The Harris campaign is doing everything they can to make sure Kamala sits in the Oval Office. But things are not going well for them.

And recent polling has uncovered a troubling issue for the Harris-Walz ticket.

As the 2024 election heats up, all eyes are on the highly anticipated vice presidential debate next week between Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. In a matchup that pits American principles against progressive policies, the latest polling data reveals a clear advantage for Vance, former President Donald Trump’s running mate, over Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’s counterpart.

Exclusive polling data provided to Breitbart News ahead of its public release shows that voters across the country trust Vance more than Walz on key issues facing the nation, including immigration, national security, the economy, and crime.

The numbers indicate a growing confidence in Vance’s leadership, as well as significant skepticism regarding Walz, particularly due to his reported ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

When it comes to issues that dominate headlines and spark public debate—immigration and national security—Vance has a clear edge over Walz. According to the poll conducted by the Senate Opportunity Fund, 45 percent of likely voters said they trust Vance more on both immigration and national security, compared to just 39 percent for Walz.

This six-point lead is indicative of the growing concerns among Americans about border security, the rise in illegal immigration, and national defense under the Biden-Harris administration.

Immigration, in particular, has been a hot-button issue throughout the Biden presidency, as the administration’s open-border policies have led to a historic surge in illegal crossings, overwhelming border states and creating security risks.

In contrast, Vance has taken a hardline approach, advocating for stricter border controls, increased funding for Border Patrol, and a renewed focus on national sovereignty. His stance resonates with voters who are increasingly concerned about the long-term implications of unchecked immigration, including crime and economic strain.

National security has also emerged as a key concern for voters, especially in the wake of foreign policy blunders such as the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Vance’s clear vision of a strong, America-first foreign policy stands in stark contrast to the weak and indecisive leadership of the Biden-Harris administration.

Vance’s focus on rebuilding America’s military strength, strengthening alliances, and confronting adversaries like China has earned him the trust of voters, while Walz’s record offers little reassurance.

As inflation continues to squeeze American families, it’s no surprise that the economy remains one of the top concerns heading into the 2024 election. Here, too, Vance has a notable advantage over Walz. The poll shows that 45 percent of voters trust Vance more on economic issues, compared to 40 percent who side with Walz.

This five-point lead reflects widespread discontent with the Biden administration’s handling of the economy, particularly the skyrocketing inflation and reckless government spending that have hurt working-class Americans.

Vance has positioned himself as a champion of fiscal responsibility and economic growth. His focus on reducing government regulation, cutting taxes, and promoting pro-business policies has struck a chord with voters who are tired of the stagnant wages and rising costs that have defined the Biden years. Meanwhile, Walz’s embrace of progressive economic policies—such as higher taxes, expansive welfare programs, and government intervention—has left voters skeptical of his ability to manage the economy effectively.

The economic concerns of 2024 are not just about inflation but about the broader question of America’s financial future. Vance’s vision of a thriving economy built on conservative principles of free markets, limited government, and individual responsibility contrasts sharply with the failed policies of the current administration, and voters are taking notice.

Crime is another issue where JD Vance outshines Tim Walz. As crime rates continue to rise in major cities across the country, voters are increasingly looking for leaders who will prioritize law and order. According to the poll, 43 percent of likely voters trust Vance more on crime, compared to 40 percent for Walz, giving Vance a three-point edge on this critical issue.

The spike in violent crime over the past few years has been a direct result of the Democrats’ soft-on-crime policies, including the defund-the-police movement and lenient sentencing guidelines that have emboldened criminals and undermined law enforcement. In contrast, Vance has consistently advocated for law and order, supporting stronger police funding, tougher sentencing for violent offenders, and the restoration of public safety in communities across the country.

Walz, on the other hand, has faced criticism for his handling of crime in Minnesota, particularly in the wake of the George Floyd riots in Minneapolis. His refusal to take decisive action to restore order during those chaotic days, coupled with his support for progressive criminal justice reforms, has left voters questioning his ability to keep Americans safe.

Perhaps the most damaging revelation for Tim Walz is his close relationship with the Chinese Communist Party, which has been uncovered in recent weeks. The Senate Opportunity Fund poll found that a solid majority—54 percent—of likely voters are less likely to trust Walz after learning about his trips to China, many of which were sponsored directly by the CCP. Thirty-nine percent of respondents said they were much less likely to trust him, underscoring the seriousness of these allegations.

Walz’s cozy relationship with China raises red flags, especially at a time when China poses the greatest geopolitical threat to the United States. From its aggressive military buildup to its theft of intellectual property and unfair trade practices, China has consistently sought to undermine American interests. The idea that a potential vice president could have such close ties to a hostile foreign government is deeply concerning to many Americans.

Vance, on the other hand, has been a vocal critic of the CCP and has called for a tougher stance on China, including trade policies that protect American workers and national security measures that limit China’s influence in the United States. His unwavering stance against the CCP is yet another reason why voters trust him more on national security and foreign policy.

Americans’ Growing Disillusionment with Harris and the Biden Administration
The polling data also reveals a broader trend of disillusionment with the current administration. Forty-nine percent of respondents said they oppose Vice President Kamala Harris, while only 45 percent expressed support for her. This negative view of Harris mirrors the broader dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s performance, as 67 percent of voters say the country is on the wrong track. Only 26 percent believe that the Biden-Harris administration is moving America in the right direction.

Republicans, buoyed by these numbers, also lead the generic ballot, with 46 percent of voters supporting the GOP and just 41 percent backing the Democrats. This represents a growing rejection of the Democrats’ policies and their handling of key issues like the economy, national security, and crime.

With the vice presidential debate just days away, JD Vance heads into the showdown with a clear advantage over Tim Walz on the issues that matter most to voters. From immigration to national security, the economy, and crime, Vance has earned the trust of the American people, while Walz struggles to overcome his own political baggage—particularly his ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Vance’s conservative principles, focus on law and order, and commitment to rebuilding America’s economy stand in stark contrast to Walz’s progressive policies and questionable foreign relationships. As voters prepare to cast their ballots in 2024, it is clear that JD Vance is the leader they can trust to guide the nation through these challenging times.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Harris and the Radical Left don’t care about America. But no one expected them to take things this far.

And Kamala Harris has once again proven her hatred for America in a new move.

In a stunning reversal, Vice President Kamala Harris has once again shifted her stance on a fundamental issue, this time calling for the end of the Senate filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade into law. This move represents yet another flip from a position she once adamantly held, raising questions about her consistency, trustworthiness, and commitment to the values she claims to uphold.

The push to end the filibuster—a longstanding Senate tradition that promotes deliberation and bipartisan cooperation—follows a disturbing pattern of political opportunism from Harris, as she seeks to advance her radical agenda at any cost.

Harris’s latest flip-flop, which came during an appearance on Wisconsin Public Radio, is a direct contradiction to her 2017 pledge to preserve the Senate filibuster. During that time, she joined 32 of her fellow Democratic senators in signing a letter that urged the Senate to maintain “existing rules, practices, and traditions” that allow for extended debate.

🚨Kamala wants to abolish the filibuster, but here's the letter she signed as Senator pledging to support the filibuster to ensure the Senate "continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body."

Her word is meaningless.

She'll say anything to get elected. pic.twitter.com/XzDY4ZfJ8S

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 24, 2024

That letter, addressed to then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and then-Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), called for the preservation of what Harris once referred to as the Senate’s “unique role in the legislative process.”

But in classic Harris fashion, she has now thrown that principle out the window, driven by the desire to force her pro-abortion agenda through Congress. As reported by Breitbart News, Harris expressed her desire to eliminate the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade, which would strip states of their ability to enact pro-life laws.

“I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe,” Harris said, revealing her willingness to dismantle Senate traditions in pursuit of radical, left-wing policies.

Kamala Harris’s latest reversal on the filibuster is just the latest chapter in her long history of political flip-flopping. Back in 2017, Harris was one of the Democratic senators who praised the filibuster as an essential tool for preserving debate and ensuring that the Senate remained a deliberative body.

At that time, Harris argued that the filibuster was crucial for maintaining the integrity of the Senate and protecting the rights of minority parties to engage in extended debate on legislation.

Yet, as her political ambitions have grown, Harris has increasingly abandoned any pretense of respecting the institution she once vowed to protect. During her failed 2020 presidential campaign, Harris flip-flopped on the filibuster once again, calling for its elimination in order to pass the radical Green New Deal. This was a sharp departure from her previous position, demonstrating her willingness to change her stance on core principles whenever it suits her political goals.

The most troubling aspect of Harris’s flip-flop on the filibuster is that it’s not an isolated incident. Rather, it is part of a larger pattern of hypocrisy and political expediency that has come to define her career. Whether it’s her positions on criminal justice reform, health care, or now the Senate filibuster, Harris has consistently shown that she is willing to change her views depending on the political winds.

In 2010, Harris, then the district attorney of San Francisco, was a staunch defender of law enforcement and a tough-on-crime advocate. She supported policies that disproportionately impacted minority communities, including the controversial practice of truancy prosecution that targeted parents of truant children.

Fast forward to 2020, and Harris had completely reversed her stance, branding herself as a champion of criminal justice reform and aligning with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in calling for police reform and racial justice. The about-face left many wondering whether Harris truly believed in the policies she promoted or if she was simply saying what was politically advantageous at the time.

The same could be said for her stance on Medicare for All. During her presidential run, Harris initially supported the idea of eliminating private health insurance in favor of a government-run system, only to later backtrack when it became clear that such a position was unpopular with moderate voters. This constant flip-flopping has made it difficult for voters to trust where Harris truly stands on important issues, and her inconsistency continues to undermine her credibility.

By calling for the elimination of the filibuster, Harris is not just abandoning her previous position—she is also setting a dangerous precedent that could further erode the deliberative nature of the Senate.

The filibuster exists for a reason: to encourage bipartisanship, protect the rights of minority parties, and ensure that legislation is carefully considered before it becomes law. Without the filibuster, the Senate risks becoming just another rubber stamp for the party in power, with no room for debate or compromise.

Harris’s willingness to throw away this important Senate tradition is particularly alarming in light of her agenda. By eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade, Harris would not only enshrine abortion rights into federal law but also wipe out state pro-life laws, effectively trampling on the rights of millions of Americans who oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds. This is not just about reproductive rights—it’s about whether the federal government should have the power to override the will of the people in states that have chosen to protect life.

One of the most significant implications of Harris’s push to eliminate the filibuster for the sake of codifying Roe v. Wade is the impact it would have on states’ rights. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe, restored the power to regulate abortion to the states. This allowed states to reflect the will of their citizens, whether that meant enacting pro-life laws or maintaining access to abortion services.

By pushing for the federal codification of Roe, Harris is effectively seeking to strip states of their ability to legislate on this issue, imposing a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores the diversity of opinions across the country.

This is a direct assault on the principle of federalism, which has long been a cornerstone of American governance. Harris’s disregard for states’ rights in this matter demonstrates a broader trend within the Democratic Party, where federal overreach is increasingly becoming the norm.

At its core, Kamala Harris’s call to eliminate the filibuster for the sake of codifying Roe is part of a broader radical agenda that seeks to transform America in fundamental ways. From pushing the Green New Deal to advocating for Medicare for All, Harris has shown time and time again that she is willing to adopt extreme positions in order to pander to the far-left base of the Democratic Party.

Her latest flip-flop on the filibuster is yet another example of her willingness to sacrifice long-standing Senate traditions in the name of political expediency.

The American people deserve better than a leader who changes her positions on a whim, depending on what’s politically convenient. They deserve someone who will stand up for the principles of limited government, states’ rights, and the protection of life. Kamala Harris has shown that she is not that leader.

As Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) pointed out on social media, Harris’s reversal on the filibuster is not just a policy shift—it’s a betrayal of the very principles she once claimed to hold. In 2017, she signed a letter calling for the preservation of the filibuster, praising it as a tool for ensuring robust debate in the Senate. Now, just a few years later, she is ready to throw it away for the sake of advancing her radical pro-abortion agenda.

Kamala Harris’s latest flip-flop on the Senate filibuster is emblematic of a broader pattern of political opportunism and inconsistency. Whether it’s her changing positions on criminal justice, health care, or now the filibuster, Harris has shown that she is willing to abandon her principles whenever it suits her political ambitions. Her call to eliminate the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade is not only a betrayal of the Senate’s traditions but also a dangerous move that would undermine states’ rights and impose a radical pro-abortion agenda on the entire country.

As the 2024 election approaches, voters should be wary of Harris’s ever-changing positions and consider whether she truly has the best interests of the American people at heart. It’s clear that Harris is more interested in pandering to the far-left than standing up for the principles of federalism, limited government, and the protection of life.

Harris has many secrets that she is trying to hide this election season. But the truth has come out anyway.

And Harris’ darkest secrets have been exposed from within her own circle.

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, voters are rightfully asking for more specific details about Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda. On Tuesday’s broadcast of CNBC’s Squawk Box, Co-Chair of the Harris-Walz campaign, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), faced tough questions about the lack of transparency surrounding Harris’s economic policies.

Co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin asked a fundamental question that all voters should be asking: Should Americans know specific details about her tax and regulatory plans before heading to the polls?

The answer Coons provided should alarm anyone concerned about the direction of our nation’s economy. According to Coons, Harris has laid out a “broad vision” of her priorities but has kept most specifics under wraps.

Even more troubling, Coons admitted that Harris will be “keeping a lot of the same policies and agendas” as President Joe Biden—a presidency marked by economic stagnation, skyrocketing inflation, and regulatory overreach that has crushed small businesses and hurt American workers.

Harris’s refusal to provide specific details about her economic plans is not just political caution—it’s a calculated strategy. By sticking to broad generalities, Harris avoids scrutiny and accountability for policies that could further damage America’s already fragile economy. Coons’s defense of Harris’s “broad vision” raises serious questions about what Harris is hiding from the American people.

What we do know about Harris’s “vision” is that it includes a continuation of Biden’s disastrous economic policies. Coons admitted that Harris’s first major economic proposal was a capital gains tax increase—one that was actually lower than what Biden had pushed for, upsetting many in the Democratic caucus.

This speaks volumes about Harris’s economic priorities. Rather than focusing on policies that would grow the economy, reduce inflation, or lower taxes for working families, Harris’s first instinct was to go after investors and businesses with a tax hike. Even though the proposal was less radical than Biden’s, it still points to a deeply flawed economic philosophy that punishes success rather than incentivizing growth.

Coons’s revelation that Harris plans to “keep a lot of the same policies and agendas” as Biden should send shivers down the spine of every American voter. Under Biden’s watch, the American economy has suffered from high inflation, stagnant wages, and regulatory burdens that have stifled innovation and job creation. Harris, rather than distancing herself from these failures, seems poised to double down on them.

One of Biden’s most damaging policies has been his aggressive regulatory agenda, which has hurt small businesses, increased costs for consumers, and driven up inflation. Harris, far from offering a different approach, has signaled her intent to continue Biden’s regulatory onslaught.

Coons mentioned that Harris wants to focus on removing “regulatory barriers,” but this vague statement offers little comfort given her track record of supporting heavy-handed government intervention. Harris has consistently backed policies that expand government control over the economy, whether through burdensome regulations or increased taxes.

Coons also attempted to defend Harris’s economic agenda by pointing to her focus on building more housing and partnering with the private sector. But Harris’s plan to “build more housing” is just another example of her reliance on big government solutions.

While Harris claims she wants to remove regulatory barriers to housing construction, her record shows that she supports the same kind of top-down government control that has led to housing shortages and skyrocketing costs in places like California, where Harris’s political career began.

California’s housing crisis is a perfect example of what happens when government overregulates the housing market. Zoning restrictions, environmental regulations, and bureaucratic red tape have made it nearly impossible to build affordable housing in many parts of the state.

Yet Harris has been a staunch supporter of these types of regulations throughout her career. Now, as a presidential candidate, she claims she wants to partner with the private sector to build more housing. But if Harris’s past is any indication, her version of “partnership” will likely involve more government interference, not less.

Coons’s claim that Harris is focused on building middle-class wealth is perhaps the most disingenuous part of his defense. Under Biden’s presidency, the middle class has suffered immensely. Inflation has eroded savings, wages have stagnated, and the cost of living has skyrocketed. Biden’s economic policies, from massive government spending to burdensome regulations, have hurt the very people they claim to help.

Harris’s commitment to continuing these policies ensures that the middle class will continue to struggle under her administration. While she talks about building middle-class wealth, her actions speak louder than her words.

Her support for higher taxes on businesses and investors will stifle job creation and make it harder for middle-class Americans to save for the future. Her refusal to address inflation, coupled with her embrace of Biden’s spending policies, will only worsen the cost-of-living crisis facing millions of Americans.

As voters head to the polls in 2024, they deserve to know exactly what kind of economic policies Kamala Harris will pursue if elected president. Will she continue Biden’s reckless spending, crushing regulations, and tax hikes? Or will she offer a different vision that prioritizes growth, job creation, and economic freedom? So far, all signs point to more of the same failed policies that have left American families struggling to make ends meet.

Harris’s deliberate vagueness and refusal to provide specific details about her economic agenda should be deeply concerning to voters. The American people have a right to know how their next president plans to handle taxes, regulations, and the economy. They deserve transparency, not broad visions and empty promises.

In many ways, the Harris-Walz ticket represents a continuation of the disastrous policies of the Biden administration. While Coons claims that Harris will provide more details in the coming weeks, voters should be skeptical. If Harris truly had a plan to fix the economy, she would have shared it by now. Instead, she has chosen to keep voters in the dark, relying on vague statements about “broad visions” and “partnerships” with the private sector.

As Coons suggested, Harris and Walz may give more details this week, but don’t hold your breath. The Harris-Walz ticket is banking on the hope that voters will ignore their lack of specifics and focus instead on their rhetoric. But rhetoric won’t fix the economy, and neither will Harris’s vague “broad vision.”

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Every other word that comes out of Harris’ mouth is a lie. But now things have gotten even worse.

And massive harris lies have been exposed and the whole world is stunned.

Vice President Kamala Harris has consistently portrayed herself as a champion of the working and middle classes, using stories about her upbringing to suggest that she relates to the struggles of everyday Americans. During interviews, campaign rallies, and even presidential debates, Harris has touted her summer job at McDonald’s, her Oakland roots, and her supposedly humble background to bolster this image.

But a closer look at Harris’s upbringing tells a vastly different story, one of privilege and opportunities that most middle-class or working-class Americans could never imagine.

In a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, Harris said, “I grew up a child of a mother who worked very hard. She raised me and my sister and saved up. And by the time I was a teenager, she was able to buy a home.” On social media, she has declared that she will always “put the middle class and working families first,” adding, “I know where I came from.”

Yet, as with many politicians who seek to appeal to working-class voters, Harris’s narrative appears to be more of a constructed identity than an accurate reflection of her life experiences. Harris has long downplayed her own privilege, choosing instead to craft an image that seems designed to connect her with a base that Democrats are rapidly losing: the middle and working class.

While Harris claims ties to the blue-collar city of Oakland, her early years tell a different story. Born in 1964 at Kaiser Hospital in Oakland, Harris’s parents were both graduate students at UC Berkeley—an elite institution in one of the wealthiest and most progressive regions of the country.

While Harris often uses the vague descriptor “daughter of Oakland” to brand herself as the child of a working-class city, her family actually lived in Berkeley, a liberal, academic enclave adjacent to Oakland, but worlds apart in terms of socio-economic status.

Her parents’ backgrounds further shatter the working-class narrative. Harris’s father, Donald Harris, was a Jamaican-born economist who later taught at elite institutions such as Stanford University. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was the daughter of an Indian diplomat who studied at UC Berkeley and became a renowned cancer researcher. Far from the struggles that Harris implies she endured, she was raised in a home filled with intellectuals and activists.

In fact, during Harris’s formative years, her family lived in various affluent areas, including Evanston, Illinois, and Madison, Wisconsin, while her father pursued his academic career. Later, Harris and her mother moved to Montreal, Canada, where they resided in one of the city’s most upscale neighborhoods. Harris attended top schools, including Westmount High School, which boasts one of the highest educational standards in Montreal.

To put it bluntly, Kamala Harris was raised in a world of privilege, far removed from the daily struggles of America’s working class.

One of the more glaring omissions in Harris’s portrayal of her upbringing is her education. Before she was bused as part of a desegregation program, Harris attended Berkwood Hedge School, a private institution in Berkeley. Even today, tuition at Berkwood runs over $29,000 per year. This is hardly the experience of a child struggling in a working-class household.

In addition to her private schooling, Harris also took ballet lessons from the renowned Russian ballerina Madame Bovie, hardly a luxury that most working-class children can afford. These details, conveniently left out of Harris’s narrative, suggest a childhood filled with opportunity, not one of hardship.

When Harris finally did attend public school, it was not in a working-class neighborhood, but in the wealthier area of North Berkeley. This is where she was bused as part of a racial integration program, an experience she has used as evidence of her “disadvantaged” background. However, Harris’s earlier education in private schools reveals that she was far from disadvantaged.

Harris’s narrative further falters when we consider her family’s travel history. Harris frequently visited her father’s family in Jamaica and her mother’s family in Chennai, India. Few middle-class families can afford such international trips. Harris’s father himself came from a privileged Jamaican background, with ties to the country’s elite.

One of the most frequently cited elements of Harris’s so-called middle-class background is her summer job at McDonald’s during college. Harris claims she worked at the fast-food chain to make extra spending money, but even this story doesn’t add up.

At the time, Harris’s father was a professor at Stanford University, and her mother was a visiting professor at UC Berkeley. The idea that Harris had to work at McDonald’s for “extra spending money” while living in one of California’s wealthiest regions raises questions about the authenticity of her claim.

Moreover, Harris has never provided concrete evidence of this alleged job. While she claims to have worked at a McDonald’s in Alameda, California, her mother’s home was located near a different McDonald’s in Oakland. It is unclear why Harris would commute to Alameda for work when there was a closer location near her home.

Perhaps the most misleading part of Harris’s narrative is her description of the home her mother purchased when she was a teenager. Harris frequently mentions that her mother worked hard to buy a modest house in Oakland. However, the house in question was located in the affluent Oakland Hills, one of the wealthiest areas of the city. The home was near a golf course and is now valued at nearly one million dollars, far from the modest, working-class image that Harris presents.

Throughout her political career, Harris has made a concerted effort to downplay her privilege and present herself as a working-class hero. Yet, her lifestyle has consistently been one of luxury. After her time at UC Hastings for law school, Harris purchased a condo overlooking Lake Merritt in Oakland, an area far removed from the struggling neighborhoods that many working-class families call home.

Harris’s rapid ascent into wealth continued with a string of high-paying government jobs, luxury real estate investments, and political appointments that catapulted her into the upper echelons of society. Despite these advantages, Harris continues to claim a working-class background, even though she has lived in some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country, including her $5 million home in Los Angeles and her $1.775 million condo in Washington, D.C.

Kamala Harris’s efforts to connect with middle-class and working-class voters by invoking her supposedly humble upbringing fall flat under scrutiny. While she continues to tell the story of a struggling child of a single mother, the reality is that Harris grew up in an academic, affluent, and internationally connected family. The misleading claims about her background are part of a larger trend in her political career, where image and narrative are manipulated to suit the needs of the moment.

As Harris seeks higher office, voters should remember that her version of “middle-class” life is not only exaggerated but outright false. The real Kamala Harris is someone who has lived in privilege, attended elite schools, and benefited from a world of opportunities that most Americans can only dream of.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for more of the TRUTH in the news.

The Democrats think that they have Trump on the run. But the truth might be very different.

As new swing state data has unveiled Trump’s stunning election plan.

As the 2024 presidential election inches closer, a new poll conducted by The New York Times/Siena College reveals a surprising shift in three critical swing states, all pointing to one conclusion: Donald Trump is gaining momentum, and Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, is struggling to keep up.

Despite losing two of these key states to Joe Biden in the razor-thin 2020 election, Trump now leads Harris in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, setting the stage for a potentially seismic political realignment.

In Arizona, Trump leads Harris by a margin of 50% to 45%. This is particularly significant considering that Biden narrowly won the state in 2020 by just over 10,400 votes. The Times also noted a shift from an August survey that showed Harris leading Trump by 5 points. The sudden swing in favor of Trump signals that Arizona voters are growing increasingly dissatisfied with the current administration and are turning to the former president for leadership.

The story is the same in Georgia, another state that Biden narrowly won in 2020 by under 11,800 votes. The latest poll reveals Trump ahead of Harris, 49% to 45%. This is a major blow to the Democrats, as Georgia’s shifting demographics were seen as key to the party’s future electoral success. Trump’s ability to reclaim this state could be an indication of his broader appeal to both traditional conservatives and disaffected Democrats alike.

North Carolina, a state that hasn’t voted for a Democratic president since 2008, shows Trump holding a narrow lead of 49% to 47% over Harris. While North Carolina is not considered a swing state in the same vein as Arizona or Georgia, Trump’s continued strength here further underscores his dominance across the Sun Belt.

The poll, conducted between September 17 and 21, surveyed 713 voters in Arizona, 682 voters in Georgia, and 682 voters in North Carolina. The margin of error varied between the states, with a 2.5% margin of error across all likely voters in the three states combined. As the poll reflects, the top issue driving voter preferences in these states is the economy—an issue where Trump clearly outshines Harris.

With inflation, rising energy costs, and a sluggish job market weighing heavily on voters, it’s no wonder that 55% of respondents in these critical swing states say they trust Trump more on the economy compared to just 42% who say the same of Harris.

Joe Biden’s economic policies, which have led to skyrocketing prices for everyday goods and a deteriorating sense of financial security for millions of Americans, are clearly dragging Harris down.

Moreover, 48% of voters across the three states say they “strongly disapprove” of Biden’s job performance. This is a stark reminder that the failures of the Biden-Harris administration are pushing voters back toward Trump, who is seen as more capable of handling the economic recovery. Voters have grown tired of the Democrats’ inability to rein in inflation, fix the supply chain issues, or even bring energy prices under control.

After the economy, immigration ranks as the second most important issue for voters, with 16% identifying it as their top concern. Once again, Trump is viewed more favorably on this issue.

The Biden-Harris administration’s failure to secure the southern border has allowed millions of illegal immigrants to flood into the country, creating a crisis that has overwhelmed local communities, strained resources, and increased crime.

Trump’s tough stance on illegal immigration, which includes finishing the border wall and enforcing strict deportation measures, resonates strongly with voters in these swing states. While Harris has largely avoided addressing the border crisis directly, her record as vice president—where she was put in charge of border security and failed to make any meaningful progress—speaks for itself. Voters know that Harris will continue the same failed policies, while Trump offers a real solution to the chaos.

Interestingly, while abortion ranks as the third most important issue for voters at 16%, it does not appear to be driving the same level of intensity as the economy or immigration. This could be a reflection of voters’ concerns over more immediate, tangible problems like inflation and illegal immigration.

While Democrats have attempted to galvanize support around the issue of abortion, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, it seems that economic security and border control are more pressing concerns for the majority of voters in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

As the poll shows, Trump leads Harris 49% to 45% across the three swing states overall. This is a clear indication that Trump’s message is resonating with voters in these critical battlegrounds.

When asked who they trust more to handle the issues they care about most, 50% of respondents said they trust Trump, while only 46% said they trust Harris. These numbers suggest that Trump’s appeal is not only holding steady but gaining strength as the election approaches.

The shift toward Trump in these swing states is not an isolated phenomenon. Across the country, Americans are waking up to the failures of the Biden-Harris administration. From skyrocketing inflation to the border crisis to rising crime rates, it’s clear that the Democrats have lost touch with the issues that matter most to the American people.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to offer a vision of strong leadership, economic prosperity, and national security—something voters are desperately craving after four years of chaos under Biden.

Democrats are undoubtedly feeling the pressure as they watch key swing states slip away. The fact that Trump is now leading in Arizona and Georgia—two states that were central to Biden’s 2020 victory—has sent shockwaves through the Democratic Party. Kamala Harris, who was supposed to energize the base and carry forward Biden’s agenda, is clearly struggling to connect with voters.

The Democratic strategy of leaning into identity politics and focusing on divisive social issues has backfired, especially in states where voters are more concerned about their wallets and the security of their communities. The Biden-Harris administration’s inability to tackle these core issues is now coming back to haunt them.

The poll’s results show that Trump’s momentum is real, and it’s growing. With each passing day, more Americans are waking up to the failures of the Biden-Harris administration and looking to Trump as the leader who can restore prosperity and security. If these trends continue, the 2024 election could see Trump not only reclaim the White House but also secure a broader coalition of voters, including those in critical swing states that have traditionally leaned Democratic.

As the election season heats up, one thing is clear: Donald Trump is back, and this time, he’s poised to win where it matters most.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Democrats are struggling during this election season. And things are only getting worse.

Because Democrats have been handed a huge loss that will change the entire election cycle.

In a move that could signal a massive political realignment, New York City’s traditionally left-leaning suburbs are shifting their support toward Donald Trump, largely driven by his strong stance on law and order and his persistent criticism of the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous handling of crime and immigration.

As Trump’s message resonates with suburban voters concerned about public safety and illegal immigration, the possibility of Trump flipping these historically toss-up districts is becoming more and more likely.

The shift is most apparent in Long Island’s Nassau and Suffolk counties, areas that have historically been swing districts but have increasingly leaned Republican in recent years. In the 2022 midterms, despite a larger number of registered Democrats, both counties experienced significant Republican victories, a phenomenon that could reflect how Trump is performing in similar suburban areas across the country.

As seen in 2020, Trump narrowly won Suffolk County, edging out Joe Biden by less than 250 votes. But by 2022, the tide had turned even further in favor of the GOP, with both Nassau and Suffolk seeing huge Republican gains in local and congressional elections.

What’s driving this sudden realignment? According to Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, it’s the failure of the Democrats to maintain law and order. “I think the real catalyst was the crazy way that the Democrats were managing both Washington and Albany,” Blakeman told Fox News Digital.

“Now, when you talk about cashless bail, when you look at our insecure borders . . . we’re spending billions of dollars on people who have been here for 15 minutes rather than hospitals, infrastructure, schools. People are fed up.”

Blakeman is not alone in his assessment. The Democrats’ misguided policies, such as cashless bail and the defunding of police, have left many suburban voters feeling unsafe and frustrated. The Biden-Harris administration’s failure to secure the southern border and the resulting flood of illegal immigration has only worsened the situation.

These policies have allowed migrant crime to rise, putting the safety of American citizens at risk. In communities like Nassau and Suffolk counties, voters are turning to Trump because they know he prioritizes law and order.

Blakeman noted that moderate Democrats and independent voters are now looking to the Republican Party for leadership. “I think the Democrats are the ones that are helping us the most, and I think moderate Democrats and independent voters want to vote Republican now because they’re fed up with the policies of Biden-Harris,” he said.

At the heart of this political realignment is Donald Trump’s unwavering commitment to law and order. From his rallies to his public statements, Trump has been clear: crime is out of control under Biden and Harris, and the American people deserve better. Suburban voters, particularly in places like Nassau and Suffolk counties, are listening.

These areas are not alone in their shift toward Trump. Across the country, suburban voters are increasingly aligning with Trump’s message of cracking down on crime, securing the border, and restoring law and order.

Just as Richard Nixon attracted the “hard hat” vote in 1968 with his tough stance on crime and lawlessness, Trump is drawing in working-class Americans who are fed up with the chaos and dysfunction caused by the Democrats.

Laura Curran, a Democrat and former Nassau County Executive who lost to Blakeman, acknowledges the importance of Trump’s law and order message. Despite her own pro-police stance and opposition to New York’s controversial bail reform law, Curran recognizes that the Democratic Party’s embrace of policies like defunding the police has alienated suburban voters.

“Talking about who is the standard-bearer of your party is really, really important,” Curran told Fox News. Even as Curran tries to distance herself from the far-left elements of her party, the damage has already been done. Suburban voters see Trump as the only candidate willing to take the tough stances needed to protect their families and communities.

Another major factor driving suburban voters to Trump is the border crisis. The Biden-Harris administration has allowed millions of illegal immigrants to flood across the southern border, straining local resources and endangering the safety of American citizens.

Migrant crime is on the rise, and the Democrats seem unwilling or unable to address the issue. Trump, however, has made it clear that he will put a stop to illegal immigration and secure the border once and for all.

In places like New York’s suburbs, where the effects of illegal immigration are being felt more and more each day, voters are turning to Trump because they know he will act decisively to protect American communities. “We’re spending billions of dollars on people who have been here for 15 minutes rather than hospitals, infrastructure, schools,” Blakeman said, reflecting the growing frustration of suburban voters.

At a recent rally, Trump spoke about the border crisis and the failure of the Biden-Harris administration to protect Americans from the consequences of their open-border policies. The crowd, which included many suburban voters from Long Island, responded with overwhelming support.

Trump also mentioned former Rep. Lee Zeldin, a Republican from Suffolk County who unsuccessfully ran against Governor Kathy Hochul. Trump hinted at the possibility of Zeldin having a role in his future administration, and the crowd cheered loudly—a clear indication of the growing Republican momentum in New York’s suburbs.

Beyond immigration, suburban voters in New York and across the country are deeply concerned about rising crime rates, burdensome taxes, and the declining economy. These are issues that Trump addresses regularly in his rallies, and it’s clear that his message is resonating with voters.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, violent crime has surged in major cities, taxes have increased, and the economy has stagnated. Meanwhile, Democrats continue to push far-left policies that do nothing to address the real concerns of everyday Americans.

New York City voters, in particular, are worried about the state of their city. They see crime spiraling out of control, businesses closing, and neighborhoods falling into disrepair. They are tired of the Democrats’ soft-on-crime approach and are looking for real solutions. Trump’s message of cracking down on crime, securing the border, and revitalizing the economy is exactly what these voters want to hear.

What we’re witnessing in New York’s suburbs is part of a broader national trend: suburban voters are turning to Trump because they are fed up with the failures of the Biden-Harris administration. The 2022 midterms were a warning sign for the Democrats, and if they continue down their current path, 2024 could see a massive political realignment in suburban areas across the country.

In Nassau and Suffolk counties, Trump’s message of law and order is resonating with voters who are tired of crime, illegal immigration, and economic stagnation. If Trump continues to build on this momentum, he could not only win these key suburbs but also flip similar areas in swing states across the country.

The Democrats’ mismanagement of crime and immigration, coupled with their inability to connect with suburban voters, has opened the door for Trump to reclaim the White House. And if New York’s suburbs are any indication, the road to 2024 could be paved with major Republican victories.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for all of your news needs.

The Biden-Harris administration has made it clear that they do not care about Americans. But now they have crossed a line.

Because they have made a shocking policy decision that puts our enemies first.

The Biden-Harris administration has taken a controversial stance against a proposed bill aimed at curbing Chinese Communist Party (CCP) influence in the United States.

The bill, known as H.R. 3334, or the ‘STOP CCP Act,’ seeks to impose strict sanctions on Chinese Communist Party officials involved in human rights abuses, violations of Hong Kong’s autonomy, and increased military aggression toward Taiwan.

It specifically targets CCP members who have engaged in “sanctionable conduct” and seeks to prevent them from purchasing land in the United States or obtaining visas for entry.

For many Americans, this bill represents an essential step in protecting American sovereignty and human rights. Yet, the Biden-Harris administration has come out in opposition, claiming the bill’s punitive measures would harm diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China, citing concerns that it would “cut off any channels of communication between our two governments and undermine the Administration’s efforts to build diplomatic consensus on China.”

The White House’s refusal to support the bill has sparked fierce criticism, raising questions about the administration’s priorities.

The STOP CCP Act, which was introduced in response to growing concerns over CCP influence in America and abroad, would impose mandatory sanctions and visa restrictions on members of the CCP’s National Congress.

These sanctions would particularly target officials responsible for Hong Kong’s suppression, military threats toward Taiwan, and ongoing human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims and other minority groups within China.

The bill’s sanctions aim to block Chinese officials from purchasing property in the U.S. and make them ineligible for visas, while also ensuring that any CCP member involved in these actions is held accountable. It would provide a critical check on Beijing’s increasing global influence, particularly in sensitive sectors of the U.S. economy such as agriculture, technology, and real estate.

Additionally, the bill outlines specific conditions under which sanctions can be lifted. These include Beijing halting its aggression toward Taiwan, ending the suppression of Hong Kong’s autonomy, stopping the persecution of Uyghur Muslims, and ceasing intellectual property theft from American companies.

Despite the bill’s strong measures, which align with U.S. security interests and human rights standards, the Biden-Harris administration has expressed opposition. In a press release, the White House claimed that such sanctions would destabilize U.S.-China relations.

Their primary concern lies in the potential breakdown of diplomatic channels, which they argue are necessary for addressing broader issues between the two nations.

However, critics argue that the administration’s position prioritizes diplomatic engagement at the expense of protecting American interests and upholding human rights. By opposing this bill, many conservatives believe the Biden-Harris administration is once again showing weakness in the face of Chinese aggression.

From military threats toward Taiwan to the genocide of Uyghur Muslims, the CCP’s actions have demonstrated a blatant disregard for international norms and human rights. Under the Trump administration, the U.S. took significant steps to address these challenges through a strong foreign policy that emphasized America’s global leadership.

The STOP CCP Act would build upon that legacy by sending a clear message to Beijing that its behavior will no longer be tolerated.

This opposition to the STOP CCP Act is just the latest example of the Biden-Harris administration’s failure to confront the CCP effectively. Time and time again, Biden’s team has shown a reluctance to hold China accountable. Whether it’s softening tariffs, watering down sanctions, or refusing to take a strong stance on intellectual property theft, the administration appears more focused on appeasing the CCP than protecting American workers and national security.

In particular, the administration’s stance on Hong Kong and Taiwan has been troubling. The people of Hong Kong, who once enjoyed relative autonomy, have seen their freedoms steadily eroded by Beijing’s authoritarian hand. Taiwan, a key ally in the Indo-Pacific, continues to face existential threats from the CCP, which has ramped up military exercises in the Taiwan Strait. The Biden administration’s weak response only emboldens China’s aggressive posturing.

Moreover, the ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province, including mass detentions, forced labor, and surveillance, represent one of the greatest humanitarian crises of our time. Yet the administration’s opposition to the STOP CCP Act suggests it is unwilling to go beyond rhetoric in confronting these atrocities.

The Biden administration’s rationale for opposing the STOP CCP Act rests on the argument that isolating Chinese officials through sanctions would “undermine efforts to build diplomatic consensus on China.” But this argument rings hollow for many.

Is diplomacy really effective when one party—China—is clearly acting in bad faith? Beijing has repeatedly flouted international norms, and every time the U.S. softens its approach, China only takes advantage.

What message does this send to the world? That the U.S. is willing to look the other way when confronted with CCP aggression? The administration’s fixation on preserving diplomatic channels risks sending a signal to authoritarian regimes that their actions will not have meaningful consequences.

The bill even includes a provision allowing the president to waive sanctions for up to 60 days if deemed necessary for national security purposes. This flexibility already provides the administration with an outlet to preserve certain diplomatic efforts while holding CCP officials accountable. Opposing the bill outright, however, suggests that the Biden-Harris administration is more interested in appeasing Beijing than protecting American values.

At a time when China’s global influence is expanding rapidly, America needs to take decisive action. Beijing is buying up large swaths of land, some of which are strategically located near military bases and key infrastructure, raising significant security concerns.

The STOP CCP Act would ensure that land purchases by Chinese Communist officials who threaten U.S. interests or human rights are blocked. Yet, by opposing this measure, the Biden-Harris administration is leaving the door open for CCP officials to continue exploiting America’s open economy.

Furthermore, this weak response emboldens China on the world stage. With America retreating, who will stand up for the Uyghur Muslims or the people of Taiwan? Who will protect intellectual property from being stolen, and who will safeguard U.S. national security from Chinese encroachment? If the Biden administration refuses to act, America risks losing its standing as the global leader for human rights and democratic principles.

In opposing the STOP CCP Act, the Biden-Harris administration has once again signaled that it prioritizes diplomacy with the Chinese Communist Party over protecting American sovereignty, human rights, and security. This refusal to take a stand against Beijing’s aggression and violations of basic freedoms not only undermines America’s moral authority but also jeopardizes its national security.

Americans deserve leadership that is willing to confront the CCP’s rising influence head-on. It’s time for the administration to stop kowtowing to Beijing and start standing up for the values and interests that make America strong.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

You would think that Democrats have learned that their dangerous rhetoric is harmful. But instead of stopping, they are doubling down.

And Kamala’s newest lies have put American lives in severe danger.

Vice President Kamala Harris has once again misrepresented the facts in her ongoing campaign to attack pro-life laws, this time blaming Georgia’s pro-life legislation for the tragic death of a woman, Amber Thurman. Speaking in Atlanta on Friday, Harris falsely claimed that Thurman died because of Georgia’s pro-life law protecting unborn babies, and asserted that Thurman’s doctors could have been jailed for providing her with care.

“Under the Trump abortion ban, her doctors could have faced up to a decade in prison for providing Amber the care she needed,” Harris told the crowd, referring to Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill. “Understand what a law like this means. Doctors have to wait until the patient is at death’s door before they take action.”

This statement is not only factually incorrect but represents a dangerous distortion of the law and the tragic circumstances of Thurman’s death. Harris’ claims, designed to bolster the radical pro-abortion agenda, spread misinformation about the real impact of pro-life policies in states like Georgia.

Amber Thurman’s death, while heartbreaking, was not the result of Georgia’s pro-life law. Thurman, who died due to complications after taking the abortion pill, mifepristone, was a victim of failed abortion protocols and the reckless promotion of “self-managed” abortions. Yet Harris, Democrats, and their allies in the media have seized upon her death to make misleading accusations about the safety and legality of pro-life laws.

Thurman’s death occurred after complications from the abortion pill led to a deadly infection, a known risk associated with these drugs. Mifepristone, which the FDA warns can cause severe complications like sepsis, has been increasingly promoted as a quick, convenient option for terminating pregnancies—despite growing evidence of its risks.

ProPublica first reported on Thurman’s case, and since then, abortion activists and Democratic politicians have exploited her death to claim that pro-life laws are dangerous for women.

However, what is conveniently left out of these claims is the fact that Georgia’s pro-life law specifically allows doctors to perform abortions if a medical emergency arises—contradicting Harris’ assertion that doctors’ hands are tied.

It’s important to note that there are no laws in the United States that prevent doctors from exercising their medical judgment in treating women experiencing pregnancy complications or emergencies. In fact, Georgia’s law explicitly allows doctors to act in cases where the mother’s life or health is at risk. The language of the law is clear: if a physician determines that a “medical emergency” exists, they are permitted to perform an abortion to protect the life of the mother.

Harris’ inflammatory claim that doctors must “wait until the patient is at death’s door” before taking action is not only false but irresponsible. It sows unnecessary fear among women who may believe they will be denied critical care in the event of a medical emergency. In reality, Georgia’s law provides flexibility for doctors to save lives while still protecting the unborn.

Pro-life advocates have strongly pushed back against Harris’ comments, accusing her of spreading dangerous misinformation to score political points. Katie Daniel, State Policy Director for SBA Pro-Life America, mourned the tragic deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller (another Georgia woman who died after taking abortion pills) but emphasized that these deaths were not the fault of Georgia’s pro-life laws.

“We mourn the senseless loss of Amber, Candi, and their unborn children,” Daniel said. “We agree their deaths were preventable. But let’s be absolutely clear: Georgia’s law and every pro-life state law calls on doctors to act in circumstances just like theirs. If abortion advocates weren’t spreading misinformation and confusion to score political points, it’s possible the outcome would have been different.”

This statement echoes a larger sentiment among pro-life advocates who believe that the real threat to women’s health is the misinformation being propagated by abortion advocates and their allies in the media. By falsely claiming that pro-life laws criminalize doctors and endanger women, abortion proponents have created an environment of fear, where women may hesitate to seek medical care when they need it most.

Dr. Ingrid Skop, a board-certified OB-GYN and Director of Medical Affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, weighed in on the tragic deaths of Thurman and Miller, calling attention to the increasing dangers of “self-managed” abortions. These abortions, facilitated through abortion pills that can be ordered online and delivered by mail, have been hailed by the pro-abortion lobby as a convenient solution for women. But, as Skop points out, they carry significant risks.

“Amber died from sepsis, a complication the FDA alerts physicians to watch for in its ‘black box’ warning on mifepristone,” Skop explained. “Physicians must be aware of this risk and swiftly intervene.”

Skop has long warned about the dangers of mifepristone, and her concerns are echoed by many in the medical community. With the FDA steadily removing important safeguards for these drugs, allowing them to be accessed without a single in-person doctor visit, more women are being left vulnerable to the dangerous side effects of chemical abortions.

Moreover, Skop argued that misinformation about the safety of these drugs and false claims about prosecution are causing women like Candi Miller to avoid seeking medical care when complications arise. Miller’s family confirmed that she feared seeking help because she was worried about being prosecuted—a fear rooted in the lies spread by abortion activists. However, every pro-life state law prohibits prosecution of women for seeking an abortion, making these fears entirely unfounded.

The deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller have tragically become political tools for the pro-abortion movement, which is intent on discrediting pro-life laws, regardless of the facts. Harris’ speech in Georgia, filled with inaccuracies and fear-mongering, is just the latest example of Democrats and abortion activists using misinformation to demonize common-sense protections for the unborn and their mothers.

By spreading the false narrative that pro-life laws prevent doctors from treating women in emergencies, abortion activists and the media are endangering women’s lives. Rather than providing women with accurate information about their rights and medical care, they are instilling fear and confusion—resulting in preventable tragedies like the deaths of Thurman and Miller.

Kamala Harris’ blatant misrepresentation of Georgia’s pro-life law and the tragic case of Amber Thurman is just one example of how the abortion debate has been hijacked by lies and fear-mongering. While Harris and other Democrats push false narratives to advance their pro-abortion agenda, the facts tell a different story.

Georgia’s law, like many other pro-life laws across the country, allows doctors to act in the best interest of their patients during medical emergencies. The deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller are not the result of these laws but of dangerous misinformation and the reckless promotion of abortion pills as a “safe” alternative to in-person medical care.

The pro-life movement, far from endangering women, seeks to protect both mothers and their unborn children from harm. It’s time to push back against the misinformation and ensure that women receive the truth about their health and their rights.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Joe Biden’s mental health is deteriorating fast. He is not fit to be President.

And a new Joe Biden incident has even his own staff worried for his future.

In what has become an all-too-common occurrence, President Joe Biden once again raised concerns about his mental sharpness during a major diplomatic event. At his final Australia-India-Japan-U.S. diplomatic press event, part of the Quad Summit, Biden seemed lost and confused, prompting him to shout, “Who’s next?!” at the crowd of reporters and foreign officials.

We really don’t have a president.

Biden completely FORGOT he was at a press conference with the Prime Minister of India.

The entire world is laughing at us.
This guy is COOKED. pic.twitter.com/useM07uh0R

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 21, 2024

The gaffe occurred before Biden realized that he was supposed to introduce Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The awkward fumble underscores growing unease about the president’s ability to carry out the demanding responsibilities of his office, especially on the global stage.

The event, held at Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, home on Saturday, was a key moment for the Quad Summit—a strategic alliance between the U.S., Australia, India, and Japan. Yet, rather than making headlines for diplomatic achievements, the focus quickly shifted to the president’s bizarre behavior. As he concluded his speech, Biden looked visibly confused and unsure of who to call to the stage next.

“I want to thank you all for being here,” Biden said, before pausing. “And now, uh, who am I introducing next?”

Several seconds of silence followed as Biden stared blankly ahead. The room, filled with high-level officials and diplomats, grew noticeably tense. Biden, seemingly frustrated or flustered, then shouted, “Who’s next?!”

The awkward moment lingered until an announcer’s voice finally stepped in, cutting over the speaker to introduce Prime Minister Modi. The incident, while brief, left a lasting impression and raised serious questions about the president’s cognitive abilities.

This latest episode comes at a time when concerns about Biden’s mental fitness have been mounting. The president, who turned 81 this year, has repeatedly stumbled during public appearances, prompting widespread speculation that his age is taking a toll on his cognitive abilities.

From frequent memory lapses to incoherent statements, Biden’s public appearances are often marred by gaffes that would be troubling under normal circumstances—but are especially concerning given his role as the leader of the free world.

The confusion at the Quad Summit press event also occurred just one day after an even more peculiar development: First Lady Jill Biden led the administration’s first cabinet meeting since October 2023. Yes, that’s right—Jill Biden, the president’s unelected spouse, has taken on the extraordinary role of stepping in to manage high-level executive meetings, a task traditionally reserved for the president himself.

Jill Biden is kicking off the first cabinet meeting the White House has had in almost a year and we’re expected to act like this is normal. pic.twitter.com/cocPx6xMb8

— Kate Hyde (@KateHydeNY) September 20, 2024

The First Lady’s growing involvement in official White House matters has raised alarm bells across Washington. During the cabinet meeting, Joe Biden passed the leadership role to his wife, saying, “I’d like to turn it over to Jill for any comments she has. It’s all yours, kid.”

The notion that Jill Biden—who holds no elected office or executive authority—would be tasked with leading a cabinet meeting is, to say the least, unprecedented. Political commentators and critics quickly took to social media to express their disbelief at what many see as further evidence that Joe Biden is no longer capable of fulfilling his presidential duties.

Political commentator Kate Hyde posted on X (formerly Twitter), “Jill Biden is kicking off the first cabinet meeting the White House has had in almost a year and we’re expected to act like this is normal.”

The Republican National Committee’s (RNC) Research account also weighed in, writing, “Jill, Ed.D., is now assisting whatever is left of Crooked Joe Biden in leading cabinet meetings.” This biting comment highlights the deep-seated concerns many Americans have about the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency and the unusual role his wife has begun to play in the administration’s inner workings.

These two incidents, occurring back-to-back, are not isolated moments. They are part of a much larger pattern of troubling behavior that has been on full display since Biden first took office. From wandering off during press conferences to confusing names and facts, Biden’s public missteps have fueled speculation that he is no longer fit to handle the pressures of the presidency.

And this isn’t just idle chatter among conservative commentators. A recent poll from Harvard-Harris found that a significant majority of Americans—nearly 60%—have serious concerns about Biden’s mental fitness. The president’s frequent gaffes, combined with his advanced age, have led many to question whether he can truly represent the U.S. on the world stage or handle the daily demands of running the country.

Even within his own party, whispers of doubt are growing louder. Democratic leaders have tried to deflect these concerns, framing Biden’s gaffes as “human moments” and assuring the public that the president is as sharp as ever. However, the constant stream of embarrassing incidents makes it difficult to ignore the obvious signs that Biden is struggling.

The implications of Biden’s diminishing mental acuity are not just political; they have real-world consequences for the United States. At a time when America is facing significant challenges both domestically and internationally, from an ongoing border crisis to escalating tensions with China, the president’s competence is more crucial than ever. Yet, instead of projecting strength and confidence, Biden’s frequent gaffes and reliance on his unelected wife are leading many to wonder who is really calling the shots in this administration.

Biden’s lackluster performance at the Quad Summit—an event meant to bolster U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific region—sends a troubling message to both our allies and adversaries. If the leader of the United States can’t even remember who to introduce at a major diplomatic event, how can he be trusted to navigate complex foreign policy challenges? And if Jill Biden is being tasked with leading cabinet meetings, who is really making the critical decisions that affect our nation’s future?

The American people deserve better. They deserve a president who is fully capable of leading the country, making sound decisions, and representing America on the global stage. But as Biden’s mental fitness continues to decline, it becomes increasingly clear that the current administration is failing to meet these basic expectations.

President Joe Biden’s latest public confusion at the Quad Summit is yet another reminder that the current occupant of the White House may not be up to the task of leading the nation. His mental decline is becoming more difficult to dismiss with each passing gaffe, and the American people are starting to take notice. Meanwhile, the growing role of Jill Biden in key administrative functions only deepens the concerns about who is really in charge.

As Biden stumbles from one public mishap to the next, we must ask tough questions about the future of this administration. Can Joe Biden continue to serve as president, or is it time for a serious conversation about his ability to lead? The stakes are too high to ignore the signs any longer.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

It is no secret that Kamala Harris hates this country. But no one expected her to go this far.

And Kamala has made a stunning decision and turns her back on America.

Vice President Kamala Harris has made a decision that has raised eyebrows across political and charitable circles alike—she will skip the long-standing Al Smith Dinner in New York this October.

As Donald Trump confirms his attendance at the 79th iteration of the event hosted by the Archdiocese of New York, Harris is opting out, choosing instead to hit the campaign trail in key battleground states. This move breaks with a tradition observed by presidential candidates since the 1960s, with only one exception: Walter Mondale in 1984.

The Al Smith Dinner, a staple of American political life, is more than just a charity event. It is an evening where political rivals come together to put aside their differences, sharing the stage in a display of civility and humor for the greater good.

It’s an opportunity for politicians to engage in friendly roasts, offering a light-hearted break from the intensity of their campaigns. However, this year, Vice President Harris has chosen to sit out, raising questions about her commitment to the principles of unity and bipartisan goodwill.

The Al Smith Dinner, named after Alfred E. Smith, the first Catholic nominee for president, has long been a forum for political figures to show that, despite their differences, they can come together in support of a charitable cause.

It raises millions of dollars each year to benefit children and families in need, making it an event that transcends politics and focuses on helping the less fortunate. Candidates from John F. Kennedy to Donald Trump himself have shared the stage, engaging in light-hearted banter that contrasts with the harsh rhetoric often heard on the campaign trail.

This year, Joseph Zwilling, spokesperson for the Archdiocese of New York, expressed disappointment in Harris’s decision to skip the event. “We are disappointed that she will not be with us, as this is an evening of unity and putting aside political differences in support of a good cause of helping women and children in need regardless of race, creed, or background,” he said. Zwilling added, “We hope she reconsiders.”

In an era where political division is at an all-time high, Harris’s absence sends a clear message: the Democratic Party is more focused on maintaining power than on bridging divides or helping those in need. Her campaign’s rationale that she would attend only “as president in office” if elected smacks of arrogance, as though she feels the event is beneath her unless she holds the highest office in the land.

In contrast, Donald Trump has confirmed his attendance at the event, demonstrating once again his willingness to engage with Americans across political and religious lines. Trump, known for his larger-than-life personality, is expected to participate in the dinner’s long-standing tradition of lighthearted jabs and self-deprecating humor, showing that while he can be tough on the campaign trail, he understands the value of unity and charity.

Trump’s attendance is particularly significant as it comes at a time when the former president is facing immense political opposition, not only from the Democratic Party but from within the establishment media.

Yet, despite the endless attacks, Trump remains committed to honoring traditions like the Al Smith Dinner, which reflect the best of America’s democratic process—cordiality and respect, even amid fierce political disagreements.

By stepping up to attend the dinner, Trump is not only demonstrating his personal resilience but also his understanding of the importance of maintaining traditions that promote unity, charity, and goodwill. His participation this year sends a strong message that no matter the political climate, certain values must be preserved.

Kamala Harris’s refusal to attend the Al Smith Dinner is symptomatic of a broader problem within the Democratic Party. The once-celebrated ideals of unity and bipartisanship have been tossed aside in favor of a relentless pursuit of political dominance. By declining this invitation, Harris is not just avoiding Trump—she’s avoiding an opportunity to show the American people that she is capable of reaching across the aisle for the greater good.

This decision also speaks volumes about the crumbling state of the Democratic Party. Despite their best efforts to rally around Harris, she continues to falter in public opinion, even within her own party. Polls show that Democrats are increasingly divided, with many defecting to support Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. The party’s leadership appears desperate, and Harris’s choice to prioritize campaigning in battleground states over a time-honored charity event reveals the party’s nervousness as they try to maintain their grip on power.

Moreover, this decision to skip the dinner raises questions about Harris’s priorities. If she truly cared about bringing the country together, this would have been the perfect platform to demonstrate her willingness to engage in the spirit of bipartisanship and charity. Instead, her campaign strategy seems to be focused solely on appealing to the Democratic base, doubling down on divisive rhetoric rather than working to heal a deeply polarized nation.

The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner is far more than a political event; it represents an opportunity to give back to the community. The funds raised from this event go toward helping women and children in need, providing essential services to some of New York City’s most vulnerable populations.

Harris’s decision to forgo this event in favor of campaigning underscores the lack of genuine concern from the current administration for those most in need.

For decades, presidential candidates have recognized the significance of this event, understanding that it is a platform to show that, beyond politics, they care about the American people—particularly the less fortunate. The fact that Harris is the first candidate since 1984 to skip the event speaks volumes about the direction the Democratic Party is headed. The Al Smith Dinner is not just about who attends; it’s about what it represents—unity, compassion, and a willingness to set aside differences for the sake of a greater cause.

In contrast to Harris, Trump’s attendance at the Al Smith Dinner reaffirms his commitment to maintaining the values and traditions that make America great. While the Democrats focus on their narrow political interests, Trump remains the candidate who stands for the American people, regardless of their background or political affiliation.

He understands that America is stronger when its leaders are willing to come together for the common good, and his participation in this year’s dinner is just one more example of his dedication to the country.

By attending the dinner, Trump will not only be helping raise millions for charity, but he will also be sending a message of hope and unity at a time when the country needs it most. His presence at the Al Smith Dinner is a reminder that even in the face of intense political division, there are still opportunities to come together for the benefit of all Americans.

Kamala Harris’s decision to skip the Al Smith Dinner is a clear indication of where the Democratic Party’s priorities lie. Rather than embracing unity and compassion, Harris has chosen to focus on divisive campaigning, leaving behind a tradition that has long brought Americans together.

On the other hand, Donald Trump’s decision to attend the event highlights his commitment to preserving the values of unity and charity that are so desperately needed in today’s political climate.

As Harris heads to battleground states in a desperate attempt to secure her political future, Trump will be standing on a stage in New York, raising millions for those in need and reminding the American people that, despite our differences, we are stronger together.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Trump is in immense danger, and he knows it. But now things are heating up.

And Trump has voiced major concerns that could change this whole election cycle.

Former President Donald Trump, who has long been a vocal critic of the Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policies, expressed deep concerns about the safety of his family and the American people during a recent interview.

Speaking with Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, Trump addressed the growing danger posed by illegal immigration and highlighted his personal experience with multiple assassination attempts, emphasizing that these threats extend beyond his own safety and affect the safety of “everybody” in America.

Trump says he does "worry" about his family's safety after two attemped assassination attempts and about Americans' safety after four years of mass illegal immigration in Fox News interview. pic.twitter.com/YK5PLCaV2J

— David Krayden (@DavidKrayden) September 22, 2024

In an America increasingly “overrun with illegal immigrants,” as Trump described, the consequences of open-border policies are now being felt in communities across the nation. His comments come just days after a Sept. 15 assassination attempt in West Palm Beach and two months after he was shot in the ear while addressing a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Despite these direct attacks, Trump’s focus remains on the broader threats facing the country, which he links to the influx of illegal immigrants and the Biden administration’s failure to secure the borders.

Trump’s candid remarks during the interview reflect not just a personal anxiety but also a deep concern for the American public. When asked whether he worries about his family’s safety, given the assassination attempts and other dangers he has encountered, Trump responded, “I do. I don’t talk about it, but I do. I have to worry about family. I have to worry about everybody. I worry about you.”

These statements are particularly alarming as they paint a picture of a former president who not only fears for his loved ones but also for the safety of everyday citizens.

Trump’s assassination attempts highlight a troubling lapse in security and raise questions about the United States Secret Service (USSS), which failed to adequately protect him during these high-profile incidents.

One of the most concerning aspects of the July 13 assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, was that the attacker, Ryan Wesley Routh, a 58-year-old Democratic activist, managed to bypass security and shoot Trump in the ear during a rally. Though Trump survived, the incident was a grim reminder of the threats that loom over his campaign for the 2024 presidential election.

Routh, who reportedly had camped out near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course for 12 hours before being apprehended, evaded detection by the USSS, who had failed to search the perimeter. This oversight, as admitted by Acting USSS Director Ronald Rowe, was based on the flawed reasoning that Trump’s golf game wasn’t on his “official schedule.”

While Trump’s personal safety is clearly at risk, his broader concern for the American public stems from what he describes as a country “under siege” by illegal immigration.

During the interview, Trump explained how the Biden-Harris administration’s lax border policies have led to a dangerous influx of criminals, including terrorists and those released from prisons and mental institutions in their home countries.

“We’re under siege, and no country has ever suffered like we have for the last three-and-a-half, almost four years,” Trump said. “When they allow millions of people to come into our country, from prisons, right? From prisons. And terrorists, and people from mental institutions, and they take over our parks.”

Trump’s observations resonate with many Americans who have witnessed firsthand the effects of unchecked illegal immigration in their own communities. New York City, once a symbol of American pride and opportunity, has now become a haven for illegal immigrants, with city parks being overrun, and the average citizen suffering from rising crime and deteriorating public spaces.

Trump’s pointed remark, “Look at New York – you can’t play Little League baseball anymore,” serves as a metaphor for the broader societal decay that open-border policies have enabled.

The former president has long been an advocate for stronger border security, building his initial 2016 presidential campaign around the promise to construct a border wall. Under the Trump administration, significant progress was made in curbing illegal immigration, but since Biden took office, the number of illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S. has surged.

With this influx has come an increase in violent crime, drug trafficking, and human smuggling, leaving American citizens more vulnerable than ever before.

The Biden-Harris administration’s apparent indifference to these dangers is not only a failure in leadership but also a direct threat to national security. As Trump pointed out, America is now grappling with criminals who have been released from foreign prisons, individuals with ties to terrorist organizations, and those who are mentally unstable, many of whom are now walking freely in U.S. cities and towns.

The lack of vetting for these individuals has put millions of Americans at risk, particularly in border states where law enforcement is already overwhelmed.

Trump’s worries are not limited to the safety of the American people; he also expressed concerns about the fairness of the upcoming vice-presidential debate between Republican candidate Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) and Democratic candidate Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN).

The debate, which will be moderated by CBS News anchors Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell, is expected to be contentious. Trump, however, believes that Vance won’t be given a fair chance to present his platform, but he remains confident in his running mate’s ability to perform well.

“He won’t get a fair shot. But he will handle it very good,” Trump said. “I think he’s done great. People are really liking him. He’s tough, smart, he loves our country. He’s going to have no trouble.”

Trump’s comments highlight a growing distrust in the mainstream media’s handling of political debates, particularly after his own experience during the presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, where the ABC moderators were widely criticized for their bias against him. As the evidence mounts of unfair treatment by the media, Trump’s supporters are becoming increasingly skeptical of the role that networks like CBS and ABC will play in the upcoming election.

In the aftermath of the assassination attempts, criticism of the United States Secret Service (USSS) has reached a fever pitch. Acting Director Ronald Rowe’s admission that the agency failed to search the perimeter of the West Palm Beach golf course before Trump’s appearance has only fueled concerns that the former president’s security is being neglected.

The fact that an armed individual, motivated by political opposition, was able to camp out undetected for 12 hours before attempting to assassinate Trump speaks to a grave failure in the USSS’s ability to protect one of the most recognizable figures in the world.

The repeated failures of the USSS in safeguarding Trump call into question whether political bias within federal institutions has compromised their ability to fulfill their duties impartially. In an America where political violence is on the rise, the Secret Service must be held accountable for their lapses in judgment and must take immediate steps to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated.

Donald Trump’s interview with Brian Kilmeade served as a sobering reminder of the dangers facing both the former president and the American public. With illegal immigration spiraling out of control and federal institutions failing to provide adequate protection, Americans are left feeling vulnerable in their own country. As Trump continues his campaign for the 2024 presidency, he will undoubtedly make border security and the safety of the American people central issues in his platform. But with assassination attempts, media bias, and a country under siege by illegal immigrants, it’s clear that the road ahead will be fraught with challenges.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Democrats are trying to rally together around Harris. But it just isn’t working.

And Democrats are dealing with a new betrayal after a huge Trump endorsement comes from within.

In a recent Democrat Party development, Ameer Ghalib, the Muslim mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan, has thrown his support behind Donald Trump for the 2024 presidential election.

Ghalib, who represents the only Muslim-majority city in the United States, made his endorsement clear in a heartfelt Facebook post, citing Trump’s leadership and principles as the driving factors behind his decision.

This endorsement is more than just another political switch; it’s a significant indication of the growing fracture within the Democratic Party, especially as more Americans, including minority communities, are deserting the sinking ship to support Trump.

Mayor Ghalib’s decision to back Donald Trump may seem like a surprise to some, but to those closely watching the Democratic Party’s downward spiral, it comes as no shock.

Ghalib, in his Facebook post, admitted that while he doesn’t agree with Trump on every issue, he appreciates Trump’s unwavering commitment to his principles. He emphasized, “President Trump and I may not agree on everything, but I know he is a man of principles.”

This stark contrast in leadership is exactly what has led Ghalib, and many others, to turn away from the Democratic Party. It’s no secret that under the Biden-Harris administration, foreign policy blunders, increasing inflation, and out-of-control illegal immigration have hurt everyday Americans. Now, Ghalib, who once stood with the Democratic Party, is making it clear that Trump is the leader this nation needs.

Ghalib’s words carried a sense of urgency as he laid out his reasons for supporting Trump: “Though it’s looking good, he may or may not win the election… but I believe he is the right choice for this critical time. I’ll not regret my decision no matter what the outcome would be.” It’s a sentiment shared by millions of Americans who have grown tired of the false promises and failures of the Biden-Harris regime.

The Democratic Party is in trouble, and they know it. For months, the party has been desperately trying to rally around Kamala Harris, painting her as the heir apparent to Joe Biden’s political legacy.

But let’s be honest, it isn’t working. Not only has Harris failed to gain significant traction in the polls, but her track record as vice president has left much to be desired. Her bungled handling of immigration, foreign policy missteps, and inability to connect with the American public have made her one of the least effective vice presidents in modern history.

The endorsement of Donald Trump by a prominent Muslim Democrat only further illustrates how far Harris and the Democrats have fallen out of favor with their own base. Ghalib is not just some fringe figure—he is a respected leader in a city that represents a major segment of the Democratic voter bloc.

When officials in Hamtramck attempted to impose the radical Left’s agenda by flying Pride flags on public property, Ghalib and the city council took action by banning the flags and firing those responsible. It was a bold stand for traditional values and a rejection of the radical social agenda being pushed by the Democrats.

What’s even more telling is that Ghalib is not alone. Across the nation, Democratic voters, including Muslim and other minority groups, are questioning their allegiance to a party that no longer seems to represent their values.

The Biden administration’s unwavering support for military aid to Israel and its handling of the conflict in Gaza has alienated many Muslim voters, including Ghalib, who expressed deep concern about the administration’s role in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians. This disillusionment is pushing more and more people toward Trump, a man they see as a leader who prioritizes peace and the interests of the American people.

In a recent interview with Breitbart, Donald Trump expressed his admiration for Ghalib’s leadership and pointed out the stark differences between his administration and that of Joe Biden’s.

“I was very impressed with him and he was a very big fan of the Trump administration because he saw no wars — outside of defeating ISIS, but I inherited that — but there were no wars. There was no October 7. There was no Russian attack on Ukraine. He sees that and he told me — he saw a world that was at peace. Now, we have a world that’s going to end up in World War 3 and I can stop that. I’m the only one that’s going to stop that.” Trump said.

It’s clear that many Americans, including Ghalib, are longing for the stability and peace that characterized the Trump administration. Under Trump, America wasn’t entangled in unnecessary foreign wars, and the economy was thriving. But under Biden and Harris, the world is inching closer to World War III, as instability in Ukraine and the Middle East continues to spiral out of control.

The stark reality is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have failed to deliver on their promises, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious that their leadership is eroding the very foundations of the Democratic Party. As Trump rightly pointed out, “Now, we have a world that’s going to end up in World War 3 and I can stop that. I’m the only one that’s going to stop that.”

What Ghalib’s endorsement of Trump really shows is that the Democratic Party is in crisis. Despite their best efforts to rally support around Kamala Harris, their own voter base is deserting them in droves. The reality is that many Democrats simply don’t trust Harris. They’ve watched as she fumbled her responsibilities as vice president, from her disastrous handling of the border crisis to her lack of any meaningful accomplishments on the domestic front.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to gain momentum, not just among Republicans, but among disaffected Democrats, independents, and minority communities who feel betrayed by the Left. Ghalib’s invitation for Trump to open a campaign office in Hamtramck is just the beginning. As more and more voters like Ghalib begin to recognize Trump as the leader America needs, the Democratic Party is left in a state of disarray, unable to stem the tide of defections.

The Democratic Party’s attempt to rally behind Kamala Harris is failing, and Ameer Ghalib’s endorsement of Donald Trump is just the latest sign of their unraveling. As the Democrats continue to push radical policies and fail to deliver on their promises, more Americans are turning to Trump as the only leader who can restore peace, stability, and prosperity.

The endorsement from Ghalib, a Muslim Democrat from a traditionally blue city, serves as a warning to the Democratic establishment: your base is crumbling, and Trump is ready to lead the American people once again.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for all of your news needs.