The Know-Nothing movement flourished in the mid-19th Century; the Ku Klux Klan flourished early in this century; we’ve had a lot of Red scares; we’ve had a lot of things we look back on and wonder now how they happened. But at the time, given the state of anxiety and fear, it’s understandable.

I want to make very clear that I do not equate what happened this year with the Ku Klux Klan or the Know-Nothings. I’m simply describing a phenomenon of a society in transition being (susceptible).

What the Republicans did was very skillful. They developed a clear and simple message–that if we can somehow stop this expansion of government authority, then family values will be restored. It has an appeal. It’s simple, it’s comprehensible, it appears to be logical. Of course, it isn’t going to restore those values. It certainly isn’t going to do the really essential thing of promoting economic growth. Indeed, they also labeled the Democrats as the party of high taxes. In fact, the President’s economic plan passed in 1993 raised income-tax rates only on the highest-earning 1.2% of all Americans and cut taxes for most lower- and middle-income families. Polls show people don’t know that. But the Republicans didn’t make up their argument out of whole cloth. Democrats helped them.

For too many in our party, government became a first resort rather than a last. There was an inability to distinguish between principle and programs–we became committed to programs. Democrats have succeeded when we have seen the difference and when we have been perceived as the party of economic growth. But in recent years, we’ve become increasingly perceived not as the party trying to make the economic pie grow but as the party trying to make sure that every single person gets an absolutely equal slice of the pie. That has coincided with a polarization of income concurrent with the polarization by race.

In Congress, meanwhile, the Republicans have been very skillful, cynical but skillful, in creating a gridlock from which they have benefited.

Perhaps the best example is the first item in the House Republicans’ contract with America, which would require that all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress. That’s a good idea, isn’t it? It’s so good, in fact, that we Democrats have promoted this legislation even longer than Republicans. That bill passed the House of Representatives when it was controlled by Democrats.

When I tried to bring it up in the Senate, Republican senators objected. They prevented the Senate from considering the legislation that their party said was No. 1 on its contract. That’s cynicism and, I’m sorry to say, successful cynicism. Now next year they’ll pass the legislation, and they’ll say, “Look here, we’re honoring our contract.”

*

Though they barely knew each other before Election Day in 1992, Mitchell was one of President Clinton’s closest allies during the past two years. He fought for Clinton’s deficit-cutting budget in 1993 and battled for health care reform in 1994 even when most Democrats thought the battle was lost. Since the Democratic defeat in November, many in Mitchell’s party have laid most of the blame on Clinton.

*

I think the problems the President has encountered are largely the result of too ambitious an agenda. If we had had just a few items, I think we’d have been a lot better off.

In retrospect, moreover, if I had known that health care would not be enacted, it would have made sense to discontinue the effort and to go on to welfare reform. But nine months ago, (passing health care) looked pretty good.

I didn’t know then-Gov. Clinton very well prior to the election, but I came to consider him extremely intelligent, very knowledgeable on issues, hard working, and the policy positions he has taken are mostly, not always, consistent with my own.

I recall one meeting last year, when he had a group of us to the White House for dinner to talk on health care, bipartisan, maybe 10 or 12 senators. Usually at these meetings, the members of Congress know all the details because the President speaks in general terms. It became evident quickly that the President knew much more about the details than did any of the members. It was a complete reversal in terms of knowledge of the subject.

I also disagree that the President is vacillating and indecisive. Historian Garry Wills has compared Clinton to Lincoln and said that the difference is Clinton does it all publicly in advance, and Lincoln did it all privately, behind the walls of the White House. I think one of the problems that has depicted this White House as vacillating is that they do their thinking out loud.

It is unfair, too, to have suggested that President Clinton has no bedrock principles on which he will not compromise. Look at the things he’s taken on. Why does he have political problems? In the South, they say it’s because of the policy on gays in the military. Is this a man without conviction? I don’t see how critics can have it both ways. On the one hand they say he pursued unpopular policies, on the other he doesn’t have convictions.

I have a theory, though it’s entirely subjective and personal, that economic matters are more important to the electorate in presidential elections than they are in off-term elections. I think if the economy stays strong, he’ll be in a much better position to gain reelection than he is now. Right now he’s being measured not against another person, but against each citizen’s individual subjective idealization of the presidency. When he runs, he’s going to be running against a person, (who will) have a personal life and a business background that will be relentlessly scrutinized. I’m convinced that Ross Perot will be running, and that will help President Clinton–even more than in ‘92, because the Perot supporters are much more Republican now. I think Bill Clinton will be reelected.

*

Mitchell said he began thinking about retiring the day of the 1994 State of the Union speech in January. There were many factors, but important among them was the realization that if he didn’t leave now, at 61, he would become too old to take up anything else–such as, for instance, baseball commissioner.

*

In 1993, when I turned 60, I decided to celebrate by climbing the highest mountain in my home state of Maine, Mt. Kitahdin. It’s one of the toughest non-technical climbs in the East, a mile high and about a 4,000-foot vertical climb.

There are two peaks on Mt. Kitahdin: Pamola Peak and the summit. The distance between them is a narrow ledge that stretches more than a mile, called the Knife’s Edge; I have a fear of heights.

Late that night, after we finished, I told my friends that the climb reminded me of Charles Darwin’s trip around the world, during which he first conceived the theory of evolution. It was a physically rough trip for him; he was sick for a large part of the time. He never made another such trip, and he spent the rest of his life talking about that one. That’s the way I felt about climbing Mt. Kitahdin.

That is also how I feel when I reflect on what it took to pass major legislation in the U.S. Senate, including one of my highest priorities, the Clean Air Act.

I had run for majority leader in 1988, in significant part so that we could pass some of the legislation that I had tried for six or seven years to make into law and failed. After I was majority leader, and we finally got the clean air bill onto the floor, it became obvious it couldn’t pass. I didn’t want it to die, so I decided we should negotiate. We spent over a month in my conference room–members of the Bush Administration and senators, groups of 10 or 12, sometimes 50 or 60. There were many 16- to 18-hour days. We went over every provision, negotiating in good faith, and we finally reached a consensus.

That’s what it takes to enact major legislation. And that is one of the few tools available now to the Senate majority leader: the ability to get people together, to get them to listen to each other. No longer can a leader order senators to follow. Lyndon B. Johnson centralized power in the majority leader. He was able to exert influence on his colleagues for three reasons. One was his personality. Second, he had the power to appoint all senators to committees and to remove them from committees. That can make or break a senator’s career. The other was that if you wanted a roll call vote, you had to get his approval. He used those powers very effectively, but in the minds of many of his colleagues, he abused them. When he left, those powers were taken away from the majority leader, so majority leaders since have had very little in the way of institutional tools to impose discipline (over their party or the institution).

I have advocated that some of these powers be restored. Bob Dole, the new majority leader, disagreed. I expect he may change his mind now. Of course, the Senate could make these changes simply by operating with a resumption of the self-restraint that existed among its members for most of our history but no longer does.

In the entire 19th Century there were 16 filibusters in the U.S. Senate–an average of one every 6 1/2 years. For most of this century, filibusters occurred fewer than once a year. In the 103rd Congress just concluded, there were 20 filibusters attempted and 72 motions to end them.

It is harder to govern now, I think, because of the tone in politics today, which debases public discussion. Distrust of Congress and elected officials is not new in our society, but I think several factors have contributed to the increase in negativism in politics.

First, the press has abandoned many of the traditional restraints it imposed on itself with regard to reporting on the personal life of public officials. Second, television. The viewer, the voter, hears candidate Tom say that his opponent Diane is a bum; Diane responds that Tom is a crook, and so the voters come to believe that they have a choice between a bum and a crook. A third factor, I believe, is partisan. Until Bill Clinton was elected, there seemed a nearly permanent state of affairs in which the presidency was held by Republicans and the Congress by Democrats. So for nearly two decades, Republicans bashed the Congress.

All of those things have combined to create a highly negative discussion in which issues are oversimplified and reduced to slogans.

*

In his own career, Mitchell was unusually fair and bipartisan when it came to dispensing the rules of the Senate. Among his first acts as majority leader was ending the practice of tactical surprise . Before that, both sides had to keep one senator on the floor at all times . But Mitchell could also be scorchingly partisan when it came to policy differences.

*

We Democrats bear responsibility for the failure to deal more effectively with the nation’s problems. But so do Republicans. Their policy in the Senate in 1994 was one of total obstruction. Let me give you an example.

We passed earlier this year in both houses the gift- and lobbying-disclosure legislation. The Republicans really didn’t want it, so when the bill came up for final passage in the House, Newt Gingrich concocted this argument that it will have some effect on grass-roots lobbying, and they got Christian organizations to come out against it. That same excuse was used in the Senate. So I offered to take that provision out and vote on the same bill that we had passed by a vote of 95 to 2 a few months earlier. Which, of course, all the Republicans had voted for. But they refused. When you prevent legislation that you’ve actually voted for, you’re engaged in a policy of total obstruction. But it worked. The Republican (complaint) was, well the darned place isn’t functioning. The Democrats are in charge, so let’s change the people in charge, and maybe we’ll get some action.

Now they are in a different position. I think the Republicans will soon learn that it’s easier to campaign against something than to govern. You actually are responsible for acting. I think we Democrats suffer the burden more because we believe that government can produce beneficial results and conditions in our society. But we didn’t do a very good job of making that case this year.

I don’t know Newt Gingrich very well. Most of my dealings have been with Bob Michel, who was the Republican leader in the House for all of the time that I was majority leader. Newt sort of took over during the latter stages of this Congress. My impression is that he’s very smart and appears to be committed to an ideology. But I wonder if he is smart enough to recognize that in order to be a successful Speaker, he will have to use an approach different from that which got him to be Speaker–basically the difference between campaigning and governing.

I believe people can change. In general terms, I think people grow in office. I think people become more responsible with increased responsibility, become more active with increased demands on them. But I have no way of knowing in his particular case.

*

For all his frustration, even anger, Mitchell wanted to assert that he does not feel jaundiced about politics and the future. He also remains, in the parlance of Washington, an unreconstructed liberal, though not without complaints .

*

For all this, the problems of the party and the historical forces the Republicans have capitalized on, I don’t share the view that the country is shifting ideologically. Nor do I fear that the Democratic Party is somehow marginalizing itself. I am, on the contrary, very optimistic.

I’ve written a lot of bills that have become law, and many of them are meaningful to me. I’m the author of something called the Lighthouse Preservation Program. It’s a very small bill, but I regard it as a great accomplishment.

It’s ironic that at this moment, when American ideals and culture are ascendant in the world, when the American economy is the most productive and efficient in the world, when unemployment in America is less than that in virtually every other developed industrial democracy of the world, that Americans should be so anxious and fearful, such easy prey for demagoguery and scapegoatism. I think the Democrats still are the party of opportunity and economic growth.

What we have to do is to narrow our focus to economic-growth policies as opposed to trying to solve every other problem. I can sum up my philosophy in a sentence: In America, no one shouldbe guaranteed success, but everyone should have a fair chance to go as far as talent, education and will can take them.