Kamala Harris’ super PAC launches first campaign ad targeting Trump over Roe v. Wade
(WASHINGTON) — EMILY’s List, an abortion-rights political organization, is set to launch a new 30-second TV and digital ad that both publicly supports Vice President Kamala Harris’ newly launched presidential campaign and attacks former President Donald Trump over the fall of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights.
The ad, titled “Kamala Harris for President: The Time Is Now,” is the first effort by the organization to publicly support Harris’ campaign.
The ad, first obtained by ABC News, was paid for by the EMILYs List super PAC, Women Vote. The super PAC, which launched in March, aimed to strategically combat what EMILY’s List called “sexist and racist attacks” against women.
Women Vote will be the official super PAC for Harris’ bid for the White House, aiming to raise $20 million in the next 18 weeks, sources told ABC News.
The ad touches on Roe v. Wade as abortion access remains a critical issue for voters in an election year.
In the ad, a narrator highlights Harris as a candidate and includes clips of Trump taking credit for the Supreme Court’s decision to overrule Roe v. Wade.
“Kamala Harris won’t back down,” the narrator says, later adding “With so much at stake, we don’t have time to waste. Resilient, relentless, fighter. The time is now.”
On Sunday, EMILYs List President Jessica Mackler endorsed Harris for president, saying in a statement that “she is the most qualified and most prepared candidate to meet this unprecedented moment and lead the country.”
“In a moment when Republicans have launched a full-scale attack on our reproductive rights, an issue that will be the driving force for Democratic wins, Vice President Harris is our most powerful advocate and messenger on this issue,” Mackler added.
EMILY’s List has supported Harris throughout her career, from her time as San Francisco’s district attorney to when she made history as the first woman to serve as California’s attorney general and again when she made history as the second Black woman in the Senate.
The group’s former president, Sen. Laphonza Butler, is expected to speak to EMILY’s List donors on Monday afternoon, a source told ABC News. Butler is the junior senator from California — a role Harris held just four years ago.
(WASHINGTON) — Though Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced last month he was suspending his struggling independent campaign and endorsing former President Donald Trump, voters in many states are still likely to see him on their ballot this fall.
Announcing his decision in Phoenix, Arizona, Kennedy said that he would remove himself from the ballot in battleground states where he could act as a “spoiler” for Trump, but he encouraged voters in solidly Democratic or Republican states to vote for him.
Kennedy did not name the states from which he would withdraw, but ABC News has confirmed that he has successfully removed himself from several battleground state ballots.
However, in a hiccup for the campaign — and for Trump — Kennedy was unable to remove his name from the ballot in at least three states expected to be competitive: Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina.
Here’s a look at where Kennedy has been taken off from the ballot — and where he’ll still be on them.
Where has Kennedy been removed from the ballot?
As of Wednesday, ABC News had confirmed that Kennedy has successfully withdrawn his name from the ballot in at least 10 states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and South Carolina.
Many of those states are considered presidential battlegrounds, or at least contain some competitive congressional districts — such as Maine’s 2nd District, which Trump won in 2020, but is currently a seat held by Democratic Rep. Jared Golden.
Kennedy has moved quickly to scratch his name from ballots: in Arizona, his team scrambled to file withdrawal paperwork the night before he suspended his campaign. They were working to beat a crucial deadline: the Arizona secretary of state’s office was set to print ballots, which included Kennedy’s name, just hours later.
Then, in the hours after his announcement, Kennedy’s campaign successfully withdrew his name from the ballot in Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio, ABC News confirmed.
In the days since, officials in several other states have told ABC News that Kennedy has successfully removed his name from the ballot.
In Georgia, a key battleground, the secretary of state’s office received two letters from lawyers for Kennedy asking to remove him from the ballot, according to a spokesperson.
But the office never considered Kennedy to be “on the ballot” in the first place — as an administrative judge ruled that the independent candidate did not meet the qualifications.
A spokesman for the office told ABC News, “He won’t be on the ballot.”
Officials in Nevada confirmed to ABC News last week that Kennedy is now off the ballot in the state — in that case, because of a court order received by the office.
The Nevada Independent reported that the court order is due to an agreement between Kennedy’s lawyers and the Nevada Democratic Party, which had challenged his petition to get on the ballot in Nevada, to drop the lawsuit and to mutually agree that Kennedy should not be on the ballot.
In New Hampshire, the office of the secretary of state confirmed to ABC News that Kennedy’s campaign submitted signatures to get him on the ballot the morning he suspended his campaign. But days later, a spokesperson for the office told ABC News that the Kennedy campaign “withdrew the nomination petitions required to be a certified candidate on the general election ballot.”
Where is Kennedy still on the ballot?
As of Wednesday, ABC News had confirmed that Kennedy will likely be on the ballot in about 30 states, although this could shift with any further successful withdrawals, legal challenges or decisions by elections offices ahead of state ballot certifications.
That number includes battleground states whose ballots Kennedy tried in recent days to withdraw from, such as Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5-1 on Tuesday to certify Kennedy and some other independent candidates for the ballot. The board debated over whether to remove him given his withdrawal from the race, with commissioner Ann S. Jacobs, a Democratic Party appointee on the board, arguing that Kennedy could not withdraw due to state statutes.
“It literally says, ‘if you filed nomination papers you cannot withdraw unless you’re dead.’ I mean, all of this is just vibing to try to ignore a statute. And this statute’s clear — like this isn’t even equivocal,” Jacobs said during a meeting of the commission.
A lawyer for Kennedy had submitted a letter to the Wisconsin Elections Commission requesting to withdraw him from the state’s ballot. But a spokesperson for the commission told ABC News recently that if a candidate files to get on the ballot in Wisconsin, “there is no mechanism to ‘take back’ the filing.”
ABC News has reached out to the Kennedy campaign to see if he plans to appeal the decision.
In Michigan, a judge ruled against Kennedy, who had sued Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson for ordering his name to remain on the ballot.
Nominees of minor political parties may not remove themselves from the ballot, a representative for Benson’s office told ABC News.
The Natural Law Party, a two-member political party with ballot access in Michigan, nominated Kennedy to lead its ticket in April.
And in North Carolina, election officials voted to keep Kennedy’s name on the ballot since nearly two million ballots had already been printed across the state.
Reprinting them would be costly and leave most counties without ballots until at least mid-September (under state law, absentee ballots must go out by Sept. 6 to voters who have requested them).
On Friday, Kennedy sued the North Carolina Board of Elections to get his name removed from the ballot.
In an oddity, there are also some states where Kennedy’s campaign filed to get on the ballot even after he announced suspending his campaign.
Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams wrote on X on Monday afternoon that Kennedy filed to run in Kentucky (a state that his campaign had not discussed much or at all previously) that afternoon.
“Having just completed review of his submission of signatures, we are placing him on the ballot,” Adams wrote. The Kentucky secretary of state’s website also shows his filing.
And in Oregon, Kennedy achieved a spot on the ballot three days after announcing his suspension through the We the People Party and “at this time” will be on the ballot in the state, a spokesman for the Oregon secretary of state’s office said. The Oregon secretary of state’s website also has an entry for his filing.
(NEW YORK) — World famous as entertainers, celebrities are not usually relied on for their political expertise.
Yet candidates across the political spectrum in 2024 have been keen on highlighting star power at their campaign events.
Musical performances by Megan Thee Stallion, Quavo, and Bon Iver brought crowds to their feet during recent Kamala Harris rallies.
Last month, musician Kid Rock and model Amber Rose were among the celebrities featured at the Republican National Convention.
It turns out, a new study finds, that celebrities do more than merely generate online buzz — they can actually influence elections.
According to the research by Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, there is “rigorous evidence that [celebrity] voices are incredibly powerful” in promoting civic engagement and altering polling numbers.
“Right now, young voters have relatively low levels of trust in a lot of leaders and institutions, including traditional news media — but celebrities are often a rare exception,” Ashley Spillane, the study’s author and a civic engagement and political expert, told ABC News.
Published on Friday, the study discusses how America falls behind other highly developed democratic nations in terms of the number of eligible voters who actually cast votes.
Spillane noted that “despite record-breaking voter participation levels in recent elections, the United States still ranks 31st out of 50 developed nations in terms of eligible voter participation.”
She says lack of motivation and mobilization is one of the main reasons behind that ranking, and celebrities could be key in addressing the lack of participation.
Spillane said the culture surrounding civic engagement needs to change.
“Voting should be the trendy, cool thing to do,” she said. “And the study shows there is evidence that when people feel this way about voting, they participate.”
In terms of shifting this culture, celebrities are “uniquely positioned to empower everyday Americans,” the study said. Online voter registration and poll worker volunteer rates were found to increase when a celebrity promoted them.
“What the study finds is that sharing information that allows people to take action (a registration link, a way to find your polling place, when Election Day is!) can have the most impact,” Spillane added.
Back in 2018, Taylor Swift encouraged her fans to register to vote by posting a simple Instagram story, resulting in 250,000 new Vote.org registrants in 72 hours.
In a similar fashion, Kylie Jenner utilized Instagram to urge her followers to vote in 2020, and “the site to which she linked reported a 1,500% increase in traffic compared to the day before — and an 80% increase in total users registering to vote,” the study said.
Actress Kerry Washington communicated outside her fanbase and recruited other celebrities to promote civic engagement. The study referenced $32 million in organic earned media coverage, as well as one billion online engagements as a result of her efforts.
Ariana Grande, David Dobrik, Hailey Bieber, Billie Eilish, Trevor Noah were among other celebrities studied. Offline engagements such as television, movies, and merchandise were included in the research set as well.
The study also emphasized how “authenticity moves the needle on civic engagement,” making it crucial for celebrity efforts to align with their public interests and overall platform in order to be effective.
Although some celebrities remain wary of “potential backlash and ‘canceling,'” the study found that those who encourage voter participation believe it is “good for democracy” and “good for their brands.”
As seen throughout the current election cycle, celebrities have even inspired civic engagement without their explicit knowledge or intention.
For example, Swifties for Kamala represents a group of Taylor Swift fans promoting Harris’ campaign. Their X account currently has over 57,000 followers.
Swift has yet to comment on the group created in her namesake, or on the election itself.
Though the Harvard study did not explicitly focus on such sub-groups, Spillane told ABC News that “fan communities getting involved in civic engagement enables them to be a part of something collaborative, which helps build trust in the democratic process and motivation to participate.”
Just this past month, British hyperpop artist Charli XCX posted, “Kamala IS brat,” on X, amassing over 54.5 million views and catalyzing millions of memes and video edits. This one celebrity post inadvertently contributed to the Harris campaign’s digital success and Gen-Z outreach.
“Charli XCX’s post is a great example of a celebrity’s ability to garner media coverage, attract large crowds, reach their fans, and influence conversation,” Spillane observed.
Gen-Z and millennial groups are of particular importance given that they will comprise the majority of voters by 2028, the study confirmed. In addition to the significant screen time that both groups average each day on social media, such platforms were also found to be their primary source of news.
Given such findings, a close eye is likely to follow celebrity voices throughout the remainder of this historic and tumultuous election cycle.
“The evidence is clear that, using their powerful platforms, these influential figures can encourage and empower more everyday Americans to use their voices and exercise their civic rights,” Spillane said.
(WASHINGTON) — Voters across the country tuned in to the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday night to see Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump discuss issues and share their visions for the country.
Many were looking to see how Harris defined herself on the debate stage, especially given that she entered the race relatively late as a presidential candidate.
Some undecided or formerly undecided voters spoke with ABC News both before and after the debate.
Before the debate, they shared what they were hoping to see — and after, if they thought Harris made the case for herself as a presidential candidate as well as their thoughts a potential second debate between Trump and Harris. These voters also previously spoke with ABC News earlier in the election cycle, including before President Joe Biden dropped out of the race.
Patrick O’Rourke, a retired scientist and independent voter from Georgia, said ahead of the debate that he did not trust Harris to be a “unifier” for the country.
“If I can force myself to vote for VP Harris, it will be with the hope of [split-party control between the presidency and Congress] … I hope for a president who can respect the constitution and earn the respect of our country,” he told ABC News by text.
At 10:09 p.m. ET, as the debate was still on air, he texted ABC News that he had turned off the debate.
“Former President Trump has forced me into voting for VP Harris,” he said. The reasons: because of how Trump discussed Ashli Babbit — a Trump supporter who was fatally shot during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol — whom the former president said “was shot by an out-of-control police officer;” and after Trump promoted being endorsed by Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, who is considered an authoritarian leader.
That doesn’t mean he thinks Harris made a strong positive case or defined herself enough, though.
Asked how he felt about her performance, O’Rourke said, “Still don’t know who she is other than not Donald Trump. Right now, that’s enough.”
Many voters feel they could benefit from more information about Harris and her platforms. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that 28% of likely voters said they feel they need to still learn more about Harris, while only 9% of likely voters felt that way about Trump.
O’Rourke said on Wednesday morning that he’s also not interested in another debate.
“One is enough for this cycle. I do not need to see another debate … I don’t need the candidates telling me what the other one’s policies are,” O’Rourke said.
But he said he’d like to see interviews with the candidates where they talk about economic policy, foreign affairs and civil justice priorities.
Rebecca Bakker, a registered nursing professor who lives near Grand Rapids, Michigan, told ABC News by text ahead of the debate that she was still undecided — although she had said beforehand she was not supporting Trump.
She was hoping to hear Harris “drill down on a clear economic message,” as well as clarity from her on how she would solve foreign policy and border issues.
Bakker told ABC News after the debate that the showing solidified her decision to not vote for Trump, who did not come across to her as “presidential” or as outlining clear policies.
“I think Harris did a great job to bait him so he [would] unravel during the debate and this worked to her advantage,” she said by text, but she felt Harris was still a bit “murky” on how her positions on some issues have changed.
“I remain undecided- she didn’t sway me enough (yet) to vote for her but for sure [Trump] swayed me enough NOT to vote for him,” Bakker wrote.
Bakker said she would like another debate to see if either candidate “reframes their narrative to address specifics on policies without ‘one of them’ losing focus and returning to childish behavior,” she wrote, adding she wants to see Harris discuss the economy and border issues more directly.
“So far, I don’t have a clear idea of her plan to address these areas.”
Karen Hughes, an independent voter and retired parole and probation specialist from Nevada, had previously been undecided but had decided to begrudgingly vote for Biden before he left the race in July. Ahead of the debate, Hughes told ABC News by text she was “hoping to see some policy discussions tonight. I’m interested in hearing Trump’s (final) position on abortion, and Harris’s explanation for why she won’t ban fracking.”
The debate affirmed her choice to vote for Harris, Hughes said on Wednesday, as she felt Harris “presents as competent, positive, and very sure of herself. I felt she knew exactly to get into Trump’s head and he fell for it every time,” Hughes said — although she said she felt Harris was still unclear about the shift in her position on fracking. Hughes also criticized Trump’s invocation of “wild conspiracy theories.”
But she’s not looking for another debate: “I think this one was good enough.”
Ian Mackintosh, a voter from Pennsylvania who lives in the Pittsburgh area, also said he hoped ahead of the debate to hear about policy. On Wednesday, he told ABC News by text, “Honestly, I thought it was a complete waste of 90 minutes. If anything, it moved me away from both candidates.”
While he said he understands the challenges of going in depth on complex policy stances in two minutes, it “could have been more substantial” with “less baiting and intentionally riling up the other candidate.”
Mackintosh said he is also disillusioned by Harris’ stance on Israel and Gaza, which he feels is the same as Biden’s.
He said he would not be interested in watching a second debate, and added, “After last night’s debacle I will probably only vote down-ballot.”
Brendan Fitzsimmons, a physician from Wyoming who is a Republican but does not support Trump, told ABC News by text before the debate that he did not expect much from the candidates, “although I would enjoy it if there is a lot of entertainment to it,” he said.
Fitzsimmons admitted that going into the debate, he didn’t feel sold on Harris: “I think she’ll be a terrible president, but I hope she wins,” calling her the “lesser of two evils.”
The morning after the debate, Fitzsimmons said the night changed how he was feeling about Harris.
“I enjoyed the debate and I thought they were both fairly strong, but all in all, Harris was stronger and won the debate and I think showed to a lot of people that she can be president … I am very concerned about foreign affairs, and I think she may be OK in that way,” he told ABC News by text.
Matthew Labkovski, a Republican voter from Florida who supported former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley during the Republican presidential primaries, told ABC News by text before the debate that he hoped to see the candidates discuss policy, and not engage in personal attacks. He said Tuesday evening that he was currently not planning on voting for president.
After the debate, Labkovski said on Wednesday, “I think it actually convinced me not to vote for Donald Trump. All I saw was fear mongering from him and what seemed to be a stretching of the truth,” he said, particularly when it came to Trump’s false claims about abortion and about a false conspiracy theory over immigrants eating pets.
“I am still not convinced though with Harris, as I didn’t get enough policy with her in this debate. To be honest, I would love another debate to see if I was actually comfortable in voting for her,” he said.
Labkovski also criticized Harris’ laughter during the debate, saying that he wished she had remained more even-keeled.
He added that he would have liked her to discuss how she would implement the policies she was talking about.
“How is she going to fight inflation? How is she going to bring peace? That’s what I was hoping the debate would bring … I needed more from her to actually sway from not voting in the presidential slot.”