Over the next few days, minutes will seem like hours, hours like days, as Americans await the outcome of the presidential election that millions believe is all but existential for our nation.

But most of those people already voted, or cannot be swayed by Tuesday.

To fill the monotony, we will be treated, (or tricked) to countless graphs and charts, percentages of which demographics have already voted the most, which party is cannibalizing its votes, but who are these people left to sway?

I found two primary types of Americans, in my hundreds of interviews across America, who told me they were more likely to wait until the last minute to cast a ballot, if they would at all, and that brings us to type 1, possible non-voters. 

By far, the richest potential vein of voters for both campaigns to mine are people who aren’t sure they will even vote, but who would ultimately side with their candidate if they do.

Back in mid-September, I visited a bar in Morgantown, West Virginia in which basically nobody I spoke with was planning to vote, but most of them, when really pressed, leaned heavily in favor of Donald Trump. 

It was a kind of could-be-voter I met in many places across the Rust Belt, and they could determine the outcome of this election all by themselves.

What they were looking for, and what many may still be looking for this weekend, was to be convinced, presumably by Trump, that it really matters one way or the other, if they fill in their little ballot bubble.

If these Doubting Thomases can see proof that something Trump and Vance are planning to do will have a sincere and quick impact on their wellbeing, there is a chance to get them to the polls. What won’t sway them are attacks on Harris or far-left Democrats, because they are past the point of who is worse, they need to believe someone is meaningfully better.

The Harris version of the could be non-voter most often is a person, such as Gregg, in Philly, who I wrote about last week, and others like him in places like North Carolina, who don’t view Harris as sufficiently left wing.

These are typically people who abhor Trump, but view Harris as a tool of an only slightly more preferable political machine that ignores everyday people, and the idea that she is no more to the left than Joe Biden is a huge turn-off for them.

This explains the last week or so of calling Trump a fascist or rolling out Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, on television to shore up the left flank. It also explains why Harris has not been able to effectively move to the center in this campaign.

These voters want red meat, expect the Harris campaign to give it to them.

The second group that holds out until the final day are traditionalists. These are people who never thought voting on Election Day was a problem, and so see no need to fix it by voting early. Some even see a real downside to it.

‘What if that Biden-Trump debate happened last week, after millions had voted,’ a woman in Pennsylvania mentioned to me recently,’and she has a point. 

We know that in the past day of voters have tended to swing Republican. Many traditionalists lean right, after all, but there are Democrats in this group, and crucially, undecided voters – in small numbers, yes, but out there.

We could also call these ‘closing argument voters’ and they very well could be affected by last-minute developments, a November surprise, if you will.

One such development is the abysmal Friday jobs report that showed just 12,000 thousand jobs created in October. That’s like one fifth of a football stadium’s capacity, and could make some of these last minute deciders say, ‘OK, that’s it.’

On the other hand, Harris certainly hopes that accusations of anti-Puerto Rican racism or lies about Trump saying he wants to use the Army against ordinary citizens, will have a similar effect, a final straw for those on the fence. 

Democrats dream of that long-awaited moment when enough voters say, ‘I’ve had it, Trump is flat out unacceptable,’ but Lucy has placed that football on the ground many times in the age of Donald Trump.

These are the voters who are left to sway. There may not be many of them but they may be able to decide the election. Both camps must now fight for them hour by hour, minute by minute, as the final clock runs down. 

Forget goblins, ghosts or ghouls: if you’re working for the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris, the most frightening sight in the lead-up to Halloween has been her highest profile surrogates taking the microphone. As precious seconds tick off the clock, the last week of campaigning has been marred by mistakes, missteps and meltdowns – all from people supposed to be helping the Democratic effort.

Here are three examples.

First, as Harris delivered her closing pitch focused on unity, President Biden was describing half the country as garbage. You can’t make it up. Holed up in the White House, just steps from Harris’ highly choreographed speech on the Ellipse, Biden was – inexplicably – on a public Zoom call when he uttered the remark that took over the political debate: ‘The only garbage I see floating out there is his [Trump] supporters.’

Why an 81-year-old man who had been removed from the race because of widespread concerns about his age and ability was speaking at the same time as the person vowing to replace him remains a mystery. By the end of the week, the White House had altered the official transcript to quell the firestorm, but the damage was done. 

The incident occurred days after an Axios report headlined ‘Harris stiff-arms Biden’ detailing Biden’s unsuccessful attempts to campaign for his second-in-command. The response from the Harris campaign has been ‘we’ll get back to you,’ according to the reporting. Representing one half of an administration with its approval rating in the 30s, it’s not hard to see why.

Biden’s presence undermines Harris’ slogan of a ‘new way forward,’ a message that was further muddled later in the week by the second surrogate fail: former President Bill Clinton telling rallygoers in Michigan the economy was better under Trump. 

It’s said that a ‘gaffe’ is when a politician tells the truth, and to be fair, Clinton’s argument is supported by polling data. Seven in ten voters view the economy negatively, according to a Fox News poll. It’s also far and away the most important issue, and one where Trump has a clear eight-point lead over Harris. Still, it’s not a helpful comment for a candidate trying to connect on core bread and butter issues.

It wasn’t the first slip-up from the 42nd president. Earlier this month, he appeared to criticize the lack of security at the southern border, causing another viral moment and political headache for the Harris campaign. A once-in-a-generation political talent in his prime, the 78-year-old Clinton is a shell of his former self. Eight years ago, while campaigning for his wife, it was clear he had lost a few MPH off his fastball. These days, he can hardly get the ball across the plate.

Finally, and not to be outdone, was Mark Cuban, the billionaire Harris backer who accused Trump of failing to surround himself with ‘strong, intelligent women.’ The backlash was swift and severe, and Cuban was forced to apologize in an early Friday morning social media post.

Like Clinton, it wasn’t the first time Cuban got crossways with the campaign messaging. He had (correctly) described a proposed Biden-Harris tax scheme on unrealized capital gains as ‘an economy killer,’ saying he went ‘ballistic’ when he learned of it. 

Cuban’s presence on the trail is meant to reassure voters that Harris is not the wild-eyed California liberal her opponents are portraying her as. Why would one of America’s most recognizable and successful entrepreneurs sign up for a campaign pushing socialist-style redistribution policies demonizing success? Instead, Cuban became the story, burning precious time as the race entered its final weekend.

When she became her party’s nominee, Kamala Harris faced the unenviable task of introducing herself to voters, presenting herself as a change agent, separating from an unpopular incumbent and going toe-to-toe with one of the most dynamic political figures of modern times – and doing it all in a three-month time window. It was never going to be easy, even if everything went right. 

If Harris comes up short next week, there will be no shortage of finger-pointing and blame to go around. The slip-ups from her ‘supporters’ will be high on that list.

More than a dozen financial officers from 15 states are sending a letter to public pension fund fiduciaries, urging them to cut ties with China-based investments due to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) control over some firms.

‘Trustees of state funds have a duty to investigate investments and a duty to monitor investments and divest from imprudent investments, in order to ensure that those funds grow and are protected for future beneficiaries,’ the letter from 18 state treasurers stated to public pension fund fiduciaries, who include anyone managing a public pension fund. ‘The time has come to divest from China.’

The 18 financial officers – who include some state treasurers – are from Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wyoming.

Financial officers cited a crackdown by the CCP on due diligence firms, which has compromised the reliability of financial audits. They also pointed to CCP interference in stock and bond markets, where efforts to hide foreign investment outflows have been observed.

The CCP maintains extensive control over Chinese companies, including the placement of military and intelligence personnel within them, the letter also states, and keeps the legality of Variable Interest Entities (VIEs) hidden.

These VIEs are offshore shell companies that are often seen as illegal under Chinese law, yet they represent the most common form of investment available to U.S. investors in China. The SEC has warned that the CCP could abruptly declare VIEs illegal, creating significant risks for those who invest in them.

Geopolitical tensions, such as China’s potential invasion of Taiwan, are also of concern to investors. 

Moreover, there has been a notable decline in foreign investment in China, leading to substantial outflows from its markets, the officers warned. This trend has prompted other fiduciaries, including those from states like Florida Indiana, and Missouri, to reconsider their China-based investments.

‘Many fiduciaries, including state pension plans, failed to recognize similar warning signs before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As a result, states lost billions of dollars in value that was held in trust for retirees,’ the letter states. ‘Pension boards should learn from the past, or they will be doomed to repeat it. As state financial officers, we urge public pension boards to analyze these issues, to identify China-based investments, and to divest from those investments in line with their fiduciary duties.’

The bipartisan House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the U.S. and the CCP released a report earlier this year detailing how asset managers and index providers facilitated investment of more than $6.5 billion to 63 companies in China that have been blacklisted or red-flagged by the U.S. government.

Under current law, U.S. government agencies maintain a variety of blacklists and red-flag lists that serve a range of purposes, from barring exports to covered foreign firms and blocking imports due to connections with the use of forced labor, to restricting purchases of equipment that poses a national security risk and more. 

Most of these lists do not restrict U.S. asset managers or investors from investing in listed companies. One list that does restrict U.S. investment in listed firms, the Treasury Department’s NS-CMIC list, blocks investment only in listed firms but excludes those companies’ subsidiaries, allowing them to receive U.S. capital.

Fox Business’ Eric Revell contributed to this report. 

The 18-month civil war in Africa’s third-largest country has left tens of thousands killed and millions of others displaced amid catastrophic famine and raging diseases. The dire crisis in Sudan is currently one of the worst in the world, but as global attention remains focused on the conflict in the Middle East, the African nation is seemingly being forgotten.

Adding to the bleak picture is a new 80-page report from the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan, which sheds light on how militias are preying on women. The fact-finding mission accuses both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the army’s former paramilitary allies, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), of rampant sexual violence. 

The U.N. report documents the pervasive sexual violence and human rights abuses in Sudan, affecting civilians from ages 8 to 75. It details how Sudanese women and girls are being abducted for sexual slavery, accusing the RSF of being behind the ‘large majority’ of cases. Furthermore, the mission reported credible accounts of men and boys being subject to rape and gang-rape. 

The situation has been exacerbated by a severe lack of medical services. The conflict has left most hospitals and clinics destroyed, depriving victims of much-needed medical treatment.

‘The sheer scale of sexual violence we have documented in Sudan is staggering,’ mission Chair Mohamed Chande Othman said in a statement. Sudan’s state of affairs ‘is deeply alarming and needs urgent address,’ he added.

Human rights groups have also sounded the alarm over the abuses women are suffering. Advocates report that sexual atrocities are prompting women to take their lives – either in response to the brutalities they have endured, or to escape it entirely. 

Sudan’s brutal war erupted in April 2023 after a simmering power struggle between the SAF and the powerful paramilitary RSF group exploded into an all-out war. Most recently, intense clashes in east-central Sudan led to the slaying of more than 100 people. The U.N. said that the RSF shot civilians, sexually abused women and girls, and looted properties. 

‘The people of Sudan are living through a nightmare of violence,’ U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council earlier this week. ‘The suffering is growing by the day, with almost 25 million people now in need of humanitarian assistance,’ he emphasized.

As Sudan nears collapse, foreign aid remains insubstantial. Only about half of the U.N.’s $2.7 billion humanitarian appeal for the Northeast African country has been funded. But even as the country faces the world’s worst famine in forty years, it remains forgotten, overshadowed by the Middle East conflict.

Approximately 227 years ago, in 1797, George Washington – our first U.S. president – also became the first U.S. president to voluntarily cede the presidency to his successor. At the time, this was unheard of. For much of human history, power transitions were messy, violent affairs.

The list of European wars of succession runs into the hundreds, with kings and emperors serving for life, only to have their heirs mire entire nations in bloody conflict. At the time Washington submitted his resignation, Bavaria and the entirety of Austria had only recently emerged from such wars.

A contemporaneous revolution in France was engulfed in terror and turmoil. Africa and Asia were plagued by near constant conflict. And five of the 10 deadliest wars in history were Chinese civil wars, claiming tens of millions of lives.

America had been founded, in part, as a rebuke to all that terror. The Founders rejected monarchy – the idea that God had anointed any man or a family by birth to rule by violence over others. They instead embraced a radical idea: people are endowed by their Creator with inherent, unassailable worth. That Creator has given them individual rights – among them ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ And government exists not to enforce the power of autocrats but to guard the rights of individuals. 

For the first time in history, a major power was formed on the idea that government exists ‘of, by, and for the people.’ Further, those intended to lead that government were simply stewards of the entities erected to protect the peoples’ sovereign rights. When representatives’ terms passed, they are not to appoint their heirs or cling violently to the wheel of state. They are to, like Washington’s spiritual predecessor Cincinnatus, lay down their swords and peacefully convey power to those who will then serve in their stead.

At least three times Washington had an opportunity to personally derail this project. During the revolution, he was granted nearly unlimited authorities – akin to those of the Roman dictators. Many suggested that once victorious he should ascend as king, a suggestion he firmly dismissed. Several years later, his soldiers and officers proposed a similar ascent to power only to be once again rejected. 

And finally, after the Congress that established our modern Constitution concluded in 1787 and the states subsequently ratified the document, Washington was the first (and last) man to take the presidency by unanimous consent in 1789. He set all the precedents of the office – including adopting humbler titles and dress then others suggested and dramatically limiting his own powers. Then after only eight years, he voluntarily (and to the surprise of all) decided to retire… setting a precedent of two-term presidencies that would endure until Franklin Roosevelt.

King George III, upon hearing of Washington’s plans to retire, reputedly said, ‘If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.’ He was. More than that, he became one of the greatest men in history. Founder of a nation. General of an army that won an unwinnable war. Unquestioned and universally admired civil leader. The one man in these new United States who could have pulled the fledgling republic together. 

And the one man, who through his restraint and civility cemented its grand traditions, allowed it to embark on history’s most important experiment in self-governance, and empowered it to blossom into the world’s most powerful country.

So admired was Washington that his farewell address, apart from the Bible, was the most popular book in America between 1797 and the Civil War.

When he retired, it was unthinkable that a man of such power would relinquish it for the good of others. But he did, and in so doing set a precedent that America and her leaders were forever committed to the peaceful transfer of office, limitations on the nation’s executive, and acceptance of the democratic process. Moreover, that single example and the radical growth, innovation and prosperity it unleashed revolutionized systems of government around the world. 

Today, U.S.-style representative government is more common than not. Peaceful transfer of power is more common than not. Billions now live empowered over, not crushed under, their leaders. And self-governed societies are typically richer, more beautiful and more powerful than their autocratic enemies. That is a human triumph. It is a spiritual one. It is also one for which our nation’s Founding Father deserves no small measure of praise.

The United States is now approaching its 250th anniversary. We transformed the world. We’ve gradually worked to address the evils and imperfections that remained once the initial revolution was complete. We remain the richest, most powerful, most pluralistic, and freest nation in history. We have been the ‘city on a hill’ our leaders so longed for us to be. 

With the help of our democratic allies, we slew the fascist and communist monsters of the 20th century and created a Pax Americana that helped lift billions out of poverty and made the post-WWII era (apart from the civil horrors of Stalin and Mao) history’s most peaceful. And in our 248th year, we will once again transfer power from one executive and Congress to another, I pray, with peace.

But we all feel the Republic is frayed. The constitutional limits laid out by the Founders and guarded by our forebears have been stretched and strained by those who, as Lincoln once articulated, ‘[thirst] and [burn] for distinction; and… will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen.’ 

Our citizens are now more diverse and divided than ever. Our most recent decade has been pockmarked by violence, riots and turmoil. And our elections – so fundamental to the persistence of self-governance – are plagued by delays, disruptions and widespread questions of legitimacy.

Will we endure? In 2024, it is an open question. No democratic republic has persisted this long. We are in uncharted waters. And history has shown us that even those governmental systems most thoughtfully constructed – America’s first among them – rely on great leaders to eschew the temptations of power and embrace the humility of service.

As we approach the election of Washington’s 46th successor we’d all be wise to consult his farewell address. We’d be wise to be skeptical of power, to demand restraint from our leaders, to remind those who govern that they are servants not lords, and to demand integrity and civility of those from whom great office passes. We should insist on a government of rights not rule. And we should, as Washington so encouraged, ‘Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.’

Our elections are a sacred right and responsibility. Let’s approach the last poll before our quarter-century celebration with integrity, enthusiasm and reverence. Let’s pray those who emerge victorious do so with honor, humility and a deep dedication to the character and principles our founder so aspired to. Let’s hope they lead, like another world changer, ‘With malice toward none with charity for all.’ 

Let’s vow to treat our fellow citizens with love and respect when the election ends. And let’s hope those who hand over the reins of state do so in the grand tradition of a great man who showed us that true courage and character are shown not so much in claiming power but in gracefully letting it pass away.