Connect with us

Daily Caller

Pollsters Say RFK Jr. Endorsement ‘Could Have A Really Big Impact’ And ‘Help Trump’

Published

4 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Cohen

 

Republican pollster Lee Carter and Democratic pollster Carly Cooperman on Friday said that independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s endorsement of former President Donald Trump could significantly boost his campaign.

Kennedy announced during a Friday speech that he would suspend his campaign and endorse Trump in states where he is not on the ballot, only withdrawing his name from consideration in key battleground states as not to spoil the vote. Carter and Cooperman, on “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” said that in such a close election, the votes that Trump could gain from Kennedy’s decision might boost his chances of defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

WATCH:

“When you’re looking at these battleground states, we’re looking at averages where Donald Trump might be ahead by 0.2%, and just getting some of those votes could have a really big impact. And I think RFK Jr. knows this,” Carter said. “He was very, very keen to say, ‘I am withdrawing my name from these 10 states because I know it can have an impact.’ And so I think there is a very, very clear directive here.”

“It’s absolutely the case that the polls in these swing states show that with RFK removed, there is a small advantage that goes to Donald Trump. And in these states, every single vote really does matter. This makes a lot of sense,” Cooperman said. “Democrats are far more enthusiastic about Kamala Harris as their presidential candidate than they were about Joe Biden. And so you’re seeing much more coalescing among Democrats for Kamala, and therefore the support that RFK was getting in the most recent polls was certainly going to help Trump more so with him removed from it.”

Cooperman also noted “there is uncertainty” about what Kennedy’s supporters will do in November.

“It’s going to really depend, what are these voters going to do? Are they going to stay home or are they going to throw their support behind Donald Trump? I’m very curious now to see how RFK Jr. is integrated into Donald Trump’s campaign and what kind of role they’re going to talk about for him and how they might use this,” Carter added.

“I think Donald Trump’s got to return himself to sort of the underdog status that would help to get those RFK Jr. supporters on his side,” the Republican pollster said.

Kennedy’s support plunged to as low as 2% as of early August, according to an Economist/YouGov poll. Trump is presently beating Harris in the main battleground states by 0.1%, according to the RealClearPoltics average.

A “Morning Joe” panel sounded the alarm on Friday about how difficult it will be for Harris to beat Trump, with the race being so tight and the former president historically outperforming polls on election day.

“You got to look at states like North Carolina and Arizona and, of course, Georgia. Now, you may get a break with minority voting down in Georgia, but you could also come up short in Pennsylvania and not quite win in North Carolina,” former MSNBC host Chris Matthews said. “This could squeak. This could be the toughest election, because if Pennsylvania doesn’t go the Democratic way and North Carolina doesn’t go that way, it’s tough, it’s really tough.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.

Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Oh.

While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”

Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.

Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Trump Orders Review Of Why U.S. Childhood Vaccination Schedule Has More Shots Than Peer Countries

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Emily Kopp

President Donald Trump will direct his top health officials to conduct a systematic review of the childhood vaccinations schedule by reviewing those of other high-income countries and update domestic recommendations if the schedules abroad appear superior, according to a memorandum obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“In January 2025, the United States recommended vaccinating all children for 18 diseases, including COVID-19, making our country a high outlier in the number of vaccinations recommended for all children,” the memo will state. “Study is warranted to ensure that Americans are receiving the best, scientifically-supported medical advice in the world.”

Trump directs the secretary of the Health and Human Services (HHS) and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to adopt best practices from other countries if deemed more medically sound. The memo cites the contrast between the U.S., which recommends vaccination for 18 diseases, and Denmark, which recommends vaccinations for 10 diseases; Japan, which recommends vaccinations for 14 diseases; and Germany, which recommends vaccinations for 15 diseases.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule.

The Trump Administration ended the blanket recommendation for all children to get annual COVID-19 vaccine boosters in perpetuity. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary and Chief Medical Officer Vinay Prasad announced in May that the agency would not approve new COVID booster shots for children and healthy non-elderly adults without clinical trials demonstrating the benefit. On Friday, Prasad told his staff at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research that a review by career staff traced the deaths of 10 children to the COVID vaccine, announced new changes to vaccine regulation, and asked for “introspection.”

Trump’s memo follows a two-day meeting of vaccine advisors to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in which the committee adopted changes to U.S. policy on Hepatitis B vaccination that bring the country’s policy in alignment with 24 peer nations.

Total vaccines in January 2025 before the change in COVID policy. Credit: ACIP

The meeting included a presentation by FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Director Tracy Beth Høeg showing the discordance between the childhood vaccination schedule in the U.S. and those of other developed nations.

“Why are we so different from other developed nations, and is it ethically and scientifically justified?” Høeg asked. “We owe our children science-based recommendations here in the United States.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X