Stothert, Ewing advance in Omaha mayor's primary race
OMAHA — Incumbent Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert and Douglas County Treasurer John Ewing easily advanced Tuesday to next month's general election for mayor.
Despite outspending Ewing by hundreds of thousands of dollars, former State Sen. Mike McDonnell finished a distant third after angering key parts of both major political parties.
The Nebraska Democratic Party censured the then-Democrat last year for casting the critical vote to pass new restrictions on abortion and transgender health care. He also angered the right by withholding his vote for shifting Nebraska to winner-take-all in presidential elections after joining the Nebraska Republican Party.
McDonnell, who ran for mayor as a Republican, has been highly critical of the incumbent GOP mayor, attempting as a longtime union leader to outflank her on the right.
Community activist Jasmine Harris finished fourth after pledging to focus on public safety through investing more in community-based programs. Terry Brewer, the founding pastor of New Covenant Church of God in Christ in North Omaha, finished fifth in the primary election.
Much of the race discussed the city's streetcar project, taxes, and housing costs.
Stothert is seeking a fourth term as the city's top elected official, a record in the modern era. While the mayor's race is nonpartisan, local parties have campaigned for central candidates.
'Our campaign has been built around our record of progress, determination, and the successes we've had,' Stothert said after the first batch of election results. 'That's the positive message we will continue to deliver for the next six weeks.'
McDonnell heavily criticized Stothert during the campaign, emphasizing her spending and the poor quality of city streets, among other issues. Stothert won anyway.
As of the 10:25 p.m. results in Douglas County, she had 25,056 votes. Ewing had 21,623 votes. And McDonnell had 13,859 votes according to unofficial election results.
McDonnell conceded the race before 10 p.m., saying he was 'proud' of his campaign because he was 'listening to the people.'
Ewing has been the Douglas County treasurer for almost two decades and was a former member of the Omaha Police Department. He has campaigned to improve city infrastructure and create more jobs.
'We believed all along that we were going to be in the general election. We believe that citizens of this community appreciate good government,' Ewing told the Nebraska Examiner.
Douglas County Election Commissioner Brian Kruse had anticipated a voter turnout slightly above average for the local race.
McDonnell is known statewide for his stint in the Nebraska Legislature, where he voted no on Republicans' 11th-hour push for winner-take-all before the 2024 presidential election. He also helped Republicans pass the state's stricter law banning abortion after 12 weeks of gestational age. He spent much of his campaign railing against the Omaha streetcar project favored by Stothert and downtown Omaha businesses, including Mutual of Omaha. Other candidates echoed McDonnell's criticism of the $459 million project, but said it was too far along to stop without the city facing legal and financial risk.
Ewing told the Flatwater Free Press that the project needs to continue, but that city residents should have been able to vote on it.
The Nebraska Democratic Party got one of its two endorsed candidates through with Ewing. U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb, endorsed Stothert. The Douglas County Republican Party endorsed McDonnell.
Stothert and Ewing are likely to increase their leads Friday, when Kruse's county election office will count about 7,000 outstanding early votes turned in on Election Day. Those typically follow the same pattern as the first round of counted early votes that Kruse released at 8 p.m. Tuesday, which showed Stothert leading, Ewing second and McDonnell third.
Harris said that the results weren't what she had hoped for, but she would continue to prioritize the people of Omaha.
'I'll continue to do the work in front of me, and I look forward to others joining in on how we can continue to build an Omaha that works for everyone, regardless if it's an elected seat or not,' Harris told the Examiner.
The general election is set for May 13.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A $100 billion mystery is unfolding on tariffs and inflation and economists are cracking the case
Economists have for months warned that tariffs would cause an inflation surge, but as of July, there's little evidence of that in economic data, despite about $100 billion in tariffs already collected by the Treasury. Fortune asked economists to explain why. The possible reasons range from 'it's too soon' to 'consumers won't stand for it.' Since the first weeks of President Donald Trump's second term, when the president signaled a wholesale reimagining of the international trade system on a scale not seen in decades, mainstream economists have warned that prices would surge. The mantra, repeated by everyone from mainstream economists to factions of the GOP, has been clear: A tariff is a tax on consumers. Businesses said the same, with three -quarters of importers in a recent New York Fed study declaring they planned to pass on some tariff costs to customers. But halfway into the year and well into the most consequential reshuffling of trade in half a century, tariff-fueled inflation is missing in action. The tariffs are certainly in place: The Treasury so far has collected a record-setting $100 billion in customs duties, and is on track to pull in $300 billion this year. The tariffs are paid by U.S. importers—think Walmart and other retailers—when goods cross the border into the U.S. It takes some time to work their way into the system, but eventually higher prices get passed onto consumers. Those higher prices directly influence the overall price levels in inflation measures. Except there's a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, and coated in a puzzle. One place tariffs aren't showing up? In the inflation numbers. For four months, official inflation readings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have come in under expectations, with the latest inflation reading a relatively modest 2.4%. The president's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) this week released a brief arguing that import prices have actually been falling. Why doesn't the data show a tariff hit? Here's what leading economists told Fortune. Though tariffs have been discussed for months, they haven't actually been in place for that long. 'Regarding the impact of tariffs on prices, the timeframe used by the CEA is way too short to draw any definitive conclusions,' said the fiscally conservative National Taxpayers Union said in a critique on the study, which looked at prices through May. 'Trump's 10% nonreciprocal tariffs were only imposed in April.' Tariffs on steel and aluminum went into effect in March and increased in June, while Chinese imports have been subject to a 30% tax since March; dozens more 'reciprocal' tariffs, initially announced in early April, have now been postponed. Meanwhile, official government price data takes time to collect and release. As of mid-July, the most recent data for the Consumer Price Index and Personal Consumption Expenditures deflator, covers May. Immediately after tariffs were announced, importers rushed to bring in goods before they were subject to a higher rate. Businesses brought in so many goods, with no corresponding sales, that it briefly flipped the U.S.' GDP into negative territory. (In economist math, imports count as a negative to GDP.) That surge means that businesses could still be largely selling goods brought in under pre-tariff prices. 'Businesses stockpiled inventory, and presumably haven't had to raise prices on goods because they're sitting on the shelf. Eventually they will, and once they start to raise prices it'll start impacting consumers,' said Eric Winograd, chief U.S. economist at AllianceBernstein, to explain this theory. Uncertainty, in a word, is 'the most important reason' the hard data doesn't yet show tariff impact, according to Eugenio Aleman, chief economist at Raymond James. 'Business owners price their goods at replacement cost. If they have to buy the same good in the future, they have to increase the price [charged to the customer] if the price of the replacement is higher,' he told Fortune. The problem, though, is uncertainty. 'Everybody knows the prices that firms will pay for replacement goods will be higher, but nobody knows by how much. That uncertainty is keeping many firms from repricing their goods.' Businesses, particularly small businesses, could be choosing to eat the cost of tariffs for the time being. Unlike large businesses, they have a smaller client base and could be reluctant to hike prices, Aleman said. 'Maybe small firms are eating some large portion of the tariffs. Why? Because they can't afford to lose clients,' he said. One potential data point indicating this possibility is recent Commerce Department figures showing growth in proprietors' income—a proxy for small businesses—flatlining in May. Aleman stressed that more than one month of data would be needed to determine if this is the case. Recent Bank of America research shows the amount of tariffs paid by small businesses in May nearly doubled from 2022 levels. 'Small businesses may be, in some ways, more susceptible to tariff pressures than larger businesses, given their access to capital is more limited,' the note read. An added factor is the bully pulpit of Truth Social, which Trump has wielded freely at even the largest retailer thinking of hiking costs. 'If the president sees significant pass-through of tariffs via prices, you'll see a lot more public policy, probably via Twitter,' Jeff Klingelhofer, a managing director at Aristotle Pacific, told Fortune. Klingelhofer previously suggested that companies would take the brunt of the tariff impact because they're the only ones who could afford to, with consumers being 'tapped out' after years of high inflation. Former Federal Reserve economist Claudia Sahm also noted that companies today are less quick to hike prices now than they were during pandemic inflation, when Americans were flush with cash and eager to spend it. In 2021 and 2022, 'consumers up and down the income distribution, had some cash, and there were a lot of corporate earnings calls saying 'We're passing these [costs] through,' and the consumer could kind of handle it,' she told Fortune. Three years later, Americans have spent all the excess savings accumulated during Covid, and businesses 'realize if they increase prices dramatically, they could be losing customers,' she said. 'There is more hesitation. There is some raising of prices, but not the exuberance' of the pandemic. That's the position of Mark DiPlacido, policy advisor at American Compass, a conservative economic outfit that supports tariffs as a way to rebalance the U.S. economy. 'Foreign exporters have ended up absorbing a lot of [the costs], and businesses—very little has gotten to consumers at this point,' he said. Japanese carmakers, he noted, are slashing prices—sometimes nearly 20%—to compensate for the added costs U.S. buyers will pay. In other words, 'Japan itself and Japanese companies are eating the costs of the tariffs.' Every economist Fortune spoke with made some version of this point—that a tariff, rather than giving a blank check for a seller to boost prices, sets off a complicated negotiation between importers, exporters, and American end buyers. Finding the balance of which party pays how much will take time, and will be individual for each good and sector of the economy. 'Tariffs are a tax on imported goods,' Sahm said. 'Nobody wants to pay the tax, so who is the weakest link? Walmart can go in and tell their Chinese producers, 'You have to cut the price.' Maybe in the pandemic the consumers said, 'OK, I'll pay it—I'm not really happy about it, but I have the money.' The final answer, she added, 'can be very specific to the business, the industry, and also the general macroeconomic conditions.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Paul believes Senate vote for NPR, PBS cuts will be ‘very close'
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that President Trump's request to cut billions in funding to public broadcasters NPR and PBS would face a 'very close' vote in the Senate. 'I suspect it's going to be very close. I don't know if it will be modified in advance, but I can't really honestly look Americans in the face and say that I'm going to be doing something about the deficit if I can't cut $9 billion,' Paul told CBS's Margaret Brennan on 'Face the Nation.' Republicans including Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have expressed reservations about making deep cuts to NPR and PBS. Some in the GOP are also wary of pulling funding for PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program started under President George W. Bush. Senators will work out the details of the recissions package this week, facing a Friday deadline to approve the cuts. 'Even though there are people who make arguments for it, and I can make an argument for a different way to cut it, we're going to be presented with a $9 billion cut and a $2.2 trillion deficit,' Paul said. 'So we have to cut spending. Absolutely have to cut spending.' On Thursday, President Trump threatened to withhold his backing for any Republican who goes against a recissions package, which includes sweeping cuts to foreign aid and public media. 'It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,' a Truth Social post from the president said. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,' he added. Rounds and other senators have raised fears about the impact of public broadcasting cuts on rural areas that rely on local, government-funded stations for information. Rounds told reporters he planned to negotiate with the White House Office of Management and Budget to tweak the cuts. 'It's not our goal to come back in and totally eliminate a number of the rescissions, but specifically to take care of those that were in some of these rural areas,' Rounds said, according to Deseret News. 'This is their way of getting emergency messages out to people. That's the way in which they communicate in a very rural area.'
Indianapolis Star
2 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Musk can spend a fortune on the 'America Party,' but it likely won't succeed
Set aside for a moment the raging egos and MAGA personalities at the heart of the renewed argument about whether America needs a new political party to compete with the Republican and Democratic parties. One thing we can say for sure: There's an appetite for just that among Americans. A Gallup poll released Oct. 1, just 35 days before the 2024 presidential election, in a time of extremely heightened political tension and public awareness, found that 58% of American adults said a third party was needed. Americans had Donald Trump or Kamala Harris to choose from at that moment, and a majority wanted more options. That polling number has fluctuated over the years, but Gallup has found majority support for the issue in polls going back two decades. But that's theory. What about practice? What if the third-party movement at the center of attention now was being spearheaded by one of the most politically toxic people in America? Is Elon Musk, currently viewed unfavorably by 55% of Americans, the best face for the "America Party" he announced on July 5? Musk, the world's wealthiest person, spent about $290 million to help Trump win a second term as president. Now they're spitting social media venom at each other after Musk was ousted from Trump's administration and then became infuriated by the deficit-busting spending in the president's new budget bill. Musk casts his new political party as an attack on the "uniparty," a common shorthand to suggest that the Republican and Democratic parties are more alike than different, especially when it comes to spending our taxes. Opinion: Trump's tax bill will crush the rural voters who chose him There's a glaring flaw in that claim ‒ Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act was crafted exclusively by his administration and Republican leaders in Congress. Democrats were locked out of the process and did not vote for the bill, which passed with thin Republican majorities. But Musk, like Trump, is not the kind of politician who will let reality govern his rhetoric. So, in his framing, they're all bad guys in Washington, DC, and he's going to be the new sheriff who cleans up the town. That's one way this might go. Another could be that political consultants squeeze Musk's fortune for as much juice as the America Party can produce, while not having much of an impact. Or, with Musk's businesses taking serious economic hits from his political combat, he might just talk a big game and then walk away. Trump, in a long social media post on Sunday, July 6, said Musk was "off the rails" while noting that third parties "have never succeeded in the United States." Then why did Trump need a 336-word post at all? He showed us his fear by adding that third parties are effective at causing "Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS" in American politics. Here's what disruption and chaos probably looks like to Trump ‒ Musk's America Party impacts the thin congressional margins, tipping the House and Senate to Democrats, giving them the power of oversight or even impeachment (for a third time) to hold Trump to account. Ryan Clancy, chief strategist for No Labels, told me that the "initial reaction from the Republicans suggests that they think (Musk) is more of a threat to them." And he would know. No Labels, you might remember, was a significant concern for the Democratic Party and its allies in 2024 as the group tried, and eventually failed, to put on the presidential ballot a bipartisan centrist ticket. Will Musk's America Party be the threat to Republicans that No Labels was to Democrats? Clancy said it's too early to say, and that will depend on what kind of candidates Musk recruits. Musk has suggested that he might "laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts" in the 2026 midterm elections because the House and Senate have "razor-thin legislative margins," and that it might "be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws." Opinion: Data centers are inevitable, but why should Indiana pay for their energy demand? Clancy told me No Labels has not spoken to Musk or anyone close to him about the America Party. But the strategist hopes the new political party would inject a little competition into elections, which could pull some Republicans and Democrats back to the center of the political spectrum. "I would encourage people to give it a chance, give it some runway, let it breathe a little," Clancy said. "Let's see what kind of candidates come around it." Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn, a progressive policy group, spent part of 2024 criticizing No Labels as a potential "spoiler" that could have helped Trump win a second term. She told me that "another party, paid for by billionaires like Elon Musk, is not the answer for this country's challenges." Where Clancy sees potential, Epting sees only vanity and self-interest as motivation for Musk. She noted that Republicans, from Trump on down the ballot, ran last year on making life more affordable for Americans. And she thinks Americans are still looking for solutions like that in the midterms. The MoveOn leader is just as opposed to the Big Beautiful Bill as Musk is. And she's just as opposed to his America Party as she was with No Labels. "No Labels was a tactic without a plausible strategy to win, and I think Elon Musk's effort is a tactic without a plausible way to win," Epting said. "And both were in it for themselves and not for the people of this country." Clancy estimates that a competitive Senate campaign next will cost "easily nine figures," while a House seat "can easily be low eight figures." And then there is the complicated and costly infrastructure of getting on ballots, state by state. Put another way: Musk might be about to spend some serious money again. But I'm not sure if he can repeat his 2024 success. And it's worth pointing out that Musk himself no longer sees 2024 as a success.
