Connect with us

Politics

Hold the 'blue wall,' or light up the Sun Belt? Harris eyes path through U.S. battlegrounds

Published

on

Hold the 'blue wall,' or light up the Sun Belt? Harris eyes path through U.S. battlegrounds

Vice President Kamala Harris’ late entry into the presidential race against former President Trump reset the political playing field in important ways, giving Democrats a promising boost in polling and a huge infusion of cash and volunteers. But it didn’t change everything.

In a nation of more than 330 million people, the 2024 election — just like the 2016 and 2020 elections before it — will almost certainly be decided by a relatively small number of voters in a handful of battleground states, political experts said.

When Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016, it was by fewer than 80,000 votes across Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania combined. When President Biden beat Trump in 2020, it was by fewer than 50,000 votes across Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia.

Now, Harris is in a high-speed race to start executing her own path to victory through the nation’s battlegrounds, which include Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — three of the “blue wall” of states that lean Democratic — and Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona, in the nation’s Sun Belt. This week, she is expected to pick her running mate — possibly from one of those states — and begin holding major rallies in places such as Philadelphia, Detroit, Raleigh, N.C., and Savannah, Ga.

Amid the high-stakes number-crunching that campaigns always do to determine their best path to victory, the Harris campaign is citing polls showing her closing the gap with Trump in nearly every battleground, and seeming more bullish than Biden’s campaign ever did. On the question of whether Harris might focus on the blue wall or the Sun Belt, her campaign’s answer has been both.

Advertisement

Harris speaks at a Black sorority gathering in Houston last week. One expert believes her campaign will also invest in voter turnout in the South to put Donald Trump on the defensive even in red states.

(LM Otero / Associated Press)

In a call with reporters last week, the campaign’s battleground states director, Dan Kanninen, said the flood of support for Harris across the country included 360,000 new volunteers and $200 million in donations during the first week of her candidacy — two-thirds of which was from new donors.

On Friday, the Harris campaign said that it had $377 million in cash on hand — compared with $327 million for Trump — and that it would be spending hard and fast to ramp up the fight.

Advertisement

Kanninen said the campaign is rapidly expanding an already large network of Biden-Harris field offices and volunteers across the battleground states. He said that there were 600 staffers “on the ground in the blue wall,” and that 150 more would be added by mid-August. Aides also planned to double the size of the campaign’s teams in Arizona and North Carolina, and were opening new field offices in Georgia.

Volunteers were fanning out to knock on doors, and being trained on how best to spur pro-Harris conversations online.

“We’re making these investments across the entire map because the data is clear: We have multiple pathways to 270 electoral votes,” Kanninen said. “The vice president is strong in both the blue wall and in the Sun Belt, and we are running hard in both.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment on its strategy for battleground states.

In the American electoral system, voters cast ballots to elect the president, but the candidate who receives the most votes nationally is not necessarily the winner. Clinton, for example, received about 2.9 million more votes than Trump, and still lost.

Advertisement

That’s because the candidate who wins the most individual votes in a state receives all of that state’s electoral votes, in what’s known as the electoral college. The number of electoral votes per state is determined by population, with the most populous states — such as California — receiving the most.

In order to win an election today, a presidential candidate must secure 270 electoral votes, and different presidents have gotten there through different pathways. Barack Obama famously pulled together a broad coalition of voters, flipping nine previously red states to blue in 2008.

Clinton was confident going into the 2016 election, riding polls that appeared strongly in her favor, only to have her campaign’s swing-state strategy — she never campaigned in Wisconsin — ridiculed by some political analysts after her stunning defeat. In 2020, Biden managed to undo some of the damage to the Democratic Party, taking back several key battleground states while flipping Arizona and Georgia — but by closer margins and via a narrower path to victory than Obama‘s in 2008 and 2012.

Political experts, pollsters and other veterans of presidential races said that given Harris’ resources, it makes sense for the campaign to cast a wide net and fight in as many swing states as possible. But they have different takes on how she might get to 270 — or fall short.

Robert Alexander, a professor of political science at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and author of “Representation and the Electoral College,” has long studied presidential paths to victory on the electoral map.

Advertisement

“Harris’ entry has changed the complexion of states up for grabs, I would say, from where Biden was — and it’s made it more amenable for Democrats. Certain states seemed to be slipping away [under Biden], and some of the early polling would say that they are now back in grasp for a Harris-led ticket,” Alexander said. “That’s a pretty significant shift in a pretty quick time period.”

He said that Pennsylvania — with 19 electoral votes, which Clinton lost and Biden won — is a “pretty key state in all of this right now,” and that there will no doubt be “money dumped” into campaigning there.

But he also expects Harris, buoyed by new energy and enthusiasm, to invest in driving up turnout in the South, in part to force Trump — who had been preparing to “run up the scoreboard” on Biden — back into a defensive posture.

Kyle Kondik, a political analyst at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said both Harris and Trump appear focused, correctly, on the seven states that were decided by 3 percentage points or less in the last election: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in the blue wall; Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona in the Sun Belt; and Nevada.

In 2020, Biden won six out of the seven, while Trump took North Carolina — and all of them are up for grabs in 2024, Kondik said.

Advertisement

Before Biden dropped out, Kondik had been watching the president’s numbers falling fast in the blue wall swing states, and considered the decline a deadly sign for the Biden campaign. “If he lost in any of them, he wasn’t going to win,” Kondik said.

He said the same probably holds true for Harris, but that may change if her numbers keep going up in North Carolina and Georgia.

“The jury’s out on that,” he said.

A colorfully painted sign portrays Kamala Harris under the words, "I'm with her," as a pedestrian walks on a passing sidewalk

This colorful endorsement of Harris went up recently in Madison, the capital of Wisconsin. The crucial swing state helped Trump win the presidency in 2016 — and lose it in 2020.

(Kayla Wolf / Associated Press)

Advertisement

Cornell Belcher, a pollster who worked for both Obama campaigns, said Harris may not be able to restore Obama’s broad coalition. But it “makes all the sense in the world” for her to follow Obama’s strategy of “pressing for expansion” on the electoral map, he said — “going more places and making Republicans play defense more.”

Harris has to “secure the blue wall, hard stop,” Belcher said, and will definitely be paying attention to — and spending time in — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

But given her brimming campaign coffers, he said, she also has the “opportunity to go on the offensive” in other vulnerable places.

North Carolina, which Obama had flipped blue, more recently elected a Democratic governor in Roy Cooper, and may see diminished Republican turnout given GOP primary voters’ selection of far-right candidates in down-ballot races, Belcher said.

“It’s absolutely an opportunity if you have the resources,” he said of the Harris campaign. “And again, they have the resources.”

Advertisement

Georgia, he said, is also in play, with a “well-educated, upwardly mobile population and a growing segment of minority voters” who flipped both of the state’s U.S. Senate seats blue in the last election.

“For Democrats to not tap in to these changing dynamics within these states,” Belcher said, “would be malpractice.”

Harris doesn’t have a lot of time, but Belcher and others said it’s unclear how relevant that is. This race has been moving at lightning speed, the trajectory of polling in several states turned on a dime in the last couple of weeks, and Harris’ favorability ratings shot up in record time after Biden endorsed her.

“We’re in uncharted waters,” Belcher said. “There are no road maps for all of this.”

Alexander, of Bowling Green, said he still believes that Harris has a “tougher path” to winning than Trump due to the nature of the electoral college system — and he worries 2024 could be another “misfire election,” with Trump winning the electoral college despite Harris winning the popular vote.

Advertisement

“In a different time,” Alexander said, “it would be seen as a constitutional crisis.”

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

on

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement. 

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

Advertisement

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

Advertisement

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant.  (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

Advertisement

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting.
”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Advertisement

Related Article

White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Continue Reading

Politics

Power, politics and a $2.8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

Published

on

Power, politics and a .8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

Advertisement

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Advertisement

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Advertisement

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Advertisement

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

Advertisement

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House

Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.

(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)

Advertisement

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

Advertisement

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

Advertisement

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

Advertisement

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Advertisement

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending