Tag

Slider

Browsing

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have spent all their time traveling to a select group of states leading up to Election Day, with two of them commanding the most of their attention. 

An analysis of trips reveals that both candidates have visited Pennsylvania and Michigan a combined 52 times since Aug. 5, according to Axios.  

Later today, Harris will be visiting Pennsylvania for the 17th time during that period when she speaks at a series of campaign rallies there, Axios reported. 

The analysis found that she has made 10 visits to Michigan – her second most-traveled-to state – eight to Wisconsin, six to Georgia, six to North Carolina, four to Arizona and four to Nevada. 

Harris also has traveled two times each to New York and California for fundraisers and hosted a campaign rally in Texas late last month. 

For Trump, he has been to Pennsylvania 15 times already, followed by 11 visits to Michigan and 11 visits to North Carolina, according to Axios. 

On the eve of Election Day, Trump is hosting rallies in all three of those battleground states one more time. 

Following those states, since the start of August, Trump has traveled to Wisconsin seven times, Georgia seven times, Nevada five times, Arizona four times and New York four times, Axios reported. 

The analysis was based on press releases and media reports and does not include stops that Harris or Trump made in Washington, D.C., or Florida, where they are respectively based. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Actor and comedian Will Ferrell is throwing his star power behind Kamala Harris – it’s just another in a long list of celebrity endorsements for the vice president.

In an official Harris campaign ad, Ferrell jokingly threatens voters if they don’t vote for Harris.

‘This election is going to be one of the closest in history. Your vote will make the difference,’ Ferrell begins.

He then mocks a voter disagreeing about their vote making a difference. 

‘That means you, Gary. ‘Oh, blah blah blah, I’m just one person.’ No. Shut the f— up, Gary,’ Ferrell says. 

‘Last time, only a few thousand votes kept Trump out of office. And this time, we will hold you personally responsible, Gary,’ Ferrell threatens.

Critics took to X, telling the actor to stick to comedy and stay out of politics.

‘Democrats have now resorted to physically threatening people to vote for Kamala. Will Ferrell should’ve stuck to comedy. This isn’t funny at all,’ one user wrote.

‘Will Ferrell is making it REAL tough for me to watch Elf this season,’ another user commented. 

Ferrell joins a list of actors and celebrities who have used their status to endorse Harris in the homestretch of the campaign. 

On Thursday, actors Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, Danai Gurira, Don Cheadle and Paul Bettany took part in a video endorsement, mocked as ‘new cringe’ for Harris and Tim Walz, that was posted on Ruffalo’s X account.

‘We’re back. Let’s #AssembleForDemocracy. In the #ElectionEndgame, every vote counts,’ Ruffalo wrote, encouraging people to vote for Harris and Democrats.

In the video, they jokingly suggested Harris needed a catchphrase, referencing their past movies.

Bettany remarked, ‘How about ‘I’m down with democracy’? It’s clean and simple.’

‘I’m Kamala Harris and I say down with democracy,’ Cheadle joked, adding, ‘Yeah, together we got to tear down democracy.’

Near the end of the video, he phrased it saying, ‘I’m Kamala Harris, and I am down with democracy.’

Singer Beyoncé introduced Harris at a rally in Houston, Texas.

The final New York Times/Siena College Battleground poll of the 2024 race shows a razor-tight election in the battleground states just days before the election.

Trump leads in Arizona, while Harris has a lead in Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin. Michigan and Pennsylvania are tied between the two candidates, according to the poll.

The poll comes just two days before an election that promises to be one of the closest in recent memory, with the New York Times/Siena poll not being the only one showing tight margins.

Fox News Digital’s Lindsay Kornick, Michael Lee, and Paulina Dedaj contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

As the world watches the U.S. election unfold, many, especially people in Latin America, believe that Trump is the only option to prevent the decline of American economic power and influence.

Joseph Humire, an expert on Latin America and executive director of the think tank Center for a Secure Society, told Fox News Digital that many Latin Americans hope for a Trump victory on Nov. 5.

Humire said the Biden administration’s policy toward Latin America has resulted in it being ‘the worst that I’ve seen.’

‘The last four years the region has gone into a very difficult direction,’ he said. ‘Food inflation is really high. Organized crime and violence are really high. And, you know, little by little, they’re losing their democratic practices. There’s a huge democratic backsliding happening in the region.’

According to Humire, Latin Americans believe that if elected Vice President Kamala Harris would continue the policies of the Biden administration and thus continue the economic decline and stagnation in the region.

On the other hand, Humire said the Latin American populace associates Trump’s presidency with a time when they experienced greater prosperity and that they see him as a sign of hope for better times when the U.S. had greater investment in the region and the economy was not so bleak. These people believe that Trump’s plan to lessen U.S. dependency on China would mean greater U.S. investment in Latin America.

‘Most of the countries in Latin America are very eager to have investment from the United States,’ he explained. ‘If Kamala Harris wins, then you may have a lot of agnostic attitudes, but you’ll have people say, ‘The United States is pretty much done with.’ On the flip side, if President Trump wins, I think you’ll see a huge reaction in Latin America. I think you’ll see a lot of enthusiasm, not even just from the government leaders, from the people.’

He also said that many politicos are closely watching the U.S. election, hoping it will bolster the ambitions of existing conservative, populist movements in South America. As U.S. influence in Latin America has waned, that vacuum has been filled by Russia, China and Iran, which has had a degrading effect on democracy in the region, Humire said.

Argentine President Javier Milei serves as an example of a recently arisen populist leader who has said he was inspired by Trump’s success in the U.S. Humire believes that a Trump victory on Election Night could lead to a slate of additional conservative leaders rising across Latin America, especially in countries close to Argentina such as Chile and Colombia.

As for the cartels, Humire said a Harris victory would essentially mean business as usual.

‘If Kamala wins,’ he said, ‘they know they’ll look at that as an extension of President Biden, and they know how to work that. They’ve been pretty successful over the last four years, turning a lot of the policy failures of the Biden administration into profits and success for the transnational criminal organizations. And so, they’ll be more of the same.’  

Meanwhile, though some believe Trump’s strongman rhetoric projects the type of strength that is needed today, the consensus in Europe and the United Kingdom is that Harris should be the next U.S. president, according to Alan Mendoza, a British political analyst and founder of the Henry Jackson Society. 

Mendoza told Fox News Digital that ‘if Europe and the U.K. were voting, Kamala Harris would win by a landslide.’

‘Donald Trump does not obviously play to the European audience. He’s not trying to win over European hearts and minds,’ he said.

Mendoza said many Europeans are fearful that Trump will cut off all aid to Ukraine and pull the U.S. out of NATO at a time when the Russian threat is looming large over the continent.

We understand the threats. Russia is on the doorstep,’ he said.

On the other hand, he pointed out that Harris is inexperienced in foreign policy. He said some believe Trump would ‘restore’ a sense of American strength and power that dissipated during the Biden administration.

Mendoza said a Trump or Harris administration’s impact on Europe will depend on who they appoint to crucial roles, such as secretary of state. 

‘A lot of this depends on which version of the administrations turn up,’ he said. ‘It’s clearly going to be a gamble either way as far as Europe is concerned.’

Beyond that, Mendoza said Trump’s persona does not play well with European sensibilities. Whether justified or not, Mendoza said that Europeans have an impression, reinforced by European media coverage, that Trump is anti-democratic, isolationist and ultraconservative on social issues such as abortion.

‘It was put very well by the historian Niall Ferguson fairly recently who said, if your main concern is the American empire, i.e., America’s power overseas, you’re going to back Trump, and if your main concern is the American republic, i.e., democracy at home, you might well vote for Kamala Harris,’ he said.

Regardless of who they support, like most Americans, Mendoza said Europeans will be watching as the election results pour in.

‘The U.S. election is being watched all around the world,’ he said. ‘And, of course, Europe and the U.K. are no different in this. It is the big one. Even in this year of many elections, everyone understands the importance of the American election.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has suggested that if Democrats sweep the 2024 elections, they will control the nation for a century.

He predicted that if Democrats win both chambers of Congress and the White House, they will eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, add justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, grant Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico statehood, and establish federal control over elections, redistricting, and campaigns.

‘Day 1: Nuke the filibuster,’ Lee wrote on X. ‘Day 2: Pack SCOTUS. Day 3: Make DC & PR states. Day 4: Enact federal takeover of elections/redistricting/campaigns. Days 5 – 36,500: Rule America uncontested for 100 years.’

Lee, who has been serving in the Senate since 2011, endorsed former President Donald Trump in January prior to the Iowa GOP presidential caucus, which Trump decisively won.

The senator has been active on X, frequently responding to 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris.

‘In the global struggle between tyranny and democracy, the President of the United States must always be on the side of freedom,’ Harris tweeted.

‘Exactly,’ Lee responded. ‘That’s why most of us are voting for Trump.’

Lee offered a blunt response to a post in which Harris called Trump ‘weak.’

‘Your policies suck,’ Lee fired back, adding, ‘And make Americans poorer & less free.’

And while many on social media have been discussing the death of Peanut, a pet squirrel that was seized and euthanized in New York, Lee suggested swapping the GOP’s elephant mascot for a Peanut the squirrel mascot.

‘The elephant is cool, but elephants don’t live in America,’ he wrote, adding, ‘Squirrels do! Let’s immortalize Peanut the Squirrel,’ Lee suggested. ‘Let’s make him the official mascot of the GOP.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

JERUSALEM—The devastating wars launched by Russia’s authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin against Ukraine and the Hamas terrorist movement against Israel are raising uncomfortable questions for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris about their alleged lack of resolve toward an Israeli victory over the Islamic Republic of Iran-backed proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Fox News Digital turned to experts on the Mideast and Russia for their reflections on the different war strategies embraced by Biden and Harris with respect to Ukraine and Israel.  

‘The strategic behavior of the United States toward Ukraine and Israel differs substantially,’ David Wurmser, a former senior adviser for nonproliferation and Middle East strategy for former Vice President Dick Cheney, told Fox News Digital.

‘There has never been any indication that the United States affords Russia any legitimacy to its reasons for invasion. While a cease-fire in place may be sought, there is no indulgence of Russia’s ostensible grievances or demands,’ Wurmser said, adding, ‘In contrast, regarding the Palestinians, the October 7 attack was blasted as a horror and Israel’s immediate defense was accepted, but the thrust of U.S. policy almost immediately and certainly with ever greater intensity was that a legitimate grievance underlies Palestinian claims and led to these events.’

While many Mideast experts see the effort to establish a Palestinian state as a failed project, the Biden-Harris administration has embraced Palestinian demands and sought to push Israel to accept a two-state solution before the Oct. 7 Hamas invasion and after Hamas massacred nearly 1,200 people in Israel.

The language of Biden and Harris towards Ukraine and Israel also shows a disconnect. In September, after Russian missiles killed more than 50 during an attack on a training facility and hospital, Biden said, ‘Make no mistake: Russia will not prevail in this war. The people of Ukraine will prevail. And on this tragic day, and every day, the United States stands with them.’

Terminology that advances victory is largely shunned by Biden and Harris when discussing Israel’s ground wars against Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Biden and Harris went as far as to threaten Israel with punitive measures if the Jewish state invaded the last stronghold of Hamas in the city of Rafah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau called their bluff and defeated Hamas in Rafah, including the elimination of its terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar last month.

French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Biden announced last month during a discussion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Victory Plan ‘their resolve to continue supporting Ukraine in its efforts to secure a just and lasting peace.’ In the same statement, the western world leaders stressed ‘ending the war in Gaza,’ a message to Israel that it recoil from its anti-terrorism war.

Israel Defense Forces have not rooted out all Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip and Hamas’ leadership insists on continuing its war to obliterate the Jewish state. 

The juxtaposition of U.S. policies and language toward the prosecution of wars in Ukraine and in Gaza and Lebanon has revolved around blunting Israel’s paths to victory and its efforts to re-establish deterrence, argue critics of the Biden-Harris school of thought. Ukraine has not experienced the same offensive war restrictions from Biden and Harris, argue experts. 

Wurmser noted that ‘Ukraine is not facing an incessant attempt from the first days of the Ukraine war of self-defense to stop the war in a way that allows its enemy to consolidate its gains and pocket a victory. Only recently has the United States begun to indicate the preference for, but did not impose material pressure on yet, Ukraine to move toward a cease-fire. Not so with Israel.  From the first week of the war, the United States [has tried] to restrain Israel and press it towards a cease-fire.’

He continued, ‘From the start of the Hezbollah attack on Israel on October 8, the United States pressed Israel to minimize its response and move to a cease-fire.  After the Houthis blockaded Israel’s southern port in late October 2023, sent missiles and drones into Israeli cities and attacked Israeli and world shipping, the United States pushed Israel to defer to the United States to guarantee its interests—which it then failed to do. After missiles and drones were sent by Iraqi militias in November 2023 into Israeli cities and ports, the United States similarly urged Israeli passivity but failed to provide Israel security.’

Iran’s regime supports and funds the Houthi movment in Yemen and pro-Iran Iraqi militias.

Biden and Harris have, however, imposed a restriction on Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles. Zelenskyy appealed to the White House, in a late September meeting, that Biden and Harris increase Ukraine’s leverage to defeat Russia by lifting the ban on long-range missiles that can strike Russian territory. Key Republican lawmakers also urged Biden and Harris to permit Ukraine to use the U.S. long-range missile systems. 

Former U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency officer Rebekah Koffler told Fox New Digital that the ‘Biden-Harris Team has been trying to appease Iran by trying to micromanage Israel’s war fighting campaign, in which Israel is working to eliminate the existential threat. This incompetent approach — constantly pressuring Netanyahu to do a cease-fire, not letting him finish the job — is inviting escalation from Iran. Iran is emboldened, having witnessed that Biden-Harris don’t have Israel’s back. Iran has gotten so out of control that they’ve targeted Netanyahu’s home – think about that. The Ayatollahs clearly feel that Biden-Harris are on their side.’

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei taunted the U.S. and the Jewish state with a ‘tooth-breaking’ response to the actions of both countries on Saturday. Iran’s regime vowed to launch a third attack on Israel in response to Israel’s Oct. 26 attack on Iran, which targeted critical military infrastructure. That attack from Israel came in response to a wave of 200-some missiles launched from Iran into Israel on Oct. 1.

The U.S. State Department referred Fox News Digital to the White House for a comment. The White House and the Harris campaign declined to respond to Fox News Digital press queries.

Fox News’ Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Election nights occur in an atmosphere of exhaustion and relief as our presidential campaign cycles have grown longer. Ask people how they feel on election eve, and you’re likely to hear, ‘I just want it to be over.’ We don’t know if a winner will be announced on November 5, or later. But eventually, there will be a winner, and at whatever point either Donald J. Trump or Kamala Harris steps up to the victor’s podium, their words will set the tone for the coming days and years. 

What do the American people want to hear—no matter who is standing there? As a passionate student of our great nation’s remarkable history, I can say they want to hear a message of unity, not division. 

Our forty-first President, George Herbert Walker Bush, was not known for his soaring oratory. However, on the night of November 8, 1988, after winning the presidency, he struck an eloquent note as he shifted from campaign to governance. ‘A campaign,’ he said, ‘is a disagreement, and disagreements divide, but an election is a decision, and decisions clear the way for harmony and peace.’ 

It struck me that the ability to distinguish between the divisive nature of a campaign and the pragmatic unification demanded by governance was a perfect description of the democratic process first executed by the Founders. Bush was saying that he knew people were feeling bruised from the fight, but he hoped they could move on to work together for the good of the nation.

Calls for unity have been a common thread for election night speeches, no matter how divisive our campaigns.

On November 5, 1952, Dwight Eisenhower learned he’d won the election, and began to make his way to the ballroom where his supporters were gathered. He had just replied to a gracious concession telegram from his opponent, Adlai Stevenson. When he arrived in the ballroom, Eisenhower read his response to his supporters. ‘I thank you for your courteous and generous message. Recognizing the intensity of the difficulties that lie ahead, it is clearly necessary that men and women of goodwill of both parties forget the political strife through which we have passed and devote themselves to the single purpose of a better future. This I believe they will do.’ Eisenhower then cautioned the crowd that the only way to succeed in the presidency was as a united people. ‘Let us unite for the better future for America, for our children, and for our grandchildren.’

Not every president-elect, flush with victory, reaches out to the other side, but most do. Probably the most dramatic case was Abraham Lincoln’s reelection in 1864, while the nation was at war. The war showed no signs of abating, and the future was uncertain. Unity seemed impossible. 

Speaking to a crowd, Lincoln noted that it had long been a question, now more urgent, whether the nation could be strong enough to maintain its existence in the worst emergency. He noted that the election ‘has demonstrated that a people’s government can sustain a national election in the midst of a great civil war. Until now, it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows also how sound, and how strong we still are.’ Lincoln asked his supporters to extend goodwill to their opponents and spoke of his hope that a unified nation could endure. The war ended the following year.

Unity did not come easily after the war, and the years after the assassination of Lincoln were tumultuous. In 1868, the Republicans turned to General Ulysses S. Grant, the hero of the war, believing he was the one who could bring the nation together. Grant was a reluctant candidate, but he was clear about his mission. His written acceptance of his nomination contained the line that would become his rallying cry as president: ‘Let us have peace.’

There have been other contentious eras. When Richard Nixon stood before supporters late on the night of November 6, 1968, to declare victory over Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the war in Vietnam was at its height, and masses of antiwar demonstrators filled the streets. The election had been bitter, and many people believed the foundations of democracy were in jeopardy. 

Once again, there was doubt that unity was possible. But that night, Nixon told a story about unity. On the trail, he said, he’d seen many campaign signs. ‘Some of them were not friendly, and some were very friendly. But the one that touched me the most was one that I saw in Deshler, Ohio, at the end of a long day of whistle-stopping, a little town. I suppose five times the population was there in the dusk, almost impossible to see—but a teenager held up a sign, ‘Bring Us Together.’ And that will be the great objective of this Administration at the outset, to bring the American people together. This will be an open Administration, open to new ideas, open to men and women of both parties, open to the critics as well as those who support us.’ 

Conciliatory gestures by the victors are important, but so are offers of support by those who lost. In defeat, many presidential hopefuls stand at the podium, crushed by the loss but holding up their heads along with the principles of democracy. Some can still inspire us.

‘The Nation has spoken,’ Alf Landon wrote to Franklin Roosevelt on November 4, 1936. ‘Every American will accept the verdict and work for the common cause of the good of our country. That is the spirit of democracy.’

In 1948, Thomas Dewey, who might have been shocked to lose since the media had declared him the winner at one point during the vote count, conceded to Harry Truman with these generous words: ‘My heartiest congratulations on your election and every good wish for a successful administration. I urge all Americans to unite behind you in support of every effort to keep our nation strong and free and to establish peace in the world.’

And Walter Mondale, after a humiliating landslide loss to Ronald Reagan in 1984, spoke truly inspiring words about who we are as a nation—articulating the essence of America: ‘Again tonight, the American people, in town halls, in homes, in fire houses, in libraries, chose the occupant of the most powerful office on earth. Their choice was made peacefully, with dignity and with majesty, and although I would have rather won, tonight we rejoice in our democracy, we rejoice in the freedom of a wonderful people, and we accept their verdict. I thank the people of America for hearing my case.’ 

Reagan, in his 1984 election night remarks, spoke about the higher calling, shared by citizens and candidates alike. ‘Here in America, the people are in charge,’ he said. ‘And that’s really why we’re here tonight. This electoral victory belongs to you and the principles that you cling to—principles struck by the brilliance and bravery of patriots more than 200 years ago. They set forth the course of liberty and hope that makes our country special in the world.’ 

The reminder of who we are and who we will become has special meaning on the eve of the 2024 election. On July 4, 2026, about halfway through the next presidential term, we will celebrate the 250th anniversary of America, the date when the founding document of the nation, the Declaration of Independence, was signed. 

It was the beginning of the United States of America. Unity is in our name. 

Bret Baier is a New York Times bestselling author of five presidential biographies. Click here to visit Bret Baier Books.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A year ago, many Democrats believed a Trump nomination would depress Republican turnout, energize the Democratic base, and lead to an easy win on Election Day. But Democrats woke up this morning to a very different race, and they have only themselves to question. 

10: Who pushed President Joe Biden to do such an early presidential debate? 

Were senior Democratic operatives setting Biden up to fail? There was no reason to agree to a debate so early. Were they deliberately trying to create a reason to replace him on the ballot? Or were they legitimately blindsided by his poor performance? Should they have pushed him out sooner? Could they have? Why didn’t he ‘pass the baton’ a year ago? 

9: Was it a mistake to take Biden out of the race? 

They have to wonder if Biden could have won this race. More importantly, would he have done less damage to their brand? Vice President Kamala Harris has hemorrhaged support from working class and minority voters. Why did Biden really drop out? He wasn’t doing press conferences and media interviews, but neither has she. He wasn’t keeping a heavy schedule. Neither has she. He wasn’t coherent on policy. Neither was Harris. Should Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi have stayed their hand? 

8: Did no one see how unprepared Kamala Harris was to be the nominee? 

Surely her inability to articulate policy, think on her feet and connect with voters should have been noticed at some point in her political career. Why didn’t Democrats see her shortcomings in basic retail politics? What if Democrats had actually done a mini-primary to select the best candidate? Obviously, only Harris could access the Biden war chest. But would they have been better off with a less well-funded candidate who could actually take on former President Donald Trump? Why did mainstream Democrats just roll over and allow this to happen? What kind of shenanigans went into her installment as the party nominee? 

7: What if Harris had chosen Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as her running mate? 

Democrats have to wonder if the Jewishness of popular Gov. Shapiro would have been a bigger liability than the dishonesty of Minnesota’s self-described ‘knucklehead’ Governor Tim Walz. Should they have been more prepared to vet vice presidential candidates earlier? If they had picked Shapiro, would that assure a Trump victory in Michigan? 

6: Why was President Barack Obama the last one to endorse? 

Was he expecting a competitive primary? Why wasn’t there one? Did he know how bad Harris would be at campaigning? Why didn’t he speak up?  

5: Why didn’t Democrats benefit from the federal response to Hurricane Helene the way Obama benefited from Hurricane Sandy? 

The whole foundation of the Democratic Party is that government is the solution. But faced with a perfect opportunity to demonstrate the competence of government, the Biden-Harris administration fell flat. Sure, it was a terrible disaster. But so was Hurricane Sandy – yet Obama’s handling of that disaster was ultimately a game changer in the 2012 race. Trump handled disasters with compassion and competence, even when he wasn’t in office (think East Palestine, Ohio, and Hurricane Helene) What got in the way this time? 

4: How did they so badly underestimate Trump’s appeal to their own base of voters? 

Democrats have to be asking themselves if they really understand America. Polling shows Dems are losing union voters, minorities and youth in unprecedented numbers. With two former Democratic presidential candidates endorsing Trump, Harris found herself cozying up to Dick and Liz Cheney for endorsements. Nobody else had that on their bingo card for 2024. Did no one consider whether Harris could successfully distance herself from her radical past? Who did they imagine she would appeal to? 

3: Should Harris have done more to distinguish herself from Biden? 

She couldn’t name one thing she would do differently. Why not? Was Biden so selfish and insecure that he wouldn’t allow her to put any daylight between them? Roughly two-thirds of the country believes the USA is on the ‘wrong track’ and Democrats can’t name anything they would do differently? 

2: How wise was it to put a target on Trump’s back with incendiary rhetoric and insufficient Secret Service protection? 

Without a doubt, the assassination attempts on Trump helped him politically – as did the lawfare by partisan prosecutors and judges. Did Democrats anticipate how badly their plans might backfire? Did the Democrats really believe demonizing Trump as a fascist Nazi while simultaneously claiming to unite the nation as the party of ‘joy’ was going to resonate with independent voters? It was probably a feel-good moment for the liberal base, but it was not a good closing argument.  

1: Do the Bidens secretly want Harris to lose? 

Democrats will inevitably claim that is garbage, but ‘garbage’ is the point. Biden calling Trump supporters ‘garbage’ follows a long line of repetitive disdain for millions of Americans. ‘How could anyone support Trump?’ they bemoan in unison. Could Biden have done more to help her win, perhaps by just being silent? At least twice he stole the limelight from her, holding press conferences directly opposite national appearances she made, and the garbage comment could not have come at a worse time for the V.P. running to replace Joe. Perhaps they are resentful of being pushed off the ticket? 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

At a time when we’re all deluged with conflicting polls and statistical ties, Donald Trump’s campaign is unusually confident.

The Kamala Harris operation also sees reason for optimism, with news that late deciders are breaking her way by more than 10%. But she still casts herself as the underdog. Her ‘SNL’ appearance doesn’t change that; nor does Trump saying that RFK’s plan to remove fluoride from the water, a major public health advance, ‘sounds okay to me.’

Most media folks, either publicly or privately, believe Trump will win, even as the anti-Trumpers beg their followers to turn out for the VP – such as MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace asking her ex-boss George W. Bush to publicly back Harris.

The climax of the campaign seems built around a gaping gender gap–with Kamala doing far better among women and Trump much better among men. 

The view from the Trump camp is that registration figures favor Republicans, based on mail-in voting, in the battleground states that will decide the race. Nearly half the country has already voted.

Take the crucial commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In 2020, Democrats had a 7.5% advantage, and that’s now shrunk to a 3-point edge.

What’s more, just 39% of Democrats who have voted there so far are men, compared to 49% among Republicans.

Democratic strategist Tom Bonier, who appears on MSNBC, says the Pennsylvania electorate is much more Republican, and much more male, than last time.

Harris needs a huge turnout in Philadelphia to carry the state, and numerous news reports say she’s still struggling to win over some Black men.

In Wisconsin, the view from Trump World is that in-person voting (which tends to favor the former president) is outnumbering mail ballots (which lean Democratic). Trump’s strength is among male, white and rural voters. So, as in the case of Philly, Harris must do very well in Milwaukee and Madison to carry the state.

Michigan, which Rep. Debbie Dingell recently told me is a toss-up, remains an enigma, because it doesn’t track party registration. So the ballgame there may turn on how well Harris does in Detroit. 

The Trump camp sees similar advantages in such swing states as Georgia and North Carolina, where public polling is close but would be a bigger stretch for a Harris win. The election really turns on the three Blue Wall states.

Maybe Harris should have picked Josh Shapiro?

In one key state after another, local Black leaders are quoted on the record as saying they’re worried about warning signs in their community:

Politico: ‘The city of Milwaukee is trailing the rest of the state by about 7 percent both in its mail-in return rate and in overall registered voter turnout. It’s a warning sign, even some Democrats privately say, for Harris as her campaign looks to run up the score with urban and suburban voters to overcome Wisconsin’s rural counties.’

Capital B, Atlanta: The turnout of Black voters in Georgia ‘has dropped from more than 29 percent’ on the first day of early voting ‘to about 25 percent…That’s the bad news for Harris…

‘Elected leaders and political observers say Democrats looking for a guaranteed win in statewide office races in Georgia usually need to hit a 30 percent Black turnout rate.’

Charlotte Observer: ‘As of Wednesday, Black voters had cast 207,000 fewer ballots compared with four years ago — a drop of almost 40 percent.’

‘I am worried about turnout in Detroit. I think it’s real,’ said Jamal Simmons, a former Harris aide, told ABC.

A sunnier view is offered by this Politico piece, which says that public polls appear to be undercounting Harris’ support.

The story says that ‘shy Trump voters’ – who don’t want to tell pollsters who they’re supporting–are a thing of the past, given the aggressive nature of his campaign. 

Instead, many ‘forgotten’ Harris voters are missed by the polls, especially Republicans frustrated with their own party: Nikki Haley voters.

Citing a national survey, Politico says 66% of those voting for Haley in the primaries backed Trump in 2016, dropping to 59% four years ago and an estimated 45% this time. ‘Meanwhile, their support for the Democratic presidential nominee has nearly tripled from only 13 percent supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 to 36 percent indicating an intent to vote for Kamala Harris.’

To which I say: Who the hell knows?

We’re at the point now before tomorrow’s election that pollsters are analyzing the polls to figure out which ones are off. And–here comes the cliché – it all depends on turnout. Despite raising a billion bucks, if some of Harris’ potential supporters stay home, that sinks her candidacy.

The scenarios favored by the Trump team rest largely on party registration, not polls that have missed the mark in the last two cycles.

That explains why the former president is more confident, even as he asks his advisers whether they really believe he’s going to win.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Actor and comedian Will Ferrell is throwing his star power behind Kamala Harris – it’s just another in a long list of celebrity endorsements for the vice president.

In an official Harris campaign ad, Ferrell jokingly threatens voters if they don’t vote for Harris.

‘This election is going to be one of the closest in history. Your vote will make the difference,’ Ferrell begins.

He then mocks a voter disagreeing about their vote making a difference. 

‘That means you, Gary. ‘Oh, blah blah blah, I’m just one person.’ No. Shut the f–k up Gary,’ Ferrell says. 

‘Last time, only a few thousand votes kept Trump out of office. And this time, we will hold you personally responsible, Gary’ Ferrell threatens.

Critics took to X, telling the actor to stick to comedy and stay out of politics.

‘Democrats have now resorted to physically threatening people to vote for Kamala. Will Ferrell should’ve stuck to comedy. This isn’t funny at all,’ one user wrote.

‘Will Ferrell is making it REAL tough for me to watch Elf this season,’ another user commented. 

Ferrell joins a list of actors and celebrities who have used their status to endorse Harris in the homestretch of the campaign. 

On Thursday, actors Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, Danai Gurira, Don Cheadle and Paul Bettany took part in a video endorsement, mocked as ‘new cringe’ for Harris and Tim Walz, that was posted on Ruffalo’s X account.

‘We’re back. Let’s #AssembleForDemocracy. In the #ElectionEndgame, every vote counts,’ Ruffalo wrote, encouraging people to vote for Harris and Democrats.

In the video, they jokingly suggested Harris needed a catchphrase, referencing their past movies.

Bettany remarked, ‘How about ‘I’m down with democracy’? It’s clean and simple.’

‘I’m Kamala Harris and I say down with democracy,’ Cheadle joked, adding, ‘Yeah, together we got to tear down democracy.’

Near the end of the video, he phrased it saying, ‘I’m Kamala Harris, and I am down with democracy.’

Singer Beyoncé introduced Harris at a rally in Houston, Texas.

The final New York Times/Siena College Battleground poll of the 2024 race shows a razor-tight election in the battleground states just days before the election.

Trump leads in Arizona, while Harris has a lead in Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin. Michigan and Pennsylvania are tied between the two candidates, according to the poll.

The poll comes just two days before an election that promises to be one of the closest in recent memory, with the New York Times/Siena poll not being the only one showing tight margins.

Fox News Digital’s Lindsay Kornick, Michael Lee, and Paulina Dedaj contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Georgia Republicans and former President Trump’s campaign say that they are continuing to take legal action against ‘coordinated efforts’ by Democrat-heavy counties to accept ballots after the early voting period ended. 

A statement from the Georgia Republican Party, which was obtained by FOX Business on Sunday, detailed the party’s latest efforts to stop counties from counting ballots that were hand-delivered over the weekend. 

The lawsuit names seven counties: Clayton County, Cobb, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Fulton, Chatham and Athens-Clarke. Fulton County houses the capital of the state, Atlanta.

In the letter, chairman Josh McKoon claimed that these counties were ‘illegally accept[ing] ballots this weekend AFTER the end of early voting on Friday.’

‘The Georgia Republican Party, in conjunction with the RNC have filed suit in federal court to halt the counting of these ballots,’ McKoon wrote. ‘At minimum, we want to sequester the ballots that were submitted without proper oversight of our election observers.’

‘Additionally, we have requested Georgia’s Secretary of State and Attorney General get involved to resolve this matter and find answers to the burning questions we all have,’ he added.

McKoon said that the Republican Party intends to find out how a 501c3 organization ‘knew to inform voters within 15 minutes of early voting closure that six Democrat[ic] counties would be extending their weekend hours.’

‘Why didn’t these six counties inform the state board of elections, their county board of elections, the Secretary of State, or their local governments about their plans to essentially extend early voting?’ the letter asked. ‘Who gave the order to Fulton and Chatham County officials to bar poll observers from monitoring the process? Why did they do this?’

McKoon concluded the update by urging Georgia Republicans to ‘keep our foot on the gas.’

‘We will keep the public informed all along the way,’ the Republican said. ‘However, this doesn’t change our overall mission. We MUST keep our foot on the gas and turn out voters on Tuesday like our lives depend on it. Because it does.’

The Trump campaign released a statement on Sunday identifying themselves as one of the suit’s plaintiffs.

‘At the last minute several heavily Democrat counties announced they would open their offices over the weekend to receive mail ballots,’ the campaign said in a statement. ‘This is illegal, so we immediately filed a state court lawsuit. In a win for election integrity, the counties retreated from plans to keep drop boxes open over the weekend, but we continue to fight the illegal re-opening of the centers in state and federal court.’

‘This is a clear, partisan violation of the law intended to boost Democrat efforts in Georgia,’ the campaign’s statement added. ‘With just two days until our country’s most important election, it is critical for officials to follow the law and run the election in a fair and transparent manner.’

The new legal action comes a day after a similar lawsuit brought by Republicans was struck down. On Saturday, a judge in Fulton County dismissed a lawsuit about normally-closed offices allowing voters to hand in their ballots over the weekend.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Kevin Farmer had rejected all arguments presented by GOP attorney Alex Kaufman, who claimed that absentee ballots should not be hand-delivered and accepted after the early voting period ends.

‘I find that it is not a violation of those two code sections for a voter to hand-return their absentee ballots,’ the judge claimed.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Georgia Republican Party for additional comment.

Fox News Digital’s Brie Stimson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS