Connect with us

Politics

Millions of voters have already cast ballots for Nov. 5 election

Published

on

Millions of voters have already cast ballots for Nov. 5 election

Early in-person and mail-in ballots have begun pouring in across the country, and the tally in each state reveals mounting voter enthusiasm. 

Recent polling suggests a razor-thin margin in the race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, and the results are expected to come down to each candidate’s performance in seven swing states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and North Carolina. 

States have long allowed at least some Americans to vote early, like members of the military and people with illnesses unable to get to the polls. Many states expanded eligibility in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A man walks out of the Board of Elections Loop Super Site after casting his ballot in the 2024 presidential election on the second day of early voting in Chicago on Oct. 4, 2024. (KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

WHAT ARE ELECTION BETTING ODDS? EXPERT EXPLAINS WHY TRUMP IS CURRENT FAVORITE

Advertisement

In the last presidential election, mail ballots tended to skew Democratic. In 2020, 60% of Democrats reported voting by mail, compared to 32% of Republicans, according to a 2021 study from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab.

As of Wednesday evening, more than 25 million ballots have been cast nationwide.

Here is a breakdown of where early ballots have been cast, either by mail or in person, in the seven battleground states, according to The Associated Press.

Arizona – 916,685

Georgia – 1,935,863

Advertisement

Michigan – 1,309,097

Nevada – 333,246

North Carolina – 1,706,099

Pennsylvania – 1,123,509

Wisconsin – 475,460

Advertisement

Over the past two decades, the prevalence of early voting has skyrocketed. While early ballots demonstrate voter enthusiasm, they do not reliably determine which candidate is winning the race, because fewer voters are expected to cast early votes than in the previous presidential election. 

Election workers oversee early election voting at a polling station in Marietta, Georgia, on Oct. 15, 2024. (REUTERS/Jayla Whitfield-Anderson)

In 2020, the Fox News Voter Analysis found that 71% of voters cast their ballots before Election Day, with 30% voting early in-person and 41% voting by mail. This time, polls suggest that around four in 10 voters will show up before Nov. 5, according to Gallup polling. 

DOJ DEPLOYS DISTRICT ELECTIONS OFFICERS TO HANDLE ‘THREATS AND INTIMIDATION’

Democrats and Republicans are expected to be less divided on early voting this cycle. Four years ago, Democrats won the total early vote by 11 points. However, two things have changed: first, with the COVID-19 pandemic no longer front-of-mind, many voters will be more willing to show up on Election Day. Second, unlike in 2020, Trump and the GOP are no longer discouraging their voters from casting an early ballot. The upshot should be a smaller partisan gap once the votes are counted.

Advertisement

A sample ballot and a voting sign are displayed on the first day of Virginia’s in-person early voting at Long Bridge Park Aquatics and Fitness Center on Sept. 20, 2024 in Arlington, Virginia. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Some states also offer breakdowns of their early ballots – for example, by party affiliation, race, or age. Comparing these results to other elections might give the impression that one candidate or party is now doing better than the other.

Additionally, while early vote data shows the party registration of some voters, it does not reveal how they voted. States do not release actual vote counts until election night. The vote data that some states are releasing now shows the party affiliation of voters who have requested or returned a ballot. However, that is not the same as their actual vote. For example, a voter may have registered as a Democrat decades ago, but chose to vote for Trump this year. Many voters are not registered to either party, making their vote even more of a mystery.

Advertisement

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
Advertisement

Trending