Month: July 2024

Kamala Harris and her vice presidential pick will hit seven battleground states next week starting next Tuesday, the Harris campaign announced.

Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign rally in Atlanta, Georgia, screen image via C-SPAN, July 30, 2024.

Tuesday night the Democratic Party announced Harris was the only candidate to meet the threshold to replace Joe Biden. Harris will be named the party’s presidential nominee in a virtual meeting that starts Thursday and ends Monday.

DNC/Convention announce that VP Harris got 3,923 delegate signatures to qualify and get onto the ballot. No one else met the threshold.

Also – the virtual roll call will start Aug. 1 (Thursday morning) and end Aug. 5 (next Monday afternoon).

Delegates just received this text: pic.twitter.com/4ImJgugYpw

— aaron navarro (@aaronlarnavarro) July 31, 2024

Harris told reporters earlier in the day as she headed for a rally in Atlanta that she had not yet decided on a pick:

Here’s the video of @VP Harris departing Joint Base Andrews for Atlanta rally.

She was asked if she has chosen her VP and she said “not yet”.

: @ATLNewsFirst pic.twitter.com/bwuS3y1oxl

— best of kamala harris (@archivekamala) July 30, 2024

The Harris-veep pick campaign will kick off on Tuesday with a rally in Philadelphia, giving rise to speculation the nod will go to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro which the campaign denied–for now.

Stops will then be held somewhere in “western Wisconsin”, Detroit, Raleigh, Savannah, Phoenix and Las Vegas. Politico reported on the campaign swing (excerpt):

Harris’ decision to kick off her tour in the biggest city in Pennsylvania is sure to set off speculation about her vice presidential pick. One of the top contenders being vetted by Harris’ team is Josh Shapiro, the governor of the swing state.

If Harris chooses Shapiro as her running mate, Philadelphia would make an obvious place to roll out the news, given that he hails from the area’s suburbs. But it’s also a diverse, vote-rich city that every presidential nominee must tend to thanks to the state’s 19 electoral votes, and it’s possible Harris’ plans don’t signal anything beyond that.

A Harris campaign aide cautioned against reading too much into the first city chosen for the tour.

…Harris is planning to interview potential vice presidential nominees in the upcoming days, said people familiar with the vetting process and granted anonymity to speak freely. Other names in the mix include Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Reuters reporter Jeff Mason reported last week that Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder is vetting potential vice presidential picks for Harris.

SCOOP: Former attorney general @EricHolder and his law firm will be handling vetting of running mates for @KamalaHarris, sources tell me and @JarrettRenshaw

— Jeff Mason (@jeffmason1) July 22, 2024

A Morning Consult poll of battleground states released Tuesday shows the race with President Trump tightening, but with questionable numbers (Harris up eleven in Michigan?)

#New General Election Poll

Arizona – Harris +2
Georgia – Tie
Michigan – Harris +11
Nevada – Harris +1
Wisconsin – Harris +2
Pennsylvania – Trump +4
North Carolina – Trump +2

Morning Consult #C – 437 RV (Each) – 7/28 pic.twitter.com/cV719ua5w3

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 30, 2024

At her Atlanta rally, perhaps forgetting how the Trump-Biden debate turned out after a cocky Biden demanded Trump “make my day” and debate him, Harris issued a ‘”say it to my face” debate challenge to Trump:

Trump and Vance “sure seem to have a lot to say about me. Don’t you find some of their stuff just to be plain weird…Donald, I do hope you’ll reconsider to meet me on the debate stage. Because as the saying goes if you’ve got something to say, say it to my face”

– Kamala Harris pic.twitter.com/3e2gbI0WyF

— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) July 31, 2024

The post Kamala Harris Campaign Sets Battleground States Blitz With Vice Presidential Pick for Next Week appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

An Olympic swimmer was banned from further participation in this year’s Paris Olympics on Sunday.

The swimmer, 22-year-old Ana Carolina Vieira, was caught leaving the athletes’ village without first asking the team for permission, Reuters reported.

Vieira represented Brazil in the 4×100 meters freestyle relay race. The team finished in 12th place in the heats.

To make matters even worse, team officials and members were completely unaware Vieira had left the village when she did.

At least, that was the case until they spotted social media posts of Vieira enjoying her time away.

A second swimmer, Vieira’s Olympic teammate Gabriel Santos of the men’s team, joined her on the unsanctioned escapade. Santos, however, only received a warning.

According to Reuters, Vieira’s harsher punishment came because she also chose to challenge the team’s formation.

“The athlete Ana Carolina, in a disrespectful and aggressive manner, contested a technical decision made by the Brazilian National Swimming Team committee,” the Brazilian Olympic Committee said in a Sunday statement.

“As a result, Gabriel Santos was given a warning, and Ana Carolina Vieira was dismissed from the delegation. She will return to Brazil immediately.”

The Brazilian swim team leader made it clear that the team would not be putting up with any such insubordination.

“We’re not here playing or taking a vacation,” said Gustavo Otsuka, the team leader. “We’re here working for Brazil, for the 200 million taxpayers who are working for us.”

“We can’t play around here. She took a completely inappropriate position to make her point, her dismay, about the formation of the relay.

“It was during this period that we decided to take this situation to the disciplinary committee, discussed it and took the appropriate action. We ended up finding out through the posts.”

According to the U.K.’s Daily Mail, following her dismissal from the team, Vieira was sent on a flight back home to Brazil.

Santos and Vieira are reportedly a couple who both participate in the Esporte Clube Pinheiros, a Brazilian athletics club.

Vieira made her Olympic debut in 2021 at the Tokyo Olympics, meaning this would have been her second appearance.

Santos, on the other hand, first appeared in the 2016 Olympics, which were held in his home nation of Brazil. This year is his third Olympic appearance.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Swimmer Banished from Olympics After Sneaking Out of Village, Making Brutal Mistake – ‘Disrespectful and Aggressive’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Dr. Peter Navarro joined Rose Unplugged to reflect on his time in prison, why he had to go, and what’s next.

Navarro was released from prison a couple of weeks ago after serving a 4-month sentence for defying a congressional subpoena.

In March Peter Navarro reported to prison for his 4-month sentence. He was the first high-ranking Trump aide to be imprisoned by the Biden Regime.

“Prison is no country for old men,” Navarro said. “I went to prison in defense of executive privilege, the Constitution, and the separation of powers. My appeal of this case is going to the Supreme Court.”

“It is not safe on the front lines. You go there because it’s your duty to go there. You do it for the country and that’s why you’re a patriot. The president just took a literal bullet and I took a figurative one in prison,” Navarro said.

AUDIO:

Please follow Rose Unplugged on Rumble here.

The post Peter Navarro Joins Rose Unplugged to Reflect on His Time in Prison, Why He Had to Go and What’s Next (AUDIO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a campaign that is increasingly turning on who is and isn’t weird, White Dudes for Harris and White Women for Harris are totally having a normal one.

These Zoom struggle sessions in support of Vice President Kamala Harris for president contain all the hallmarks of woke nonsense: weird self-abasement, off-putting lectures to put on “listening ears,” a separation of voters by race that looks eerily like the type of racist thinking it purportedly seeks to excise from the body politic—partly earnest and well-meaning while also not that subtly toxic, a form of outsourcing get-out-the-vote operations to your friendly local human resources department.

“Throughout American history, when white men organized, it was often with pointy hats on,” the dude rustler Ross Morales Rocketto was quoted as saying. He apparently also noted, with the good humor for which woke liberals are famous, that the White Dudes for Harris trucker caps were not themselves pointy.

Just some dudes and dudettes have good, clean fun, one supposes. But however tendentiously, they are making an important, uh, point: Harris’s path to the presidency, like the defenestrated President Joe Biden before her, runs through white voters living in the suburbs in battleground states.

That is why Harris is likely to pick a white dude as her own running mate. The Atlantic dubbed it Harris’s “white boy summer,” calling her would-be veep a “diversity hire.” Some of this is just normal political coalition-building, like John F. Kennedy picking a Texan or Barack Obama tapping Biden. But there’s also the veiled assumption that the country is too racist to elect a black and Asian woman president without a pale-complected pol whose pronouns are he/him by her side.

Colin Powell, whose wife died this week, could have been elected president in 1996, if not sooner. In 2008, White Dudes for Obama and White Women for Obama were simply known as the Iowa caucuses. 

The Resistance is largely a college-educated white phenomenon. That’s not to say that there aren’t minority voters passionately opposed to the former President Donald Trump, as are the entire civil-rights establishment and all the related activist groups. But Trump has actually grown the Republican Party’s minority vote share, which was true in the last election and is one of the reasons the polls look so different in 2024 than they did in 2020.

Trump lost a subset of suburban whites faster than he gained black and Hispanic men, which is one of the reasons he lost in 2020 and why he isn’t guaranteed victory this time around. But it was widely predicted that Trump would do to the GOP and the Hispanic vote what Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, did to the party’s share of the black vote. 

Instead, even in defeat in 2020, Trump won the biggest percentage of the Hispanic vote of any Republican presidential nominee since George W. Bush, with diametrically opposed immigration policies. Trump also won nearly one in five black men while carrying white women.

Harris is going to try to claw back these minority votes. There is already evidence that the black and Asian voters who do intend to cast ballots for her are more enthusiastic than when Biden was still in the race. But if she wins, it will look more like Biden in 2020 than Obama in 2008. Her cultural approach will be both an asset and a liability. 

As the Clinton-era scribe Joe Klein put it, “Democrats, led by their arrogant, elitist academic wing, have pursued a disastrous course for decades, emphasizing identity over unity, equity over equality of opportunity, and playing annoying, euphemistic, dilettante word games, using terms like socialism, gender-affirmation, white privilege, people of color, unhoused, intersectionality (whatever that is), Latinx and pronoun-imprecision—all guaranteed, indeed intended, to kick sand in the face of the bourgeoisie.”

That is why the “DEI candidate” talk is complicated. The moniker is certainly accurate in terms of what Harris believes: “Some people start out on first base. Some people start out on third base. And if the goal is truly about equality, it has to be about a goal of saying everybody should end up in the same place. And since we didn’t start in the same place, some folks might need more equitable distribution.” (This was said when she was vice president and might still be fair game and not subject to revision.)

To suggest, as some Republicans do, that Harris is uniquely unqualified isn’t quite right, even acknowledging the role race and gender played in her selection by Biden and the reason Democrats didn’t try to replace her too with a Rust Belt governor. It’s also worthwhile to compare Biden’s resume with his results as president and question the whole idea of whether politics is as much of a meritocracy as brain surgery ought to be.

Getting the precise anti-Harris messaging right is important if Republicans want to build a multiracial working-class coalition to compete with her coalition of cringe. Even if the dudes don’t abide.

The post Harris’s Weaknesses Are Complicated appeared first on The American Conservative.

From left to right: Abe Hamadeh, Kari Lake, and Blake Masters

The political landscape in Arizona continues to be a battleground, as former news anchor Kari Lake secured her victory in the Republican primary for the Senate.

Meanwhile, Trump-endorsed candidates Abraham “Abe” Hamadeh and Blake Masters are locked in a tight race for the U.S. House District 8 seat.

Kari Lake, the rightful governor and staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, has emerged victorious in her bid for the U.S. Senate against Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and neuroscientist Elizabeth Reye.

This race to replace Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who announced earlier this year that she would not seek reelection, is heating up as Lake prepares to face Democrat Congressman Ruben Gallego, who is running unopposed.

Source: The Hill

“Thank you for putting your faith in me, Arizona. I won’t let you down. Together, we’re going to save this state. Together, we’re going to #MakeArizonaGrandAgain,” Lake announced on X.

Thank you for putting your faith in me, Arizona.

I won’t let you down.

Together, we’re going to save this state.

Together, we’re going to #MakeArizonaGrandAgain. pic.twitter.com/eW0Q9TTFVV

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) July 31, 2024

In the U.S. House races, the stakes are equally high as several Republican candidates secured their positions amid intense competition. Notably, Abraham Hamadeh and Blake Masters are locked in a tight contest for Arizona’s U.S. House District 8 seat. Both candidates received the coveted endorsement from former President Donald Trump, igniting fervor among their respective bases.

As of the latest updates via FOX 10:

District 1: D. Schweikert wins with an AP race call at 11:09 PM on July 30, 2024.
District 2: Eli Crane claims victory with an AP race call at 11:07 PM against Kevin McCarthy-backed primary opponent.
District 3: Jeff Zink secures his position with an AP race call at 11:50 PM.
District 4: Kelly Cooper leads by nearly five percentage points with about 60% of votes counted.
District 5: Andy Biggs wins unopposed.
District 6: Juan Ciscomani wins with an AP race call at 11:26 PM.
District 7: Daniel Butierez wins unopposed.
District 8: As of the latest reports, Abraham Hamadeh leads by 6.38 percentage points with approximately 65.5% of votes counted.
District 9: Paul Gosar wins unopposed.

Source: The Hill

The post Arizona Primary Election Update: Kari Lake Wins Her Primary — Trump Endorsed Hamadeh and Masters in Close Race appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Kamala Harris has benefitted from a cozy relationship with Big Tech. Now, that relationship is being tested with a quid pro quo from major Big Tech donors: If you take our money, you must fire FTC Chair Lina Khan.

Harris has raked in the campaign cash from Big Tech. Throughout her political career, these companies have doled out millions in contributions. Alphabet has donated $842,212. Microsoft has shelled out $575,043. Amazon, Apple, and Meta have also contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to her campaigns. 

Recently, the Democratic megadonor and founder of LinkedIn Reid Hoffman announced he will give $7 million to a super PAC supporting Harris. But the donation reportedly came with strings attached: Harris must terminate Khan, who has been at the forefront of the Biden administration’s antitrust efforts. 

Almost immediately, a chorus of Big Tech donors made the same demand—and media personalities are now predicting she will make good on it. Another Democratic megadonor, Barry Diller, the chairman of IAC and Expedia, demanded the firing of Khan in an interview with CNBC. Diller has said he plans to max out to Harris and has encouraged his fellow billionaires to do the same. CNBC’s Jim Cramer predicted that if Harris were to win, she’d fire both Khan and Jonathan Kanter, the assistant attorney general with the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.

Hoffman has a particular interest in seeing Khan fired. He sits on the board of Aurora, a self-driving car company that is partially owned by Amazon. Khan is currently taking action against Amazon for monopolistic practices. He also sits on the board of Microsoft. Khan sued Microsoft to block the merger of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard. And it doesn’t end there. Hoffman is also associated with PayPal, a company that faced an antitrust class action lawsuit, and OpenAI, another company investigated by Khan’s FTC. Hoffman thinks that Khan might be hurting his bottom line by enforcing the law, so he wants her gone.

All this pressure means something. In countless articles speculating on whether Harris would fire both Kanter and Khan, the Harris campaign has been silent. The most the campaign has provided was a noncommittal answer to CNN: A Harris campaign aide told CNN that there have been “no policy discussions” about replacing Khan at the current time. “She has been the presumptive nominee for three days,” the aide added. All of this raises the question: Is Kamala Harris preparing to go soft on antitrust and instead do the bidding of her Big Tech overlords?

The Biden administration has tasked Harris with the role as Artificial Intelligence Czar, overseeing the administration’s policy agenda on AI. What has Harris done in this role? She has championed “fairness” in algorithms, disparities in training data, and countering “harmful” biases. Essentially, Harris has served to just make artificial intelligence more woke; doing nothing to push forward innovation and ensure America’s success in the artificial intelligence race against China.

Compare this to Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Trump has continued to rail against Big Tech companies for being “too big” and “too powerful.” Both Trump and Vance have supported a crackdown on Big Tech. Vance has voiced his support for Khan’s actions on multiple occasions.

During the 2020 election, Google suppressed stories on the Hunter Biden laptop, Twitter restricted pro-Trump PACs from tweeting, and Facebook banned various campaign ads from pro-Trump super PACs. These actions were solely to benefit the Biden-Harris campaign, and were instrumental in getting Biden elected.

The former president has pledged that if he were to win, he’d block federal money from going to these tech companies and their anti-disinformation efforts—and fire federal officials who aided and abetted censorship. Trump’s plans include both executive orders and legislation, which he has proposed under his “Free Speech Platform.” 

If Harris were to win, what would she do with regard to Big Tech? Say what you will about Joe Biden, but it’s hard to argue his administration has been very friendly to the tech companies. Would Kamala Harris continue that legacy? Or would she push the Democrat Party in a direction more favorable to her Big Tech paymasters?

If the past is any predictor of the future, Kamala Harris is likely to become our most pro-Big Tech president ever if she wins. It appears very likely that she would indeed fire Lina Khan at the request of those who have funded her career. And that would be terrible news for the American people who are sick of a few powerful Big Tech companies controlling the free flow of information and thus our elections.

The post Will Harris Be Beholden to Her Big Tech Overlords? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Roughly a year ago, I attended a pricey fundraiser for Ron DeSantis in Southampton. Our host, a highly successful Italian-American lawyer,  introduced the governor by saying that his main motivation for getting involved was that he did not want to see Kamala Harris president of the United States. He didn’t have to make it explicit; the premise understood by all there was that Donald Trump, for all his undoubted strengths, would not fare well against a candidate twenty years his junior.  

Even then it was becoming clear, surprising as it initially seemed, that DeSantis did not have the political juice to shake Trump’s hold on the MAGA base; Trump remained undisputed king of it, and he had grown that base big enough to hold off comfortably any challenge from the Bush/Cheney/McCain wing of the GOP, attractively represented by Nikki Haley. 

If the polls have shown anything consistently since then, it is that a wide swathe of voters and probably wider percentage of elites did not want a Biden-Trump rematch, and that choice between a visibly senescent and rapidly failing 81 year old and 78 year old election-denier with legal problems was not the best choice Americans could have in a perilously troubled time.

In a stunning two weeks, the Democratic Party has acted with surprising coherence and ruthlessness to retire forcibly Joe Biden and unite around Kamala Harris. What seemed a very likely Trump victory a fortnight ago—and the former president had been leading significantly in swing state polls for months before Biden’s debate disaster and Trump’s miraculous escape from assassination—now seems anything but certain. Indeed, I would put it as less likely than not. 

Harris might be objectively a weak candidate, but the traditional and time-tested ways through which that weakness would be exposed to voters—a press reporting on her positions, rivals probing at her vulnerabilities throughout months and months of competitive primary process—have been effectively short-circuited by the Democratic elite decision to unite behind her. One day we will have reporting on what roadblocks might have impeded this coronation and how they were effectively circumvented. As it was, her path to her party’s nomination seems as seamless as Charles becoming King of England after his mum’s death. Harris is receiving the kind exuberant across-the-board media support that hasn’t existed since LBJ swamped Goldwater. That kind of media is worth what—five points in the polls? Ten? 

By comparison with Hillary, on stage in debate and almost every televised media report, Trump seemed more vigorous, humorous, and strong. By comparison with Biden, such differences were startlingly obvious to every Democrat. By comparison with Harris, Trump will seem old and overweight, a contrast which could be mitigated and overcome if he were able to present himself as wiser, more reassuring, and statesmanlike. That is likely to be, for Trump, a difficult ask. 

The one factor in Trump’s favor is that Harris is a genuinely radical left candidate—more so than any of her competitors (who had soundly bested her in the polls before the 2020 voting started), more so even than Bernie Sanders, whom the party establishment united against in March of that year. Sanders’s two generations of experience with American voters gave him a fairly realistic sense of how socialist the country could become by democratic means—not very. He had seen the collapse of a Soviet Union he once admired, he had lived through decades of very real debates about socialism (which was intellectually quite popular when he was young) and had undoubtedly learned a lot. 

To hear Harris talk again and again of “equity,” as she has in countless speeches, is to hear a fourth-grade version of these debates—why not make all economic outcomes equal? That ignores everything about the actual history of socialism, of economic incentives, and of actual differences between people. The media, thoroughly on her side, proclaims Harris only ran like this to occupy the left lane during the Democratic primaries. But she continued to push her woke viewpoints after her campaign fell apart: months after lack of voter support drove Harris from the 2020 race, she was at it during the George Floyd riots, urging people to support a bail fund for the rioters in June even as the New York Times had noted that the “protests” were growing out of control. 

Later in the month she went on national television, had noted the riots were “a movement” which is “not going let up” and “should not.”  Trump ads have already pointed to Harris’s comparison of likening ICE to the KKK and her positions favoring free healthcare for illegal immigrants. These and other examples of Harris’s embrace of radically woke positions are well chronicled in an important Andrew Sullivan column. Sullivan, it should be recalled, is a centrist who has supported the Democratic nominee in (at least) the past four presidential election cycles. 

Under normal circumstances, a candidate of Harris’s beliefs would stand no real chance. But of course things are not normal: The enthusiasm for her today has the same energy of the George Floyd riots, and something of a similar psychological basis. The tremendous relief of Democratic and media elites feel from not being under the burden of having to lie about Joe Biden has parallels in the relief millions felt in having a socially permitted reason to escape covid lockdowns. 

The media is a political superpower, and so far at least has indicated it will do virtually anything to advance her candidacy. The chance that Trump can actually help himself in a debate with Harris seems, to me, very small. She on the other hand has before her a convention where she will be paired with any one of able and fairly appealing (white male) running mates. I don’t doubt she will be leading in the polls by Labor Day. Trump and J.D. Vance will then have before them the task of conveying the truth about Harris in a very brief period of time with the major communication outlets of the country dedicated to preventing the truth from emerging. It took more than a year for centrists and conservatives to even begin to effectively debunk the myths that had grown up around the police, Black Lives Matter, and the rest of the dishonesty which permeated summer of 2020. Trump, Vance and their allies don’t have anywhere near that amount of time.

The post Trump’s Narrow Window to Spread the Truth About Harris appeared first on The American Conservative.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in a strike on his residence in Tehran.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed after their residence was hit in Tehran.

Press TV made the announcement tonight.

Breaking: Ismail Haniyeh is dead

The terrorist Islamic Regime in Iran just confirmed this through its #IRGCterrorists propaganda network, Press TV.

Good riddance to terrorist Hamas Garbage

Thank you Israel. #kotlet pic.twitter.com/0goii4HBeo

— Goldie Ghamari, MPP | گلسا قمری (@gghamari) July 31, 2024

Haniyeh eliminated.

Haniyeh was the terrorist face of Hamas. The guy hobnobbing with the Ayatollahs and holding court in luxury hotels in Qatar and Turkey.

Btw, he skimmed millions $ off smuggling goods into Gaza while the people suffered in poverty.

Even the IRGC couldn’t protect him. pic.twitter.com/Zk7nYqoW7G

— Rep. Mike Waltz (@michaelgwaltz) July 31, 2024

This strike on Haniyeh came less than 24 hours after Israel eliminated the military commander of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Fuad Shukr: the man who killed 12 children in a soccer field on Saturday and is responsible of 30 years of Hezbollah terrorist attacks. pic.twitter.com/RuHO0W2py6

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) July 30, 2024

Haniyeh and one of his bodyguards were killed in strike.
The Tehren Times reported:

Ismail Haniyeh and one of his bodyguards were martyred after their residence was targeted in Tehran, according to a statement released by the IRGC.

“With condolences to the heroic nation of Palestine and the Islamic nation and the combatants of the Resistance Front and the noble nation of Iran, this morning (Wednesday) the residence of Mr. Dr. Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the political office of the Islamic Resistance of Hamas, was hit in Tehran, and following this incident, he and one of his bodyguards were martyred,” the statement reads.

Further investigation into the incident is underway.

Haniyeh famously condemned the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Hamas Leader Condemns Killing of “Muslim Warrior” Osama Bin Laden

Haniyeh was filmed at the inauguration ceremony of the new Iranian president earlier in the day.

Hours before Israel killed the leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, he was captured on film at the Iranian inauguration, where they chanted “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.”

God really is great
pic.twitter.com/D7isqMorkr

— Avi Yemini (@OzraeliAvi) July 31, 2024

The post Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh Killed After Residence Hit in Tehran – This Comes Less Than 24 Hours After Israel Eliminate Top Hezbollah Military Commander appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer is weirdly obsessed with Trump’s running mate JD Vance.

He has furiously demanded that Trump drop Vance, as if that would happen. Then he turns around and says that Vance is a gift to Democrats. So which is it?

Remember what Rush Limbaugh always said. The left will tell you who they fear.

Townhall reports:

Why Does Chuck Schumer Want Trump to Replace JD Vance So Badly?

Ever since former and potentially future President Donald Trump picked Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) as his running mate earlier this month, Democrats have gone after the vice presidential pick. The effort trying to highlight how Vance is supposedly “weird” has itself been rather weird. Another oddity is how Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) appears to be so hung up on Vance.

Robert Costa asked Schumer during Sunday’s episode of CBS News’ “Face the Nation” if senators in battleground states should ask Vice President Kamala Harris, likely the Democratic nominee, to campaign with them. Schumer gave a laughable response about President Joe Biden and Harris and then launched into quite the rant against Vance.

Not only did Schumer stress that “the Biden-Harris record is just incredible,” he also even claimed “it’s a great, great record, and it’s helping our Senate candidates run on it.”…

“Vance seems to be more erratic and more extreme than President Trump. And I’ll bet President Trump is sitting there scratching his head and wondering, why did I pick this guy? The choice may be one of the best things he ever did for Democrats,” Schumer continued.

Schumer can’t decide whether Trump should drop Vance or if Vance is great for Democrats.

Schumer Advises Trump To Ditch Vance, Get New Running-Mate

— Off The Press (@OffThePress1) July 29, 2024

Donald Trump picking JD Vance as his running mate “may be one of the best things he ever did for Democrats,” @SenSchumer says.

“Every day, it comes out Vance has done something more extreme, more weird, more erratic…I’ll bet President Trump is sitting there scratching his head… pic.twitter.com/hxNUFyklfi

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) July 28, 2024

The fact that Schumer doesn’t like him means Vance is the perfect choice.

The post Chuck Schumer is Losing His Mind Over JD Vance, Demanding Trump Drop Him Then Calling Him a Gift to Democrats appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A new poll from Harvard/Harris finds Trump at 52 percent and Kamala Harris at 48. That’s with leaners. Without leaners, it’s Trump 48 and Harris 45.

This poll is full of good news for Trump but the biggest point is that 52 percent, as it indicates a majority. Trump never polled this well in 2016 or 2020.

Also, this poll was conducted after the big Democrat switcheroo, so it includes all of the free hype the media has given to Harris.

Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air:

According to a new Harvard-Harris CAPS poll, Donald Trump leads Kamala Harris 52/48 with leaners, and 48/45 without. Harris has improved Joe Biden’s numbers on the latter, but not the former:…

Even the unsure voters are breaking toward Trump, at least somewhat. The more worrisome data for Democrats are in the charts below, however. Trump holds Republicans to the ticket better than Harris holds her own party in both formulations. In fact, her 87% without leaners should be a red flag for the DNC, suggesting strongly that the party is not as sold on The Anointing as the media claims, even with the full-court press on Kamalot!

Take a look at the indie numbers, too. Trump leads by six points without leaners — and six points with leaners. One has to wonder whether the sample tilts a bit toward the Dems based on those results plus the party loyalty numbers above. If so, Trump’s still scoring an outright majority over Harris, who’s attractiveness as a candidate is at its zenith before she’s forced to open her mouth about policy…

What may be causing this Trump Bump? The issue set clearly favors Republicans now. The top three issues for respondents in this survey when asked in an open-ended manner are inflation (37%), immigration (33%), and the economy and jobs (27%).

This is great news for Trump.

NEW: Harvard/Harris poll just dropped

Trump: 52%
Harris: 48%

Trump: 47%
Harris: 43%
RFK Jr: 8%

Trump at 52% H2H with leans is AMAZING.

— Pro America Politics (@Pro__Trading) July 30, 2024

Warning signs for every vulnerable Democrat @KamalaHarris’ policy platform is historically unpopular

67% oppose open borders
68% oppose ending private healthcare
72% oppose electric vehicle mandate https://t.co/N0RIWQwgs8 pic.twitter.com/BknFa7jrVK

— Michael McAdams (@M_McAdams) July 30, 2024

2024 General Election: Harvard-Harris

Trump 52%
Harris 48%

RCP Avg: Trump +1.9

This Day In History:
July 30, 2020: Biden +8.3
July 30, 2016: Clinton +0.4

More:https://t.co/r6CP60vIit#poll #politics #election2024 #Trump #Harris #vote #polling

— RealClearPolling (@RCPolling) July 30, 2024

Republicans can take nothing for granted, but this is a great sign.

The post HUGE: Trump Goes to 52 Percent in New Harvard/Harris Poll appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.