In a significant shift, Vice President Kamala Harris has pulled ahead of former President Donald Trump in the latest 2024 election forecast from data expert Nate Silver. According to Silver’s “Silver Bulletin” election model, Harris currently holds a 58% likelihood of winning the presidency, compared to Trump’s 42%.
This marks a reversal from early September, when Trump had over a 60% chance of victory. Silver attributes the shift to changes in polling data. He noted that Harris has gained a 3-point lead nationally and has been performing well in key battleground states like Georgia and North Carolina.
The exception is Arizona, where Harris has struggled in recent polling, but Silver noted it has only a 5% chance of being the tipping-point state.
While Silver still categorizes the race as a toss-up, he suggested that Harris’s hand appears stronger. He also pointed to positive economic revisions, which he said have bolstered Harris’s chances.
Silver explained that Harris has two viable paths to securing the Electoral College, whereas Trump’s options appear more limited. Harris could win the presidency even if she loses all the toss-up states, provided she secures Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Mediaite has further details on Harris’ “Plan A” and “Plan B” pathways to victory:
Silver’s latest write-up of his forecast notes that Harris, unlike Trump, has two solid routes to winning the Electoral College. Harris can lose all the toss-up states while winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and still become president.
Silver calls this “Plan A” – the long talked about “blue wall” that crumbled in 2016 for Hillary Clinton. Silver explains that Harris also has a “Plan B” if one of those states falls – despite her polling up in all three. Harris can win “North Carolin, Georgia, or both” in order to still get to 270 – especially as she’s in striking position in Nevada and ahead in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District.
Trump, on the other hand, must win all of the toss-up states and at least one of the three “blue wall’ states.
As recently as a few weeks ago, Silver’s model had Trump leading Harris in betting odds. However, recent developments have reshaped the landscape as the 2024 election approaches.
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Residence Questioned by Courts
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will not be listed as a presidential candidate on the New York state ballot after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reinstate his name. Lower courts determined that Kennedy’s address in Katonah, New York, did not qualify as his fixed and permanent residence, leading to his exclusion from the ballot.
Kennedy’s legal team argued that removing him from the ballot would deprive his New York supporters of their right to vote for him. They emphasized that no evidence suggested voters had been misled about his candidacy. Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court declined to issue an emergency injunction.
Opposition from New York Attorney General
The emergency request to reinstate Kennedy’s name faced strong opposition from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office. Her team argued that the state had already mailed absentee ballots and the certification deadline had passed, making it too late to add his name back to the ballot. The court’s refusal marks a significant setback for Kennedy’s campaign efforts in New York.
Kennedy suspended his presidential campaign last month and endorsed former President Donald Trump’s bid for the White House. Since then, he has worked to remove his name from ballots in critical swing states while keeping it on in others, triggering a series of legal battles.
This Supreme Court appeal marked Kennedy’s first attempt to remain on the New York ballot, but he isn’t the first candidate to face such a challenge. Earlier this month, the Green Party’s candidate, Jill Stein, also failed to secure a spot on Nevada’s ballot after the Supreme Court denied a similar emergency request.
New York Polls: Kamala Harris Leads Trump
Despite Kennedy’s exclusion from the ballot, the latest Siena College poll shows Vice President Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 13 points in a direct matchup in New York. Pollster Steven Greenberg noted that although New York remains solidly blue, the margin isn’t as wide as in recent presidential cycles.
“Despite the Democratic convention, the debate and numerous other events during the six weeks between Siena College polls, there has been little movement in the horse race or in either candidate’s favorability rating. While the race appears largely static, Harris did pick up support among Latino voters, leading Trump 56-39%, up from 48-47% in August,” Greenberg noted. “Independents moved further in Trump’s direction, supporting him over Harris 58-34%, up from 47-40% last month. Interestingly, New York’s independent voters moved significantly in the Republican direction across several questions that will be on the ballot.”
“New Yorkers trust Harris more than Trump on abortion, democracy and the economy, and trust them equally on immigration. But there are huge partisan divides. Democrats trust Harris on all four issues by between 76 and 89 percent, and Republicans trust Trump by between 76 and 89 percent,” the Siena College pollster continued. “While independents trust Harris more on abortion by 50-42%, they trust Trump more on the other three by between 15 and 34 points.”
In previous elections, Democrats have won New York by at least 18 points. President Biden carried the state by 23 points in 2020. In a multi-candidate race, Harris’ lead drops slightly to 12 points.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The Committee on House Administration has released transcripts confirming that former President Donald Trump explicitly ordered the Pentagon to secure the U.S. Capitol ahead of Jan. 6, 2021. These transcripts, conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) inspector general’s office, reveal that Trump gave clear directives to keep the protests around the Jan. 6 certification of the electoral vote peaceful, which were allegedly ignored by senior military leaders.
Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) published the full transcripts, which include testimony from Gen. Mark Milley, the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Milley confirmed that Trump pre-approved the use of National Guard troops or active-duty military to maintain peace in Washington, D.C., during a Jan. 3 meeting.
A press release from the Committee on House Administration shows that Trump gave senior Pentagon leadership directives, contradicting the conclusion in the IG’s report regarding the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
“Pentagon leadership prioritized concerns of optics over their duty to protect lives,” said Chairman Loudermilk. “President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders and directed them to ensure that any events on January 6, 2021 were safe. It is very concerning that these senior Pentagon officials ignored President Trump’s guidance and misled Congressional leaders to believe they were doing their job when they were not. The DoD IG’s report is fundamentally flawed. It does not draw conclusions from the interviews they conducted but pushes a narrative to keep their hands clean. We have many questions for them, and we will continue to dig until we are satisfied the American people know the truth.”
The committee’s finding includes a full breakdown of the senior Pentagon leadership’s conscious decision to disregard Trump’s commands:
Days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, recalls a conversation between the Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and President Trump:
Milley: “The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protestors here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.’… [POTUS said] I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.’ [SecDef] Miller responds by saying, ‘Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.’”
On January 5, the Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, placed unprecedented restrictions on DCNG Commander Major General William Walker to prevent any movement to the Capitol without Secretary McCarthy’s explicit permission on January 6 and 7.
On January 6, 2021, the outer perimeter on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol was breached by rioters at 12:53pm. The DCNG arrived five hours later. Click here to view the timeline.
Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
These transcripts prove President Trump’s senior Pentagon leaders were focused on OPTICS, instead of doing their job, as the Capitol was breached:
Miller: “There was absolutely – there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period.”
As “optics” concerns were being discussed and Secretary McCarthy claims he was ‘developing a plan’, the DCNG was ready to move, less than 2 miles from the Capitol – awaiting Secretary McCarthy’s authorization.
Walker’s General Counsel, Colonel Earl Matthews: “We were seeing the Congress of the United States being overrun, and the Guard – and the Capitol Police, the MPD, they need help. We had people at the D.C. Armory who are able to help, and they’re not moving. They’re not allowed to move.”
DCNG Command Sergeant Major Michael Brooks: “They were ready to go, and they just couldn’t understand why they were still sitting there. Literally sitting on a bus, just waiting to drive to the Capitol and do the best they could do to support Capitol Police.”
Tyler Merbler, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
At 3:04pm, Miller provided verbal approval to Secretary McCarthy for immediate deployment of the DCNG. What was Secretary McCarthy doing between receiving this approval, and 5:08pm, when the order eventually reaches the D.C. National Guard? Why didn’t he communicate this approval for a full two hours?
At 3:18pm, Secretary McCarthy told Congressional Democrat Leadership that the DC National Guard had the “green light” and “is moving”. Two hours would pass before Secretary McCarthy’s deployment order would ACTUALLY be communicated to the DCNG.
In these vital hours, the DCNG had been trying but was unable to reach Secretary McCarthy.
DCNG Adjutant General Aaron Dean: “[Walker] tried to call Secretary McCarthy three times between 2:30 and 5pm. He said, ‘I haven’t heard from him all day.‘ When he tried to call his cell phone, it went straight to voicemail.”
These revelations challenge the conclusions of the original DOD IG’s report on Jan. 6, disclosing that Trump’s orders to ensure security were deliberately disregarded by Pentagon leadership and prove he took steps to prevent violence on that day.
This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. It is republished with permission.
According to Fox News reporter Trey Yingst, the airstrike targeted Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and resulted in the collapse of several residential buildings.
SCOOP: Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah targeted in Beriut, Fox News has learned. Unclear if the strike was successful. More to follow. pic.twitter.com/PgUedlkLSX
Preliminary reports indicate that the Israeli Air Force utilized bunker busters and 2,000-pound bombs.
Footage posted on X purports to show Nasrallah’s shattered and smoldering bunker, reportedly the site from which he ordered attacks on Israel.
If #Nasrallah survived this, it'll be a miracle. Video shows the site where #Israel targeted Nasrallah, razing down a whole bloc and the underground. People in houses miles away, even outside Beirut, #Lebanon, reported their houses shaking underneath them, similar to an… pic.twitter.com/4jeW4IxBsI
Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
An appeals court in New York appears set to issue a favorable ruling for former President Donald Trump after the state’s Attorney General’s Office controversially applied an anti-fraud law to his real estate practices. The case resulted in a hefty $454 million fine, which now faces potential reduction or reversal.
During Thursday’s hearing, justices from the New York Supreme Court expressed concern about the judgment, with one justice labeling the fine “troubling.”
A panel of New York appeals court judges appeared skeptical about the gargantuan $454 million civil fraud judgment Donald Trump was dealt after he was found liable for business fraud — with one jurist calling it “troubling.”
The former president is attempting to reverse or reduce the judgment of $354 million — plus an additional $100 million in interest — after a judge sided with New York Attorney General Letitia James, who argued in a lawsuit that Trump inflated his net worth by billions to get better loan and insurance terms.
Trump’s lawyers, who have called Judge Arthur Engoron’s February ruling “draconian, unlawful, and unconstitutional,” appeared before a five-judge panel of a Manhattan appeals court Thursday to plead their case.
Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr
Judge Peter Moulton questioned whether James’ lawsuit turned into “something it was not meant to do.”
In a post-verdict interview, Attorney General Letitia James stated that if Trump cannot pay the judgment, her office would pursue asset seizure, including Trump’s iconic properties like the 40 Wall Street skyscraper. “We will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets,” she told ABC News.
Fox News Legal Analyst Johnathan Turley criticized the ruling, calling it “astronomical” and accusing James of engaging in “mob justice” by threatening Trump’s assets.
James filed a civil fraud lawsuit against the former president and his three adult children in September 2022, on the heels of a years-long civil investigation into the Trump family’s real estate business, the Trump Organization.
The investigation centered on whether the former president’s company misled investors and tax authorities by inflating property values to get investments and subsequently deflating them to get tax and loan benefits.
The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Fox News anchor Bret Baier suggested this week that former President Donald Trump may be the “holdup” preventing a potential Fox News debate between him and Vice President Kamala Harris. During an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, Baier expressed his belief that the Harris campaign would likely agree to a debate on Fox News.
“I actually believe – this is me talking – that the Harris campaign would do a Fox debate,” Baier said, adding that Trump seems hesitant to move forward with the idea.
Others feel differently, as The Daily Caller reports:
CNN’s Chris Wallace said on Sept. 13 that there is no chance that Harris will debate Trump on Fox News.
“I would say that there is an absolutely 0%, what’s lower than 0, chance that she would agree to debate on Fox,” Wallace said. “Let me tell you a quick story. Back in 2019 when she was running, the president of Fox News and I, who was seen as being pretty even handed, went to meet with a bunch of the Democrats to try and get them to do town halls or do an interview. [Democratic Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren met with us, [independent Vermont Sen.] Bernie Sanders met with us, the only Democrat who refused to meet with us off-the-record just to consider the possibility of going on Fox was Kamala Harris. There is a 0% chance that she will agree to an interview on Fox.”
Harris accepted an Oct. 23 debate with CNN, but Trump said it is “too late” because of how close it would be to the November election.
“As President Trump has said, only losers request a rematch. Kamala Harris lost the debate, and she knows it,” Karoline Leavitt, Trump campaign national press secretary, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Following the Sept. 10 debate on ABC News, Trump has declared there will be no further debates. Meanwhile, Harris has agreed to a CNN debate on Oct. 23. A prior Fox News debate proposal, which Trump had agreed to, never materialized.
Kamala Harris, who has been a key figure in the Biden administration’s handling of immigration, discussed the ongoing border crisis during a taped interview with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle. In the interview, which aired Wednesday, Harris acknowledged that the immigration system is broken but expressed confidence in her vague plan to fix it. She once again reiterated her support for a “pathway to citizenship.”
NEW: Kamala Harris, who let in 15M+ illegals, calls for a "pathway to citizenship" and says the immigration system is broken but she will fix it.
Harris blamed Trump for why so many illegals crossed the border under her leadership.
“When I’m elected president, if the American people give me the opportunity, I will bring back the bill and sign it into law,” Harris told Ruhle. She emphasized the need for a comprehensive plan, not only to strengthen border security but also to provide avenues for immigrants to gain citizenship.
However, Harris’s remarks continue faced criticism. Mediaite’s Colby Hall pointed out that simply repeating cliché talking points in a sit-down interview with a friendly host is unlikely to change public perception that Harris tends to avoid difficult press engagements like the plague:
Hall noted in a column published Wednesday morning that Ruhle announced her interview just days after appearing on Real Time with Bill Maher and openly advocating on behalf of Kamala Harris, or more to the point, against Donald Trump.
In another part of the interview, Harris seemed to struggle when asked about the economic concerns of middle-class Americans, yet again referencing her own middle-class upbringing. She also appeared uncertain when questioned about her plan to raise corporate tax rates, especially if Republicans take control of the Senate – a detail that would greatly affect her ability to push forward left-wing economic policies.
NEW: Kamala Harris gets stumped during her first solo sit-down interview since becoming the Democratic nominee.
Stephanie Ruhle: "If you can't raise corporate taxes or if GOP takes control of the Senate, where do you get the money to do that?"
Former President Donald Trump has vowed retaliation against Iran following reports that the Islamic Republic has conspired to assassinate him as he runs for president in 2024.
During an event in Mint Hill, North Carolina, Trump made the threat while delivering a speech on manufacturing at the Mosack Group’s warehouse.
Trump to Iran, if you do anything to harm this person, we will blow your cities to smithereens! pic.twitter.com/2GdY804CcH
U.S. intelligence officials have reportedly briefed Trump on the suspected Iranian plot to kill him, according to his campaign. The revelation was first reported by The Guardian:
The briefing, from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), is believed to have focused on a scheme unrelated to two failed domestic assassination attempts against the Republican nominee for president, and came amid reports suggesting that Iran is conducting an ongoing hack against Trump’s campaign.
Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign’s spokesperson, said the briefing concerned “real and specific threats from Iran to assassinate [Trump] in an effort to destabilize and sow chaos in the United States”.
He added: “Intelligence officials have identified that these continued and coordinated attacks have heightened in the past few months, and law enforcement officials across all agencies are working to ensure President Trump is protected and the election is free from interference.”
This development marks another escalation in tensions between the former president and Iran, which has been implicated in assassination plots against Trump and Trump administration officials
After surviving his first assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, former President Donald Trump made a jaw-dropping revelation about his dying wish.
In a fiery statement on Truth Social, Trump shared a video clip of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and issued a bold warning regarding Iran:
“If they do assassinate President Trump, which is always a possibility, I hope that America obliterates Iran, wipes it off the face of the Earth. If that does not happen, American leaders will be considered ‘gutless’ cowards!”
A nonprofit advocacy group has taken legal action against former President Donald Trump and Senator J.D. Vance. They’ve filed criminal charges, accusing the Republican nominee for president and his running mate of making inflammatory statements about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio. Trump and Vance argue that the influx of migrants has overwhelmed the area, even going so far as to allege that some Haitians are eating dogs and cats – claims that remain unsubstantiated and highly controversial.
In response, the nonprofit is calling on the Clark County Municipal Court to issue a warrant for Trump and Vance’s arrest. The county’s largest city and seat, Springfield, is at the heart of this legal challenge.
The charges were requested by the Haitian Bridge Alliance, which has been backed for many years by Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us investor group, and by investor George Soros’ political campaigns. The jarring claim was loudly echoed by pro-Democratic media sites, such as NBCNews.com, who prefer to hide the ordinary civic and pocketbook damage of migration behind elite claims about racism.
“The Haitian Bridge Alliance made the move after inaction by the local prosecutor, said their attorney, Subodh Chandra of the Cleveland-based Chandra Law Firm,” the Associated Press reported Tuesday.
“Guerline Jozef, a co-founder and the executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, filed the charges on behalf of the group,” NBCNews reported:
“Over the last two weeks, both Trump and Vance led an effort to vilify and threaten the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio,” Jozef alleged.
“If anyone else had disrupted public service, made false alarms, and engaged in telecommunications harassment in the manner Trump and Vance did with their relentless and persistent lies – even after the governor and mayor said what they were saying was false, they would’ve been arrested by now,” the group’s attorney, Subodh Chandra, claimed.
“They must be held accountable to the rule of law in the same way any of the rest of us would be.”
The lawfare follows the government-arranged delivery of perhaps 20,000 Haitians to the city, which has had a huge civic and pocketbook impact in the town of almost 60,000 Americans.
The inflow has been welcomed by business, political, and media leaders in Springfield, but is decried by ordinary Americans who are losing wages, opportunities, housing, safe roads, civic aid, and their stable community to the chaotic migration.
What’s Behind the Legal Action?
The charges stem from Trump and Vance’s remarks, which critics argue fuel anti-immigrant sentiment. Haitian immigrants currently enjoy temporary protected status (TPS) under the Biden administration, a measure designed to protect them from deportation due to the severe unrest and violence gripping Haiti. This protection even applies to those who entered the U.S. illegally, with the goal of shielding them from the chaos that has left Haiti teetering on the edge of anarchy.
“We are providing this humanitarian relief to Haitians already present in the United States given the conditions that existed in their home country as of June 3, 2024,” stated Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas at the time of the announcement.
Immigration Advocates Push for More
While the Haitian Bridge Alliance welcomed the Biden administration’s decision, they’re pushing for long-term solutions. Jozef praised the humanitarian relief but made it clear that he believes this is just a temporary fix.
“I call on the U.S. Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would create permanent protection for all TPS recipients,” said Jozef.
The demand for a more permanent path to safety comes as violence continues to escalate in Haiti.
A new national poll by Quinnipiac reveals a close and highly competitive race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. According to the poll, conducted between Sept. 19-22, Trump leads Harris by 1%, securing 48% of likely voters’ support compared to Harris’ 47%. (The previous August poll showed a different story, with Harris leading by 2%.)
Quinnipiac is a well-known polling institution that gained attention during the 2020 election cycle when it predicted an 11-point victory for President Biden – though the final margin was just 4.5 percentage points.
Both Trump and Harris show strong support within their own parties, but Trump edges out Harris slightly among independent voters, with 47% compared to Harris’ 44%. Notably, Trump also holds a 14-point advantage with male voters, while Harris leads by 12 points among women.
When looking at age demographics, Harris performs best among older voters (65+), where she has an 8-point lead. She also wins the youngest voters (18-34), but only by 3%. Trump, on the other hand, captures the majority of voters in the 35-64 age group.
Key Findings on Racial and Ethnic Voters
A crucial factor in this tight race is the support from racial and ethnic groups:
Black Americans overwhelmingly support Harris, with 83% expressing their preference for the Democratic candidate.
Hispanic voters, however, tilt toward Trump, with 52% supporting him compared to 44% for Harris.
Nearly two-thirds of likely voters, 64 percent, said they would like a second debate between the White House contenders. Around 31 percent of respondents thought otherwise. Last week, Harris accepted an invitation for a second showdown from CNN. Trump said during his campaign event in North Carolina that it’s “too late to do another” debate.
Another new poll, conducted by CNN and SSRS, found a similar split among likely voters. In the national poll, also released Tuesday, Harris received 48 percent support, while Trump got 47 percent.
Harris currently has a near-4 percent lead over Trump in the latest The Hill/Decision Desk HQ aggregate of polls. The vice president stands at 50.4 percent. The ex-president is at 46.5 percent.
The bottom line? The race is still too close to call with 41 days left until Election Day.
