Connect with us

Politics

Dems need to ramp up early voting efforts to match GOP momentum in North Carolina: analyst

Published

on

Dems need to ramp up early voting efforts to match GOP momentum in North Carolina: analyst

The Democratic Party needs to get competitive with Republicans in battleground North Carolina to turn out more voters before Election Day, says a former political consultant from the Tar Heel State. 

Thomas Mills is publisher and founder of PoliticsNC, a website described as “Analysis, commentary, and opinion of North Carolina and national politics from the perspective of a center-left, 30-year veteran of the campaign battlefield.”

Mills, who worked on the direct mail team for the Democratic National Committee in 2004, identified two problems that Democrats need to address, quickly, to compete in the state: early voting and low African American voter turnout.

“They [Republicans] seem to be on the right track right now. Democrats, on the other hand, need to boost their turnout. I mean, what we don’t know is how people are voting,” Mills told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview. “Some of these Republicans that are going to the polls may not actually be voting for Republicans. So, until we count the votes, we don’t know a whole lot.”

Mills said that this cycle, Republicans are voting at “levels much higher than they have in the past.”

Advertisement

NORTH CAROLINA VOTERS WILL DECIDE ON AMENDMENT TO EXPLICITLY BAR NONCITIZENS FROM VOTING IN ELECTIONS

Thomas Mills, founder of PoliticsNC, spoke with Fox News Digital about the upcoming election in North Carolina. (Fox News Digital)

“The big question is, ‘What is driving the GOTV vote this cycle?’ They [Republicans] historically have not put any emphasis in North Carolina on early voting. In fact, in 2020, they actually told Republicans not to vote early, to vote on Election Day,” Mill said. “This year, they’ve taken a different tack. And they’re actively telling Republicans to go vote early.”

Mills added that Republicans appear to be leading in early voting, which started on Oct. 17, but that until every ballot is counted, the parties won’t know whether these early votes represent any new voters.

“Right now, they have more votes than Democrats,” he added. “The question is, are these voters that would have been voting on Election Day that are voting early, or are there new voters in the group that they’re hoping are going to push their margins up?”

Advertisement

A large line of potential voters wait outside an early voting site on Oct. 17, 2024 in Asheville, North Carolina.   (Melissa Sue Gerrits)

Early voting gives operatives the opportunity to go after less frequent voters, but North Carolina is not seeing a ton of new voters coming into the electorate this cycle, Mills said.

BALANCE OF POWER: HELENE COULD SHIFT POLITICAL WINDS TOWARD TRUMP, NORTH CAROLINA, LAWMAKERS SAY

The other key issue that could “hurt” Democrats in the battleground state, according to Mills, is low turnout among Black voters, a key voting bloc among Democrats.

“Historically, African-Americans have been a pretty major part of the Democratic coalition, and they make up somewhere around 20% of the overall vote, and they vote at roughly 90% for Democrats. And what I saw when I was looking, comparing early votes from 2020 to 2024, is, a few days ago, they were down by about 67,000 votes or so from 2020, which four days into the early vote is not a catastrophe, because there’s going to be probably more than a million African Americans voting.”

Advertisement

According to Mills, African Americans do not appear to be changing their voting behaviors, but there is rather a “depressed turnout” among the demographic.

Lara Trump, daughter-in-law to former President and 2024 presidential hopeful Donald Trump, speaks at a VFW Hall in Beaufort, South Carolina, on Feb. 21, 2024.  (Timothy A. Clary)

“If Democrats want to get them in the polls, they need to start trying to figure out what those are and getting them to go vote,” he said. “They have time to fix it, but they do need to figure out what the issue is, where the problems are and increase turnout.”

Hurricane Helene recently made a deadly sweep across the southeast, impacting several counties in North Carolina ahead as the state was preparing for early voting to begin. Mill said he believes the event will have some effect on voter turnout, but that it won’t hurt either party.

Advertisement

“I think when you have a natural disaster like that, it does affect turnout some because of accessibility, but more because people have either left the area because they don’t have water, they don’t have power, or they’re just too concerned with trying to take care of basic needs,” he said. “They’re not thinking about voting.”

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending