Tag: FirstWomanVP

The 2024 election delivered a surprising political upheaval, with former President Donald Trump winning not only the Electoral College but making strides in the popular vote, expanding his coalition in ways not previously seen. This win grants Trump the reins of Washington with an unparalleled level of control. Central to his victory were issues that resonated deeply with voters and a campaign that saw significant support, particularly among men. Here’s a breakdown of the factors and shifts that contributed to this election’s outcome.

1. Issues Favoring Republicans from the Start

Voters’ concerns about the economy and high rates of border crossings had simmered for two years, creating a fertile ground for Republican messaging. While indicators like low unemployment, rising wages, and reduced inflation signaled economic recovery, many Americans still felt squeezed by prices that remain higher than pre-pandemic levels. Housing affordability continued to be a top concern, as did the rising interest rates driven by the Federal Reserve’s approach to combating inflation. Though the Fed recently began cutting rates, the effects will not be felt immediately—right as Trump re-enters the White House.

Voters appeared to hold the Biden administration responsible for their struggles despite the U.S. economy outperforming other developed nations. Vice President Kamala Harris, however, couldn’t sufficiently dissociate herself from these economic woes. Polls reflected Biden’s approval at a mere 40%, with two-thirds rating the economy poorly, and 75% of voters experiencing significant inflation-driven hardships over the past year. Trump gained voter trust not only on economic issues but also immigration, crime, and even foreign policy, though the latter was less of a priority for voters.

While Harris held the edge on abortion rights, it was a narrower lead than anticipated, failing to sway enough of the electorate to offset Trump’s strengths in other areas.

2. Surge in White Voter Turnout Boosted Trump

For the first time in decades, white voters’ share of the electorate increased—from 67% in 2020 to 71% in 2024—despite their steadily declining proportion of the overall population. This increase provided Trump with a vital advantage, as white voters have traditionally leaned Republican since at least 1976. With Latino and Asian American demographics growing, the larger-than-expected white voter turnout served as a powerful bolster to Trump’s numbers.

3. Expanded Coalition Driven Largely by Men

Trump attracted 46% of Latino voters, setting a new record for Republican support within this demographic, surpassing even George W. Bush’s 2004 levels. This surge was fueled largely by Latino men, who supported Trump by a significant margin, whereas Harris claimed 60% of Latina voters. A similar gender gap emerged among young voters, with Harris capturing 61% of young women (18 to 29), while young men narrowly leaned towards Trump. In fact, Trump won the male vote across all age brackets, with Harris unable to secure enough support among women to offset this trend.

4. Higher Female Voter Share Did Not Translate to Victory for Harris

While women constituted 53% of the electorate—an increase from 2020—Harris’s performance among female voters fell short of expectations. She won a majority of the female vote, including “moms,” while Trump claimed “dads,” but her 53% share was notably lower than Biden’s 57% in 2020. A divide among white women by education level was evident: Harris gained with college-educated white women, but Trump performed better with those without college degrees, who turned out in higher numbers. White men with and without college degrees also leaned towards Trump, leaving Harris unable to bridge the gap.

5. Gender Divide Raises Questions on a Female Presidency

Harris’s loss raises questions about the readiness of the American electorate to support a female president. Some analysts believe that being tied to the Biden administration’s struggles worked against her. Had a Republican been in office during this period of economic unease, Harris might have seen a different result. Surveys indicated gendered perceptions of her campaign promises, with most women seeing her proposals as sincere, while men expressed skepticism, viewing her promises as strategic vote-seeking moves. This divide will likely prompt ongoing discussion regarding gender dynamics in U.S. politics.

6. Ticket-Splitting Helped but Couldn’t Prevent GOP Dominance

Democratic candidates outperformed Harris in numerous House and Senate races, indicating a degree of ticket-splitting. Senate Democrats held margins against Republicans in many states, including Montana, Arizona, and Ohio, but fell short in Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Democrats also hoped to win or retain House seats in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and California, yet are expected to fall just short of the majority. The top-ticket outcome underscored the challenges of riding against a strong presidential ticket during election cycles.

7. Democratic Voter Turnout Was Noticeably Lower

Compared to Biden’s record-breaking 81 million votes in 2020, Harris may come up nearly 10 million votes short. Blue states like New York, New Jersey, and Maryland saw substantial declines in support, with Harris receiving roughly 900,000 fewer votes in New York, 500,000 in New Jersey and Maryland, 300,000 in Massachusetts, and 180,000 in Virginia. Director of the Monmouth Poll, Patrick Murray, noted a 15% drop in Northeastern states, Minnesota, and Illinois, while red states saw a 10% decline and swing states around 4%. In contrast, Trump improved his numbers across all regions, particularly in swing states.

8. Polls Underestimated Trump but Highlighted Key Trends

Polling averages underestimated Trump’s support, showing Harris with a slight lead, which ultimately didn’t hold. Trump is expected to win the popular vote 50%-48%, with polling largely reflecting Harris’s numbers but misjudging Trump’s base strength, especially in swing states. Historically, polls have underestimated Trump’s support, with late-deciding voters swinging his way—this election was no exception. Trump won voters who decided in the last days and weeks by significant margins, demonstrating his late-game momentum.

Despite some miscalculations, the polls accurately captured certain dynamics, like Harris’s lower support among Latinos and young voters. While Harris’s campaign opened strong, the polls showed a tightening race about a month before the election, with Trump eventually leading in the swing state average. Factoring previous polling errors, analysts noted the potential for a major Trump Electoral College victory, which ultimately materialized.

9. Democrats Face a Crossroads on Future Strategy

As with every election loss, Democrats now face the task of analyzing their shortcomings and plotting a way forward. The Democratic Party’s ongoing struggle to connect with working-class voters—once a solidly Democratic base—remains a challenge. Harris narrowly lost suburban voters, and those earning between $30,000 and $100,000 largely supported Trump, while Democrats held onto wealthier, college-educated voters. This realignment could place Democrats at risk of becoming a party perceived as catering to elites—a demographic insufficient in numbers to guarantee future victories.

The future of the Democratic Party depends on its ability to regain working- and middle-class support, particularly as rural regions continue to favor Republicans. Yet, it’s worth noting how quickly political dynamics can shift. Just a decade ago, Republicans were worried about their standing among Latino voters and anticipated a permanent minority unless they pursued immigration reform. Yet, the party’s shift in direction resulted in record Latino support in this election.

Thus, while trends may seem to indicate one trajectory, political landscapes are fluid. The unexpected gains for Trump underscore that anticipated outcomes aren’t always what materialize. The Democratic Party now faces the challenge of recalibrating to appeal to a broader cross-section of voters as it contemplates the future.

Donald Trump has secured Arizona in the presidential election, marking a complete sweep across all seven key battleground states. The Associated Press called the Arizona race for Trump on Saturday, effectively solidifying his victory over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. With the Arizona win, Trump now has a decisive electoral college lead with an anticipated final tally of 312 votes against Harris’s 226, surpassing the 270 votes required for a White House victory.

This victory in Arizona restores the state to the Republican camp after Joe Biden won it in 2020 and represents Trump’s second win there since his initial 2016 campaign. During his campaign, Trump emphasized issues such as border security and economic stability, aligning Harris with inflation and unprecedented levels of illegal border crossings during Biden’s administration. His stance on these matters appeared to resonate with voters in Arizona, contributing to his success in the state.

Alongside Arizona, Trump clinched victories in other crucial swing states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Nevada. In 2020, Biden had defeated Trump by securing six out of these seven swing states, narrowly losing only North Carolina. Biden’s 2020 win brought him 306 electoral college votes to Trump’s 232, an inversion of Trump’s previous success. Trump’s victory in 2016 also saw him capturing 306 electoral votes in his race against Hillary Clinton.

The Associated Press reports that nationwide, Trump garnered approximately 74.6 million votes, or 50.5% of the popular vote, surpassing Harris’s 70.9 million votes, which accounted for 48%.

In Arizona’s closely watched Senate race, Republican Kari Lake trails Democratic candidate Ruben Gallego by a narrow margin. Lake, who has publicly disputed the legitimacy of Biden’s 2020 presidential win, was behind Gallego with 48.5% to his 49.5%, a gap of around 33,000 votes as of mid-morning on Saturday.

Other races within Arizona remain highly competitive, including the contest for the state’s sixth congressional district between incumbent Republican Juan Ciscomani and Democratic contender Kirsten Engel.

The broader election outcome signals a shift in power as Republicans appear to be nearing control of the House of Representatives, complementing their victory in the Senate. With majorities in both chambers, Republicans would be positioned to advance a comprehensive policy agenda, potentially focusing on tax and spending reductions, energy sector deregulation, and enhanced border security measures.

Donald Trump’s path back to the White House was marked by pivotal shifts among both small demographic groups and larger population categories, according to the AP VoteCast survey of over 120,000 voters nationwide. His electoral success hinged on retaining his core base—white voters, those without college degrees, and older voters—while also making gains among younger voters, Black and Hispanic men. Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent, saw slight improvement, particularly with white, college-educated men in urban areas. However, these gains fell short in balancing her losses in other groups.

Trump’s Increased Share of the Youth Vote

Compared to 2020, Trump’s coalition included a larger portion of younger voters. Trump’s base grew primarily due to his ability to secure slightly more than half of voters over the age of 45, while Harris secured a comparable share of voters under 45. However, older voters remain a larger segment of the electorate, giving Trump an advantage since roughly 60% of voters in the 2024 election were over 45 years old. Although he retained a similar portion of older voters as in 2020, Trump managed to increase his appeal among younger voters. He captured nearly half of the under-45 demographic in 2024, a notable rise from the four in 10 he won in 2020.

This increase was even more pronounced among the youngest voters aged 18 to 29. Trump garnered support from nearly 46% of this age group, marking a significant increase from the 36% he had attracted in the previous election.

Support Among Voters Without a College Degree

Voters without college degrees continued to form a core part of Trump’s coalition, with approximately six in 10 Trump voters lacking a college education. A majority of voters in this election did not hold college degrees, and Trump held a strong lead among them, securing 55% of their support compared to Harris’ 40%. This outcome reflected a downturn for the Democrats since Biden nearly matched Trump among non-college-educated voters in 2020, drawing 47% compared to Trump’s 51%.

Trump’s success among non-college-educated voters was largely driven by gains among non-white men and younger voters without college degrees. Additionally, he drew more support from non-white women without a college degree than he had in the last election. In contrast, Harris retained the level of support that Biden had achieved among college-educated voters, who constituted 44% of the electorate, with the majority backing her. About four in 10 college-educated voters chose Trump, a figure that left Harris struggling to balance her losses among voters without college degrees.

Trump’s Standing Among White, Black, and Hispanic Voters

Trump’s 2024 coalition was primarily white, much like it was in 2020, yet it grew more diverse as he made gains among small but significant groups. Approximately three-quarters of the electorate consisted of white voters, with their support for Trump remaining stable at a national level. Notably, Trump made some inroads among Black and Hispanic voters, each group making up around 10% of voters in this election.

While Harris received support from roughly eight in 10 Black voters, this figure dropped from the nine in 10 Black voters who supported Biden in the last election. Similarly, although Harris secured more than half of Hispanic voters, this figure fell slightly from Biden’s nearly 60% share.

Trump’s outreach among young Black men eroded a crucial demographic for the Democrats, as about three in 10 Black men under the age of 45 supported Trump—a near doubling of his support from 2020. Additionally, young Latino men showed increased openness to Trump; around half of Latino men under 45 cast their votes for Harris, a dip from the six in 10 who supported Biden.

Urban, Suburban, and Rural Divide in Trump and Harris Support

Much like the last election, Trump’s strongest backing came from rural areas, whereas Harris saw her most concentrated support in urban centers. Nearly 45% of voters identified as suburban residents, with approximately half supporting Harris and 46% favoring Trump. Trump commanded about six in 10 voters from small towns and rural areas, while Harris received the same level of support among urban voters.

Education also played a role in shaping regional support. Trump made modest gains among urban voters without college degrees, as well as non-white voters in urban and rural areas. His support among white men without a college degree living in urban areas also rose, with around six in 10 backing him compared to just half in 2020.

In contrast, Harris made strides over Biden’s 2020 numbers among urban, college-educated white men. About two-thirds of this group supported her, an increase from Biden’s support among half of them in the last election.

Duane Canther, a 66-year-old union worker in Michigan, reflects a growing group of voters who split their ballots in recent elections. Although Canther supported President-elect Donald Trump, he backed Libertarian Joseph Solis-Mullen over the major party candidates in Michigan’s Senate race, which was narrowly won by Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin over former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers by just 0.4 percentage points. Trump, by comparison, led the presidential race in Michigan with a 1.4-point margin. Canther explained his choice, saying, “I voted just to say I voted for somebody. They say if you don’t vote you can’t complain.” He added, “I felt both of them were flipping back and forth on certain things,” referring to the main party Senate nominees.

Similar voting patterns were evident in Wisconsin, where Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin retained her seat despite Trump winning the state. “Ticket-splitting” voters played a significant role, as demonstrated in North Carolina, where Trump won, but voters chose Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein for governor. Trump also prevailed in Nevada, where Democratic incumbent Sen. Jacky Rosen defeated her Republican rival Sam Brown. Trump appears set to win Arizona, where Democratic Rep. Reuben Gallego is leading Republican Kari Lake in the Senate race.

Some critical exceptions to this trend included Republicans successfully ousting incumbent Democratic Senators Jon Tester in Montana, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. Despite their losses, all three outperformed Vice President Kamala Harris in their respective states. Although ticket-splitting has diminished in recent decades due to increased partisanship, outcomes in key states indicate it remains influential. Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, remarked, “There are still differences between presidential and Senate races, and those differences broke in Democrats’ favor across these states.”

In these swing states, Democrats actively worked to separate themselves from President Joe Biden, whose approval ratings have been low. In Arizona, Gallego emphasized strengthening border security, while Rosen highlighted bipartisan efforts to upgrade Nevada’s infrastructure. Baldwin, in Wisconsin, focused on policies supporting farmers, and Slotkin stressed her commitment to American manufacturing in Michigan. Some experts argue that many Trump supporters either refrained from voting down-ballot or chose third-party candidates. Others contend that down-ballot Democrats swayed Trump voters by promoting a distinct image from the national Democratic Party.

Barry Burden, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explained, “The Senate candidates are often well known to voters” due to intensive campaigns, which include extensive advertising. Burden noted that similar voter turnout across both presidential and Senate races indicates that a portion of voters deliberately chose candidates from opposing parties. He elaborated, “So voters in some places are making real distinctions to say this is not somebody who is aligned with Trump or represents him in the same way, or this is someone who has the state’s interest in mind in a way that other candidates don’t. And that really is a different story from one state to the next.”

Historically, split-ticket voting was more prevalent, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, when political parties were more ideologically diverse. For instance, although Ronald Reagan won a landslide in 1984, states he won, like Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, elected Democratic Senators. Similarly, during Bill Clinton’s re-election in 1996, Republican Senators were still elected in Clinton-carrying states such as Arkansas, Oregon, and Maine. As parties have become more polarized, voters have found it increasingly challenging to justify choosing candidates from both parties. Burden estimates that only about one in ten voters now split their ballots.

Today, some of the last remaining Senate Democrats from conservative states include Tester, Brown, and retiring West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who will be succeeded by Republican Sen.-elect Jim Justice. According to political scientists, split-ticket voters typically show lower political engagement, possess limited candidate knowledge, lack strong party affiliation, and often decide late. Burden pointed out that these voters are more influenced by individual candidates’ performance rather than national politics, stating, “They’re much more responsive to who the individuals are and to their performance in office and much less susceptible to the Washington style of defining politics.”

While Trump’s victory did not hinge on split-ticket voters, their behavior shows the limits of his appeal in certain regions. He would have still achieved the 270 electoral votes necessary to win without Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, or Arizona, all states where Democratic Senate candidates won or are leading. If Trump had also lost North Carolina, the electoral map would have shifted, favoring Harris.

Ticket-splitting is also more common in gubernatorial races. Maryland’s former Republican Governor Larry Hogan, who served from 2015 to 2023, led a heavily Democratic state but lost his Senate race to Democrat Angela Alsobrooks. Voters in Maryland also chose Harris for president.

The Democratic Senate candidates’ victories will determine the scale of the Republican majority in the upper chamber. It is projected to be between 52 and 55 seats. A smaller majority would limit Republicans’ legislative leverage, requiring bipartisan support to overcome the 60-vote threshold needed to counter a filibuster. As Burden noted, “Ticket splitters are more casual voters, but they end up being the ones who make a big difference.”

In one of the most intense presidential elections in U.S. history, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris conceded defeat to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, ending a hard-fought campaign for the White House. Speaking to her supporters for the first time after the results, Harris, the outgoing Vice President, committed to a peaceful transition of power, a promise underscored by indirect references to Trump’s previous reluctance to leave office following his defeat in the 2020 election.

“While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fuelled this campaign,” Harris told the crowd gathered at Howard University, her alma mater. Her supporters, visibly emotional, listened as she affirmed her continued faith in America’s promise despite the disappointing outcome. “My heart is full today—full of gratitude for the trust you have placed in me, full of love for our country, and full of resolve,” she said, expressing appreciation for her supporters’ efforts throughout the campaign.

While acknowledging the election results, Harris stressed her personal disappointment: “The outcome of this election is not what we wanted, not what we fought for, not what we voted for. But hear me when I say: The light of America’s promise will always burn bright.” She emphasized that the ideals and principles she advocated during the campaign would endure beyond the election.

In an effort to inspire hope amidst the difficult news, Harris invoked what she described as “a law of history,” referencing the belief that “only when it is dark enough can you see the stars.” She continued, “I know many people feel like we are entering a dark time, but for the benefit of us all, I hope that is not the case. America, if it is, let us fill the sky with the light of a brilliant, billion stars. The light of optimism, of faith, of truth and service.” Harris encouraged her supporters to hold onto hope and stand together with optimism and resilience.

She also urged her followers to accept the election results and come to terms with the outcome. “Folks are feeling and experiencing a range of emotions right now, I get it. But we must accept the results of this election,” she remarked, acknowledging the challenges her supporters might face in accepting the outcome but emphasizing the importance of democratic norms.

Harris disclosed that she had spoken with Trump earlier in the day to assure him of her administration’s cooperation in the transition process. “I also told him that we will help him and his team with their transition and that we will engage in a peaceful transfer of power,” Harris stated, underscoring her dedication to a smooth handover.

Meanwhile, Trump addressed his own supporters in a victory speech, promising a renewed focus on his campaign pledge to “Make America Great Again, again.” The 78-year-old Republican thanked his campaign team and his voters for their unwavering support, calling his triumph “magnificent.” Trump’s victory was clinched with wins in key battleground states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, among others. These decisive victories underscored the electorate’s attention to critical issues such as the economy, immigration, inflation, and healthcare.

In the lead-up to his return to the White House for a second term, Trump spoke of his confidence in reviving America’s fortunes and building on his previous policies. His return to the presidency after his controversial exit in 2020 marks a significant chapter in U.S. politics, with a historic comeback for a former president.

Current President Joe Biden also reached out to Trump by phone, with plans to address the nation on Thursday (Eastern Time). In his conversation, Biden congratulated Trump on his victory and expressed his commitment to a peaceful and cooperative transition process. According to a senior White House official, Biden reiterated the importance of unity and invited Trump to meet with him in the White House. “President Biden expressed his commitment to ensuring a smooth transition and emphasized the importance of working to bring the country together. He also invited President-elect Trump to meet with him in the White House,” the official noted. The two teams are expected to schedule a specific date for the meeting soon.

Trump’s inauguration will mark him as the 47th President of the United States, a position he last held before a contentious departure four years ago. His return to office underscores the impact of his continued influence and his enduring appeal among his base, as well as the broader American public’s division on key issues shaping the nation’s future.

Usha Chilukuri Vance, born and raised in California, represents the deep-rooted connection of Telugu-speaking Indians in America, with nearly 200,000 people from the community residing in the state. Her connection to India has taken on new significance following the recent U.S. election, which has seen her husband, JD Vance, become the Republican candidate for Vice President. The importance of her Telugu heritage and the influence of Indian Americans in U.S. politics is highlighted by the fact that celebrations and prayers were conducted in Indian villages in support of both Democratic and Republican candidates.

Political Support Echoes in Indian Villages

Although separated by thousands of kilometers, the election in the United States resonated in two villages in India, each with its own connection to the candidates. In Tamil Nadu’s Thulasendrapuram village, where Kamala Harris’s maternal ancestry is rooted, residents held special prayers for the Democratic candidate. Thulasendrapuram, the village of Harris’s mother Shyamala Gopalan, reverberated with chants and hymns as villagers rallied in support of Harris, whose mother emigrated from Chennai to America.

Conversely, prayers were also held in Andhra Pradesh’s Vadluru village, the ancestral hometown of Usha Chilukuri Vance’s family, for JD Vance and his campaign. With JD Vance married to Usha, an American-born woman of Indian heritage who shares ties with Andhra Pradesh, the Republican campaign stirred enthusiasm in her ancestral land. Usha’s family emigrated from Andhra Pradesh, with her parents working as professionals in the United States—her father an engineer and her mother a biologist. Her faith remains a core part of her life, and she practices Hinduism; she has even influenced her husband to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, showcasing the cultural bridge between their backgrounds.

Kamala Harris and Usha Vance: Iconic Figures of the Indian-American Narrative

As Harris praised her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, for her “courage and determination” in moving to America alone at just 19, parallels were drawn with Usha Vance’s own journey alongside her husband, JD Vance. Usha met JD Vance while studying at Yale Law School, and their relationship flourished. The couple eventually married in a traditional Hindu ceremony, blending their faiths and traditions.

For many Indian Americans, particularly those in California, where Telugu is widely spoken, Usha Vance’s prominence brings new visibility to their community. Although JD Vance’s candidacy might appear surprising given the historical Democratic allegiance among Indian Americans, Usha’s active role and strong connection to her cultural roots make her a significant figure within the Indian-American diaspora, particularly for Telugu speakers.

Usha Vance’s Influence in Her Husband’s Career

Usha Vance has played a central role in JD Vance’s political life, frequently supporting and advising him on his political journey. The New York Times reports that the two organized a group at Yale Law School to explore themes of “social decline in white America,” illustrating her involvement in his early career. Usha has gained professional experience as a litigator, beginning her career at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, a prestigious law firm where she worked in both San Francisco and Washington, D.C., from 2015 to 2017. Later, she clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 before returning to Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in January 2019.

The couple’s partnership has been instrumental to Vance’s career, and JD Vance often speaks of Usha as his “partner in every sense of the word.” Her support has helped him navigate the challenges of political life, and her influence has contributed to his rise within the Republican Party. This shift has aligned the Telugu community and the broader Indian-American base with a renewed interest in Republican politics, marking a distinct shift in the typically Democratic-leaning Indian-American electorate.

Changing Political Landscape Among Indian Americans

The shift in Usha Vance’s prominence coincides with a broader political shift within the Indian-American community. The “Indian Americans at the Ballot Box” survey, conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, underscores this change, showing a slight increase in Republican support among Indian Americans. The survey indicates that 57% of Indian Americans now identify as Democrats, a drop from 66% in 2020, while those identifying as Republicans have risen from 18% to 27%.

During the 2020 Presidential election, Indian Americans overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidate Joe Biden, with 68% casting their votes for him compared to 22% for the Republican incumbent, Donald Trump. However, by 2024, support among Indian Americans had shifted, with approximately 60% favoring the Democratic Party led by Kamala Harris and 30% aligning with Trump. This change highlights the evolving political preferences within the Indian-American community, particularly as more Indian-American men lean towards the Republican Party, whereas Indian-American women tend to favor the Democratic Party.

The Rise of Republican Support Among Indian Americans

Although the majority of Indian Americans still support the Democratic Party, the slight shift towards Republican support reflects a diversification of political views within the community. This change is not merely a shift in party allegiance but also signifies the expanding influence of Indian Americans in U.S. politics, as they navigate a spectrum of political choices that reflect a growing sense of agency within the community.

The 2024 election cycle reveals that Indian Americans, historically steadfast in their support for the Democratic Party, are now reconsidering their affiliations. As Republicans welcome an increasing number of Indian Americans, especially among the younger generations, prominent figures like Usha Vance play a key role in representing this change.

Two Faces of the Indian-American Dream

Kamala Harris and Usha Vance symbolize the diversity and resilience of the Indian-American experience. While Harris, with her maternal Tamil Nadu heritage, has become a symbol for Democratic supporters, Usha Vance represents a new alignment for Indian Americans with the Republican Party, particularly among Telugu-speaking communities. Each woman embodies a distinct aspect of the Indian-American narrative, yet together they highlight the contributions and accomplishments of this diverse community within the U.S. political landscape.

For the Telugu-speaking population, which has grown significantly in recent years, Usha Vance’s presence in American politics resonates as a point of pride. Donald Trump’s victory has brought renewed focus to Usha, especially among Telugu Americans in the U.S., who celebrate her influence and her husband’s achievement.

A Community Reflects on its Political Identity

The recent Republican victory, symbolized by Usha Vance’s rise, reflects a significant cultural and political shift within the Indian-American diaspora. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana’s increasing immigrant numbers have bolstered Republican support, showing a community keenly aware of its influence and willing to embrace diverse political identities. The desi focus in America, once firmly behind Kamala Harris, has begun to include figures like Usha Chilukuri Vance, whose heritage and professional success provide a fresh lens for examining the political landscape.

Both Kamala Harris and Usha Vance, with their respective ties to Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, offer a rich dual narrative for Indian Americans, showcasing how the community has navigated, contributed to, and flourished within the United States. The evolution of the Indian-American political base mirrors the community’s own journey in America—adaptable, resilient, and increasingly influential across the political spectrum.

The 2024 U.S. presidential election presents a scenario that few would have imagined years ago. Donald Trump, after a dramatic fall from grace, has clawed his way back to lead the Republican Party, and Vice President Kamala Harris has emerged from political obscurity to secure the Democratic nomination. It’s an election where history has been made repeatedly, creating an air of unpredictability around the outcome.

Trump, once considered unlikely to regain political traction following his departure from the White House and two impeachments, is now the Republican nominee. Harris, who has endured a low-profile term as vice president, was unexpectedly thrust into the limelight when President Joe Biden withdrew from the race, endorsing her as his successor. For both candidates, it has been a journey defined by unlikely comebacks and controversies that have further polarized the nation.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse remarked on the surreal nature of this election: “If someone had told you ahead of time what was going to happen in this election, and you tried to sell it as a book, no one would believe it.” Newhouse emphasized the energizing yet divisive nature of the campaign, hoping it would ultimately lead to a better America.

For Trump, the Republican path was complex but achievable. Despite facing significant opposition within his own party and severe legal challenges, his resilience surprised many political analysts. After Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump’s encouragement of his supporters led to a violent storming of the U.S. Capitol, many Republicans distanced themselves. They anticipated that other figures, like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis or former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, might emerge as viable alternatives. Yet, Trump’s influence persisted, with the party ultimately failing to fully abandon him.

In the year following his announcement to run against Biden, Trump encountered four major legal indictments. Two of these cases related to his alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss, while another involved mishandling classified documents. A New York court convicted Trump of falsifying business records in May, making him the first U.S. president to face criminal conviction. Even so, his political momentum was largely unaffected, and his supporters rallied around his cause, viewing his legal troubles as evidence of a biased system.

Trump’s campaign was fueled by widespread frustration over inflation and the issue of border security. He criticized Biden’s age and mental fitness, despite only a four-year age difference, and pointed out the administration’s struggles. These concerns resonated with many voters, lending credibility to Trump’s campaign. On July 13, during a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, which ended with him rallying his supporters while injured. The incident became an iconic image of his resilience, bolstering his support among Republican voters.

While Trump’s resurgence dominated headlines, Harris experienced a turnaround of her own. She was initially seen as a likely replacement for Biden’s vice-presidential candidate but lacked a solid base due to her low-profile performance and limited influence. However, Biden’s unexpected decision to step aside in favor of Harris changed everything, giving her an opportunity to reshape her political identity. “We are not going back,” Harris declared, framing her campaign as a push for progress and inclusivity.

Her evolution as a leader began in June 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Harris became a vocal proponent of abortion rights, a stance that resonated strongly with a significant portion of the electorate. Her bold move to show solidarity with expelled Tennessee lawmakers protesting for gun control further showcased her willingness to champion progressive causes.

Following Biden’s announcement, Harris moved swiftly to consolidate support within the Democratic Party. By the time she formally accepted the nomination, her team had launched an aggressive campaign focused on progressive policies. In her only debate with Trump on Sept. 10, Harris promoted plans to restore abortion rights and aid small businesses, contrasting with Trump’s call for economic protectionism and divisive rhetoric on immigration. Trump accused her of being “the worst vice president in the history of our country,” a claim that added fuel to an already intense election season.

The vice president’s campaign has benefited from her increased connections with influential local figures and communities. Since stepping into her new role, Harris has worked to position herself as a capable leader, emphasizing both her vision for America and her role in advancing equality and social justice.

Despite these distinct campaign strategies, the race between Trump and Harris remains tight. Pundits and pollsters continue to scrutinize every shift in public opinion, knowing that even minor fluctuations could determine the election’s outcome.

Americans are casting their votes in a tightly contested presidential election on Tuesday, with polling hours beginning to close at 18:00 EST (23:00 GMT) and wrapping up at 01:00 EST (06:00 GMT) on Wednesday. Despite previous elections where results were called within hours, this year’s competitive race between Democratic Vice-President Kamala Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump may require additional time before a winner is declared. In past elections, winners have been named by late Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning, but this year’s close competition could delay media outlets from projecting a definitive victor.

The razor-thin margin of victory in some states may also lead to recounts. For instance, Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state, mandates a recount if the margin between candidates is less than 0.5%. In the 2020 election, Pennsylvania’s margin was only slightly above 1%, highlighting how close this year’s results could be. Legal disputes are also anticipated, with more than 100 lawsuits filed before election day, primarily by Republicans questioning voter eligibility and management of voter rolls.

Delays in results could also be exacerbated by election-related disruptions, such as issues at polling sites. However, in certain areas like Michigan, the speed of vote counting has improved since 2020, as fewer mail-in ballots were cast compared to the pandemic election period.

Historically, results for most presidential races have been declared within hours. For instance, Trump was confirmed as the 2016 winner by 03:00 EST on election night, and in 2012, Obama’s reelection was projected before midnight. However, the 2000 election serves as a notable outlier; the battle between George W. Bush and Al Gore extended over five weeks and was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court, which ruled to halt Florida’s recount, securing Bush’s win.

This election is expected to hinge on outcomes from seven key swing states where both Harris and Trump have viable chances of victory. Early voting turnout has been exceptionally high, breaking records in states like Georgia, where election officials estimate around 75% of ballots will be counted within the first two hours after polls close. North Carolina’s votes, on the other hand, are expected to be available by night’s end. Pennsylvania may take at least 24 hours for a sufficient number of votes to be tallied to determine a winner, while Michigan’s results are anticipated late Wednesday. Wisconsin could provide early data after its polls close at 21:00 EST, though a final outcome may not be available until the next day.

In Arizona, preliminary results might be reported as soon as 22:00 EST, but Maricopa County, the state’s largest, warns that full results might not arrive until early Wednesday. The situation in Nevada could be even more prolonged, as mail-in ballots postmarked on election day are accepted until 9 November.

Election analysts caution against interpreting early vote counts as definitive, noting that in 2020, initial results favored Trump before mail-in ballots boosted Biden’s totals. This led to Trump’s subsequent false claims that the election was “stolen.” Experts predict similar shifts may occur this year, with a possible “red mirage” favoring Trump or a “blue mirage” suggesting an early lead for Harris. According to the University of Florida’s Election Lab, over 83 million Americans have voted early, with women constituting 54% of these voters—a demographic that may benefit Harris. However, Republican turnout in early voting has also risen significantly, indicating a less predictable trend.

The process of tallying votes usually starts with those cast on election day, followed by early and absentee ballots, challenged votes, and finally military and overseas ballots. Local election officials, some appointed and others elected, conduct canvassing to verify and process each ballot. This meticulous process involves comparing cast ballots with active voter lists, checking for any ballot damage, and resolving inconsistencies. The votes are then fed into electronic scanners to be tabulated, though some cases may require manual recounts or verification. Strict regulations govern every state and county, including who can oversee the canvassing and how partisan observers are permitted to monitor vote counting.

After every valid ballot is included, the electoral college process begins, determining the presidency based on electoral votes rather than popular votes. Each state awards its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the majority, a result confirmed after electoral college meetings on 17 December. On 6 January, the newly convened US Congress meets to count these votes and formally confirm the next president.

Following the 2020 election, Trump refused to accept defeat, calling on supporters to protest at the Capitol on the day Congress certified Biden’s win. Trump also pressed Vice-President Mike Pence to reject the results, though Pence declined. Despite attempts by some congressional Republicans to overturn Biden’s victory, reforms since then have clarified that the vice president lacks the authority to discard electoral votes unilaterally. Still, concerns persist that efforts to contest the 2024 results could arise at local and state levels, especially given that Trump and Republican leaders, including running mate JD Vance, have refrained from unequivocally committing to accept the election outcome.

If the election results in a tie—an outcome that would yield each candidate 269 electoral votes—then the House of Representatives would vote to select the president in a procedure called a contingent election, while the Senate would choose the vice-president. Although such a situation has not occurred in roughly 200 years, it remains a constitutional possibility.

The new president will be inaugurated on 20 January 2025, marking the 60th such ceremony in US history. During this event, the president-elect will pledge to uphold the Constitution before delivering their inaugural address on the grounds of the US Capitol.

As the 2024 presidential race nears its conclusion, America is on the brink of witnessing a historic moment, regardless of the outcome.

Should Vice President Kamala Harris win, she would become the first woman to hold the highest office in the United States. In contrast, if former President Donald Trump emerges victorious, he would be the second president in history to secure a return to the White House after a failed reelection bid, and the first former president to achieve this despite a criminal conviction.

ABC News presidential historian Mark Updegrove reflected on the weight of this election, stating, “You hear inevitably every four years that this is the most important election of one’s lifetime, but there is no question in my mind that this is the most important election of my lifetime, and probably the most important since 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency and the fate of the country was in the balance.” Updegrove attributed the extraordinary nature of this election to both the historic backgrounds of Harris and Trump, and the ideological stakes of the race, which he described as a pivotal moment for American democracy and global diplomacy.

The political spectrum is polarized by the stark differences between Harris and Trump. “I’ve never in my life, again, seen such a marked difference in what the candidates stand for and the policy positions they have articulated,” Updegrove noted, pointing to Trump’s unconventional stance on key issues as a departure from traditional U.S. leadership.

The 2024 election cycle itself has been one of unprecedented twists and turns. President Joe Biden initially launched his reelection campaign in April 2023 and dominated the primary season with uncontested wins across all states. However, a highly anticipated and early debate with Trump in June turned the tables, as Biden’s performance led to increased concerns about his age, especially among his Democratic supporters. In July, after mounting pressure from his party, Biden stepped down, subsequently endorsing Harris—already the first Black and South Asian woman to serve as vice president—to succeed him as the Democratic nominee. By early August, Harris officially took the helm of the Democratic ticket following a virtual delegate voting process.

During her acceptance speech in Chicago, Harris spoke about the overarching themes of her campaign, calling it a “fight for America’s future.” Political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus from the University of Houston remarked on the extraordinary nature of Harris’s rise to the top of the ticket, observing, “It is exceptionally rare for presidential candidates to swap certain roles in the middle of the campaign, period. It was a wild moment for an already crazy cycle.”

Rottinghaus highlighted the historical significance of Harris’s candidacy, suggesting that her potential victory would symbolize a landmark achievement in the U.S. fight for diversity and gender equity in leadership roles. “If she wins, it will break barriers that the nation has been fighting to break since the 1920s. For a nation that has been more challenged in terms of race relations to nominate and then elect a Black woman is, by any counts, progress,” he added.

Despite the potentially groundbreaking nature of her candidacy, Harris has largely refrained from making her race or gender a focal point in her campaign messaging. Jim Kessler, co-founder of the center-left think tank Third Way, described this as a prudent approach. “That’s smart because voters aren’t interested in making history so much as being happy with where the country is going, and the voters feel very mixed,” Kessler noted.

In a recent interview with ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce, Harris addressed the subject of the history she could make. Harris candidly stated, “I am fully aware of my gender and race. And I know that it will be very significant in terms of the glass that will be broken. But I do not expect that anyone is going to vote for me because of my gender or race. It has to be because I earn their vote with a plan to make their lives better.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s third White House bid, announced in November 2022, has been riddled with legal battles and controversy. Over the course of his campaign, Trump has been indicted four times, with one case resulting in a conviction for falsifying business records related to hush money payments to an adult film actress during his 2016 campaign. Trump has vowed to appeal the conviction.

Despite these challenges, Trump emerged victorious in nearly every Republican primary state, fending off over a dozen rivals, including his former vice president. Most competitors dropped out before the first voting event in Iowa, and Trump was officially nominated by the Republican Party in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, not long after surviving an assassination attempt where he was shot in the ear. Updegrove characterized Trump as a figure of resilience, saying, “He’s a study in resilience and defiance, resurging despite two impeachments, Jan. 6, criminality and consistently flouting democratic norms during his presidency and as a candidate.”

If elected, Trump would join Grover Cleveland in the rare position of serving non-consecutive terms, making him the only U.S. president since 1892 to achieve such a feat.

Reflecting on the impact this election will have on future generations, Rottinghaus commented on the unique dynamics of both major parties in the race. “The Democrats were hungry for a win and despite having an incumbent president who was otherwise performing well needed to energize the ticket dramatically,” he observed. He also pointed out that Trump’s firm grip on the Republican Party essentially ensured his nomination, an outcome rarely seen in modern political history. “On the Republican side, Trump co-opted the Republican Party in a way that made his nomination inevitable. I don’t think we ever had a situation like this in the modern era,” Rottinghaus added.

The final days of the race are drawing intense attention to an election season that has defied expectations on every front. As Americans prepare to cast their ballots, they do so with a palpable awareness of the potential to shape the nation’s future and, as some political analysts argue, secure or redefine the democratic values of the United States.

Wall Street executives, political bettors, and cryptocurrency traders are increasingly wagering on former President Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Yet, the stock market appears to suggest an alternate outcome. The U.S. stock market has surged recently, with the S&P 500 index climbing over 10% since August, an increase that could indicate stability in the current administration rather than a shift in power.

The S&P 500, while not a direct reflection of the broader economy, has historically served as a strong predictor of electoral outcomes. Over the past 96 years, it has accurately forecasted the incumbent party’s success or failure in all but four presidential races. As a general trend, a drop in the S&P 500 before an election hints at investor uncertainty, likely associated with the prospect of a new administration. Conversely, a rise signals stability, which the market often associates with the continuity of the current party in power. Based on the recent rise in the S&P 500, some analysts believe Vice President Kamala Harris, who replaced President Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket, may secure victory.

“The market’s making a call for Harris to win,” says Adam Turnquist, chief technical strategist at LPL Financial, which has studied the correlation between stock movements and election outcomes. “When there’s more certainty about the incumbent party winning the White House, we know for the most part the policies they’ve [installed]. There’s just a level of comfort that the market has with that certainty.”

With the presidential race appearing as a close contest, voters are searching for clarity on the likely winner. This uncertainty has fueled interest not only in public opinion polls but also in election-betting markets and other indicators. Notably, election-betting markets are currently leaning toward Trump, as are other unconventional predictors, like the “Redskins Rule” and the outcome of the World Series.

“People are just naturally going to feel anxiety,” explains Justin Grimmer, a professor of public policy at Stanford University. “All of these things, I think, are ways for people to try to relieve this anxiety they have about this election.”

However, the S&P 500’s reliability as a predictor remains controversial. Monica Guerra, head of U.S. policy at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, points out that the index is no “crystal ball.” She suggests that the year’s stock market gains may be attributed more to tech companies and the Federal Reserve’s measures against inflation than to election outcomes. Trump has also often credited himself for market gains, arguing that a potential return to office would continue to benefit investors.

Despite these doubts, the S&P 500’s history as a forecasting tool is difficult to ignore. The index, which represents the largest public companies in the U.S., has correctly anticipated the election outcome in 20 of the last 24 contests. For example, in 2016, the index dropped 2.3% before Election Day, reflecting the transition from Democratic to Republican leadership with Trump’s unexpected victory. “You were laughed at for even thinking about it,” Turnquist recalls of Trump’s 2016 win. “But the market was right.”

Nonetheless, the index has not always been accurate. Its performance in 2020 suggested Trump would defeat President Joe Biden. Despite this, many investors remain convinced that Trump is favored to win again in the upcoming election. Billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller highlighted this sentiment on Bloomberg Television, noting that various factors—including the performance of bank stocks, crypto prices, and Trump’s social media venture—indicate optimism for a Trump victory. Trump Media, for instance, has seen its stock price surge by over 200% since it hit a low last month.

Additionally, a selection of stocks that stand to gain from a Trump administration has recently shown upward movement. Morgan Stanley released a report identifying a “Republican basket” of investments, which includes companies in energy, banking, and cryptocurrency. This Republican portfolio has outperformed a similar Democratic-focused portfolio by 10% over the year.

Guerra emphasizes that mixed signals within the market reflect a tight and polarized electorate. “Part of the reason why we have conflicting indicators right now is because of how divided the electorate is and how tight it is in these swing states,” she notes. “This is a true toss-up. You can see that dynamic play out both in the markets and the economy.”

In a statement, Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt underscored Trump’s poll dominance, adding that Republicans are making significant strides in voter registration and early voting compared to prior elections. “Voters know that Kamala Harris has destroyed our country, but President Trump will fix it — and that is why he is well-positioned for victory on November 5,” she asserted.

The Harris campaign did not provide comments in response.

Some experts, such as Reena Aggarwal, a finance professor at Georgetown University, remain skeptical of the S&P 500 as a comprehensive predictor. According to Aggarwal, the stock indexes today are less representative of the U.S. economy than they were in previous decades, mainly due to the outsized influence of tech companies. Additionally, the number of major private companies that are not publicly traded has grown, reducing the representativeness of public stock performance.

In past decades, the stock market better reflected the “broad economy,” as industrial and energy corporations with extensive workforces made up a more substantial part of the index. Now, tech giants dominate, leading to a disconnect between the stock market and the overall economy. “The market and the broader economy — there’s a disconnect,” Aggarwal points out.

For Stanford’s Grimmer, the historical link between economic indicators and presidential elections remains relevant but is ultimately limited. He warns against reading too much into patterns based on specific data points, noting that voters’ economic perspectives vary widely as Election Day approaches. Thus, the stock market may not be the best gauge of who will prevail.

“You can only use history so much,” Grimmer advises. “We’re just going to have to wait and find out. It’s a coin flip.”

As the United States heads toward the November 5 presidential election, a fiercely contested race unfolds between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris. Recent online claims suggest that all is not harmonious within Trump’s campaign as he vies for a second term.

Political commentator Brian Krassenstein recently shared on the platform X that a message allegedly from “Trump Campaign insiders” implies Trump himself doubts his victory. According to the post, Trump’s supposed “only true path to victory” involves creating the perception that he is winning, making any challenge to the results seem credible. However, Krassenstein quickly dismissed the authenticity of the message, noting that the chat could be “a random text message sent by anyone on the planet to anyone on the planet,” similar to questionable claims from Harris’s campaign that speculate President Biden fears Harris may struggle to secure a win.

In his commentary, Krassenstein argued that Trump is relying heavily on claims of election rigging, a tactic he previously used. He emphasized the strong integrity of America’s election process, calling it “one of the safest on the planet.” He commented, “Seems as if things are pretty bad in the Trump campaign right now. I can’t believe that Trump appears to once again be relying on the notion that the election is rigged to try and sneak his way back into the most important office on the planet.”

Adding to these campaign challenges are reports of tension between Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump. Allegedly, Trump expressed frustration over Ivanka’s limited involvement in his current campaign, purportedly even using an offensive term to describe her due to her reduced public support. In contrast to her significant role during Trump’s first presidential term, Ivanka and her stepmother, Melania Trump, have mostly kept a low profile this season, making only sporadic public appearances.

Krassenstein’s post cited insiders who claimed, “He is also apparently using the B-word to describe his own daughter Ivanka Trump because she hasn’t spent enough time campaigning for him this election cycle.” This distance from the political scene marks a significant shift for Ivanka, who held a high-profile advisory role during Trump’s initial presidency but has since opted for a quieter, private life. Hindustan Times quoted a source stating, “She is very happy, living her best life. She has completely moved on from politics, and even though her dad is the leading Republican candidate this time, she really doesn’t care.”

According to OK! Magazine, an insider revealed that Ivanka had informed her father from the start of his campaign that she wanted no involvement. Reflecting on her past dedication, the insider noted, “During the first election, she wanted to support him and be a good daughter, dedicating four years to his administration, but she’s had enough. She doesn’t want to do it anymore.”

On November 5, American voters will head to the polls to choose their next president. Originally, this election was expected to be a rematch of the 2020 race between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. However, the race took an unexpected turn in July when Biden ended his campaign and endorsed his Vice President, Kamala Harris. This shift has raised a major question: will the U.S. see its first woman president, or will Donald Trump return for a second term?

As election day approaches, we’ll track the latest polls and analyze how each candidate’s campaign is impacting the race.

National Polls: Who is Ahead?

Since Harris entered the race in late July, she has maintained a narrow lead over Trump in national polling averages, though the gap has fluctuated over the past months. Initially, Harris enjoyed a significant boost, reaching a nearly four-point lead by the end of August. Her numbers stabilized throughout September, even following the only debate between her and Trump on September 10, a widely viewed event that attracted almost 70 million viewers. However, recent polling indicates a tightening race as the gap between them has narrowed.

National polls, though indicative of a candidate’s popularity, don’t guarantee an election outcome. The U.S. presidential election operates through an electoral college system. Each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes proportional to its population, totaling 538 votes. A candidate must secure at least 270 to win the presidency. Consequently, the true battleground lies not in national support but in key swing states where both candidates have a viable chance of winning.

Battleground States: Who Leads Where?

In the crucial swing states, the contest remains extremely close. Polling averages show no clear frontrunner in these decisive states, which include Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Since Harris entered the race, the data has shown interesting trends in these states, though the limited number of state-level polls and their inherent margin of error complicate any definitive conclusions. In Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, for instance, both candidates have traded the lead since early August, with Trump pulling slightly ahead in recent weeks. In Nevada, Harris has held a slight edge.

In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Harris consistently led by two to three points since early August. However, polling in these states has also tightened significantly. Notably, Trump has taken a small lead in Pennsylvania, a state critical for both candidates due to its relatively high number of electoral votes among the swing states. A win in Pennsylvania could greatly improve either candidate’s path to the 270 electoral votes needed for victory.

These three states were Democratic strongholds until Trump flipped them red in 2016, helping him secure the presidency. In 2020, Biden reclaimed them for the Democrats. Should Harris manage to hold these states, her path to the White House would be significantly easier. Her campaign’s gains underscore the changes since Biden left the race. On the day he withdrew, he trailed Trump by almost five points across the swing states and by 4.5 points in Pennsylvania alone. This trend shift highlights the importance of these battleground states and Harris’s appeal in those areas Biden struggled to secure.

How Polling Averages Are Created

The polling data in the graphics presented above are averages calculated by the polling analysis site 538, part of ABC News. To determine these averages, 538 gathers results from individual polls conducted by various polling firms across the nation and in swing states. Only polls from companies meeting specific quality standards—such as transparency about sample size, polling dates, and data collection methods—are included in these averages.

These standards ensure reliability to a certain extent, but all polls come with inherent limitations, which 538 addresses by applying a consistent methodology to create an average that ideally reflects overall trends.

Can the Polls Be Trusted?

Polls currently show Harris and Trump nearly tied across most swing states, suggesting an extremely close race. Given the small margins between them, it’s challenging to predict a winner based solely on current data.

Historically, polls have underestimated Trump’s support, as seen in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Polling companies have since adjusted their methods to better capture voter sentiment. They are now trying various approaches to make poll results more representative of the voting population’s composition. However, these adjustments are complex, requiring educated assumptions about voter turnout and other unpredictable factors that can only be tested once voters actually cast their ballots on November 5.

Bill Gates, one of the world’s richest individuals, has privately revealed that he recently contributed about $50 million to a nonprofit organization backing Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential bid, according to a report by The New York Times. Despite the significant donation, Gates has not made any public endorsement of Harris, marking a departure from his usual approach of staying away from direct political contributions.

Gates, known for co-founding Microsoft, has long maintained a neutral stance in the political sphere. Throughout his career, he has refrained from making contributions that could associate him with specific candidates or political campaigns. Though he does not share a close personal relationship with Harris, Gates has previously expressed approval of the Biden-Harris administration’s climate change policies. According to sources speaking to The New York Times, Gates and his foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are increasingly worried about potential threats to family planning and global health initiatives should Donald Trump win the presidency again.

The report suggests that Gates is particularly concerned about the future of these programs, many of which have been critical to global health, under a potential second Trump administration. The former president has made it clear that he intends to reverse many of the current administration’s policies, raising alarm among those who support programs that benefit international health and family planning. Gates’s donation may reflect his growing recognition of the role political leadership plays in shaping the future of these global initiatives.

When asked to respond to the New York Times report, Gates did not directly confirm or deny the substantial donation to the Harris-aligned nonprofit. While he did not offer an explicit endorsement of Harris’s candidacy, Gates acknowledged the high stakes of the 2024 presidential election. He pointed out that he has always taken a bipartisan approach to his work, supporting initiatives that cross party lines. However, he emphasized that the upcoming election presents a unique situation, hinting that it may be one of the reasons for his decision to get involved in political giving at this level. “This election is different,” Gates reportedly said, underscoring the potential risks he sees with a Trump comeback.

Gates’s reluctance to engage directly in politics has long been noted, particularly by his Democratic allies. Some within his circle have tried to encourage him to become more involved in political donations over the years, but he has resisted. His reluctance has been shaped by his belief in maintaining a neutral position, especially given his role as a leading philanthropist and businessman.

However, Gates is said to be experiencing mounting pressure from within his own family, specifically from his children Rory and Phoebe Gates. Both of Gates’s children have reportedly become Democratic donors themselves, with Rory, in particular, playing an active role in Democratic fundraising efforts. They have been pushing their father to take a more visible stand in political matters, especially as the 2024 election approaches. This family dynamic may have contributed to his decision to donate to the Harris-supporting nonprofit.

Despite Gates’s recent donation, many of the wealthiest backers of Harris remain cautious about associating themselves too closely with her campaign. Some donors fear potential repercussions from Donald Trump, who has a history of publicly targeting those who oppose him. In his previous run for office, Trump was known for openly criticizing his rivals and threatening retaliation against high-profile figures who supported his political opponents. This lingering fear of retaliation has led some wealthy supporters to contribute anonymously or through less direct channels, avoiding public identification as Harris’s supporters.

The political landscape for the 2024 election appears to be more charged than usual, with high-profile figures like Gates stepping into the arena, despite personal reluctance or historical disengagement. Gates’s involvement in the Harris campaign—albeit in the form of a large financial contribution rather than a public endorsement—signals a shift in the strategies of traditionally neutral or apolitical philanthropists.

Many observers are interpreting Gates’s donation as a response to the broader implications of the 2024 election, particularly for global health and climate change initiatives. His foundation has long been at the forefront of funding programs that address health disparities, poverty, and family planning, both in the U.S. and globally. A Trump return to office could potentially disrupt or defund these programs, leading to what Gates and others view as dire consequences for international health systems.

While Gates has not definitively aligned himself with Harris, his donation could be seen as a vote of confidence in the current administration’s approach to tackling issues like climate change and global health. Gates has been vocal about the need for coordinated action on climate policy, praising the Biden-Harris administration for its efforts in this area. He has also spoken at length about the importance of addressing global health inequities, issues that are closely tied to the work his foundation has been engaged in for decades.

However, for Gates, the decision to donate to a campaign-related nonprofit may also be a reflection of his belief in the critical importance of family planning and health initiatives. These are areas where Gates has invested considerable time and resources, and a change in administration could pose a significant threat to the progress made in these fields. For someone like Gates, who has worked tirelessly on these issues through his foundation, the potential impact of the election may have been too important to ignore.

The report from The New York Times also highlights the increasing involvement of high-profile figures like Gates in shaping the outcome of the 2024 election, even if they are not traditionally associated with political donations. Gates’s decision to make such a significant contribution, despite his longstanding practice of staying out of politics, underscores the unprecedented nature of the upcoming election and the concerns many have about the direction the country might take.

For now, Gates continues to avoid a full public endorsement of any candidate, but his $50 million donation has certainly caught the attention of political observers. Whether Gates will continue to increase his political involvement as the 2024 election nears remains to be seen. However, his shift in strategy—driven by concerns over global health, family planning, and climate change—suggests that the stakes of this election are motivating even the most apolitical figures to take action.

With Election Day fast approaching, Vice President Kamala Harris is leading former President Donald Trump in four key battleground states, while Trump holds narrow leads in two others. The polling, released Monday by the Washington Post-Schar School, surveyed voters in seven swing states that are critical in determining the outcome of the election.

According to the poll, Harris is leading Trump among likely voters in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, while Trump is ahead in Arizona and North Carolina. In Nevada, the two candidates are tied, each securing 48 percent of voter support.

In Georgia, Harris has a slight advantage with 51 percent of the vote compared to Trump’s 47 percent. The Peach State, which narrowly favored President Joe Biden in the 2020 election, has become a significant focus of Harris’s campaign. Her late-entry campaign efforts have centered heavily on Georgia, as she seeks to build on the Democratic momentum from the previous election.

Harris also holds a lead in Wisconsin, where she has 50 percent of voter support, compared to Trump’s 47 percent. Michigan is another close state, with Harris leading by just two percentage points over Trump. Both states are crucial for the Democrats, and Harris has benefited from the active campaigning of Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, both of whom are Democrats.

Pennsylvania, with its 19 electoral votes, is seen as one of the closest contests in the election. Harris currently has a 49 percent to 47 percent lead over Trump in the state. Pennsylvania is a crucial swing state that could play a decisive role in determining the overall winner of the election.

Meanwhile, Trump is ahead in Arizona, a state that was narrowly won by Biden in 2020. Arizona has become a key battleground once again, and Trump’s focus on immigration issues has resonated with voters there. According to the poll, Trump leads Harris 49 percent to 46 percent in the state. His efforts to regain control of Arizona have centered on his strong stance on immigration, which remains a central issue for voters in the region.

Trump is also leading in North Carolina, another important state in the upcoming election. The poll found Trump has 50 percent of voter support in the state, compared to Harris’s 47 percent. Both candidates plan to make campaign visits to North Carolina in the coming days, especially in light of the recent devastation caused by Hurricane Helene, which struck the western part of the state.

As the election nears, both candidates are fighting for every vote in these critical states, knowing that the outcome in these regions could determine who wins the presidency. Harris’s campaign has focused on continuing the work of the Biden administration, particularly in addressing economic and social issues, while Trump has positioned himself as a candidate who can restore the policies and priorities from his first term in office, particularly with regards to immigration, the economy, and foreign policy.

The polling data from The Washington Post-Schar School adds to the broader picture of a highly competitive election. According to a separate aggregation of polls from The Hill/Decision Desk HQ, Harris currently has a 1.5 percentage point lead over Trump. This suggests that while Harris may have an edge in several swing states, the race remains tight, and the final outcome is far from certain.

The Washington Post survey was conducted from September 29 to October 15, gathering responses from 5,016 voters across the seven battleground states. The margin of error for the survey is 1.7 percentage points, indicating that while Harris leads in several states, the results are close enough that the race could still shift in favor of either candidate as Election Day approaches.

As the final two weeks of campaigning unfold, both candidates are expected to ramp up their efforts in these swing states, making frequent visits and targeting key voter demographics in an attempt to sway undecided voters. The remaining time will be crucial as Harris and Trump aim to solidify their support and secure the electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Both campaigns are expected to focus on a few major issues that are particularly relevant to voters in these states. For Harris, the emphasis has been on economic recovery, healthcare access, and social justice reforms, while Trump has focused heavily on immigration, law and order, and rebuilding the economy in the wake of the pandemic.

The closeness of the race in several states reflects the deep political divisions that have marked this election cycle. Both Harris and Trump have their respective bases of support, but the key to winning may lie in convincing the relatively small number of undecided voters who are still weighing their options.

In Georgia, where Harris leads by 4 percentage points, the Democratic Party is hoping to replicate the success it had in 2020, when Biden narrowly won the state. Harris has made several trips to Georgia in the closing weeks of her campaign, highlighting the importance of voting rights and economic recovery. Trump’s campaign, meanwhile, is counting on a strong turnout from his supporters in rural areas of the state, where his message of economic revival and conservative values resonates deeply.

In Wisconsin and Michigan, Harris’s slim leads are bolstered by the active support of Democratic governors who are popular in their respective states. Both Tony Evers of Wisconsin and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan have campaigned alongside Harris, emphasizing her commitment to expanding healthcare access, protecting workers’ rights, and addressing climate change.

Trump, however, remains a formidable opponent in these states, particularly in areas that have experienced economic hardship in recent years. His message of bringing back manufacturing jobs and revitalizing the economy has found a receptive audience among many voters in the industrial Midwest, where economic concerns often take precedence over social issues.

The race in Pennsylvania is perhaps the most closely watched, given its significant electoral vote count and its history as a swing state that can determine the outcome of national elections. Harris’s narrow lead in the state reflects the importance of voter turnout in urban areas like Philadelphia, as well as the support she has garnered from labor unions and progressive groups. Trump, meanwhile, has focused on rural and suburban voters, where his message of economic revival and his tough stance on crime and immigration have resonated strongly.

As Election Day approaches, both campaigns are preparing for a final push to win over undecided voters in these battleground states. With just two weeks left, the outcome of the election remains highly uncertain, and it is clear that every vote will count in determining the next president of the United States.

In her first appearance on Fox News since taking office, Vice President Kamala Harris used the opportunity to attack her Republican rival, Donald Trump, while defending her record and the Biden administration’s policies. The interview, held Wednesday, highlighted Harris’s efforts to appeal to disaffected Republican and independent voters as the 2024 presidential race heats up.

When questioned on issues such as illegal border crossings and violent crimes involving undocumented immigrants during President Joe Biden’s tenure, Harris directed her criticism at Trump. She repeatedly mentioned the former president’s opposition to a bipartisan border security bill earlier in the year. “We have a broken immigration system,” she said, laying the blame on Trump for his refusal to back reforms.

Harris also didn’t shy away from addressing concerns about Biden’s age and mental sharpness, an issue raised frequently by Republicans. Turning the tables, she labeled Trump as “unstable” and questioned his fitness for office, emphasizing, “We should all be concerned.”

The vice president further accused Fox News of downplaying Trump’s divisive rhetoric, noting that the former president had often referred to political opponents as “the enemy within.” She said, “Here’s the bottom line: He has repeated it many times, and you and I both know that. And you and I both know that he has talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him.”

Harris made it clear that, in a democracy, the president should be able to handle criticism without threatening retribution. “This is a democracy,” she stated, “And in a democracy, the president of the United States – in the United States of America – should be willing to be able to handle criticism without saying he would lock people up for doing it.”

The interview was part of Harris’s broader effort to appeal to Republican voters who are uncomfortable with Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. In recent weeks, Harris has been campaigning alongside prominent Republican figures like former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney and others from Trump’s administration who have distanced themselves from the former president.

Earlier on Wednesday, Harris spoke at an event in Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, near the historic site where George Washington crossed the Delaware River during the American Revolution. The event gathered over 100 Republicans supporting her campaign, including figures such as former Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger and former Georgia Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan.

During the Fox News interview, Harris also sought to differentiate herself from President Biden, a departure from her earlier statements. She stressed that her presidency, if elected, would not be a continuation of Biden’s administration. “My presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency,” Harris told Fox News anchor Bret Baier. “I represent a new generation of leadership,” she added. “I, for example, am someone who has not spent the majority of my career in Washington, DC. I invite ideas, whether it be from the Republicans who are supporting me who were just onstage with me minutes ago, and the business sector and others who can contribute to the decisions I make.”

In another key segment of the interview, Harris was pressed about a Trump campaign ad that highlighted her previous stance on gender-affirming care for prisoners, a position she supported during her time as a California senator and presidential candidate in 2019. When asked whether she still supports using taxpayer funds for such care, including for undocumented immigrants, Harris was careful to emphasize her commitment to following the law.

“I will follow the law, and it’s a law that Donald Trump actually followed. You’re probably familiar with, now it’s a public report that under Donald Trump’s administration, these surgeries were available on a medical necessity basis, to people in the federal prison system,” she explained. Harris pointed out that the Trump administration had allowed such services, calling the ad’s criticism hypocritical: “I think, frankly, that ad from the Trump campaign is a little bit of like throwing, you know, stones when you’re living in a glass house.”

Pressed again by Baier on whether she would personally advocate for taxpayer funding of gender-affirming surgeries, Harris remained firm, reiterating her position: “I would follow the law, just as I think Donald Trump would say he did.”

Throughout the interview, Harris repeatedly referred to the bipartisan border security bill that was blocked by Republicans earlier this year. She argued that the failure to pass this legislation has exacerbated the challenges at the US-Mexico border, where facilities are overwhelmed by the number of migrants entering the country.

Baier challenged Harris on the Biden administration’s decision to roll back Trump-era immigration policies, leading to several tense exchanges between the two. At one point, Baier pressed Harris to estimate how many undocumented immigrants had been released into the U.S. during Biden’s presidency. “Just a number. Do you think it’s 1 million, 3 million?” he asked. Harris refused to provide a figure, instead reiterating her point about the broken immigration system.

“Bret, let’s just get to the point, OK? The point is that we have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired,” she responded. Harris acknowledged the tragic consequences of a system in disrepair, including the case of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old Georgia nursing student who was killed by an undocumented immigrant released by U.S. authorities. “First of all, those are tragic cases. There’s no question about that. There is no question about that, and I can’t imagine the pain that the families of those victims have experienced for a loss that should not have occurred,” she said.

But Harris was quick to return to her criticism of Republican opposition to border security reforms, saying, “It is also true that if a border security bill had actually been passed nine months ago. It would be nine months that we would have had more border agents at the border, more support for the folks who are working around the clock trying to hold it all together.”

Harris maintained that both parties agree on the need to fix the system: “I have no pride in saying that this is a perfect immigration system,” she admitted. “I’ve been clear — I think we all are — that it needs to be fixed.”

In response to questions about her stance on benefits for undocumented immigrants, Harris remained evasive, reiterating only that she would “follow the law.” She also confirmed that she does not support decriminalizing illegal border crossings. “I do not believe in decriminalizing border crossings, and I’ve not done that as vice president,” she said. “I will not do that as president.”

Donald Trump is outlining an extreme vision for a new White House term, one that could drastically alter America and send shockwaves around the globe. Vice President Kamala Harris has only three weeks to counter this, as she works to regain momentum in what has become a highly competitive race leading up to Election Day.

Trump, the Republican nominee, has intensified the most inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric in recent U.S. political history. He has made false claims, such as asserting that Haitian migrants living legally in the U.S. were eating pets in Ohio, and warned that outsiders with “bad genes” had “invaded” the country. During a rally in Arizona on Sunday, Trump baselessly suggested that if Harris won, “the entire country will be turned into a migrant camp.” In Colorado, just two days earlier, he vowed to initiate the “largest deportation operation in the history of the United States,” stating, “We will close the border. We will stop the invasion of illegals into our country. We will defend our territory. We will not be conquered.”

Trump escalated his rhetoric further over the weekend, threatening to use the military against what he called “the enemy from within.” In an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” he hinted at turning the military on his political opponents. The former president, who incited violence after losing the 2020 election, had also said at a rally on Saturday that a heckler, who was exercising her right to free speech, should “get the hell knocked out of” her.

In another display of how Trump might use presidential power for personal and political advantage, he threatened to withhold federal disaster aid from California, a state run by Democrats. Trump also falsely accused Harris and President Joe Biden of denying aid to Republican districts affected by hurricanes. He even suggested that CBS should lose its broadcasting license because he disagreed with how the network handled Harris’ interview on “60 Minutes,” an interview he had declined to participate in. Trump’s allies raised concerns about how the potential new administration might treat big business, threatening to cancel Deloitte’s federal contracts after an employee allegedly leaked private messages from Senator JD Vance criticizing Trump.

Details have also emerged regarding Trump’s ties to foreign autocrats. The Kremlin recently confirmed that Trump had sent COVID-19 tests to Russia’s authoritarian leader, Vladimir Putin, during the pandemic—a pandemic Trump had frequently downplayed.

Although Trump has a history of making grand promises that do not always materialize, his past actions suggest his threats should not be dismissed. Furthermore, a recent Supreme Court ruling, which grants broad immunity to presidents, highlights the minimal constraints on executive power, raising concerns about Trump’s potential for authoritarian rule.

Trump’s increasingly extreme rhetoric has amplified the pressure on Kamala Harris. Prominent Democratic figures, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, are urging voters in critical swing states to support Harris, particularly among Black and Latino communities. These voters will be essential in preventing Trump’s return to power.

Harris, during a rally in North Carolina on Sunday, sharpened her criticisms of Trump, accusing him of refusing to release his medical records and evading a second debate with her. She also noted his decision to decline an interview with “60 Minutes.” “He’s not being transparent with the voters,” Harris said. “It makes you wonder, why does his staff want him to hide away? One must question, are they afraid that people will see that he is too weak and unstable?”

Democratic Fears Rise

Many Democrats are becoming increasingly concerned that the initial excitement surrounding Harris’ campaign has not translated into a decisive lead over Trump. Despite her strong entry into the race and a successful debate performance, national polls show no clear leader.

The most recent polling averages suggest a tight race, and Democrats fear that, like Hillary Clinton in 2016, Harris could win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College. The fact that the contest remains so close despite Trump’s extreme positions suggests that his message is resonating with a significant portion of the electorate. Republicans have blamed the Harris-Biden administration for rising inflation, and Trump has frequently pointed to the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as evidence of the current administration’s perceived weakness on the global stage. Additionally, Democrats’ failure to address immigration early in Biden’s term has left them vulnerable to Trump’s aggressive stance on the issue.

The close contest also reveals that, despite Trump’s unapologetic extremism, Democrats have once again struggled to produce a candidate or message that can decisively reassure voters. While many liberals and moderates are alarmed by Trump’s authoritarian vision, he continues to lead on what voters say is the top issue: the economy. A recent ABC News/Ipsos poll showed that 59% of respondents believe the economy is worsening, even though inflation has eased, interest rates are declining, and the job market remains strong.

Harris, as the incumbent vice president, faces an uphill battle. Her failure to distinguish herself from Biden’s policies in a recent interview with “The View” could prove costly, as Trump is likely to exploit this weakness all the way to Election Day. Harris has outlined policies to address housing affordability, healthcare costs, and immigration reform, but these initiatives have often been overshadowed by Trump’s dramatic promises to deport migrants, impose tariffs on trade rivals, and restore order to a chaotic world.

Still, there are signs of hope for Democrats. Trump’s polling numbers rarely exceed 48%, suggesting that his support remains capped, while Harris may still have room to gain. In a recent NBC News poll, 10% of voters indicated they might change their minds, and a small but potentially decisive portion of the electorate remains uncommitted. In key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia, even minor shifts in support could make a significant difference.

What Harris Must Do

Democratic strategist Doug Sosnik believes the election remains a 50-50 contest and that Harris has stalled while Trump has gained ground. He suggested the race could come down to which candidate can effectively position themselves as a change agent.

In a memo released Sunday, Trump’s campaign claimed that Harris had already lost the argument on change. “She can’t convince the voters that she is ‘the change agent’ in the race, that she will be better on the economy, inflation, immigration, crime, or improving people’s financial situation,” the memo stated. “The bottom line is that voters say President Trump will do a better job.”

Sosnik argued that Harris must rise to the pressure and scrutiny, giving voters a clear reason to support her. “They don’t feel like she has given them enough reason to vote for her,” he said.

Harris faces a complicated path, made more difficult by the lack of direct engagement with Trump, who has avoided most mainstream media and refuses to participate in a second debate. Trump’s rallies, once a staple of cable news coverage, now receive limited attention outside conservative media, meaning many voters may not fully grasp the extent of his increasingly extreme positions.

Obama, appearing at a rally for Harris in Pennsylvania last week, expressed disbelief at Trump’s continued popularity. “There is absolutely no evidence that this man thinks about anyone but himself,” Obama said. “Donald Trump sees power as nothing more than a means to an end.”

Nevertheless, Trump, despite his impeachments, criminal conviction, and attempts to undermine democracy, remains within striking distance of reclaiming the presidency—with a more radical agenda than ever before.

On November 5, voters across the U.S. will cast their ballots to elect the next president. Initially anticipated to be a repeat of the 2020 election, the race was drastically altered in July when President Joe Biden withdrew his bid for re-election and endorsed Vice-President Kamala Harris. This shift has set up a historic showdown: will Kamala Harris become the first female president, or will Donald Trump secure a second term?

As election day nears, poll trackers are closely monitoring the race for the White House, gauging the influence of campaign events on voter preferences.

Who Leads the National Polls?

Since her entry into the race at the end of July, Harris has held a steady lead over Trump in national polling averages. These polls, regularly updated and rounded to the nearest whole number, show Harris maintaining her advantage in the race.

One significant campaign event was a televised debate on September 10 in Pennsylvania, which attracted more than 67 million viewers. Polls conducted in the week following the debate suggested Harris gained momentum, with her lead growing from 2.5 percentage points before the debate to 3.3 points a week later.

Most of this gain can be attributed to a slight dip in Trump’s polling numbers. Although Trump’s popularity had been rising in the lead-up to the debate, his numbers fell by half a percentage point afterward.

The poll tracker indicates these marginal shifts, with trend lines showing the changing averages and dots representing the individual poll results for both candidates.

While national polls provide insight into each candidate’s popularity, they are not necessarily predictive of the election outcome. This is because the U.S. does not use a simple popular vote system to decide the president. Instead, an electoral college system determines the winner, with each state allocated a certain number of votes, reflecting its population size. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes out of 538 to win the presidency.

Who Leads in Swing State Polls?

In the current electoral race, the real battleground is in the swing states. Of the 50 states, only a few—referred to as battleground or swing states—are truly up for grabs. These are the states where the election will likely be decided, as most other states consistently lean toward one party.

Polling in the seven key battleground states reveals an extremely close race, with only one or two percentage points separating Harris and Trump. Pennsylvania, a pivotal state with the highest number of electoral votes among the battlegrounds, is particularly critical. Winning Pennsylvania would make it significantly easier for either candidate to reach the necessary 270 electoral votes.

Interestingly, the dynamics of the race have shifted dramatically since Harris replaced Biden as the Democratic nominee. On the day Biden dropped out, he was trailing Trump by nearly five percentage points in these battleground states. Harris has narrowed that gap considerably, reflecting her growing strength in these crucial regions.

However, it’s important to note that fewer state-level polls are conducted compared to national polls, meaning less data is available. Additionally, all polls have margins of error, which means actual voter preferences could differ slightly from the poll results.

Despite these limitations, the trends since Harris joined the race indicate some areas where she holds an advantage. Polling averages show that Harris has been leading in three key battleground states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—since early August. Yet, these leads are narrow.

Historically, all three of these states were Democratic strongholds until Trump turned them red in 2016, helping him win the presidency. Biden managed to flip them back to the Democratic column in 2020, and if Harris can do the same this year, she will be well-positioned to win the election.

How Are Polling Averages Calculated?

The polling averages presented in this article are sourced from 538, a polling analysis website operated by ABC News. 538 gathers data from various polling companies, both at the national level and within battleground states.

To ensure accuracy, 538 uses strict quality controls and only includes polls from companies that meet certain transparency standards. For example, polling firms must disclose the number of people surveyed, the timing of the poll, and the method used—whether it was conducted by phone, online, or via text.

This level of detail is critical in ensuring the reliability of the polling averages.

Can We Trust the Polls?

As of now, polls suggest that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are neck-and-neck in the crucial swing states. With the race so close, predicting the outcome is difficult.

Recent elections have shown that polls can underestimate Trump’s support. This happened in both 2016 and 2020, when polling companies failed to accurately predict his level of backing. Polling organizations are working to address this issue by refining their methods, aiming to ensure their results better reflect the makeup of the voting population.

One major challenge for pollsters is accounting for voter turnout. Accurately predicting who will actually show up at the polls on November 5 remains a guessing game, despite efforts to improve polling accuracy.

The 2024 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be a close and potentially historic race. While Kamala Harris has a slight edge in national polls and is gaining ground in key battleground states, Donald Trump remains a formidable opponent. The election will ultimately be decided by the voters in a handful of crucial swing states, where the margins are razor-thin. As November 5 approaches, both candidates will be making their final push to sway undecided voters in these pivotal areas. The stakes are high, and the outcome is anything but certain.

A better-than-expected jobs report, coupled with the swift resolution of a longshoremen’s strike, has provided a significant boost to Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign. The strike, which had the potential to severely disrupt the U.S. economy, was the most politically dangerous of several challenges Harris and the White House faced recently.

The White House moved swiftly to end the strike, applying pressure on both the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) to reach a deal. The strike, which began after the two sides failed to agree on a contract by Monday, shut down key ports along the East and Gulf Coasts. It threatened to bottleneck the economy just a month before the election, posing a major risk to Harris and the administration.

Fortunately for Harris, the strike was resolved Thursday night, with the longshoremen’s union and port operators reaching a tentative agreement after two days of stoppage. This resolution was further bolstered by Friday’s jobs report, which showed a stronger labor market than anticipated.

In September, the U.S. added 254,000 jobs, far surpassing the 140,000 jobs forecasted by economists. Additionally, revisions for July and August showed an extra 72,000 jobs were created during those months, suggesting that earlier concerns about a weakening labor market were overstated. The unemployment rate dropped slightly to 4.1%, further easing fears of rising joblessness.

This encouraging jobs report came as inflation moved closer to the Federal Reserve’s target. After peaking at 9.1% in June 2022, the highest in 40 years, inflation has since dropped to 2.5% as of August. Meanwhile, wage growth continues to outpace inflation, with average hourly earnings rising 4% over the past year.

The Federal Reserve, which had previously raised interest rates to combat inflation, indicated it was winding down its inflation-fighting efforts by lowering rates for the first time in September, with a 50-basis-point cut.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, praised the latest economic data, stating, “The jobs report for September cements my view that the economy is about as good as it gets.” He added, “The economy is creating lots of jobs across many industries, consistent with robust labor force growth, and thus low and stable unemployment.”

Zandi went on to emphasize that the U.S. economy is currently at full employment. “Wage growth is strong, and given big productivity gains, it is consistent with low and stable inflation. One couldn’t paint a prettier picture of the job market and broader economy,” he said.

President Joe Biden appeared at the White House press briefing to highlight both the resolution of the port strike and the positive jobs report. “The past two days, we’ve gotten some very good news about the American economy,” Biden said on Friday.

“Just yesterday, shipping carriers, after some discussion with the International Longshoremen’s union, came to an agreement to keep the ports of the East Coast and the Gulf ports open,” Biden noted. He emphasized the importance of this agreement, stating, “We averted what could have become a major crisis for the country.”

He also expressed excitement about the jobs numbers, saying, “Today, I got more incredible news.” Biden attributed the quick resolution of the port strike and the positive jobs report as signs that the economy was on solid footing.

According to Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and former chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the good economic news was a boost for Harris’s campaign. “Harris is not literally running for reelection, but she is coming out of an incumbent administration, so she is being judged on the state of the current economy,” Tedeschi said. “Anything that is good about the current economy probably helps her, whether fairly or unfairly.”

Although Harris has lagged behind former President Donald Trump in terms of handling the economy since joining the race in late July, recent polls suggest she has been making gains. A Marist poll conducted in September showed Harris trailing Trump by just four points on the economy, a notable improvement from the nine-point gap Biden had in June. Likewise, in a Fox News poll last month, Harris was only five points behind Trump, compared to Biden’s 15-point deficit in March.

Despite these improvements, Harris still trails Trump on economic issues in what is shaping up to be a close election. The Hill-Decision Desk HQ polling average shows Harris leading Trump by a slim 3.4%.

Had the port strike dragged on, it could have severely hurt Harris’s campaign. Experts estimated that the strike could have cost the economy as much as $5 billion a day, with consumers beginning to feel its effects if the strike had lasted several weeks.

Tedeschi warned that a prolonged strike could have reignited inflation, particularly short-term inflation similar to what was seen during the pandemic when supply chain disruptions caused prices to spike. “A port strike carried with it a lot of risk of inflation going forward, especially short-run inflation,” Tedeschi said, recalling the “supply chain bottleneck inflation” of the pandemic era.

The tentative deal between the longshoremen and port operators includes a 62% wage increase for dockworkers over a six-year contract. Additionally, both sides agreed to extend the current contract until January 15 to continue negotiations on other unresolved issues.

Had there been any weakening in the labor market, it could have also posed problems for Harris. The weaker-than-expected jobs report in July had led to concerns that the Federal Reserve had waited too long to lower interest rates, raising the risk of a recession.

Although the Fed opted for a more aggressive rate cut in September, Fed Chair Jerome Powell defended the bank’s earlier decision to hold rates steady, a move now seen as justified by the recent economic data.

However, the Trump campaign was quick to attack Harris following the release of Friday’s jobs report, criticizing her on manufacturing, immigration, and the lingering effects of inflation.

“Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have built back broke, losing 34,000 manufacturing jobs in just the past two months as foreign countries benefit from Harris’s weak economic policies,” said Karoline Leavitt, national press secretary for the Trump campaign.

Leavitt also argued that the administration’s “open border policies” had “destroyed” 825,000 jobs for native-born Americans in the past year, while creating 1.2 million jobs for foreign-born workers during the same period.

However, this trend is largely attributed to the retirement of baby boomers, as many U.S.-born workers have exited the workforce. Tedeschi and other economists have pointed out that the percentage of native-born Americans with jobs is at its highest level since the federal government began tracking this data.

Since September 21, when Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris declined an invitation to the Archdiocese of New York’s annual Al Smith Dinner, a fundraising event for children in need, Catholic media and commentators have been buzzing with analysis. The decision has raised eyebrows, particularly because the event is a major platform for political figures during election years.

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan expressed surprise at the decision, noting, “We’re not used to this. We don’t know how to handle it.” He further added that such a situation hadn’t occurred in 40 years, recalling the last time when Walter Mondale declined in 1984, joking, “He lost 49 out of 50 states.”

However, it’s important to note that Harris’ decision, though rare, isn’t unprecedented. Since 1984, three of nine Al Smith Dinners held during presidential election years have taken place without either candidate in attendance. In the 1990s and again in 2004, Cardinals John O’Connor and Edward Egan chose to exclude candidates, citing the divisiveness of the campaigns. In fact, abortion has often been at the center of the drama. In 1980, Jimmy Carter was booed by attendees over his stance on abortion, and many speculated that John Kerry’s position on the issue influenced his exclusion in 2004.

Many believe that the tension around the Democratic Party’s abortion stance played a significant role in Harris’ decision. Steven Millies, a professor of public theology at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, suggested that Cardinal Dolan’s perceived friendliness with Donald Trump may have also contributed. Millies pointed out, “There’s just discomfort there that Cardinal Dolan has not gone to the lengths to seem nonpartisan” as his predecessors had done.

The Archdiocese of New York did not comment on efforts to persuade the Harris campaign to attend the dinner.

Natalia Imperatori-Lee, a professor of religious studies at Manhattan University, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that Harris’ caution may also be linked to the broader political climate. “The Al Smith dinner may have been a ‘lighthearted fundraising event’ in the past, but now, with the increasing influence of Catholic bishops in U.S. politics, particularly in support of conservative causes, it may be perceived differently,” she said. She pointed to how some bishops have been vocally critical of President Joe Biden, particularly over his stance on abortion rights, with some even threatening to withhold Communion from him.

“If that’s the way they treated the Catholic president, why would she go?” Imperatori-Lee added, referencing Harris’ support for abortion rights, which has been a key part of her campaign.

Millies also speculated that Harris may be calculating that leaving Trump as the sole speaker could give him more opportunities to make controversial statements. “There’s a better than 50-50 chance that Trump will put his foot in his mouth at the Al Smith dinner anyway, and I wouldn’t want to get in his way if I were Kamala Harris when he does that,” Millies said.

Trump has a history of turning religious events into political battlegrounds. In 2016, during his appearance at the Al Smith Dinner, which traditionally features humorous remarks, Trump used the opportunity to launch personal attacks on his then-opponent, Hillary Clinton. He accused her of being “corrupt” and anti-Catholic, drawing boos from the audience. “Here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics,” Trump remarked about Clinton.

Clinton, for her part, responded by raising concerns about Trump’s allegations of a “rigged” election, adding, “I didn’t think he’d be OK with a peaceful transition of power.” Her comments foreshadowed Trump’s later controversies regarding the 2020 election results.

Trump’s pattern of mixing politics with religious events didn’t stop there. Four years later, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Trump, fresh from his first impeachment trial, used the platform to criticize House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Mitt Romney. He accused Pelosi of lying when she said she prayed for him and attacked Romney for “using” his faith as justification when he voted to convict Trump. “I don’t like people who use faith for justification for doing what they know is wrong,” Trump said at the time.

The fallout from these appearances has had a lasting impact. The National Prayer Breakfast has since been scaled back, moving from a large gathering to a smaller, more intimate event held at the U.S. Capitol.

Imperatori-Lee suggested that Harris’ decision to skip the Al Smith Dinner might also be due to the compressed nature of her campaign. Harris officially launched her presidential bid only two months ago, leaving little time to participate in non-essential events. “Vice President Harris is probably being very cautious about where she spends her time,” Imperatori-Lee said.

She further questioned whether the Al Smith Dinner holds much importance for the average Catholic voter. “Maybe Catholics in New York care about the Al Smith dinner,” she said. “But are Catholics in New York really a demographic that is going to move the needle for Vice President Harris or for any down-ballot people that she might be interested in helping? No.”

More significantly, Millies suggested that Harris’ decision signals a broader shift in the political landscape, with Catholic voters increasingly aligning with the Republican Party. He explained, “Catholics are now settling into being a niche constituency of one party rather than a national constituency that’s available to both parties.”

Given this political reality, skipping the dinner might be a wise move for Harris, especially with the election expected to be extremely close. “The Catholic vote, to all appearances, isn’t going to do her any good,” Millies concluded.

Despite the absence of both Harris and Trump, the Al Smith Dinner is still expected to be a significant fundraising success. Cardinal Dolan told New York’s archdiocesan media that this year’s event is projected to raise around $9 million. He added that the dinner typically raises more money during presidential election years.

Reflecting on the importance of the event, Dolan said, “When we speak about the culture of life, the dignity and sacredness of human life from the moment of conception to natural death, we need to put our money where our mouth is. The dinner exists for these causes, not the other way around.”

In the end, Harris’ decision to decline the Al Smith Dinner invitation highlights the growing polarization around issues like abortion within U.S. politics, particularly as they intersect with religious communities. With the 2024 election drawing near, the event once again serves as a flashpoint for the ongoing debate about faith, politics, and public life.

On November 5, U.S. voters will head to the polls to elect their next president. What was initially expected to be a rematch of the 2020 election between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump took an unexpected turn in July when Biden ended his campaign and threw his support behind Vice-President Kamala Harris. This surprising move has left the nation asking one key question: Will America elect its first female president, or will Donald Trump win a second term in office?

As election day nears, the focus has shifted to how the candidates are performing in the polls. It remains to be seen whether the dynamics of the race will change before November.

Who is Leading the National Polls?

Since entering the race in late July, Harris has consistently led Trump in national polling averages. The margin has remained small but steady. In a highly anticipated debate between the two candidates held in Pennsylvania on September 10, over 67 million viewers tuned in to see how they would fare.

Harris’ performance in the debate seems to have given her a slight boost. Polls conducted in the week following the debate indicated that her lead over Trump increased slightly, rising from 2.5 percentage points to 3.3 percentage points. While this gain is marginal, it reflects a shift in momentum.

The slight increase in Harris’ lead appears to be more a result of a drop in Trump’s numbers than a significant surge in her own. Trump’s polling average had been climbing before the debate but saw a decrease of half a percentage point afterward. These small movements in the polls are tracked in national polling averages, which illustrate how each candidate is trending over time.

However, national polls, while informative, do not provide a comprehensive picture of how the election will play out. The U.S. presidential election is not determined by the national popular vote but rather by the electoral college system.

The Role of Battleground States

The outcome of the election will be decided in a handful of battleground states. While there are 50 states in the U.S., most of them consistently vote for the same party in every election. This leaves a small number of key states where the outcome remains uncertain and where both candidates have a real chance of winning. These states are critical in determining the final outcome and are known as battleground states.

At present, the race in these battleground states is extremely close, with only a one or two percentage point difference separating Harris and Trump in most of them. Pennsylvania, in particular, is a crucial battleground because it has the largest number of electoral votes among these key states. Winning Pennsylvania could be the key to securing the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Before Harris became the Democratic nominee, Biden had been trailing Trump by nearly five percentage points in the seven battleground states. However, Harris’ entry into the race has shifted the dynamics. She is now performing better in several of these states than Biden had been before he exited the race.

Although there are fewer state-level polls than national polls, making it more difficult to draw conclusions, the available data shows that Harris has been gaining ground in certain battleground states. The margin of error in state polls also complicates the picture, as the actual numbers could be slightly higher or lower than reported.

Nonetheless, the trends since Harris entered the race suggest that she is in a stronger position in some key states. Polling averages show that Harris has been leading in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin since the beginning of August. These states, once considered Democratic strongholds, flipped to Trump in 2016, contributing to his victory. Biden won them back in 2020, and if Harris can do the same, she will be well on her way to winning the election.

How Polling Averages Are Created

The polling data used to track the race comes from various sources, including the well-known polling analysis website 538, which is affiliated with ABC News. 538 compiles data from numerous individual polls conducted both nationally and in battleground states. The polls come from a variety of polling companies, and 538 applies strict quality control measures to ensure that only polls meeting specific criteria are included in their averages. These criteria include transparency regarding the number of people polled, the time frame in which the poll was conducted, and the methodology used (e.g., phone calls, text messages, or online surveys).

By aggregating data from multiple polls, 538 creates an average that offers a more reliable indicator of where the race stands than any individual poll could provide. The methodology ensures that only credible polls are considered, reducing the likelihood of inaccurate results.

Can We Trust the Polls?

Although polls provide valuable insights, their accuracy in predicting the final outcome remains uncertain. In both the 2016 and 2020 elections, polls underestimated support for Trump, leading to unexpected results. Polling companies are working to address these past mistakes, adjusting their models to better reflect the composition of the voting population.

However, even with these adjustments, there are still challenges. One of the biggest unknowns is voter turnout. Pollsters must make educated guesses about who is most likely to vote on November 5. Voter turnout is notoriously difficult to predict, and it can have a significant impact on the election’s outcome.

At the moment, polls suggest that Harris and Trump are neck and neck in battleground states, with only a few percentage points separating them. When the race is this close, it becomes nearly impossible to predict the winner with certainty.

While Harris has the advantage in national polls, the electoral college system means that the results in a few key states will ultimately decide the election. As election day approaches, both candidates will likely focus their efforts on winning over voters in these battleground states, knowing that even a small shift in the polls could determine the next president of the United States.

While the current polling suggests that Harris has a slight edge, the election remains too close to call. With both candidates vying for victory in a handful of battleground states, the outcome will likely hinge on voter turnout and the final days of campaigning. As the country watches and waits, one thing is clear: this election has the potential to make history.

A virtual event hosted by Oprah Winfrey on the evening of September 19 aimed at energizing Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign saw emotional moments and celebrity appearances, attracting a massive audience across social media platforms. Titled “Unite for America,” the event was organized in collaboration with the activist group Win with Black Women. It focused on voter registration and rallying support for Harris in key battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan, all of which are expected to play a decisive role in the November 5 election.

One of the event’s most poignant moments came when Shanette Williams, the mother of Amber Nicole Thurman, a 28-year-old Georgia woman who passed away in August 2022 due to a delayed hospital treatment under the state’s restrictive abortion laws, addressed the virtual audience. Fighting back tears, Williams shared her grief: “You’re looking at a mother that is broken, the worst pain ever that a mother, that a parent can ever feel.” Harris responded empathetically: “I’m just so sad. And the courage that you all have shown is extraordinary.” The response drew tears from many in the studio audience of about 400 people.

Another emotional moment occurred when 15-year-old Natalie Griffith, a student at Apalachee High School in Georgia, sat in the front row alongside her parents. Natalie had recently survived a shooting in her math class just two weeks earlier, during which she was shot twice. Her mother, Marilda Griffith, expressed her frustration and sorrow: “What are we doing? We have a job, that job is to protect our children. We have to stop it.” Her plea moved many in both the virtual and in-person audience to tears.

Kamala Harris, along with the Democratic Party, has made significant promises regarding two key issues that were highlighted during the event. First, they have committed to restoring national abortion rights, which were severely impacted by the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling. Second, Harris has vowed to push for a ban on assault weapons, which are frequently used in mass shootings like the one that affected Natalie Griffith.

The event also featured a host of celebrity appearances, lending their voices in support of Harris’ campaign. Among them were comedians Chris Rock and Ben Stiller, along with actors Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep, and Bryan Cranston. The celebrities offered their endorsements for Harris or posed questions to her during the event. Chris Rock, who was particularly enthusiastic about Harris’ candidacy, remarked, “I want to bring my daughters to the White House to meet this Black woman president.”

Oprah Winfrey, acting as the evening’s host, acknowledged Harris’ remarkable rise after President Joe Biden withdrew from the race in late July. Winfrey praised Harris for “stepping into her power” and taking command of her campaign. Harris reflected on the significance of this moment, saying, “You know we each have those moments in our lives when it’s time to step up.”

Harris’ strength as a presidential candidate had been questioned earlier in the campaign, even by some Democrats, including Biden himself. However, since Biden’s departure, Harris has managed to revitalize the Democratic Party’s prospects. Her campaign has brought in renewed enthusiasm and a surge in fundraising, boosting the party’s momentum going into the final stretch of the election.

One candid moment during the event occurred when Winfrey revealed that she had been unaware of Harris’ ownership of a firearm until the candidate’s debate with Republican rival Donald Trump. Harris responded with humor and honesty: “If somebody breaks in my house, they’re getting shot.” Realizing the weight of her statement, Harris quickly added, “Probably should not have said that.”

Harris’ campaign advisors reported that close to 200,000 people had signed up to watch the event live, and by the end of the night, the YouTube stream alone had nearly 100,000 viewers. The event was also broadcast on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitch via the accounts of both Winfrey and Harris, further expanding its reach.

The virtual event brought together a number of grassroots organizations in a show of unity and support for Harris. Groups such as Latinas for Harris, White Dudes for Harris, and Win With Black Men had each been organizing and fundraising independently since Harris became the Democratic nominee. Thursday night’s event marked the first time they had all joined forces in a single, collective effort.

Polling data released ahead of the event provided a glimpse into the state of the race. According to a Reuters poll, Harris held a narrow lead over her opponent Donald Trump, with 47% of the vote to Trump’s 42%. In key battleground states, Harris had a slight advantage. She led in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, and North Carolina, while Trump was ahead in Georgia. The candidates were tied in Arizona, another crucial state in the upcoming election.

Despite Harris’ growing support, her campaign team remained cautious. “And while we have this extraordinary growing enthusiasm that the Vice President and Governor Walz are seeing everywhere, we are still in a margin of error race. It’s tied. It’s tied right here in Michigan. It’s tied in all the battleground states,” campaign chief Jen O’Malley Dillon warned the audience.

Earlier on September 18, the Uncommitted National Movement, a pro-Palestinian grassroots organization with a significant presence in Michigan, announced that it would not be endorsing Harris in the election. While the group expressed opposition to both Harris and Trump, it stopped short of encouraging its supporters to vote for third-party candidates.

As Harris continues to make her case to voters, her campaign has garnered increased attention and support from a wide range of Americans, including celebrities, activists, and everyday citizens. The emotional appeals and high-profile endorsements from the event hosted by Oprah Winfrey are expected to play a pivotal role in energizing voters as the November 5 election approaches.

The U.S. Secret Service confirmed on Monday that it was aware of a social media post by billionaire Elon Musk, in which he commented on the absence of assassination attempts against President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Musk, the owner of the platform X, formerly known as Twitter, made the remark after a man suspected of plotting to kill former Republican President Donald Trump was arrested at Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach on Sunday.

In his post, Musk, a supporter of Trump and the CEO of Tesla, reflected on the situation and wrote: “And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala,” concluding his post with an eyebrow-raising emoji. The statement quickly drew backlash from both sides of the political spectrum, with users of X expressing concern that Musk’s words could potentially incite violence against the current president and vice president, who are key figures in the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election.

Musk’s post, which was visible to his nearly 200 million followers, was soon deleted. However, the Secret Service, whose primary responsibility is the protection of current and former U.S. leaders and other high-profile officials, had already taken note of the comment.

A spokesperson for the Secret Service stated in an email to Reuters, “The Secret Service is aware of the social media post made by Elon Musk and as a matter of practice, we do not comment on matters involving protective intelligence.” The agency emphasized, “We can say, however, that the Secret Service investigates all threats related to our protectees.”

Although the agency did not reveal whether they had directly contacted Musk regarding the matter, the billionaire responded to the criticism in subsequent posts on X. He appeared to dismiss the seriousness of the original comment, describing it as a joke. “Well, one lesson I’ve learned is that just because I say something to a group and they laugh doesn’t mean it’s going to be all that hilarious as a post on X,” Musk wrote. He acknowledged that humor often does not translate well in text, adding, “Turns out that jokes are WAY less funny if people don’t know the context and the delivery is plain text.”

Musk’s initial remark followed an incident in which a man allegedly planned to kill Trump. While no harm came to the former president, the situation drew widespread attention, particularly given the political atmosphere as the 2024 presidential election nears. Trump, who has already announced his bid for a second term in the White House, is expected to face Biden in the election. Vice President Harris, also a key figure in the campaign, is set to run for re-election alongside Biden.

In response to the news of the attempted assassination plot against Trump, both Biden and Harris expressed their relief that the former president had not been injured. Harris, a Democrat, issued a statement on Sunday night, while Biden also publicly condemned any form of political violence. The vice president’s office reiterated the importance of ensuring the safety of all political figures, regardless of party affiliation.

As expected, Musk’s post did not sit well with the White House. On Monday, Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for the White House, addressed the situation directly, condemning the tone of Musk’s remarks. “Violence should only be condemned, never encouraged or joked about. This rhetoric is irresponsible,” Bates said, emphasizing that political discourse, particularly in a tense election cycle, should not include comments that could potentially fuel harmful behavior.

The backlash Musk received for his post is not surprising, given his large and diverse following on X. With nearly 200 million people subscribed to his updates, his statements carry significant weight, and as the owner of the platform, his influence has grown even further. Despite this, Musk’s response to the controversy focused on the misunderstanding of his intended humor, rather than addressing the broader concerns about the potential impact of his words.

While it remains unclear whether the Secret Service will take any further action regarding Musk’s post, the agency’s statement highlights its ongoing responsibility to investigate any perceived threats to its protectees. Given the heightened security concerns surrounding both Biden and Harris as the 2024 election approaches, any comments, whether intended as jokes or otherwise, are likely to be taken seriously by law enforcement and government agencies.

This incident adds to the growing tension in the political landscape as the United States moves closer to another presidential election. The rise of social media and its role in shaping political discourse has been a key issue, with platforms like X serving as a battleground for public opinion, political strategy, and, in some cases, controversy.

Musk’s ownership of X has brought additional scrutiny to the platform, particularly as he often uses it to voice his opinions on various matters, including politics. Since acquiring the platform, Musk has made a number of changes, both to its structure and its policies, drawing both praise and criticism. His approach to free speech on the platform has been lauded by some as a defense of open dialogue, while others have criticized it for allowing misinformation and harmful rhetoric to spread more easily.

As the 2024 election season continues to unfold, public figures like Musk, who hold significant influence through social media, will likely face increased scrutiny for their statements. The debate over the responsibilities of social media platforms in moderating content, particularly when it comes to political discourse, is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

In this case, Musk’s deleted post serves as a reminder of the fine line between free speech and the potential consequences of public remarks, especially when made by individuals with vast platforms and influence. As the Secret Service continues to monitor threats against the president, vice president, and other officials, the role of social media in shaping political narratives and possibly inciting violence remains a critical issue for both law enforcement and the public at large.

On Sunday, Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, was unharmed after what the FBI has described as an attempted assassination. The incident occurred while Trump was golfing at his West Palm Beach, Florida course. According to law enforcement officials, Secret Service agents opened fire on a gunman who had positioned himself in bushes near the property line. The assailant was several hundred yards away from where Trump was playing.

The gunman left behind an AK-47-style assault rifle along with other belongings before fleeing the scene in a vehicle. He was arrested later. This event occurred two months after Trump had been shot at during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, suffering a minor injury to his ear. Both incidents are clear examples of the difficulties involved in protecting presidential candidates during an intense and polarized election campaign, with just over seven weeks remaining until the November 5 election.

In a post on social media, Trump addressed the situation: “I would like to thank everyone for your concern and well wishes – It was certainly an interesting day!” He also expressed gratitude to the Secret Service and local police for ensuring his safety.

Multiple media outlets, including CNN, Fox News, and The New York Times, identified the suspect as 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh from Hawaii, based on information from anonymous law enforcement sources. That same evening, agents from the Secret Service and Homeland Security searched a home in Greensboro, North Carolina, which neighbors confirmed had previously been owned by Routh.

The attack raises concerns about the adequacy of Trump’s security detail, particularly since he is no longer in office. In response to inquiries from reporters, officials acknowledged that because Trump is a private citizen, the entire golf course was not sealed off. “If he was, we would have had the entire golf course surrounded,” stated Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw during a briefing on Sunday. “Because he’s not, security is limited to the areas that the Secret Service deems possible.”

Following the incident, Trump sent an email to his supporters, declaring: “Nothing will slow me down. I will NEVER SURRENDER!”

President Joe Biden later issued a statement confirming that he had directed his team to ensure that the Secret Service had all necessary resources to maintain Trump’s safety.

Suspect’s Background and Support for Ukraine

Routh had reportedly traveled to Ukraine after Russia’s invasion in 2022, expressing his desire to assist in recruiting foreign fighters for the Ukrainian cause after he had been deemed too old to serve. In an interview with Newsweek Romania, Routh stated, “A lot of the other conflicts are grey, but this conflict is definitely black and white. This is about good versus evil.”

He further elaborated on his views, saying, “If the governments will not send their official military, then we, civilians, have to pick up the torch and make this thing happen. We have gotten some wonderful people here, but it is a small fraction of the number that should be here.” Routh was visibly emotional during the interview, urging people from around the globe to take a stand “for humanity, for human rights, for everything that is good with the world” by supporting Ukraine.

Profiles on social media platforms such as X, Facebook, and LinkedIn that appeared to belong to Routh also expressed support for Ukraine. However, Reuters was unable to confirm whether these accounts belonged to the suspect. Law enforcement officials declined to comment on the matter, and public access to the Facebook and X profiles was removed just hours after the shooting.

When contacted by Reuters, Routh’s son Adam, who works at a hardware store in Hawaii, said he was unaware of the assassination attempt and had no information. “It’s not something I would expect my father to do,” Adam remarked. Shortly after the initial conversation, Adam left work due to an emergency.

The Incident and Response

According to Sheriff Bradshaw, the gunman was first detected by a Secret Service agent who spotted the barrel of a rifle poking out from the bushes around 400 to 500 yards away from where Trump was playing. This occurred as agents were securing the course, ensuring there were no threats present before Trump advanced to the next hole.

At approximately 1:30 p.m. on Sunday, agents engaged the suspect, firing at least four shots. The gunman abandoned his rifle, leaving behind two backpacks and other items, before fleeing in a black Nissan. Fortunately, a witness was able to capture photos of the suspect’s vehicle and license plate, aiding in his capture.

The suspect was apprehended by deputies from Martin County while traveling on Interstate 95, about 40 miles from the golf course.

In a statement, the White House said both President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were briefed on the situation and were relieved that Trump was unharmed. Trump is currently in a tight race against Harris, who has gained momentum in the polls since being named the Democratic Party’s candidate, replacing Biden in July. Harris shared her thoughts on the matter in a post on X, stating, “Violence has no place in America.”

Democracy and the Election

Earlier this year, Routh had warned in a post on X that the U.S. democracy was at risk in the upcoming election. This sentiment has been echoed by Harris, who has consistently argued that another term under Trump would endanger the nation’s democratic institutions. She has also maintained strong support for Ukraine as it continues to fight against Russian aggression.

In contrast, Trump has taken a more ambiguous stance on the Ukraine conflict. When asked during a recent debate whether he wanted Ukraine to emerge victorious, Trump replied that he wanted the war to end.

This latest attack brings renewed attention to the July 13 shooting during Trump’s campaign rally in Pennsylvania, where the former president was grazed on the right ear, and one person in attendance was killed. That event marked the first time in over four decades that a U.S. president or major party presidential candidate had been the target of gunfire. The security failure led to the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, following significant pressure from Congress.

Vice President Kamala Harris has gained a notable five-point lead over former President Donald Trump in two major national polls conducted shortly after their recent debate. Many political analysts have declared Harris the clear winner of the debate, with her strong performance boosting her standing among voters.

Key Poll Findings

In a poll conducted by Morning Consult on Wednesday, Harris is ahead of Trump by a margin of 50% to 45%, marking her largest lead so far in this survey group. This is a slight improvement from her previous four-point lead in a poll taken on the day of the debate, and it builds on her earlier three-point lead in surveys conducted before the event. The survey sampled 3,317 likely voters.

Similarly, a two-day Reuters/Ipsos poll concluded on Thursday shows Harris maintaining a five-point lead, with 47% of respondents supporting her compared to 42% for Trump. This is a one-point increase from a previous poll conducted by the same group between August 21 and August 28.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll also revealed that 53% of voters who had followed the debate believed Harris emerged victorious, compared to only 24% who thought Trump had won. A significant portion of the respondents did not provide an answer on this matter. The poll further showed that 91% of Democrats considered Harris the winner, while only 53% of Republicans felt the same about Trump.

Additionally, 52% of the respondents familiar with the debate said Trump did not appear as sharp as they expected, while only 21% said the same about Harris.

Pundits Weigh In

Several political analysts and commentators widely praised Harris for her debate performance. Former Fox News anchor Chris Wallace and NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss were among those who noted that Harris managed to put Trump on the defensive multiple times throughout the night. She questioned him about his ongoing legal troubles, criticized the size of his rally crowds, and referenced his loss in the 2020 election. Harris even brought up how U.S. military leaders allegedly view Trump as a “disgrace.”

Harris’ ability to rattle Trump and shift the narrative worked in her favor, according to many experts. By addressing key issues and managing to corner Trump on various points, she significantly strengthened her position in the race.

Poll Numbers Before and After Debate

Before the debate, Harris had been leading Trump by 2.7 points, according to polling averages compiled by FiveThirtyEight. While her lead has grown since then, polling trends suggest that her momentum may be leveling off. In one of the first major polls taken after the debate, conducted by The New York Times and Siena College from September 3 to September 6, Trump actually managed to edge out Harris by one point, securing 48% to her 47%.

Significance of the Debate

The debate, held last Tuesday, was the first and only scheduled face-off between Trump and Harris and was regarded as one of the most critical events of the 2024 presidential campaign. It marked the first time the two candidates met in person and was especially significant for Harris. Given that she entered the race later than most candidates, she is less well-known to voters from both a personal and policy standpoint.

Despite the high stakes, Harris did not introduce any new policy initiatives during the debate. Instead, the discussion largely centered around familiar topics, with the two candidates exchanging sharp criticisms over issues such as the economy, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, border policies, and abortion rights.

Harris’ performance in the debate came just over two months after President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate with Trump, which many believe ended his bid for the Democratic nomination. With Biden effectively out of the race, Harris has been able to secure her position as the Democratic frontrunner.

Debate Moderation Controversy

While Harris was widely considered the debate’s winner, some of Trump’s supporters criticized the moderators. ABC’s Linsey Davis and David Muir, who hosted the debate, were accused of showing bias by fact-checking Trump on multiple occasions but not doing the same with Harris.

Many news outlets that analyzed the candidates’ statements during the debate found that Trump made more false or misleading claims than Harris. For example, Trump inaccurately claimed that inflation was the worst it had ever been, which was widely debunked by fact-checkers. Although Harris also stretched the truth in a few instances, such as when she claimed that her stance on fracking was clear during the 2020 election, she was not corrected by the moderators.

Trump’s Reaction to the Debate

Following the debate, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to declare that he would not participate in another debate with Harris. He criticized her performance and suggested she had failed in her role as Vice President over the last four years, writing, “THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” Trump further accused Harris of calling for a second debate only because she lost the first one, comparing her to a “fallen UFC fighter” who wants a rematch.

As the 2024 presidential race heats up, Kamala Harris’ recent debate performance has given her a boost in national polls, leading Donald Trump by five points. While there are still months to go before the election, Harris’ ability to take control during the debate and effectively challenge Trump on key issues has strengthened her position as a strong contender for the presidency. However, with Trump’s continued presence and his refusal to debate Harris again, the dynamics of the race remain fluid. Political observers and voters alike will be closely watching how both candidates move forward in the coming weeks.

What if they win? Harris and Trump supporters differ over the acceptability of presidential actions by their own candidate.

Ahead of the scheduled Sept. 10 presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, the presidential race is deadlocked. About half of registered voters (49%) say if the election were held today, they would vote for Harris, while an identical share say they would back Trump.

With less than two months before the November election, the candidates bring contrasting strengths and weaknesses to the presidential contest.

Trump’s key advantage is on the economy, which voters regard as the most important issue this year. A 55% majority of voters say they are very or somewhat confident in Trump to make good decisions about economic policy, compared with 45% who say that about Harris.

Harris’ lead over Trump on abortion is a near mirror image of Trump’s on the economy: 55% of voters have at least some confidence in Harris, while 44% express confidence in Trump.

And Harris holds sizable leads over Trump on several personal traits and characteristics, including being a good role model (a 19 percentage point advantage), down-to-earth (13 points) and honest (8 points).

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted among 9,720 adults (including 8,044 registered voters) from Aug. 26 to Sept. 2, 2024, highlights how much has changed in the campaign – and what hasn’t – since President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and Harris became the Democratic nominee.

Trump’s advantage on “mental sharpness” has disappeared. Currently, 61% of voters say the phrase “mentally sharp” describes Harris very or fairly well, compared with 52% who describe Trump this way. Two months ago, more than twice as many voters viewed Trump as mentally sharp (58%) than said that about Biden (24%). (Read more about perceptions of the candidates in Chapter 3.)

Democratic satisfaction with the candidates has increased. The share of Harris supporters who are very or fairly satisfied with the presidential candidates is nearly triple the share of Biden supporters who were satisfied in July (52% now vs. 18% then). As a result, Harris backers now are more likely than Trump backers to say they are satisfied with the candidates, a clear reversal from just two months ago. (Read more about voter engagement and views of the candidates in Chapter 5.)

The state of the race. The overall patterns of support for each candidate have changed little since last month. For instance, Trump holds a lead among White voters (56% to 42%), while Harris maintains large advantages with Black voters (84% to 13%) and Asian voters (61% to 37%). Latino voters, whose support was evenly divided between Biden and Trump in July, now favor Harris, 57% to 39%. (Read more voter preferences in Chapter 1 and explore demographic breaks on voter preferences in the detailed tables.)

Americans’ views of the economy continue to be largely negative. Americans’ views of the national economy are about as negative today as they were at the start of this year. Only 25% rate national economic conditions excellent or good. Prices for food and consumer goods continue to be a major concern for most Americans, and increasing shares express concerns about housing costs and jobs. (Read more about economic attitudes in Chapter 7.)

In a historic election, how voters view the impact of candidates’ races and ethnicities, genders and ages

If she wins in November, Harris will make history by becoming the first woman president. She would also be the first Asian American and first Black woman president. If Trump wins, he will become the oldest person to take office, at 78. (Read more about voters’ views of the candidates’ demographic characteristics in Chapter 4.)

Voters overall have mixed views of the impact of Harris’ gender and race and ethnicity on her candidacy. More say the fact that Harris is a woman and that she is Black and Asian will help her than hurt her with voters this fall. Somewhat more voters see Harris’ gender as a potential negative (30%) than see her race and ethnicity this way (19%).

Harris supporters are far more likely than Trump supporters to say the vice president’s gender and race will be a liability. More than twice as many Harris supporters (42%) as Trump supporters (16%) say the fact that Harris is a woman will hurt her with voters. Fewer Harris supporters think her race and ethnicity will be a hindrance (31%), but just 8% of Trump supporters say the same.

Nearly half of voters say Trump’s age will hurt his candidacy. Far more voters say Trump’s age will hurt him (49%) than help him (3%) in the election; the remainder say it will not make much difference. The reverse is true for how voters see the effect of Harris’ age: 46% say the fact that she is 59 will help her with voters, while just 3% say it will hurt her.

Harris, Trump supporters weigh in: What actions are acceptable for a president?

Looking ahead, Harris and Trump supporters have very different ideas about the kinds of presidential actions that would be acceptable if their preferred candidate takes office (read more about these views in Chapter 6):

Investigating political opponents

More than half of Trump supporters (54%) say it would definitely or probably be acceptable for Trump to order federal law enforcement officials to investigate Democratic opponents. Half as many Harris supporters (27%) say it would be acceptable for Harris to order investigations into GOP opponents.

Pardoning family, friends and supporters; firing disloyal federal workers

Trump supporters also are far more likely than Harris supporters to say it would be acceptable for their candidate to pardon friends, family or political supporters who have been convicted of crimes and to fire federal workers at any level who are not personally loyal to them.

Executive orders

Majorities of both Trump supporters (58%) and Harris supporters (55%) say it would be acceptable for their candidate, if they win, to use executive orders to make policies when they can’t get their priorities through Congress.

Other findings: An uncertain election outcome, the more critical candidate, Trump and the 2020 election

Trump is widely viewed as too personally critical of Harris. About two-thirds of voters (66%) say Trump has been too personally critical of Harris. By comparison, fewer (45%) say Harris has been too personally critical of Trump. About four-in-ten Trump supporters (41%) say Trump has been too critical of his opponent, compared with just 12% of Harris supporters who say the same of Harris.

Most say it’s not yet clear who will win. Only 20% of voters say it is already clear which candidate will win the election, while 80% say it is not yet clear. Voters who say it is clear who will win overwhelmingly say their preferred candidate will prevail. When those who say it is not yet clear are asked for their “best guess,” they also opt for their candidate.

Trump’s role in the 2020 election remains divisive. More than four-in-ten voters (46%) say Trump broke the law in an effort to change the outcome of the 2020 election, while another 14% say he did something wrong but did not break the law. Another 27% say Trump did nothing wrong. These views are largely unchanged since April. While Harris supporters overwhelmingly say Trump broke the law (88% say this), Trump backers are divided: 54% say he did nothing wrong while 27% say either he did something wrong or broke the law. Trump supporters (18%) are more likely than Harris supporters (7%) to say they are not sure.

Voters also divided on Trump’s New York fraud case. The survey was completed before a New York judge delayed sentencing in the criminal case against Trump in which he was found guilty of falsifying business records and other charges related to “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels. Among all voters, 39% say Trump should serve time in jail, while 45% say he should not. About seven-in-ten Harris supporters (72%) think Trump should have to serve jail time, while an even larger share of Trump supporters (81%) say he should not.

Source Credit: Pew Research Center

Pope Francis expressed strong criticism toward both U.S. presidential candidates, focusing on their stances regarding abortion and migration. He urged American Catholics to vote in the upcoming election by determining who represents the “lesser evil” between the two. The Pope condemned both candidates for promoting what he labeled “anti-life” policies, highlighting the moral dilemmas faced by voters.

“Both are against life, be it the one who kicks out migrants, or be it the one who kills babies,” Pope Francis remarked during a news conference held aboard a plane as he returned to Rome following his four-nation visit to Asia.

Although Pope Francis did not directly name the Republican candidate Donald Trump or the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, his remarks addressed two major issues central to the U.S. election. His strong criticism reflected his deep concerns about the stance of each candidate on abortion and migration, topics that are significant to the Catholic Church.

Abortion and Migration as Moral Concerns

Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis has prioritized advocating for the rights of migrants, speaking out passionately on the topic. He also upholds the Catholic Church’s long-standing position against abortion but has not placed the same level of emphasis on this doctrine as his predecessors. In his recent comments, the pontiff made his position on abortion clear, calling it a form of killing.

“To have an abortion is to kill a human being. You may like the word or not, but it’s killing,” Pope Francis stated. He added, “We have to see this clearly.”

His comments reflect the church’s unwavering stance on the sanctity of life from conception, a key belief upheld by Catholics worldwide. However, he also took the opportunity to emphasize that denying migrants entry and disregarding their human rights is equally concerning.

Voting and Moral Responsibility

When asked how American Catholics should approach their decision at the polls, Pope Francis emphasized the importance of exercising one’s civic duty to vote. He acknowledged that neither candidate may represent an ideal choice, but stressed that it is still necessary to participate in the electoral process.

“One should vote, and choose the lesser evil,” Pope Francis said. He explained that voters need to examine their conscience to determine which candidate aligns more closely with their values. “Who is the lesser evil, the woman or man? I don’t know,” he added, acknowledging the difficulty of the decision.

While neither Trump nor Harris was directly named in the Pope’s remarks, his comments were clearly directed toward their policies on abortion and immigration. Both campaigns, however, did not immediately respond to these statements when asked by The Associated Press.

Biden and the Catholic Church

U.S. President Joe Biden, a practicing Catholic, supports abortion rights, aligning with his running mate Kamala Harris on the issue. This stance has led to some controversy within the Catholic community, with conservative bishops and others calling for Biden to be denied Communion. Despite this, Biden has maintained a positive relationship with Pope Francis, particularly following a 2021 meeting in which the Pope reportedly assured Biden that he remained a “good Catholic.”

This issue of abortion has created divisions within the church, with some U.S. bishops taking a hardline stance. However, Pope Francis has urged bishops to focus on their pastoral duties, advising them to avoid becoming overly political. He has previously stated that bishops should not act like politicians when dealing with such sensitive issues.

Previous U.S. Election Commentary

This is not the first time that Pope Francis has commented on a U.S. presidential election. During the 2016 election, he criticized Trump’s plan to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, stating that anyone who seeks to build barriers to prevent migrants from entering “is not Christian.” At that time, Francis condemned the exclusionary policies that he saw as being contrary to Christian values.

In his remarks on Friday, Francis recalled a past Mass he celebrated at the U.S.-Mexico border, during which he was struck by the suffering endured by migrants. “There were so many shoes of the migrants who ended up badly there,” the Pope recounted, once again highlighting the ongoing humanitarian crisis at the border.

Migration and Its Role in the Election

Migration continues to be a significant issue in U.S. politics, and Trump has reiterated his stance on the matter, promising large-scale deportations if re-elected. During his first campaign, Trump’s immigration policies faced significant legal, financial, and political challenges, but he has remained committed to similar proposals in his current bid for the presidency.

On the other hand, the U.S. bishops’ conference has identified abortion as the “preeminent priority” for American Catholics when considering their vote. Harris has consistently defended abortion rights and advocated for the restoration of federal protections for abortion access.

Pope Francis reiterated the church’s position on abortion during the news conference, referencing scientific findings about the development of a fetus. “On abortion, science says that a month from conception, all the organs of a human being are already there, all of them. Performing an abortion is killing a human being,” he stated. He continued, “You can’t say the church is closed because it does not allow abortion. The church does not allow abortion because it’s killing. It is murder.”

Despite the Pope’s strong stance, scientific understanding of fetal development differs slightly. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists clarifies that organs begin forming early in pregnancy, but full organ development does not occur until later in the first trimester, around 13 weeks.

Other Remarks from the Pope

In addition to discussing the U.S. election, Pope Francis touched on several other topics during the news conference. He firmly denied a report from French media claiming he would attend the inauguration of the restored Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris this December. He confirmed that he has no plans to visit Paris at that time but expressed a desire to travel to the Canary Islands to draw attention to the plight of migrants in that region.

Speculation has also continued to swirl around the possibility of the Pope returning to his homeland of Argentina later this year. Francis has not visited Argentina since he was elected pope in 2013, but on Friday, he stated that while he hopes to return, no decision has been made. “There are various things to resolve first,” he added, without providing further details.

In a more hopeful tone, Pope Francis described China as “a promise and a hope” for the Catholic Church and reiterated his desire to visit the country one day. He has long expressed optimism about the future of Catholicism in China.

Finally, Francis addressed the issue of sexual abuse within the church, calling the recent revelations about French priest Abbe Pierre “demonic.” His strong words underscored the church’s ongoing efforts to confront and address instances of abuse.

Heading into the fall campaign for president, U.S. religious groups that traditionally have leaned Republican are backing former President Donald Trump by wide margins, while religious groups that traditionally have favored Democratic candidates are mostly supporting Vice President Kamala Harris.

The latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Aug. 26-Sept. 2, 2024, finds that majorities of registered voters in three key religious groups say they would vote for Trump or lean toward doing so if the election were today:

• 82% of White evangelical Protestants
• 61% of White Catholics
• 58% of White nonevangelical Protestants

Harris currently has the backing of roughly two-thirds or more registered voters in various other religious groups:

• 86% of Black Protestants
• 85% of atheists
• 78% of agnostics
• 65% of Hispanic Catholics
• 65% of Jewish voters

The survey includes responses from Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and people from many other religious backgrounds. However, it does not include enough respondents from these smaller religious groups to be able to report on them separately.

Harris has improved on Biden’s performance with some religious groups

The new survey marks the first time that the Center has asked about voters’ preferences between Trump and Harris – without asking about any third-party candidates – since President Joe Biden withdrew as the Democratic nominee and independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his campaign.

Harris currently garners more support from Black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics than Biden did in April, when 77% of Black Protestants and 49% of Hispanic Catholics backed him.

Otherwise, the religious dynamics of the U.S. presidential campaign look about as they did in the spring.

Support for Trump varies by church attendance

Among White evangelicals, support for Trump is higher among those who attend church regularly – that is, at least once or twice a month – than among those who don’t. Support for Trump is also marginally higher among White Catholics who attend Mass at least monthly than among White Catholics who attend Mass less often.

By contrast, among White Protestants who are not evangelical, support for Trump is somewhat lower among regular churchgoers than among those who don’t attend church regularly.

There are no such differences in support for Harris among Black Protestants: 86% of both regular churchgoers and those who don’t often go to church support her.

How U.S. religious groups view key issues in the election

We also asked respondents how important a variety of issues will be to their vote in the presidential election.

Certain issues are highly important to voters regardless of religious group. For instance, at least six-in-ten registered voters in every religious group say the economy will be very important in their voting decision. And half or more in almost every religious group say the same about health care, Supreme Court appointments and foreign policy.

White evangelical Protestant voters stand out for the high level of importance they attach to immigration. Roughly eight-in-ten White evangelicals (79%) say immigration will be very important in their voting decision – higher than any other group. A large majority of White Catholics (72%) also say immigration will be a key factor in their decision.

Abortion, in turn, is rated as a very important issue by more atheists (a group that mostly supports legal abortion) than by people with other religious identities. Roughly three-quarters of atheists (77%) say abortion will be very important in deciding who to vote for. Around six-in-ten agnostics (62%), Jewish voters (59%) and Black Protestants (57%) also say abortion will be very important in deciding how to vote this fall. Fewer Catholics (44%) and White Protestants (including 48% of evangelicals and 43% of nonevangelicals) say the same.

These differences across religious groups reflect broader partisan patterns. White evangelicals and White Catholics mostly identify with or lean toward the Republican Party and support Trump in the current election. And the new survey shows that more Republican voters than Democratic voters say immigration will be very important to their choice this fall.

Source Credit: Pew Research Center

The number of children living in poverty surged significantly in the past year, presenting a pressing issue for both major candidates as the U.S. presidential election heats up. From 2022 to 2023, an additional 979,000 children were classified as living in poverty, raising the total number of impoverished children in the U.S. to nearly 10 million, or 9,962,000, according to the latest Census Bureau data.

These alarming figures were released as part of the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which accounts for a wider range of income sources, government assistance, and expenses than the traditional poverty metric. The SPM reflects a more comprehensive view of financial struggles in America. According to this measure, overall poverty rose from 12.4% in 2022 to 12.9% in 2023, while child poverty increased at an even faster rate, growing from 12.4% to 13.7% in just one year.

Although the increase in child poverty is concerning, the data also suggests that public policy measures have the potential to significantly alleviate this issue. Refundable tax credits, which provide payments to families even if they don’t owe any taxes, played a crucial role in lifting millions out of poverty in 2023. According to the Census Bureau’s report, these credits helped 6.4 million people escape poverty, including 3.4 million children. Among these, the refundable child tax credit proved to be particularly effective, pulling one-third of those individuals above the poverty line.

Steven Durlauf, a professor at The University of Chicago and director of the Stone Center for Research on Wealth Inequality and Mobility at the Harris School of Public Policy, emphasized the importance of these credits. He stated, “The obvious answer to reducing poverty is to increase assistance to the poor. The effectiveness of such a policy is evident when one considers the effects of the Child Tax Credit.”

The refundable child tax credit, which was expanded under President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan, became a key policy tool in the fight against child poverty. In 2021, the credit was increased to $3,600 per child and made fully refundable, leading to a significant drop in child poverty rates that year. However, this expanded credit expired in December 2021, and over the course of the following year, more than 5 million children fell back into poverty. Despite widespread calls for its renewal, there has been little legislative action on the matter.

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the issue of child poverty and tax credits is gaining renewed attention. Vice President Kamala Harris, now a candidate for president, has put forward a proposal to restore the expanded child tax credit. Harris’ plan includes reintroducing the $3,600 credit for working families and providing an additional $6,000 tax credit for parents in their child’s first year of life.

“Billionaire-bought Donald Trump’s ‘plan’ for making child care more affordable is to impose a $3,900 tax hike on middle-class families,” said Joseph Costello, a spokesperson for Harris’ campaign, in a statement to Business Insider. “The American people deserve a president who will actually cut costs for them, like Vice President Harris’ plan to bring back a $3,600 Child Tax Credit for working families and an expanded $6,000 tax cut for families with newborn children.”

Meanwhile, JD Vance, Donald Trump’s running mate, has suggested a different approach. Vance floated the idea of a $5,000 child tax credit as part of their campaign’s platform. Republicans, however, have been critical of Harris’ policies, with RNC Spokesperson Anna Kelly commenting on the correlation between Harris’ tenure and the struggles families face.

“As this data shows, there is a terrible, direct correlation between Kamala Harris’ policies and parents struggling to keep their children housed and nourished,” Kelly remarked. “Families across the country know that they were better off four years ago, and they are ready to return to lower costs and commonsense policies under President Trump.”

As the election nears, economic concerns have taken center stage for voters. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey conducted between August 26 and September 2, 81% of voters indicated that the economy is a very important issue for their vote. For parents, in particular, the worsening child poverty rate may sharpen their focus on what each candidate plans to offer in terms of economic relief.

Adam Ruben, vice president of campaigns and political strategy at Economic Security Project, highlighted the urgency of restoring successful anti-poverty programs, saying, “The facts speak for themselves: millions of children are going to bed hungry and parents can’t access basic needs like groceries, gas, and prescription drugs, all because polarized politicians have failed to keep this historically effective program going.”

Despite the rise in child poverty, the broader economy still shows signs of strength, at least by some measures. The official poverty rate, which is based on more traditional metrics and excludes government assistance programs, dropped slightly from 11.5% in 2022 to 11.1% in 2023, signaling that the U.S. economy remains relatively strong overall.

“The official poverty rate ticking down tells us that the macroeconomy is strong,” said Josh Bivens, chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute. However, Bivens noted that the SPM’s increase suggests that the current system of anti-poverty programs is inadequate. “The fact that it is still 11.1% at near-full employment and the SPM rose tells us the U.S. system of anti-poverty programs needs strengthening. These programs keep tens of millions out of poverty, but if we expanded them, they’d bring tens of millions more out of poverty,” Bivens explained.

With child poverty becoming a central focus in political discussions, the debate around economic policies will likely intensify as the presidential campaigns progress. Both candidates’ approaches to addressing poverty, through child tax credits and other measures, are bound to play a major role in shaping voters’ opinions as they consider which leader can best tackle the financial struggles facing many American families. As the election nears, the solutions offered by the candidates will be critical, especially in the eyes of parents and those who have been hit hardest by rising poverty levels.

The rise in child poverty in the United States has emerged as a significant concern, one that could become a central issue for both presidential candidates as the 2024 election approaches. Data from the Census Bureau shows a troubling increase in the number of children living in poverty, signaling that more Americans are struggling to make ends meet.

Between 2022 and 2023, nearly one million more children fell into poverty, with 979,000 additional children under the age of 18 entering the poverty category. This brought the total number of children in poverty last year to 9,962,000. The figures are based on the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which offers a broader view of poverty than the traditional official poverty line by taking into account factors like government assistance and various expenses.

The overall Supplemental Poverty Measure showed a modest increase, rising from 12.4% in 2022 to 12.9% in 2023. However, child poverty rose at a faster rate, climbing from 12.4% to 13.7%. While these numbers paint a grim picture, they also highlight the impact that government policy can have on alleviating poverty, especially for children.

According to the Census Bureau report, refundable tax credits for parents played a crucial role in reducing child poverty. These credits, which are paid out even if a family doesn’t owe taxes, helped lift 3.4 million children — and 6.4 million people overall — out of poverty in 2023. Of these, the refundable Child Tax Credit was particularly impactful, pulling one-third of those Americans above the poverty line.

“The obvious answer to reducing poverty is to increase assistance to the poor,” said Steven Durlauf, professor at The University of Chicago and director of the Stone Center for Research on Wealth Inequality and Mobility at the Harris School of Public Policy, in a statement to Business Insider. “The effectiveness of such a policy is evident when one considers the effects of the Child Tax Credit.”

The Child Tax Credit, which was expanded and made fully refundable to $3,600 per child under President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan in 2021, led to a sharp decline in child poverty that year. However, this expanded credit expired in December 2021, and without its continuation, over 5 million children slid back into poverty over the following year. Despite calls for renewing the expanded credit, no legislative action has been taken so far.

As the 2024 presidential election heats up, the Child Tax Credit has resurfaced as a major policy debate. Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed reinstating the enhanced Child Tax Credit as part of her campaign platform. Under her plan, lower- and middle-income parents would receive a $6,000 credit during their child’s first year of life. Harris is positioning her proposal as a direct contrast to the policies of former President Donald Trump.

“Billionaire-bought Donald Trump’s ‘plan’ for making child care more affordable is to impose a $3,900 tax hike on middle-class families,” Joseph Costello, a spokesperson for the Harris-Walz 2024 campaign, told Business Insider. “The American people deserve a president who will actually cut costs for them, like Vice President Harris’ plan to bring back a $3,600 Child Tax Credit for working families and an expanded $6,000 tax cut for families with newborn children.”

On the other side, JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, has suggested a $5,000 child tax credit as part of their platform. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has also been vocal in blaming Harris for the rising rates of child poverty. “As this data shows, there is a terrible, direct correlation between Kamala Harris’ policies and parents struggling to keep their children housed and nourished,” RNC spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. “Families across the country know that they were better off four years ago, and they are ready to return to lower costs and commonsense policies under President Trump.”

With the economy already being a top concern for voters, the issue of child poverty is likely to weigh heavily on their minds as they decide who to support. According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted from August 26 to September 2, 81% of voters indicated that the economy is a very important issue for their vote. As child poverty continues to increase, the ability of candidates to address the needs of parents could become a critical factor in determining the outcome of the election.

“The facts speak for themselves: millions of children are going to bed hungry, and parents can’t access basic needs like groceries, gas, and prescription drugs, all because polarized politicians have failed to keep this historically effective program going,” said Adam Ruben, vice president of campaigns and political strategy at the Economic Security Project, in a statement to Business Insider.

The Census Bureau’s latest report also contained some positive news. The official poverty rate, which is a more narrow measure than the SPM, declined slightly, dropping from 11.5% in 2022 to 11.1% in 2023. While this decrease is encouraging, it doesn’t fully reflect the struggles many Americans continue to face.

“The official poverty rate ticking down tells us that the macroeconomy is strong,” said Josh Bivens, chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “The fact that it is still 11.1% at near-full employment and the SPM rose tells us the U.S. system of anti-poverty programs needs strengthening. These programs keep tens of millions out of poverty, but if we expanded them, they’d bring tens of millions more out of poverty.”

As child poverty remains a pressing issue in the United States, the role of government assistance programs like the Child Tax Credit will be critical in shaping the national conversation. Both presidential candidates are offering contrasting solutions to address the needs of parents and children, and their policies will likely resonate with millions of voters who are feeling the financial squeeze.

Whether the expanded Child Tax Credit is reinstated or a new policy is introduced, it is clear that the economic well-being of America’s children will be a defining issue in the 2024 presidential election. As the country grapples with rising poverty, both sides will need to present a compelling vision for how to lift families out of hardship and provide them with the resources they need to thrive.

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are preparing for Tuesday’s presidential debate, employing vastly different approaches that highlight their contrasting political styles and visions for the nation. The vice president is taking a meticulous, focused approach, while Trump has opted for a more improvisational strategy, relying on instinct over extensive preparation.

Harris has chosen a historic hotel in downtown Pittsburgh as her base, where she can concentrate on crafting precise two-minute responses, in line with the debate’s rules. Aides have been working with her since Thursday, and her chosen location offers the additional benefit of allowing her to engage with voters in the crucial swing state.

Meanwhile, Trump, the Republican candidate, has largely dismissed traditional debate preparation. Instead of intensive rehearsals, he continues to attend campaign events, believing he will be prepared once he steps on stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

“You can go in with all the strategy you want, but you have to sort of feel it out as the debate’s taking place,” Trump remarked during a town hall hosted by Sean Hannity on Fox News. He reinforced his point by quoting former boxing champion Mike Tyson, saying, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”

Harris is well aware of Trump’s potential to throw insults and misrepresent facts during the debate. However, her campaign sees value in remaining focused on issues that matter to middle-class Americans, such as economic growth and the nation’s future.

“We should be prepared for the fact that he is not burdened by telling the truth,” Harris noted in a radio interview with the Rickey Smiley Morning Show. “He tends to fight for himself, not for the American people, and I think that’s going to come out during the course of the debate.”

In her preparation, Harris has been working with Philippe Reines, a Democratic consultant and former aide to Hillary Clinton, who is standing in as Trump during her practice sessions. Harris has frequently criticized Trump’s approach, accusing him of following a “playbook” of falsehoods used against prominent Democrats like Clinton and Barack Obama.

Harris also claims that she understands Trump’s mindset on a psychological level, which has shaped her strategy for confronting him in the debate. During speeches such as her remarks at the Democratic National Convention, she has sought to position herself as a stronger leader than Trump, a direct challenge to his focus on projecting strength.

Trump’s debate against President Joe Biden on June 27 reshaped the election, ultimately leading Biden to step aside as the Democratic nominee and throw his support behind Harris. Both campaigns are aware that Tuesday’s debate could be a pivotal moment in what has become a closely contested race.

Trump, who has repeatedly questioned the impartiality of the media, is already criticizing the ABC News moderators set to oversee the debate. Nevertheless, he insists he will let Harris speak, just as he did during his debate with Biden. “I let him talk. I’m gonna let her talk,” Trump said during the Hannity town hall.

Despite the lack of formal preparation, Trump’s team insists he is ready for the debate. According to his aides, the strategy will be similar to his approach in the previous debate—no stand-ins, no mock debate setups, and no elaborate rehearsals.

Trump’s aides point to his frequent appearances in interviews, long press conferences, and podcasts as his method of staying sharp on the issues. These informal sessions, they argue, help keep him well-versed in the topics that could arise during the debate.

“We have meetings on it. We talk about it. But there’s not a lot you can do. You either know your subject or not. You either have good policy or not,” Trump said in a New Hampshire radio interview.

Ahead of the previous debate, Trump prepared with prominent Republicans like Senator Marco Rubio, who was then under consideration as a potential running mate. This time, his team has turned to Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate who is now backing Trump. Gabbard, who debated Harris during the 2020 Democratic primary, has been brought in to help Trump fine-tune his strategy. She also recently hosted a town hall with Trump in Wisconsin.

Trump’s campaign is intent on putting Harris on the defensive, portraying her as too liberal and connecting her policies to Biden’s economic record. They plan to highlight her shifting stances on issues such as her previous support for a fracking ban, which she has since renounced.

“We look forward to the opportunity for Americans to see her on stage, incapable of defending her policies and flip-flops,” said Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt. “The president’s proven he has a command of the issues, she does not.”

Harris’s team is betting that Trump will come across as too extreme during the debate. They hope to use the event to build on the momentum generated by her relatively brief campaign. Over the weekend, the campaign plans to hold 2,000 events across the country, aiming to reach more than one million voters.

“With hundreds of offices and thousands of staff across the battlegrounds, we are able to harness all the buzz around the debate and break through to hard-to-reach voters,” Dan Kanninen, the campaign’s battleground states director, said in a statement.

The debate is shaping up to be a critical moment in the election, with both candidates keen to capitalize on the opportunity to sway undecided voters. For Trump, the goal is to paint Harris as out of touch with middle America, while Harris aims to show she is a more credible leader with a vision for a stronger, more united country.

As both candidates gear up for the high-stakes debate, their divergent approaches reflect not only their individual personalities but also the broader ideological battle at the heart of this election. Harris, with her disciplined preparation and focus on policy, is preparing to meet Trump’s unorthodox, instinct-driven approach head-on. The outcome of their clash could have far-reaching implications for the future of American politics.

Analysts from Goldman Sachs have issued a warning that former President Donald Trump’s return to office and the implementation of his proposed economic policies could result in a decline in U.S. economic performance. In particular, they highlighted that Trump’s plans to impose stricter immigration policies and levy new tariffs on Chinese goods could significantly reduce the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth.

Goldman Sachs’ forecast suggests that if Trump wins the 2024 election, the U.S. economy could experience a reduction in GDP growth by about half a percentage point in the latter half of 2025. However, the report also indicated that the economy could see some recovery the following year. “We estimate that if Trump wins in a sweep or with divided government, the hit to growth from tariffs and tighter immigration policy would outweigh the positive fiscal impulse,” Goldman analysts wrote in their analysis on Tuesday.

According to their predictions, Trump’s economic policies, particularly those focused on tariffs and immigration, would have a greater negative impact on growth than the potential benefits from any fiscal stimulus measures his administration might introduce. The Goldman analysts were cautious about how these proposals could affect broader economic conditions, particularly in relation to international trade and labor markets.

Trump’s proposal to increase tariffs on Chinese imports, aimed at reducing America’s trade deficit, was a key point in his economic agenda during his previous tenure. However, while such measures may aim to protect American industries, they also risk escalating trade tensions with China, one of the United States’ largest trading partners. These tariffs could lead to increased costs for U.S. consumers and businesses, which might slow down economic growth.

Moreover, the report raised concerns about Trump’s intention to tighten immigration laws. Restrictive immigration policies could limit the availability of labor, particularly in industries that heavily rely on immigrant workers, such as agriculture, construction, and healthcare. A shortage of workers in these sectors could disrupt supply chains and drive up wages, leading to inflationary pressures.

On the other hand, Goldman Sachs analysts provided a contrasting economic outlook in the event of a Harris presidency, particularly if Vice President Kamala Harris were to win the 2024 election with Democratic control of Congress. They predicted that her economic policies could lead to more favorable growth outcomes, with spending initiatives and tax credits acting as significant drivers of economic expansion.

Goldman analysts argued that Harris’s proposed policies would “more than offset” the negative impact of a higher corporate income tax rate, which she has suggested raising to 28 percent. The analysts believe that these spending initiatives would stimulate the economy by boosting investments in infrastructure, education, and healthcare, among other areas.

The corporate tax rate has been a contentious issue in U.S. politics. Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, a move that was designed to spur business investment and economic growth. However, Harris, like President Biden, has called for the corporate tax rate to be increased to 28 percent to fund social programs and reduce the national deficit. Biden’s recent budget proposal also included this tax increase as a way to balance the government’s fiscal policies.

In a scenario where Harris wins the presidency but Congress remains divided between Republicans and Democrats, Goldman Sachs predicted a more neutral outcome for the economy. In this case, policy changes would likely be minimal, resulting in little to no effect on GDP growth. “Policy changes would be small and have a neutral effect on GDP,” the Goldman report stated.

The Harris-Walz campaign expressed optimism about their economic vision. Joseph Costello, a spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign, highlighted the positive impact their policies could have on middle-class families and small businesses. “Vice President Harris has a positive vision to strengthen the economy by building up the middle class, cutting taxes and lowering costs for working families and small businesses, and creating opportunities for all Americans to get ahead. On the economy, the choice could not be any more clear this November,” Costello said.

Despite the attention on Trump’s and Harris’s policies, the Trump campaign has yet to provide a response to Goldman Sachs’ predictions. The analysis of the economic outlook for a potential Trump presidency comes at a time when the country is already facing numerous challenges, including inflation, labor shortages, and fluctuating job market conditions.

In addition to concerns about the long-term economic policies of the next administration, Goldman Sachs also pointed out the potential impact of short-term monetary policy changes under the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is widely expected to lower interest rates in September, marking the first rate cut in over five years. According to the CME Fed Watch tool, as of Wednesday, there is a 57 percent chance of a quarter-point rate cut.

A report from the U.S. Labor Department released on Wednesday, which showed weaker-than-expected job openings, has increased the likelihood of a more significant rate cut. However, most analysts believe that a quarter-point reduction remains the most probable scenario.

This news follows the release of the July jobs report, which revealed a slight increase in unemployment, rising from 4.1 percent to 4.3 percent. While this uptick is modest, it has raised concerns about the overall strength of the labor market. A slowdown in hiring, combined with ongoing inflationary pressures, could influence the Federal Reserve’s decisions in the coming months.

Further complicating the economic picture is the ongoing behavior of bond markets, where yield curves are beginning to show signs of renormalization. Yield curves, which plot the interest rates of bonds of varying maturities, have been inverted for the past two years. An inverted yield curve, where short-term bonds yield more than long-term bonds, is often seen as a signal of an impending recession. However, the bond market is now showing signs that this inversion may be coming to an end, with the 10-year Treasury yield starting to pay out more than the 2-year Treasury yield.

Despite these warning signs, a recession has yet to materialize, leaving some market analysts cautiously optimistic. Nevertheless, the outcome of the 2024 election could significantly shape the future economic landscape, as the next president will inherit an economy facing numerous challenges, from inflation to labor shortages to international trade tensions.

As the election approaches, voters will have a stark choice between two very different economic visions. While Trump’s policies focus on protecting American industries through tariffs and reducing immigration, Harris has positioned herself as a champion of the middle class, advocating for higher corporate taxes and increased government spending to stimulate economic growth.

Ultimately, the direction of the U.S. economy in the coming years will depend not only on the policies of the next president but also on global economic conditions and domestic market dynamics. As Goldman Sachs analysts have shown, the economic consequences of the 2024 election could be significant, making it a critical issue for both policymakers and voters alike.

Democratic presidential candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris, on September 4, made an impassioned plea for Americans to put an end to the “epidemic of gun violence” in the country. This call to action came in response to a mass shooting that took place at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, which claimed the lives of four individuals. Harris used the occasion to once again push for stricter gun safety measures, including a ban on assault weapons, despite the staunch opposition from Republican leaders.

Speaking at a rally in New Hampshire, Harris expressed her deep sorrow over the shooting in Georgia, which added to the growing number of mass shootings across the nation in recent years. “This is just a senseless tragedy, on top of so many senseless tragedies,” Harris stated, reflecting the emotions of many Americans who have become all too familiar with the frequent news of gun violence.

The mass shooting at the Georgia high school was one of the hundreds of such incidents that have rocked the United States in 2024 alone. Harris pointed to this tragic reality, acknowledging the fears that parents across the country experience daily. “It’s just outrageous that every day in our country, in the United States of America, that parents send their children to school worried about whether or not their child will come home alive,” she said. Harris emphasized that while these mass shootings have become alarmingly common, they do not represent an inevitable reality for the country. “We have to end this epidemic of gun violence in our country once and for all. It doesn’t have to be this way,” she stressed.

In the wake of this tragedy, Harris renewed her call for stronger gun control measures, specifically advocating for a ban on assault weapons. Such a position has drawn fierce resistance from many Republicans who argue that it infringes on the rights of gun owners. Despite this opposition, Harris remains committed to her stance on gun control, echoing a sentiment she has shared throughout her political career. She highlighted the need for Congress to pass a new assault weapons ban, similar to the one that had been enacted in 1994 during President Joe Biden’s time as a senator. That law had expired in 2004, and efforts to reinstate it have repeatedly stalled in Congress since then.

Harris didn’t stop at the assault weapons ban. She also called for universal background checks, a policy that would ensure all firearm buyers undergo a criminal history review, regardless of where they purchase their guns. In addition, she advocated for the adoption of “red flag” laws, which would allow authorities to prevent individuals deemed dangerous from buying or possessing firearms. These red flag laws, known as state protective orders, aim to reduce gun violence by proactively identifying potential threats before they escalate into tragedy.

“It is a false choice to say you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away,” Harris said, addressing a long-standing argument from gun rights advocates. Harris has repeatedly argued that common-sense gun control laws can coexist with the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. “I’m in favor of the Second Amendment, and I know we need reasonable gun safety laws in our country,” she added.

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump, Harris’ main Republican opponent in the upcoming election, responded to the shooting with a message of condolence. Trump, who is widely recognized as a champion of gun rights by his party, expressed his sorrow over the incident. He took to social media to post, “Our hearts are with the victims,” and went on to describe the shooter as a “sick and deranged monster” responsible for taking the lives of “cherished children…far too soon.” Trump, however, stopped short of endorsing any new gun control measures, reflecting his strong alignment with Republican opposition to such regulations.

Gun control has long been a divisive issue in American politics, with advocates for stricter laws arguing that they are necessary to reduce the frequency of mass shootings and gun-related deaths, while opponents, particularly within the Republican Party, argue that such laws infringe on constitutional rights and fail to address the root causes of violence. This ideological clash has contributed to the political deadlock that has stymied legislative efforts to pass comprehensive gun reform at the federal level.

Harris, a former prosecutor and California Attorney General, has positioned herself as a vocal advocate for gun safety laws throughout her career. She has often pointed to her experience in law enforcement as evidence of her understanding of the complexities of the issue. Her support for gun control has been consistent, even as the debate over gun rights continues to polarize American voters. Harris’ background in law enforcement also lends credibility to her arguments for reasonable restrictions on firearms without compromising the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners.

As the presidential race heats up, gun violence is emerging as a key issue on the campaign trail. With hundreds of mass shootings taking place in the U.S. each year, the debate over how to address gun violence has gained renewed urgency. For Harris, this issue is a central part of her campaign platform, and she has promised to make gun safety reforms a priority if she is elected president.

Despite the broad public support for some gun control measures, such as background checks, the political landscape remains challenging for those advocating for stricter laws. The powerful gun rights lobby, particularly the National Rifle Association (NRA), continues to wield significant influence over Republican lawmakers, making it difficult for Democrats like Harris to advance their proposals.

Harris’ campaign message is clear: gun violence in America has reached an unacceptable level, and immediate action is necessary to prevent further tragedies. She believes that by implementing measures such as an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and red flag laws, the country can significantly reduce the number of mass shootings and protect innocent lives.

In contrast, Trump and other Republican leaders argue that the focus should be on mental health and other factors contributing to violent behavior rather than restricting access to firearms. The division between these two perspectives is likely to remain a contentious point throughout the 2024 election cycle.

With the Georgia shooting fresh in the minds of many voters, Harris’ appeal for action on gun violence may resonate with those seeking solutions to an issue that has long plagued the nation. As the election draws closer, both candidates will likely continue to address the topic, albeit from very different viewpoints, making gun control a central issue in the race for the White House.