From Washington: Why the Presidential Race Remains Relatively Tied
37:01 Share

Saturday, October 26th, 2024. I'm Jared Halpern. The presidential election is about to enter its final week with no clear favorite. I mean, if the trajectory kind of continues for Trump over the last decade,

10 days or so before the election. And it looks like he's gaining a little bit of steam now. Maybe he gains more of it over time. Maybe by the time we get to the election, the numbers will more clearly point to him. I guess I don't really feel like we're at that point as of now. - And peace talks are back on in the Middle East for the first time since Israel took out the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah. - Hamas, they're irreconcilable terrorists. And so you wanna drive a wedge between them and the civilian population.

With some sort of a post-conflict reconstruction plan, that's where the U.S. can play a role. This is the Fox News Rundown from Washington. An electorate that seems impossibly and immovably divided. That's the New York Times assessment of the state of the race after it released its final 2024 poll, finding Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump tied nationally at 48% apiece.

It's just the latest in a string of polling data that shows not just a tight race, but a tightening race as we enter the final week before Election Day. Add to that the number of undecided voters is falling by the hour. As of midday Friday, more than 34 million voters already cast early ballots.

That's according to the Florida Election Lab, a project at the University of Florida. Among the states seeing the highest number of early voters, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan. And it's hard to tell if there's a clear advantage for one candidate based on early voting. About 41 percent of early voters are registered Democrats, 35 percent registered Republicans and the rest about 23 percent independents or third party members.

Here's the other caveat. Every poll has a margin of error for a reason. They're not predictive and no substitute for actual voting. So that's where we start this weekend. A look at how close the margins are with Kyle Kondik.

the managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. It may be historically uniquely close in polling. It remains to be seen if the actual results will be that way. You know, it's certainly possible that this could sort of, you know, maybe break one way or the other. And, you know, we have...

We certainly have precedent for close elections recently. You know, the last two presidential elections, really the difference between victory and defeat for the winner was, you know, five figures worth of votes across three states. And for Trump, it was 78,000 votes in 2016 across Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. For Biden, the difference between getting over 270 or not was Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin decided by 43,000 votes across.

So it's, you know, the point is, is that, yes, the polls are close, but we, you know, it's also like we need the results to actually determine that. And the bar for having a close election is pretty high, given what we've seen recently.

One of the stories that I think is fascinating is early voting. There have been, I think, as of now, something like 34 million people have cast votes early. Historically, that would be a huge advantage for Democrats. That seems not to be the case, though, this time around, does it? Sure.

Certainly, it doesn't seem like the early votes so far is as blue as it was in 2020. But you got to remember, 2020 is sort of a difficult comparison because the pandemic was going on. 70% of all the votes cast were cast before Election Day. By 2022, that was down to 50%. So you're probably not going to see as much early voting, particularly mail-in voting, as people sort of move out of the pandemic period.

I hesitate to draw too much from the early vote. I do think that particularly in a state like Nevada where the early vote has proven predictive in the past, John Ralston, an analyst out there, he believes that Republicans are off to a good start. We'll see if that kind of evens out over the course of the next week leading into the weekend before the election. If it doesn't even out, Republicans should probably feel pretty good about that state. But

To me, it's I'm just I don't know how good of an indicator it is, broadly speaking, but I can also sort of understand just in looking at it why Republicans might feel good about it. Is early voting a at least as you look at it, an indication of enthusiasm that this is tell us something about how engaged voters are to to to get this election underway? Yeah.

It's possible. I do think that there's been a real effort on the Republican side to try to get people to vote earlier to sort of bank their votes. And I think that the Republicans have responded to that after there being a lot of skepticism of early voting, particularly mail-in voting. But it's only a part of the electorate right now. And my general thinking is probably that the early vote is going to be

less democratic than it was in 2020. But that election day probably won't be as Republican as it was in 2020. So what does that necessarily tell us? To me, it's still kind of a, it's still kind of a muddle. You know, as for like the polling, it has gotten better for Trump over the last, I don't know, two, three weeks. But it's also not at the point where you'd look at it and say, oh, the numbers point to Trump as being an obvious favorite.

Is there an obvious there's not an obvious favorite then right now, is there? I don't really I don't really think so. You know, maybe I mean, if the trajectory kind of continues for Trump over the last, you know, 10 days or so before the election and he sort of, you know, it looks like he's gaining a little bit of steam now. Maybe he gains more of it over time. Maybe by the time we get to the election, the numbers are more clearly point to him. I guess I don't really feel like we're at that point as of now.

Let me ask about the population of, I don't even know if we call them undecided or uncommitted voters, but I mean, I think for a lot of people that maybe do what you and I do, Kyle, we're like, how could you still be undecided at this point? I mean, who are the undecided or uncommitted voters that need to be reached here in the final week and a half? Well, it's obviously, it's not that big of a group of people. And also one of the decisions that the undecided voters are making is whether they actually vote at all. Right.

So it's not deciding which candidate, it's deciding if they like either candidate enough to show up and actually cast a ballot. Right. And, you know, I think the candidates in terms of their, you know, kind of media choices and their campaigning choices are maybe telling us a little bit of something about who they think is sort of gettable out there. You know, Harris has focused a lot on soft Republicans who maybe don't like Trump, you

Trump has focused, I think, on younger men. He's doing all these podcast interviews. So is J.D. Vance. So I think that, again, the activity of the campaigns, I think also there's been a focus on a little bit of softness among black voters with Democrats. I think that's been a focus, too. So I think the campaigns are kind of telling us who they think is gettable or undecided or whatnot. We'll see how successful these efforts ultimately are.

Have you guys moved to any state in either direction in the last couple of weeks? And do you anticipate at the center for politics moving any state in any direction between now and November 5th? Oh,

So we do still have the seven key states as toss-ups, just sort of loosely. I think Trump does look pretty decent in the Sun Belt, not enough for us to move it at this point. North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona. I know there's been a lot of –

Concern among Democrats about Michigan. To me, Michigan is still fundamentally the bluest of these seven states. Again, it's only by a small degree. And I also think if Harris were to lose Michigan, I just don't see how she'd win the election. I think the same is true for like Trump in, you know, like Georgia and North Carolina, for instance.

You know, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania to me seem, you know, even, you know, the truest of the toss-ups. We do historically, you know, we move everything out of the toss-up column in our own ratings to check back.

centerforpolitics.org backslash crystal ball sometime the Monday before the election. I don't know if we're going to be doing it with all that much confidence this year, but we try to put ourselves out there. So, you know, we'll see what it looks like when we're trying to gather as much information as possible. But again, there aren't really clear signs here. You know, let me also say, though,

that if the polling had been spot on in 2020 and 2016, it also would have felt as close as it is now. You know what I mean? So we were sort of lulled. I mean, the Clinton-Trump race got close at various points, but it seemed like she was sort of

you know, leading to some extent the whole time. Biden was leading pretty clearly the whole time in 2020, and it was closer than the poll suggested. So I'd also just, you know, I just would just make that point. And, you know, polling error, you know, yes, it's the polls haven't picked up on Trump in 2016 and 2020, particularly in the Rust Belt. So if the polls are underestimating him this time, like obviously Trump's going to win. But, um,

But if it's possible, they might be underrating Harris, too. You just don't know from election to election. So as you kind of go through the process here, and like you said, on Monday, you're just going to put it out there, put out your map of what you think it finally looks like.

You're using, I assume, what, polling? But there's other data that you're kind of inputting there. What is that? Yeah, I mean, look, some of it's gut, frankly. I think history is important. This is why I say this about Michigan, because again, if you follow the polling and sort of the narrative about the race, you'd say Michigan was sort of

real trouble spot for Harris. And I think it is a trouble spot for Harris. It's just that, you know, again, I do think it's likelier to be bluer than Pennsylvania and Wisconsin based on history. So sort of the history is part of it. Some of the things we hear from our various sources on either side of the aisle, you know, we may catch wind of

internal polling here and there. Although I don't, you know, it's not necessarily clear that that's going to be better than the public stuff. Although often there's more money spent on it. So it's less kind of fly by night and some of what the public polls are. Um,

You know, I will be looking for clues from early voting, although despite, you know, taking all that information in I don't necessarily know how helpful, it will be. But that is something that we at least trying to try to follow along with. So, you know, there are other things that might come along but but those are some of the things that go into it. There's been, and I know that this was on some of the other

networks and stuff, but this idea that we could have a very close popular vote, but the electoral college may end up looking like a runaway because the likelihood of sort of all seven or maybe five or six of the seven states kind of all going one direction.

Is that common that, that you kind of have a break in one direction, you know, look at 2016 and 2020. Again, we regard both of those as close, at least, at least in terms of the key States and electoral college, but Trump got over 300 electoral votes in 2016 and Biden got over 300 in, in, uh, in 2020, you know, obviously you wouldn't say that that's some sort of landslide, but, um,

you know, of the seven key states we're talking about this year, Trump won six of the seven in 2016 and Biden won six of the seven in 2020. So, you know, my guess is, is that some of the final forecasts, including maybe ours, would maybe be like really close to the Electoral College, you know, part of it being a sort of expressing the fact that there's, you know, it feels really close and this and that, but it may be that the ultimate winner actually does carry, you know,

five or six or seven of the states we're talking about. Is...

The final kind of push here, because you talked a little bit about it, that there is an effort to get maybe lower propensity voters or voters that are still deciding whether or not they're going to engage at all. You have to balance that with still like getting the base out. Right. How do you kind of do that? And is that a concern or that you're pulling sure that the base is mollified? They're out there. They're engaged. Those are the folks that are already casting ballots.

Well, look, I mean, you know, I would think you'd consider, you know, you know, black men to be part of the Democratic base. And yet clearly there's still some sort of focus on that from Democratic campaign efforts, which suggests that part of the part of the base is maybe not not as solid as it is. It used to be, you know, the Trump camp is using this sort of decentralized voter turnout model. Yeah. And, you know, like Elon Musk's group is very involved. Charlie Kirk's group is very involved. I don't know.

I find it difficult to judge some of those efforts. There's been some criticism on the Republican side of how they're handling it. You know, I just, it's sort of a hard thing to really assess as kind of an outsider to it. But it feels maybe a little bit

It's riskier, bold. I don't know how you want to categorize it. And I don't want to prejudge it. I don't want to judge it in advance either. But that is, and there's a real focus on reaching lower propensity voters. It's just some of the demographic groups the Trump campaign is targeting, like younger men. I mean, it's not a particularly high turnout cohort. So there's some potential reward there, but there's also some risk that maybe they're focusing a lot of efforts on people who might be hard to turn out.

Do you expect at the end of the day, a high turnout election here? Or is this going to be kind of a, you know, people are just so exhausted from what we've been through election wise that it is on the lower end?

I think, you know, 2020 was sort of historically high turnout in terms of eligible voters showing up. It might be hard to match 2020, but I'd also say that this Trump era, particularly after he got elected, both in the 18 and 22 midterms and the 2020 general were characterized by higher than average turnout.

You know, 2022 was high, although not as high as 2018. Maybe 2024 is high by historical standards, maybe not quite as high as 2020. But it does seem like voter participation should still be fairly robust. Yeah, I've heard that sort of the saying is Trump is a turnout machine, but it's a turnout machine for both sides pretty equally at this point. Yeah, yeah. He's bringing people out of the woodwork, I think, on both sides.

I'll finish with this. We've obviously talked a lot about this presidential race, but you guys are also looking at the Senate and House races. Much movement there? Has that kind of been static here over the last couple of weeks? I don't know how much movement there's been. You know, I think Republicans have been in pretty good shape to at least get to 51 Senate seats for, you know, really in our rating since early September. That's when we moved Montana from toss up to lean Republican.

I think that you have seen that there's some real growth potential for Republicans. The Ohio Senate race is a toss-up that Republicans may very well end up winning. And then you've got Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, these presidential battlegrounds where the Democrats have basically been leading the whole time, although they've been getting tighter over time.

And, you know, if Republicans can sort of break through and grab one or more of those, that's when they could get to like, you know, more than 52 Senate seats, which is a, you know, bigger size Senate majority that would help them defend the Senate majority in future years. So, um, to me, it's more of a question of like, how big does the Senate majority for the Republicans get as opposed to who actually has the majority? Uh, cause I feel pretty good about the Republicans being able to win it. House is, is, um, is, is a real toss up. Um, you know, uh, uh,

Republicans are sort of confident that as Trump has improved a little bit, maybe they're improving a little bit. But I think, you know, you probably expect the presidential winner to also carry the House, although that's not a 100 percent guarantee. But that one feels very close, just like the presidential does. I noticed in your rundown of the Senate states, you did not mention the likelihood or unlikelihood of a surprise in, say, a Nebraska or a Texas election.

Yeah, you know, those are competitive races. You know, Nebraska in particular, you've got an independent running there, Dan Osborne, sort of in the loop of a Democratic candidate. There's been a lot of, you know, Republican investment there in the last several weeks.

I still think I just have a hard time seeing a Republican losing a Senate race in a presidential year in Nebraska. But it is of interest, you know, the Ted Cruz Colin Allred race in Texas is competitive. But I think Trump is pretty likely to carry Texas again. And I think that's enough for Cruz to be able to hold on. So I, you know, the Republicans didn't have a whole lot of hard defense to play in this election yet.

You know, Nebraska, I think, has been an annoyance to them. And Texas, you know, Colin Allred's a good candidate. There's been a lot of investment there. But ultimately, I think they're still favored in all the seats they currently hold.

All right, Kyle Kondik, a week and a half to go until Election Day. Enjoy it between now and then. Let's have some fun. Yeah, yeah, if possible. All right. Take care, Kyle. Thank you. I'm Guy Benson. Join me weekdays at 3 p.m. Eastern as we break down the biggest stories of the day with some of the biggest newsmakers and guests. Listen live on the Fox News app or get the free podcast at GuyBensonShow.com.

It's back to the negotiating table for U.S., Israeli, Egyptian and Qatari officials trying to reach a deal to end the fighting in Gaza and return hostages still held by Hamas. This weekend's session is the first in months. Talks broke down back in August. But the Biden administration believes the death of Hamas leader Yahya Senwar provides a new opening. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in the Middle East this week. The reason I believe there's opportunity now is because the biggest obstacle

to concluding that agreement was SINWAR. Blinken says SINWAR was hoping not to make peace, but to start a wider war in the region. And all of this, perhaps, will focus Hamas on the imperative of concluding a deal. If it cares about the people of Gaza, then...

It will engage. Daniel Hoffman is a three-time station chief at the CIA with extensive experience in the region. He's also a Fox News contributor. He does not share the same optimism about a ceasefire and hostage deal. I just don't think there's anyone in the region who wants peace at this time. He's a peace leader.

is regrouping. Yes, Israel has decimated the Hamas leadership and taken out thousands of their fighters, but there's still enough of them there. And there are questions about whether Israel can hold the territory. They'll clear the territory that they take, but they don't hold it or build on it. And so they keep having to go back and clean up areas that they've dealt with previously.

But I just don't see Hamas or Israel or Hezbollah interested in, at this time at least, in a ceasefire. They'll talk, but it's hard to be optimistic when it comes to the Middle East, honestly. I think the other natural question is given, and you pointed it out, given that Israel has really decimated the leadership structure of both Hamas and Hezbollah,

Who is there to negotiate with? Is there a clear leader of either of these organizations at the moment who can make decisions on releasing hostages or agreeing to security parameters? Right. I mean, that is a legitimate question. Look, probably the last guy.

standing for Hamas is Khalid Mishal, who was the chairman of their political bureau until 2017. And he's been acting leader of Hamas before, and he's sort of their acting leader right now. So he's generally in Qatar, in Doha. But the other question is, does he have any sway over the fighters, the Hamas fighters, the rank and file? Because

Typically, when you kill their leader, they're less likely to be interested in a ceasefire. There's been this assumption on the part of the Biden administration that removing Yahya Sinwar opens the door to opportunity for a ceasefire, negotiations, a way forward and all those things. Hamas, they're irreconcilable terrorists. And so you want to drive a wedge between them and the civilian population.

with some sort of a post-conflict reconstruction plan, that's where the U.S. can play a role. And jumping ahead to ceasefire negotiations and a way forward, I think that's just, it's, gosh, it's like Don Quixote windmill territory, to be frank about it. It sounds like what you're suggesting is almost going in the opposite order. There needs to be a legitimate plan for what the administration has called the day after before anything else. Yep.

This administration has talked about lessons learned from Iraq. I absolutely agree with that. I spent a lot of my life there serving when I was with the CIA. And that was what we lacked. We decimated Saddam's army. We didn't have a post-conflict reconstruction plan. And what's even worse was that we fired everybody in the Ba'ath Party and

And then – and destroyed the army. There was just no more army left. And so there was – we created the foundation for a Sunni insurgency, unfortunately. So the day after matters, Biden administration has reminded the Israelis of that. That's where they need to focus. Hmm.

Let me ask about, obviously, there's a lot of concern about what could be an escalation between Israel and Iran. Iran obviously firing nearly 200 ballistic missiles towards Israel. Israel has promised a response, a retaliation. They have not yet moved with that. I guess my first question is, one, do you still expect one? And two,

That certainly isn't going to move forward any sort of ceasefire talks with these proxies of Iran, will it? Right. Iran is in a tricky spot because the longer Israel waits, the more it plays havoc with Iran's economy. No one wants to fly in and out of Tehran right now. And this is having a further negative impact on the Iranian economy. So it's like Israel's got them in their sights.

And they'll shoot at a time of their choosing. But until they do, Iran is kind of on edge. And Israel likes it like that. That's not bad. I think that's serving Israel's interests. Do you have an expectation for what that targeting is going to look like, what that response will look like? Well, they've got a lot. They've got essentially four options. They can target Iran's military sites. That's what the Biden administration would prefer. They can look at Iranian leadership.

which would be a little more risky and challenging. They've got Iran's energy infrastructure, their oil, which is another option. And then, of course, you've got the nuclear program. This might not even be the last strike that Israel launches on Iran or the last one that Iran has launched on Israel. We are in...

kind of unchartered territory here where Iran launched those two, one back in April and then the other October 1st, big strikes on Israel. Talking about a nuclear armed power, Israel, withstanding those sorts of strikes. That's, again, kind of new territory. Is this as close as you've ever seen it between a direct conflict between Israel and Iran?

There is direct conflict. That's what Iran's attack in April did. That was unprecedented. That was a failure of deterrence on our part, not just Israel's. So Iran figured they could get away with launching drones and ballistic missiles at Israel back in April, and they did it.

And so Iran, Israel needed to restore escalation dominance and some measure of deterrence. They still haven't done that. You know, again, Iran responded October 1st. And so those two countries, Israel is fighting a multi-front war right now against Iran and Iran's terrorist proxies. And Israel is holding more than holding their own. They're decimating what Iran used to provide Iran some strategic depth, those proxies. But Israel has really taken the fight to their enemy.

And that, I guess, has created uncertainty with Iran. They can't rely on Hezbollah or Hamas or even the Houthis in the way that they had previously wanted to.

Exactly. And some pundits think that that's why Iran would be more likely to break out for a nuclear weapon to give them the deterrence that they no longer enjoy because their proxies have been destroyed. Let me ask about, I don't know if it was a leak or a hack. There hasn't been a lot of clarity, but certainly on some of these Iranian backed telegram accounts, there were images of what appeared to be Israeli warplanes, at least in

in the preparation stage of some sort of operation. It seems like they were satellite, perhaps, images. How concerning is that, given what you kind of know about what was out there? It's definitely concerning. You never want to see a leak.

of sensitive U.S. government information. These are top-secret documents prepared by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency describing U.S. interpretations of Israeli Air Force Navy planning based on our satellite imagery from mid-October. So, you know, in a simple sense, like, we're spying on Israel. Well, okay, but that's still not great that that's out there in the public. And then the second thing is that...

There's limited damage to U.S. national security based on the scope of the documents so far. We don't know if there are other documents out there, but they're top secret documents. But what about Israeli security? Is it a big hit to them?

I don't think it has an incredibly important impact on their planning for the counterstrike against Iran. But it always these things always have a chilling effect on on espionage operations because our human sources say, well, wait a second here. I don't like the way you're protecting your information here. I'm not super excited about giving you my sensitive information because maybe you can't keep it secret.

Would these be capabilities that Iran has to kind of like hack into these systems? Or to you, does this look more like a leak, a mole from the inside? It looks like again, we have to wait for the FBI and Department of Defense to finish their investigation. Remember, these are five eyes documents. So it was shared. These are documents that would have been shared with our five eyes. All right. Not just within the U.S. system. Yep. And the UK. So we can't rule out that it was one of them.

But what it looks to me like is someone who had access to these documents somehow made copies of them and put them out on this Iranian website.

Now that's but again, we have to wait for the forensics. And sometimes these things are like looking for a needle in a stack of needles. It's challenging. Let me ask about one other big story that came out this week. The U.S. confirming that had already kind of been out there by the Ukrainians, that there are now thousands of North Korean soldiers in Russia. They appear to be training alongside Russian soldiers there.

Does that present a major escalation in what's happening in Ukraine if these North Koreans join Russians on the battlefield? Well, it just reflects how close those two countries have become. And, you know, Russia relies on North Korea for artillery.

and now North Korea is sending their troops to fight, that's not for free. They're going to ask for something in return. It might be satellite technology so that North Korea can perfect their ballistic missile capability. It might be intelligence. Russia spies a lot on the United States and our allies. That's kind of their currency.

So whatever they're gaining from their spy operations against us, it's probably going to Kim Jong-un's bunker in Pyongyang. So we got to be concerned about that as well, this heightened level of collaboration and the fact that we can no longer rely on Russia to the extent that we ever could during those six-party talks for help on denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. That's over. Those days are way over. Yeah.

So is a nuclear deal with Iran that Russia, again, was sort of half not really helping much on at all. But even if you hope to gain any assistance whatsoever, that's just never going to happen. So those are additional challenges we face from this new axis of tyranny, as I like to call it, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. The.

NSC, the National Security Council, John Kirby said that this is a sign of desperation from Putin, that he is now relying on foreign fighters because his military has been so badly hit by this operation in Ukraine. I think there are estimates of maybe half a million casualties on the Russian side. Do you view it that way? Is this a sign that Putin is kind of running out of options here, running out of cards to play?

No, I don't see that at all. Sorry, but Putin has suffered, I've heard reportedly 600,000 casualties, a brain drain of over a million Russians who fled. NATO and Finland are now, sorry, Finland and Sweden are now NATO members. And

all of those have been real losses for Vladimir Putin what he has done though is is induced the United States not to give Ukraine what they needed when they needed it and as long as it takes is a foolish strategy for Ukraine which is you know Russia's trying to bleed them out in a war of attrition what I think Putin is trying to do no it's not it's not at all what John Kirby says it's Putin demonstrating to the west and to Ukraine hey look I've got untapped

uh I've got untapped um uh reserves of manpower so I can just go on and on forever and the United States isn't allowing you to strike targets inside Russia so um this isn't going to go well for you Ukraine I think that's what it is more than anything else

Since we are in election season, I know the ODNI declassified a report on kind of election security. I was interested because this talks about foreign threats to the U.S. elections after the voting ends. The IC assesses that sort of our election infrastructure is pretty resilient and they don't think that there are threats there. But what they are concerned about are kind of localized operations to disrupt the counting and voting.

So dissent after the election day kind of going into that transition period, they specifically talk about China, Iran and Russia seeking to influence the populace. I suppose you're not surprised by that.

Well, the American people get a lot of their news from social media. So we all have to be aware of where it's coming from and vet the information that you see before you disseminate it further. And that's true for politicians, too. Don't start spreading fake news. That doesn't do anybody any good. So that's a warning from the intelligence community that nefarious actors, our adversaries, are going to seek to use our own vulnerabilities against us.

And that's it's good to issue that warning. And then if this does happen, we need for the intelligence community to weigh in immediately and say, hey, well, that that post there, that's not accurate and debunk it and then get help from social media, whatever, you know, Facebook, Twitter or X and and have them put.

Put something out there that says, hey, this particular post is disinformation. But we got to be it's a full court press that, you know, we've got to be really, really careful about this. And to your point, that's how it's that's that's the challenge. This stuff can spread just so quickly before even maybe, you know, there is a correction, if you want to call it that kind of out there.

I mean our citizens need to be aware and take some responsibility and not share stuff that's incendiary and not true. Just think about that. That's all good civics for all of us. If you're on social media, then you've got a responsibility to how you behave there. That's what I would say.

It is good advice in this election season. Daniel Hoffman, appreciate the time. As always, the analysis as well. We'll talk soon. Take care. All right. Take care. Have a good day.

Tomorrow on the Fox News Rundown from Washington, control of Congress will come down to just a handful of House contests. Fox News Senior Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram shares the races he's watching. And we continue our spotlight on the top battleground states. Jessica Rosenthal looks at the state of play in Arizona. Until then, thanks for listening. I'm Jared Halpern from Washington. ♪

Stay up to date by subscribing to this podcast at foxnewspodcasts.com. Listen ad-free on Fox News Podcasts Plus on Apple Podcasts. And Prime members can listen to the show ad-free on Amazon Music. And for up-to-the-minute news, go to foxnews.com.

From the Fox News Podcast Network. I'm Ben Domenech, Fox News contributor and editor of the Transom.com daily newsletter. And I'm inviting you to join a conversation every week. It's the Ben Domenech Podcast. Subscribe and listen now by going to FoxNewsPodcast.com.