Latest news with #Harris
New York Post
3 hours ago
- Business
- New York Post
‘No one' excited about Kamala Harris' potential gubernatorial run, say California donors
Former Vice President Kamala Harris' prospective gubernatorial bid is not striking up much excitement among Democratic fundraisers in California, Politico reported Friday. The outlet spoke to multiple Democratic Party donors in California to see how they felt about Harris possibly running for governor. So far, her interest in exploring a gubernatorial run in the state following her 2024 presidential election loss hasn't enthused many. Advertisement 'She still would probably lead, but honestly, no one is incredibly pumped,' one Southern California fundraiser told Politico. Harris, who lost November's election to President Donald Trump, is seriously considering a 2026 bid to succeed term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif. A source close to Harris told Fox News Digital in March that she has told allies she will decide by the end of summer on whether to launch a gubernatorial campaign. The two potential options for Harris are launching a gubernatorial run next year in her home state or seeking the presidency again in 2028. Extremely early polls in the next Democratic Party presidential nomination race — which are heavily reliant on name recognition at this point — indicate that the former vice president holds a significant lead over other potential White House contenders. 3 AP Advertisement 'In interviews, several major donors in the state told POLITICO they fear her reemergence as a candidate would re-open still-fresh wounds from her defeat in 2024,' the outlet reported. 'Some harbor lingering frustration about how her billion-dollar campaign juggernaut ended in debt and want assurances she would have a clear plan to win the governor's mansion.' Mather Martin, a party fundraiser from San Francisco who worked for multiple Harris campaigns, told Politico, 'There was more enthusiasm at first' for Harris' run. However, he added, 'I think it waned a bit.' Another donor who gave a six-figure donation to Harris' presidential campaign last year told the outlet they had found the implosion of her White House bid 'traumatizing' and seemed reluctant to support her in the state. 3 REUTERS Advertisement 'Kamala just reminds you we are in this complete s— storm. With Biden, we got bamboozled… I think she did the best she could in that situation, but obviously she knew about the cognitive decline too. I've written so many checks because I knew the Trump administration would be horrible, but we're living in a nightmare because of the Democrats. I'm furious at them, truly.' The donor who declared that 'no one is incredibly pumped' about Harris' run also shared that donors 'realize it's just going to bring up the whole pathetic last presidential, which no one wants to hear about again. And then it's the whole 'Did you know Joe Biden?' thing.' Scott Drexel, a donor-adviser based in the San Francisco Bay Area, noted, 'It's very fair to say there's not an overwhelming clamor' for Harris' gubernatorial run. 3 Gado via Getty Images Advertisement He also pointed out, 'It's very hard for there to be one if it's not 100 percent clear if she really wants to do it.' 'She's going to have to work for the nomination. Every day that passes, there's less of a sense of inevitability about her candidacy,' Drexel said. Democratic donor and San Francisco trial lawyer Joe Cotchett told Politico, 'She is talking to people around the state about whether she is going to run. If she does, she's going to have very difficult problems.' Harris' team did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Newsweek
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
New 2028 Democratic Front-Runner Surges Ahead of Kamala Harris—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg surged past former Vice President Kamala Harris in a new poll of the potential 2028 Democratic presidential primary field released on Friday. Newsweek reached out to Buttigieg and Harris' teams for comment via email and press contact form. Why It Matters The 2028 presidential primary is still about three years away, but pollsters are already asking voters about which potential candidates they are leaning toward supporting. A new Emerson College poll reveals how Democrats view high-profile candidates like Buttigieg and Harris as they may be considering whether to jump into the race. Meanwhile, Democrats remain divided about the best direction to move in following losses in the 2024 elections. Some Democrats believe a more progressive candidate like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would reenergize the base, but others believe a more moderate Democrat, such as Buttigieg, would help the party win back ground among independents. What to Know The Emerson poll found that Buttigieg is candidate most favored by Democrats at this point, though nearly a quarter of respondents said they are undecided about who they would support in 2028. Former Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the Emerge 20th Anniversary Gala in San Francisco, California on April 30, 2025. Former Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the Emerge 20th Anniversary Gala in San Francisco, California on April 30, 2025. CAMILLE COHEN/AFP via Getty Images Sixteen percent said they would cast their ballot for Buttigieg in the primary, compared to 13 percent who said they plan to support Harris. This is a contrast from Emerson's November 2024 poll, when 37 percent said they leaned toward Harris and only 4 percent planned to back Buttigieg in the weeks after the election. California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose polling numbers also increased after his handling of protests in Los Angeles, placed third with 12 percent, while Ocasio-Cortez and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro each received 7 percent support. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, was the preferred candidate of 5 percent of voters. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer each received 3 percent support. Twenty-three percent of respondents said they were undecided. The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from June 24 to June 25 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. No major candidates have made a formal entrance into the 2028 primary so far. Harris has also been floated as a candidate for California governor, and polls suggest she would be a major front-runner in that race if she chooses to run. A Morning Consult poll released last week showed Harris maintaining a stronger lead, with 34 percent saying they planned to support her. Seven percent said they would vote for Buttigieg, while 11 percent said they leaned toward Newsom. That poll surveyed 1,000 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents from June 13 to June 15. A McLaughlin poll from May showed that 29 percent of Democrats planned to back Harris, 10 percent leaned toward Buttigieg and 9 percent were supporting Ocasio-Cortez. That poll surveyed 1,000 voters from May 21 to May 26, 2025. What People Are Saying Harris, speaking about her plans earlier this year while visiting Los Angeles-area sites impacted by wildfires: "My plans are to be in touch with my community, to be in touch with the leaders and figure out what I can do to support them...I am here and would be here regardless of the office I hold, because it is the right thing to do, which is to show up in your community and thank the folks who are on the ground." Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in May: "Democrats do not have the best brand around here or in a lot of places. There's a lot of reasons for that. Some fair, and some not fair." What Happens Next Typically, most candidates do not begin announcing presidential runs until after the midterm elections. Harris said during a pre-Oscars party earlier this year she plans to make a decision about whether to run for governor by the end of the summer.
Irish Daily Mirror
9 hours ago
- Business
- Irish Daily Mirror
Simon Harris calls for Trump's 90-day tariff pause not to be extended
Tánaiste Simon Harris has appealed to US President Donald Trump not to extend his 90-day tariff pause beyond July 9. He stated that an extension would only create uncertainty and that a deal must be reached before the deadline. In April, President Trump confirmed that all goods entering the US from the EU would be slapped with a 20 per cent tariff. Days later, he confirmed that a 90-day pause would be implemented to allow countries time to negotiate with the US. This pause is due to end on July 9. Halfway through the pause, President Trump announced he was placing a 50 per cent tariff on the EU as negotiations were 'going nowhere'. However, this pause was later reinstated. On Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt hinted that President Trump may extend his upcoming self-imposed deadlines, stating that the date 'is not critical'. However, Mr Harris, who is also the Trade Minister, said that a delay would not be a positive development and would cause more concern. The Tánaiste said: 'I heard overnight some comments from the White House press secretary that President Trump might consider extending the deadline beyond July 9. 'On one level, people might say that's a positive. I don't see it as such. 'We need to work really intensively to try and get a deal, at least a framework deal, in advance of July 9, for one very big reason – Uncertainty. 'Uncertainty is causing people to pause their investment decisions. That has an impact on jobs. 'There's people in factories today in Ireland who want that certainty. Businesses want certainty. 'What we don't need is an elongation of the period of uncertainty. I'd really encourage everybody not to consider, at this moment in time, extensions of deadlines, but actually consider how we can get an agreement in place by the deadline.' Mr Harris said Ireland wants to see an agreement struck between the US and the EU and appealed to both sides to 'intensify' efforts to get a deal done before the July 9 deadline. He said he believes an agreement is "possible". He continued: 'In fact, I believe an agreement is absolutely essential because the level of trade between the US and the EU is far too high to be sniffed at. 'Regardless of who the occupant of the Oval Office is, we are interdependent. "And certainly in my conversations with President Trump's Trade Representative, Ambassador Jamieson Greer, I specifically made the case that we need to come up with creative solutions in relation to the pharma industry that are good for the US and good for the EU because our global supply chains are interdependent, patients depend on it and, actually, Ireland and the European Union can assist in making sure that US pharma companies have access to a very large market of 460 million consumers in the European Union.' The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week
![2025 Rothesay International Eastbourne: Harris [142nd] vs. Bellucci [74th] Prediction, Odds and Match Preview](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2Fauthoring%2Fimages%2FDataSkriveSportsbookWire%2F2025%2F04%2F16%2FSSBK%2F83117401007-16686351.jpeg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26crop%3D1199%2C675%2Cx0%2Cy0%26format%3Dpjpg%26width%3D1200&w=3840&q=100)
![2025 Rothesay International Eastbourne: Harris [142nd] vs. Bellucci [74th] Prediction, Odds and Match Preview](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fusatoday.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
USA Today
9 hours ago
- Sport
- USA Today
2025 Rothesay International Eastbourne: Harris [142nd] vs. Bellucci [74th] Prediction, Odds and Match Preview
In the Round of 16 at the Rothesay International Eastbourne on Wednesday, Billy Harris (ranked No. 142) meets Mattia Bellucci (No. 74). Bellucci is the favorite (-175) to get to the quarterfinals compared to the underdog Harris (+135). Tennis odds courtesy of BetMGM Sportsbook. Odds updated Wednesday at 6:36 AM ET. For a full list of sports betting odds, access USA TODAY Sports Betting Scores Odds Hub. Billy Harris vs. Mattia Bellucci matchup info Watch the Tennis Channel and more sports on Fubo! Harris vs. Bellucci Prediction Based on the implied probility from the moneyline, Harris has a 63.6% to win. Harris vs. Bellucci Betting Odds Harris vs. Bellucci matchup performance & stats
The Hill
9 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
America's leaders confuse economic coercion for good exchange
Amid their debates over tariffs, taxes and regulations, Democrats and Republicans seem to have reached a quiet consensus that they should be more involved in economic exchange. They shouldn't. On crowded streets, in office buildings and online, people meet, words pass and goods exchange hands. But the exchanges can take one of two forms. The first is the key to just, sustainable and rapid growth. While the other leads to political dysfunction, bad investments and economic stagnation. When Democratic and Republican leaders fail to distinguish between the two — especially at the same time — it poses a grave threat to the U.S. political economy. The good type of exchange is voluntary. There is no fraud from the buyer or seller and no force from anyone else. Both can walk away with a smile and something that they value more than whatever they gave up. Governments play an important role by ensuring people have the economic freedom to pursue these exchanges. Like a neutral referee ensuring fair play, a wise government impartially safeguards everyone's right to own, use and exchange property. And it stands aside when it needs to, allowing us to make our own economic choices unencumbered by high or inequitable taxes, meddlesome regulations or steep barriers to trade. Bad exchange is coercive, even if subtly so. And subtle government coercion is all the rage these days. In one way or another, coerced exchange involves either fraud or force. An obvious example is a thug who threatens to take your money or your life. A less obvious example (involving better intentions) is the government official empowered to tell you what to do with your person or your property. The power to tax is widely accepted but fundamentally coercive. And the higher the taxes, the greater the coercion. Outlawing mutually agreed upon prices between sellers and buyers — as both President Trump and former Vice President Harris proposed at some point — is also coercive, as are Trump's tariffs, the first iteration of which were largely accepted by Biden. State governments limit entry into dozens of professions through occupational licenses that prevent upward mobility with little or no benefit to the public. When the government stipulates when, where, and how property may be used, it is coercive. Local governments assert such power over land use, helping send home prices through the roof. And in the latest example, the Trump administration flexed coercive power in its unusual arrangement with Nippon Steel. People tolerate some degree of government coercion, especially if it serves the general welfare by protecting our rights — that is, by keeping others from coercing us. But when governments stop being neutral referees and become active — if invisible — participants in our exchanges, we all pay a price. First, individuals lose agency. The great economist Adam Smith argued that coercers imagine they can 'arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board' without acknowledging any other 'principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them.' Think of President Biden's attempt to transfer wealth from those without college degrees to those with college degrees, despite the fact that the latter earn about 70 percent more money. Or consider Trump's attempt to transfer wealth from manufacturers that use steel to manufacturers that make it. Each is a queen's gambit that sacrifices some chess pieces for the sake of other, preferred pieces. Second, society loses talent. When policymakers spend their time transferring wealth from one group of citizens to another, some citizens spend their time trying to gain from it, while others expend effort to avoid being victims. When this happens, some of society's best and brightest waste their time, money and effort transferring wealth instead of innovating and creating new wealth. Finally, society loses essential knowledge that helps it operate. We each place our own value on certain goods and services. Only I know whether my next dollar is best spent on a doll or a dolly. The only way to make sure trade serves each of our needs is to allow us to make these tradeoffs ourselves, guided by market signals of prices, profit and loss that help us adjust our plans to those of others. The Soviet system was based on not-so-subtle coerced exchange. And as that system crumbled around them, its leaders wondered how they managed to get rockets to Venus but couldn't get working appliances in (communal) kitchens. Meanwhile, the Croatian journalist Slavenka Drakulić noted that in its 70-year existence, communism never managed to supply women with tampons. This is what happens when individuals are not allowed to make their own economic decisions. Leaders in both parties once understood this. Matthew Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and a senior affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
