President Donald Trump made many promises on the campaign trail and, so far, his record of keeping those promises -- or attempting to -- is virtually pristine.
The only force that has caused Trump a problem in moving forward with many of his bold policies has been the federal judiciary. Multiple judges, mostly Democrat-appointed, have worked overtime to stop the president from implementing his agenda.
Luckily, the conservative majority Supreme Court has handed Trump and his administration enough wins to overcome the activist judiciary, and the wins keep coming.
As The Hill noted, the high court has given Trump its blessing to move forward with a number of firings at major agencies, allowing Trump to continue his mission to slash government waste.
The outlet reported that the Trump administratoin has brought more emergency appeals to the Supreme Court in his first six months than President Joe Biden did in six months.
While left-leaning outlets portray that as a negative, it's actually the opposite, as the high court has been Trump's only recourse on a number of major issues, especially when it comes to dismantling or reducing bloated government agencies, and also on immigration.
The Hill noted:
Trump’s Justice Department filed its 21st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term.
Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul Weiss’s Supreme Court practice, weighed in on the number of emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration.
“The numbers are startling," Shanmugam said at a recent Federalist Society event.
The Hill added:
Trump’s Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how “activist” federal district judges have improperly blocked the president’s agenda. Trump’s critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly.
Shanmagum suggested that Congress could be at fault.
"There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,” Shannagum said.
Regardless, thank goodness for the Supreme Court's willingness to override the Democrat-appointed activist judges who continue to try and hamstring Trump's agenda.
Without the high court on Trump's side, things would already look a lot different, and not in a good way.
To say the Democrats took a huge hit after the 2024 election would be a massive understatement. The party was utterly humiliated across the board, and it's because working-class Americans knew which party had their best interests in mind.
According to Breitbart, the party is not doing any better, as new numbers show that the Democratic Party's public image has fallen to its lowest levels since 1990.
A new Wall Street Journal poll showed that the majority of Americans are clearly gravitating toward the Republican Party on all major issues.
That's even with that same majority "expressing disapproval of Donald Trump’s approach to key policies such as inflation, tariffs, and foreign policy," according to the report.
To say that Democrats have a real public image crisis on their hands would be the nice way of putting it. The polls that were released reflect an absolute disaster for the party as it struggles to gear up for the 2026 midterms.
Breitbart noted:
The Democrat Party has hit a 35-year low with American voters, according to a new Wall Street Journal poll showing 63 percent view the party unfavorably, the worst rating since 1990, and just eight percent hold a very favorable view.
Republicans are preferred on nearly every issue, which certainly wasn't the case for decades. The Democrats were once billed as the party of the average Joe, and now the opposite is true.
Republicans hold a staggering advantage on virtually every major issue, and especially on immigration, where the party holds a 24-point lead on Democrats.The
Breitbart added:
Even among voters who disapprove of Trump’s approach to certain policies, the GOP is still favored to lead. For example, voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of inflation by 11 points, yet trust Republicans over Democrats on inflation by 10. The pattern repeats across multiple issues, with voters essentially signaling: We may not love Trump, but we trust his party to govern.
Democrat pollster John Anzalone, who co-conducted the survey, shared his thoughts on the bombshell numbers.
"The Democrat brand is so bad that they don’t have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party," Anzalone said.
He added, "Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they’re for and what their economic message is, they’re going to have problems."
He's not wrong, and Democrats have a real problem on their hands with the upcoming midterms.
It'll be fascinating to see if they can turn it around. Don't bet on it, though.
Democrats like former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, who was the party's 2024 presidential nominee, relied heavily on the strategy of having major celebrity influencers walk them across the finish line.
As we all know by now, that strategy didn't pan out even close to what Democrats had presumably hoped, and even worse for Harris, it looks like it could backfire in a major way -- perhaps even legally.
According to The Hill, President Donald Trump once again insisted this week that Harris illegally paid celebrities to endorse her candidacy and went as far as suggesting that the former vice president should be "prosecuted" for it.
Trump also said that the celebrities involved, which include Beyoncé, Oprah and Al Sharpton, should also face legal consequences.
As he usually does, Trump held nothing back in a Truth Social post insisting that Harris illegally paid celebrities to endorse her campaign, pointing out that it's illegal to do so.
"YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out," Trump wrote.
He added, "Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter."
The president has made similar claims in the past, emphasizing that paying people to endorse is illegal.
The Hill noted:
“Beyoncé didn’t sing, Oprah didn’t do much of anything (she called it ‘expenses’), and Al is just a third rate Con Man,” he said in December.
In Saturday’s post, the president claimed Harris paid $11 million to Beyoncé, $3 million to Oprah, and $600,000 to Sharpton.
For her part, Oprah has publicly denied that she had been paid Harris, admitting that production fees for an appearance she made with Harris were covered by the campaign.
“The people who worked on that production needed to be paid. And were. End of story," Oprah said at the time.
Whether or not Harris broke campaign finance laws -- or other laws -- it doesn't seem to matter at this point because it failed miserably.
Trump connected with Americans, at the dinner table, and even though he's a billionaire real estage mogul and holder of the highest office, he was more relatable than Harris and her elite celebrity friends.
It'll be interesting to see if Democrats learn their lesson the next time around.
Several of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet-level picks drew initial scrutiny for their seemingly unconventional nature, but his choice to lead the Pentagon was -- and remains -- especially controversial to some.
Now, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is drawing scrutiny from the left once more for his decision to remove the first female head of the U.S. Naval Academy, a personnel change critics suggest is part of a larger pattern of anti-female bias, as The Hill reports.
At issue is the recent ousting of Vice Adm. Yvette Davis from the role of superintendent at the Annapolis, Maryland, service academy, a position she was the first woman in history to fill.
As The Hill notes, Davis’ removal is the most recent in a string of similar adjustments that has seen no fewer than five senior military members transitioned out of powerful roles.
Combined with what detractors suggest is Hegseth’s broader bias against women in the military, these changes have created for some an alarming trend that could harm unity and inclusiveness in ranks of the armed forces.
Obama-era Defense Secretary Leon Panetta argued, “It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that it’s going to weaken our military force by undermining the role of women who have become, I believe, an intrinsic part of our military capability.”
Panetta continued, “Just to remove commanders from their positions without cause sends a clear signal that this is not about merit, it’s not about performance, it’s about the fact that they’re women. It’s the only conclusion you can come to.”
However, supporters of Hegseth would assuredly point to a host of high-profile Pentagon departures that include plenty of men as support for the argument that it is not gender bias but rather a desire for transformational change that is driving the personnel decisions.
In the wake of a series of damaging information leaks, Hegseth took steps to remove senior advisor Dan Caldwell earlier this year, with Darin Selnick and Colin Carroll soon to follow, as The Hill noted separately.
It was not long after that John Ullyot, a former press assistant to Hegseth, was shown the door, a move also believed to have been related to leak concerns.
Former Pentagon team lead for the Department of Government Efficiency Yinon Weiss announced his departure from the Defense Department earlier this month, raising eyebrows yet again about Hegseth’s personnel upheaval.
Senior staffer Justin Fulcher, another senior staffer and adviser to Hegseth, also left his position this month, and though he suggested that he only intended to stay at the Pentagon for six months, rumors about the true reasons for his departure and his involvement in probes of prior leaks persisted.
Though Hegseth has been under fire for much of his tenure atop the DoD, with Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) going so far as to say that he regrets voting for his confirmation, the secretary has received support from a seemingly unlikely source, namely, former Vice President Mike Pence, as The Hill separately reported.
Certainly no friend of Trump’s, Pence stepped forward to defend his choice to lead the Pentagon, saying of the criticism Hegseth has received, “I don’t think it’s fair. I’ve known Pete Hegseth a long time – he’s someone who’s worn the uniform. I’m told that we’re exceeding goals in every branch of our armed forces, and so all of that is welcome news and positive,” and that is an assessment with which it is hard to disagree.
The entertainment world was saddened this week by the news that a well-loved reality star had died.
As People reports, Junior Edwards, a well-known Louisiana alligator hunter and co-star of Swamp People on the History Channel, passed away, a development revealed by his grandson.
The news of Junior’s demise came in a Facebook post penned by his grandson, “Lil” Willie Edwards, on Saturday.
The younger Edwards wrote, “Rest easy, pawpaw. I know [you’re] probably running your hoop nets or doing something crazy inside those pearly gates.”
He continued his heartfelt message by adding, “You will be extremely missed pawpaw. We love you more than anything. Until we meet again.”
Specifics surrounding Junior’s death -- including his exact age -- remained unclear.
Willie Edwards did reveal, however, that his grandfather had suffered from declining health in recent months, noting on July 6, “Well guys, those of you that don’t know, my grandpa has been dealing with some health issues” and asking fans to “keep him in y’alls thoughts and prayers please…we need a miracle.”
Swamp People has been a staple on the History Channel for an impressive run of 15 seasons, with the program following the exploits of a Louisiana-based family comprised of the descendants of French Canadian refugees who have made alligator hunting their preferred method of making their living.
Junior was a regular cast member on the show between 2010 and 2015, returning to the program in 2021 for season 12.
Among those mourning his passing was Swamp People star Ashley Jones, who took to Instagram to declare, as Parade noted, “The world lost a legend! Mr. Junior Edwards passed away! Please be in prayer for the family! He was one of the greatest alligator hunters there is! He was a real hardcore outdoorsman!”
Ronnie Adams, another Swamp People cast member, also weighed in, writing, “Praying for the Edwards in this time of need!!! Rest in peace Junior!!!”
A fan of the show also took time to comment on the news, writing, “My sincere condolences…Though I never met Mr. Junior Edwards, I almost felt like I knew him through his time on Swamp People. He was a good, hard-working man, and we all know he had a heart of gold after that episode with the otter! RIP.”
Though Junior Edwards had not appeared on Swamp People in recent years, it is clear that his impact on viewers remains.
One online commentator offered recollections of a humble but honorable man, writing, “Junior Edwards was a hell of a man. Not just an amazing alligator hunter and trapper but a family man who took care of his family and provided for them,” and in the end, that is a legacy to which everyone should aspire.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) just got hit with a massive fine for breaking House ethics rules related to her infamous appearance at the 2021 Met Gala.
The House Ethics Committee ordered the leftist star to pay $2,000 after an investigation found that she broke House rules when underpaying for certain gifts and apparel, constituting a violation of ethics rules.
The Committee's report found that AOC “paid under fair market value for clothing and accessories,” and was ordered to pay $2,733 to vendors for the additional value of her" clothing, including the infamous dress that ironically read, "Tax the rich."
Nothing screams socialism and working class awareness like attending the Met Gala with the nation's elites and wearing a dress worth thousands that most Americans could never afford.
AOC's appearance at the Met Gala was a prime example of nauseating "champagne socialism" that many rich leftists are involved in. Enjoying lavish lifestyles while pretending to be warriors of the working class.
The report explained, "The Committee determined that Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s conduct was inconsistent with House Rules, laws, and other standards of conduct with respect to her acceptance of certain goods and services associated with her attendance at the 2021 Met Gala, and her delay in making appropriate payment for their receipt."
This outcome represents a cathartic moment of justice for conservatives who had to witness AOC's outrageous stunt and watch her get away with it for years.
The report continued by saying, "While the Committee did not find that Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s violations were knowing and willful, she nonetheless received impermissible gifts and must bear responsibility for the other conduct that occurred with respect to the delays in payment."
The "fair market value" of AOC's entire Met Gala outfit came out to an astounding $3,724.04. Talk about bouguisie excess and materialist signalling.
What's worse is that AOC only paid $990.76, which suggests that this extremely expensive outfit was presented mostly as a gift, which is what got the House Ethics Committee involved amid conservatives' fuming outrage.
The ticket to the Met Gala alone was worth $35,000, which prompted the American Accountability Foundation to lodge an ethics complaint against the self-styled far-leftist AOC.
AOC's "Tax the rich" dress was designed by Aurora James, of Brother Vellies, a luxury fashion brand. There is no industry more materialistic and capitalist than high-fashion, and yet AOC saw no irony in wearing a dress with that message.
AOC doesn't seem to understand that she is "the rich," as are the rest of the nation's elite, who attend the Met Gala every year to engage in the typical self-congratulatory celebrations of not being one of the masses.
Socialism is a revolting anti-American ideology on its own, but fashionable champagne socialism is an altogether different monster. It's long past time that AOC be recognized for the fraud that she truly is.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. allowed lampreys to bite on his arms while visiting the Nez Perce salmon hatchery in Idaho on Thursday, the UK Daily Mail reported.
Kennedy allowed the jawless parasitic sea creatures, which hold on with a sucker-like mouth, to give him "hickeys."
Kennedy has a history with parasites, including one that supposedly lodged in his brain more than a decade ago. However, it seems Kennedy was all in favor certain parisites after he let the lampreys latch onto him while showing off for a photo opportunity.
"Lampreys hickeys at the Nez Perce salmon hatchery in NW Idaho," Kennedy captioned the photos he posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday. The photos showed him holding the creatures in gloved hands while allowing the mouth part to attach to the underside of the wrist area and arms.
Lampreys hickeys at the Nez Perce salmon hatchery in NW Idaho pic.twitter.com/ma6KvNqd0b
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 25, 2025
According to scientific research, there seems to be no benefit to having the lamprey attach to a person, but Kennedy seemed unbothered and perhaps even welcoming of the bites. This is a change from another time when he purportedly had a parasitic worm grow and die in his brain.
Kennedy said he was experiencing symptoms such as short-term memory loss and brain fog for two years before the cause was finally found. Doctors initially located a mass in his brain in 2012, as Kennedy was in divorce proceedings with his second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy.
At first, doctors chalked up his symptoms and the mass to a brain tumor. "I have cognitive problems, clearly. I have short-term memory loss, and I have longer-term memory loss that affects me," Kennedy said during a 2012 deposition, according to The New York Times.
However, after seeking a second opinion, another doctor told Kennedy that what they previously thought was a tumor was a cyst "caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died." Kennedy also said he suffered from mercury poisoning at the time, but remains convinced his problems were due to the parasitic infection.
"They said that this is almost certainly a parasite that got into your brain. It's a parasite that's very common in India, where I had done a lot of environmental work," Kennedy said, according to the UK Daily Mail.
Parasites aren't the only wildlife Kennedy has had a run-in with. Near the end of the 2024 presidential campaign, Kennedy admitted to leaving a bear cub carcass in Central Park in New York City in October 2014, where a dog walker discovered the bear's body.
Authorities had no idea how it got there at the time until Kennedy spilled the beans a decade later. He explained in a video posted to X on August 4, 2024, that he found the cub dead in a forest after it was hit by a car. He took it with him, planning to eat the meat and skin the bear, but his travel plans did not allow for this.
Instead, Kennedy claims his drunk friends urged him to bring the bear to Central Park and leave it as a prank. He made it look like a bicycle accident in the city caused the bear cub's death, and without any other explanation available, Kennedy got away with it for a decade as authorities were left scratching their heads.
Despite his admission, Kennedy didn't face any penalties as the statute of limitations ran out. Some have suggested that this story and other bizarre conduct should disqualify Kennedy from President Donald Trump's administration, but it doesn't seem to distract him from his important work.
Kennedy is definitely a person who marches to the beat of his own drummer, even if it means leaving a bear carcass in Central Park or letting parasites give him hickeys. His innovative thinking is a valuable asset for breaking the stagnant status quo in Washington, D.C., especially when it comes to issues of health and well-being.
President Donald Trump said the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity in his favor last year could now benefit former President Barack Obama, Fox News reported. Trump told reporters Friday that Obama "owes me big" as it comes to light that the former president was the "ringleader" of Russiagate.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently declassified a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report that was compiled in 2020. It discussed the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017 about supposed Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The conclusion was that the since-debunked Steele dossier was unreliable and that the entire scandal was an "internet rumor." Nevertheless, Obama encouraged the intelligence community to proceed with their investigation based on that false information just weeks before Trump was sworn into office.
These new revelations could potentially lead to criminal charges against Obama. However, his position as president at the time means that he will likely escape any ramifications, and it's all thanks to Trump's fight at the high court.
According to The Hill, the Supreme Court ruled in July 2024 that the office of the president confers broad immunities from criminal prosecution. When asked by the press about presidential immunity, Trump didn't hesitate in acknowledging that it would be greatly beneficial for Obama. "It probably helps him a lot," Trump told reporters.
"Probably helps a lot. The immunity ruling, but it doesn't help the people around him at all. But it probably helps him a lot," Trump added.
"He's done criminal acts, there’s no question about it. But he has immunity, and it probably helps him a lot... he owes me big, Obama owes me big." Trump said.
Reporter Eric Daughtry shared a video with a biting caption against Obama. "JUST IN: President Trump on if Barack Hussein Obama can be criminally prosecuted for the Trump-Russia Treasonous Conspiracy hoax," Daughtry wrote on his post to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday.
🚨 JUST IN: President Trump on if Barack Hussein Obama can be criminally prosecuted for the Trump-Russia Treasonous Conspiracy hoax
"He has immunity, it probably helps him a lot. He OWES ME BIG. Obama owes me big."
"But it DOESN'T help the people around him AT ALL." pic.twitter.com/WE8nRQkoT3
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 25, 2025
In a statement released by the former president on Tuesday, Obama said that calling him the "ringleader" of Russiagate was among Trump's "bizarre allegations," which he firmly denies. "Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response," Obama said in a statement through spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush.
"But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction," Rodenbush added.
"Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," the spokesperson claimed. Meanwhile, Gabbard stated that "deep state obstacles" had been put in place, hindering the release of the information.
"There are a lot of deep state actors still here within Washington. President Trump wants us to find the truth," Gabbard said Wednesday on Fox News' Jesse Watters Primetime. "I want to find that truth. The American people deserve the truth, and they deserve accountability," she added.
The Russigate investigation should never have been allowed to go on with such questionable evidence. Obama may not face criminal prosecution in this case, but as Trump said, there are plenty around him who were in on this and don't have the same benefit who may now face justice.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed multiple lawsuits aiming to stop President Donald Trump's move to tear down USAID.
The Trump administration is tearing down USAID, or the U.S. Agency for International Development, as a result of decades of corruption and financial waste of taxpayer dollars.
Furthermore, the Trump administration is moving all of USAID's more valuable functions under the control of the State Department, putting an end to the unaccountable pseudo-independence that USAID has enjoyed since its inception.
Judge Carl Nichols of the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed one lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Foreign Service Association, Personal Services Contractor Association, and Oxfam America.
Those organizations all represented workers affected by the layoffs resulting from USAID's destruction. They argued that the move by the Trump administration was unconstitutional, but this argument was quickly shot down.
USAID has been a source of corruption for decades, wasting American taxpayer dollars on leftist pet projects and funneling money to organizations that are closely connected to powerful politicians.
The organization that is supposed to provide humanitarian aid and help develop third-world countries has likely served as a vehicle to funnel taxpayer dollars to the rich and powerful, which explains the outrage from many rich and powerful Democrats when Trump decided to kill USAID.
However, the fight is far from over, as Judge Nichols's decision doesn't necessarily rule on the merits of the lawsuit but rather invalidates the filing status of the organizations that brought the lawsuit.
Judge Nichols found that three organizations lacked standing to challenge the many discrete actions involved in dismantling USAID.
The Trump administration's actions are complex, and this operation isn't as simple as simply declaring that USAID is no longer, especially considering the State Department is working to absorb parts of USAID.
While another organization could bring a lawsuit on the same merits, this dismissal will likely kill any chance of further litigation stopping USAID's dismantling.
Tearing down USAID is a massive win for the Trump administration, as it destroys a key piece of Washington, D.C.'s corruption as well as a vehicle for the export of the leftist agenda.
USAID has spent billions on insane and corrupt ideas. In one instance, USAID under the Biden administration spent $15 million providing condoms for the Taliban. They also provided $14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at the southern border.
There are countless examples of USAID spending taxpayer dollars promoting LGBTQ initiatives in foreign countries to the tune of millions.
It was long past time for this corrupt organization to be shut down and investigated ,as there is a strong chance that significant sums of cash were distributed to NGO's which then directed funds to the politicians who allowed all of this to happen in the first place.
Vice President JD Vance leads the early polls for the 2028 presidential election against top Democrat contenders, according to Breitbart.
In a hypothetical 2028 election matchup, Vice President JD Vance leads against potential Democratic contenders, as per a recent poll by Emerson College.
Released on Friday, the Emerson College poll showcased matchups where Vice President JD Vance went head-to-head with several key Democratic figures, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. In these matchups, Vance consistently led: 45% to Newsom's 42%, 44% to Ocasio-Cortez’s 41%, and 44% to Buttigieg's 43%.
The results highlight Vance’s broad appeal across a diverse electorate, still showing a significant proportion of undecided voters. These undecided segments could play a pivotal role as the election nears.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has been a prominent figure in the Democratic Party, is widely considered to be a potential nominee for the 2028 election. Her impact and appeal among the party's progressive wing have been substantial, as noted by election analysts like Nate Silver.
Ocasio-Cortez's potential candidacy was highlighted by The Hill following Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election, emphasizing her significant role within the Democratic fold.
Pete Buttigieg's political aspirations also indicate shifting dynamics within the Democratic Party, as he has chosen to focus on a potential 2028 presidential run instead of contesting a Senate seat in 2026 in Michigan. His strategies could greatly influence his party's approach in the upcoming election cycle.
Meanwhile, former Vice President Kamala Harris is reportedly considering a gubernatorial run in California, signaling perhaps a strategic shift from national to state-level leadership roles within the Democratic ranks.
On the Republican side, JD Vance's dominance at the CPAC straw poll in February, where he outperformed other prominent Republicans such as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, underscores his significant support within the party, positioning him as a formidable contender for the presidency.
This early indication of Vance’s potential lead provides critical insights into voter inclinations and sets a foundation for both parties to strategize effectively. It also reflects the challenges the Democrats face in gaining ground against Vance’s early popularity.
As political entities and potential candidates start gearing up for the 2028 elections, the importance of understanding and addressing the concerns of undecided voters becomes more apparent. These voters' decisions could very well determine the next occupant of the White House.
With years still to go before the 2028 polls open, the political landscape is expected to evolve. However, this early data from Emerson College could be a valuable strategic asset for campaigns plotting their course to electoral success.
The potential candidacies of figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pete Buttigieg represent shifting ideologies and strategies within the Democratic Party. Their unique positions and previous political roles add layers of complexity to the electoral process, indicating an ongoing transformation within the party itself.
Moreover, the strategic decisions of individuals like Kamala Harris, who may focus on statewide roles, also contribute to reshaping the broader political dialogue and strategic alignments moving towards 2028.
The Emerson poll not only provides a snapshot of current voter preferences but also sparks discussions on future political strategies, voter alignments, and the evolving American political landscape as new leaders emerge and established figures consider their roles.