Politics
Why her abbreviated campaign has helped Harris pull into the lead, for now
Vice President Kamala Harris enters this week’s Democratic National Convention in Chicago with a small lead over former President Trump in national polling averages that few would have thought likely even a month ago.
The truncated nature of the race — initially thought by many to present an added hurdle — has played to Harris’ strengths, while minimizing her flaws.
The Nov. 5 election will take place just 75 days after the convention ends on Thursday. Voting begins even earlier in many states, including prized battleground Pennsylvania, where some counties will begin handing out ballots next month.
Before President Biden dropped out of the race in July, many Democrats saw Harris as a risky candidate, while also worrying that anyone taking his place on the ballot would face logistical challenges.
Here’s why the snap election, unprecedented in modern American politics, has been helpful to Harris so far, and how Trump could reclaim a contest that is still up for grabs:
No primary, no problem with defining core beliefs
Harris started her race for her party’s 2020 nomination with the type of excitement she is drawing from Democratic voters today. More than 20,000 people showed up for her January 2019 announcement rally in Oakland, and she raised big dollars as she established herself as a top-tier contender.
By December of that year, before ballots were cast or caucuses held, she had dropped out. Harris had trouble defining her core beliefs compared with those of others in a big field of Democratic hopefuls. As a result, voters lacked a sense of what she stood for.
Was she a lefty competing for progressive populist votes with Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts? Was she a centrist sparring with Biden and Pete Buttigieg, who is now Biden’s transportation secretary?
“She’s not necessarily easy to pigeonhole as being a progressive or centrist or moderate,” said Brian Brokaw, a former Harris advisor who ran a group supporting Harris in the primary. “She’s confounded people.”
Her attempts to straddle the party’s ideological divides — with her own universal healthcare plan and a partial embrace of the movement to reform or abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency — failed to win over her party.
She doesn’t have to worry about those fights now that the race is a binary choice — with brighter lines between her and Trump on issues such as abortion, democracy and the economy.
“She’s benefiting so much from being a foil against Trump, in a particularly compelling and positive way, that everyone’s looking at her differently,” said Faiz Shakir, a senior advisor to Sanders.
“In a primary process, voters would be asking, ‘Could she be the nominee? Should she be? Is she the best?’” Shakir added. “Here, you’re either for Trump or Harris.”
Less need for an ‘Etch-A-Sketch’
Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign was famously undermined when a top advisor said the Republican could erase some of the conservative positions he espoused in the GOP primary with an “Etch-A-Sketch” to appeal to a more moderate electorate in the general election.
Harris is doing a bit of that now, leaving behind her support four years ago for a universal health plan and a ban on fracking as she tries to win votes in Pennsylvania and other swing states. Republicans are trying to remind voters of her more liberal stances, but it’s harder than it would be if her shifts were more recent, and if Harris didn’t have her Biden administration record to run on.
She’s also facing less pressure from the left in her party than she would if she‘d competed in the primaries, when interest groups tend to use their leverage. She’s been leaning into her support for Biden’s bipartisan border enforcement deal, for example, avoiding some of the criticism from within the Democratic Party that Biden faced this year when he negotiated it with Senate Republicans. Trump pressured Republican lawmakers to kill the deal because he wants to keep the border as a political issue.
A turnkey operation
Harris inherited Biden’s entire campaign apparatus, avoiding the management clashes and staff turnover that hampered her 2020 campaign and early tenure as vice president.
The campaign was designed around Biden’s strengths and loyalties, which presented a challenge. But the tone has shifted quickly toward Harris’ style, which is more confrontational yet lighter as she tries to contrast her sense of joy with Trump’s grievances. The campaign was also built around a ground game, in anticipation of a tight race in which turning out core voters will be crucial.
Catching Trump off guard
Trump designed his campaign around Biden’s weaknesses, including his advanced age. Now Trump is the candidate facing some of the same questions.
Donald Trump’s campaign hadn’t planned to go up against Kamala Harris, but he still stands a chance.
(Julia Nikhinson / Associated Press)
Trump’s advisors believe Harris is a ripe target and have urged him to focus attacks on immigration and the economy — two areas where he holds polling advantages over her. But he has so far been unable to avoid distractions.
“I think I’m entitled to personal attacks” on Harris, Trump said Thursday at a news conference.
The calendar has kept the honeymoon going. Can it last?
Harris has lucked into great timing. She got a boost of excitement from relieved Democrats when Biden withdrew, and again with the announcement of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, and is now entering a convention that will bring media focus including four nights of network airtime.
She’s been on the road almost the entire time, avoiding sit-down interviews and other unscripted encounters, which have given her trouble in the past.
Trump’s allies have been furious over what they see as an unfair glide path.
“The only thing that’s in Harris’ favor — the only thing — is the nonstop gusher of adoring coverage she’s getting from the media, who don’t seem inclined to wonder why she won’t answer a single question or explain the radical, leftist record she’s running from,” said Tim Murtaugh, Trump’s 2020 communications director, who recently joined his 2024 campaign. “She’s a weak vice president from a failed administration, but the media chooses to write about her ‘vibe’ instead.”
Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Bill Stepien, said he was dubious that Harris’ momentum could continue, arguing that the dust had yet to settle following the Democratic campaign shake-up. Harris’ perceived advantages could backfire, he argued.
“She’s been offered a honeymoon period, which has certainly put some wind in her back,” Stepien said. “On the other hand, going through a primary process, running the gamut against a slate of opponents, tests you. It tests you on the debate stage. It tests you on the stump. It allows you to tweak and refine messaging.”
The pressure is still on
For all of Harris’ good fortune, polling shows that the race remains winnable for either candidate — tighter than it was eight years ago, when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral college despite losing the popular vote. That gives Trump plenty of room to rebound and Harris time to stumble.
Her lack of sit-down interviews or full-scale news conferences since winning the nomination will increase the stakes when she does agree to one, or holds her first debate with Trump, on Sept. 10. She could also suffer from a twist in the news, such as a national economic setback or a shift in the war between Israel and Hamas.
“You have no room for error,” said Karen Finney, a Harris friend who served in a senior communications role for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. “Everybody is always bringing your A-game to an election. This is your A-plus-plus game. There isn’t time.”
Finney argues that Harris has more than just luck and timing: She worked as vice president to build a message and a political coalition that would not have been there had another Democrat stepped in for Biden. But if she makes an error in a debate, she will have less time to rebound, Finney said.
“Joe Biden stepped down so we could have our best chance to beat Donald Trump,” she said. “Of course that creates pressure.”
Politics
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.”
By Jackeline Luna
February 27, 2026
Politics
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Politics
Power, politics and a $2.8-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.
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.
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)
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.”
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.
“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 Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.
(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT