CNN analyst pours cold water on Democrats' dream of a political takeover in November



Pollsters and prediction markets are prophesying overwhelming Democratic success in the midterm election, which is now seven weeks away. CNN admitted in a recent analysis, however, that those hoping for a blue tidal wave might be left greatly disappointed in November.

Doom and gloom for the GOP

Polymarket presently suggests that Democrats have a 62% chance of taking the U.S. Senate and a 92% chance of taking the House. Kalshi similarly forecasts Democrats taking over the House and Senate.

'It’s going to be close.'

According to the Economist's latest midterm forecast, Democrats have a 93% chance of flipping the House and securing a 238-197 majority, and a 59% chance of taking the Senate.

The latest New York Times/Siena poll shows Democrats enjoying an eight-point edge on the generic ballot.

A recent NBC News poll found that while the Democratic Party is viewed more negatively than both President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, 50% of respondents favored Democratic control of Congress.

RELATED: The cost of living is coming for Congress

The Kansas City Star/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Pollster Nate Silver argued on Sunday that the idea of the Senate as a "toss-up" is "misaligned with the long history of strong opposition performance in midterm elections, especially when the incumbent president is as unpopular as Trump."

Blue disappointment?

In light of recent polling, the average price of gasoline sitting at an estimated $4.44 per gallon, and the sense that the midterm vote serves as a referendum on Trump's policies, hope is mounting on the left that a blue wave will wash away the Republican trifecta in Washington.

That hope may, however, be unfounded.

CNN political analyst Ronald Brownstein suggested just over a week ago that Democrats might not be in a position to exploit the president's waning public approval, Americans' economic woes, and growing political discontent.

In addition to noting that many Democratic candidates are not attracting the numbers of voters who disapproved of Trump in 2018 and 2020, Brownstein wrote that despite disenchantment among some voters on the right, few appear willing to turn coat.

"The share of non-MAGA Republicans who say they are still voting for Republicans this fall is about 20 points higher than the portion who approve of Trump’s performance," Brownstein wrote, citing GOP pollster Micah Roberts' analysis of CNBC survey data.

"There are a lot of people who may think, 'I don’t like Trump but ... I don't agree with the policies of the other party and where they would take us,'" said Roberts.

While Republican voters might not cast votes for Democratic candidates, Brownstein noted that the GOP still faces the possibility that disenchanted Republican voters might decide not to vote at all — a big problem given the enthusiasm among likely Democratic voters.

Voter enthusiasm might threaten Republicans' hold on power; however, the GOP's redistricting efforts have placed breakers before any blue wave.

After all, far fewer House seats are competitive now than were in 2018, and 13 House Democrats must now defend districts where Trump netted at least five points more than his share of the national vote, said Brownstein.

The CNN analyst cast greater doubt on Democrats' senatorial ambitions, noting that "of the Republican-held seats Democrats are most seriously contesting, Maine is the only one in a state that supported Harris; North Carolina is the sole other state on the Senate map where Harris even came close. Trump prevailed by double digits in every other state whose Senate seat Democrats are targeting."

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the GOP — not similarly hard up for cash like the Democrats — also enjoys a financial advantage Brownstein reckons could be wielded to limit Democratic gains.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Richard Hudson told the New York Post earlier this month that instead of a blue or red wave this November, there will be "30 knife fights in 30 dark alleys."

"It’s just a handful of races, but every one of them will be decided by a few thousand votes. It’s going to be close," added Hudson.

The Cook Political Report projects that the GOP and the Democratic Party are set to win 208 and 205 House seats, respectively, and marked 21 seats as toss-ups.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Deep State Agent Cited Wikipedia In Attempt To Launch Another Get-Trump Probe: Docs

While it may seem a little late in the day to worry about these details, the Deep State is just that — deep.

Trump’s Greenland Deal Makes The World More Secure, And Makes The Media Less Relevant Than Ever

Greenland's premier praised the deal for strengthening the security of that territory. "It is to the benefit of us all," he said.

A Christian guide to trolling without sinning



Donald Trump did not invent political trolling, but he may be its most gifted modern practitioner. His opponents still do not understand the tactic, which is why he runs circles around them. To understand trolling, we must see the larger ideological conflict of our time.

For Christians, trolling poses a serious moral question. It can seem cruel: a digital version of poking someone until he explodes, then laughing at the explosion. It also often involves deception. Does that violate the Ninth Commandment? How can deliberate provocation be reconciled with Christ’s command to “love your neighbor”?

When the guardians of tolerance demand that dissenters be silenced, love may even require a well-placed troll.

The answer begins by defining the term carefully.

The internet term “trolling” appears to draw on fishing, not the monster under the bridge. A fisherman drags bait through the water and waits for a fish to bite. A political troll places rhetorical bait before an opponent and waits for an angry, thoughtless response. The Oxford English Dictionary defines trolling as “posting antagonistic or disingenuous messages to provoke a hostile or annoyed response” and more broadly as behavior “intended to provoke or deceive.”

Political trolling is public mockery meant to elicit a response that exposes a contradiction, wastes an opponent’s time, and strips an ideology of undeserved authority. Legitimate trolling therefore presupposes that some public figures and ideologies deserve public mockery.

An effective troll identifies a contradiction in a public figure or ideology, frames it provocatively, and waits. The target becomes flustered and responds thoughtlessly, confirming the original criticism. Rather than merely accusing an opponent of hypocrisy, the troll induces him to demonstrate it before an audience.

This is not the same as insulting strangers for entertainment. Nor is trolling a license to lie, defame, threaten, or mock private suffering. It is more like misdirection in war or sports, used to confuse an opponent and reveal his weaknesses. No one accuses a quarterback of lying when he fakes a handoff, and no one expects a general to warn the enemy about a surprise attack.

Sun Tzu taught that warfare depends on knowing both your enemy and yourself. Schopenhauer cataloged the rhetorical tricks people use to appear right. The troll draws on both insights, arranging the contest so the opponent reveals his weaknesses to the public and loses respect.

RELATED: Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image

Gremlin/Getty Images

Christians recognize the distinction between just and unjust wars. Not every use of force is murder, and refusing to defend the innocent is not an act of love.

Rhetorical warfare is also real. Words can deceive, intimidate, indoctrinate, and destroy reputations. Institutions use language to disguise coercion as compassion and discrimination as inclusion.

Not every Christian is called to fight a kinetic war, and not every Christian is called to fight a rhetorical one. Some lack the temperament, position, or skill for public confrontation. That is no disgrace. A soldier without discipline endangers his own side, and so does a would-be internet warrior with a social media account and three cups of coffee.

But Christians cannot pretend that no conflict exists. Christian and anti-Christian visions of God, humanity, sexuality, justice, freedom, and authority compete for control of our institutions. They cannot both prevail. The question is not whether society will be governed by a moral vision, but which moral vision will govern it.

The Bible does not condemn every use of ridicule. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, suggesting that their god might be occupied or asleep. Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees “whitewashed tombs.” Public teachers promoting public falsehoods were exposed so their teaching and authority would lose the audience’s respect.

We can identify a pattern for legitimate trolling. Its proper target is a public figure advancing a destructive ideology. Its method is ridicule aimed at hypocrisy. Its immediate purpose is to provoke a revealing response. Its true audience is not the target but the people watching. The goal is to protect the vulnerable from harmful ideologies that lead souls to perdition.

RELATED: Did Lindsay Clancy lose her mind — or her free will?

David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

Publicly exposing the absurdities of ideologies such as critical theory or LGBTQ activism gives those who might be led astray an opportunity to reconsider. Stripping an ideology of its unearned authority can turn the audience toward truth and away from leaders and systems that lead to destruction.

I am not recommending that everyone take up trolling. But we should not treat an ideological war as less consequential than a sporting contest, where teams talk smack and use fake plays and misdirection to win.

When opponents of Christianity seek to censor biblical teaching and replace it with Marxist dialectics and LGBTQ sexual ethics, exposing their public leaders to laughter and ridicule is part of the conflict. Their panicked responses can display their folly. The purpose is to protect the vulnerable and persuade those who recognize the emptiness of the anti-Christian position.

Love of neighbor does not require helping a hypocrite preserve his disguise. Sometimes love requires argument, and argument requires confrontation. Trolling can protect your neighbor from wolves in sheep’s clothing. When the guardians of tolerance demand that dissenters be silenced, love may even require a well-placed troll — and the patience to let your opponent prove your point.

Tommy Robinson warns Nick Freitas that an Islamic invasion is taking over the West



Activist, journalist, and Unite the Kingdom rally organizer Tommy Robinson chatted with Nick Freitas to warn about the dangers of the Islamic invasion of the West. As the Muslim population pushes out Christian communities, there’s plenty to worry about in the United States and abroad, Robinson believes, but hope lingers on the horizon.

Robinson was born in 1982 in Luton, a small but dense borough in Bedfordshire, England. At the time, Robinson recalled on an episode of "Making the Argument with Nick Freitas" that aired on Friday, only one mosque stood tall in town — a stark contrast to the 45 mosques now in the 17-square-mile region today.

’Muhammad was a war leader. He was a barbarian. He was a rapist. He murdered, beheaded 600 people in one day.’

It’s not just the religious layout of the town that’s changed, though, Robinson claims. It’s the culture.

“White English are now a minority in Luton,” Robinson declared, and he might be right.

Luton census data from 2021 shows that at the time, the white population still held the majority position at 45.2%, with “Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh” coming in second at 37%. However, the data makes no distinction between white English citizens and white non-English citizens.

Even more alarming, census numbers from 2021 and 2011 show a clear trend of the white population decreasing in Luton while all other ethnic categories have made mild to significant gains. Even if the white population isn’t the minority on paper yet, it is clearly on the decline.

Office for National Statistics – 2011 Census and Census 2021/ons.gov.uk

Diversity isn’t necessarily the main problem, Robinson explained to Freitas. After all, he is the son of an Irish newcomer and had school friends from as far away as Italy and Bulgaria.

Instead, he is more concerned about the proliferation of Islam and the Muslim culture over Christianity in his hometown and the Western world at large.

“There's never been racial tensions in Luton,” Robinson professed. “There's been religious tensions” with no assimilation.

He went on to highlight an important distinction between the Muslim population and everyone else: “Go into the [Luton] town center and find me any Muslim that's with a non-Muslim as a friend. You won't find one.”

According to Robinson, Muslims don’t mingle with non-Muslims in town. Instead, they push other groups out of their communities as they grow from within.

The census data highlights this, as well. In 2021, Christianity fell by 9.5% while the Muslim population grew by 8.3%.

Office for National Statistics – 2011 Census and Census 2021/ons.gov.uk

Robinson views Islam as a primary threat, not just to Luton but to the United States, as well.

“[Islam is] not just another religion. Muhammad wasn't just another leader. Muhammad was a war leader. He was a barbarian. He was a rapist. He murdered, beheaded 600 people in one day. He's a very different man. He should not be compared in any sort of way to Jesus Christ.”

In both the U.K. and the United States, the “racist” label, in particular, has become a popular weapon for the left in cases involving Muslims.

“Fear is paralyzing,” Robinson admitted. “And the fear of being branded a racist — these words become so powerful that they paralyze an entire nation of men. The toughest men in the world were scared.”

Britain Is Gone, and America Is Next w/ Tommy Robinson

Today, the West is under attack, Robinson insists. The Islamist threat is already inside the walls of the U.K. in hubs like Luton, and once those are conquered, the United States is next. And if anyone pushes back?

“They'll go mad,” Robinson issued an ominous warning. “They'll burn the place. Violence is coming ... whether we like it or not.” Luckily, he believes that hope is on the horizon, at least for America.

“If I was Americans, I'd be optimistic, because you've got Trump. When you voted for Trump, it wasn't a vote to save America. It was a vote to save Western civilization. You give us hope.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump Bans ‘Fake News’ CNN, MS NOW, Politico From White House

Each outlet is infamous for coverage that skews radically to the left.

Trump BANS 'FAKE NEWS' outlets from White House — and warns more bans are coming



The president has announced that he banned three news outlets from the White House after accusing them of peddling fake news.

President Donald Trump issued the proclamation Friday on Truth Social against CNN, MS Now, and Politico.

'Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States.'

"I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW ... and Politico ... from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" he wrote.

He mocked MS NOW for rebranding from MSNBC over a lack of credibility and viewership and referred to canceled subscriptions from the federal government for Politico.

"Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America," he added. "Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow."

The president had previously banned the Associated Press from the White House after the organization refused his order to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. That ban is being challenged in the courts.

RELATED: Appeals court reinstates Trump ban on Associated Press from White House

The president mocked the AP in comments with other reporters.

"We’re going to keep them out until such time that they agree that it’s the Gulf of America," the president said to reporters in February 2025.

"I do think that some of the phrases they want to use are ridiculous, and I think, frankly, they’ve become obsolete."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Carney wants to make Canada the EU's first 'associate member.'  But what exactly does that mean?



Canada isn't joining the European Union. But Prime Minister Mark Carney has embraced an unprecedented proposal to make Canada the EU's first “associate member” — and exactly what that means has yet to be decided.

The proposal could draw Canada much more deeply into Europe's economic and strategic orbit, with closer cooperation on defense, energy, critical minerals, artificial intelligence, digital trade, and even opportunities for Canadians and Europeans to live and work across the Atlantic.

While that's not an explicit call to adapt European migration policy, it seems fair to ask: How far does Carney ultimately intend that mobility to extend?

And it comes as Canada's relationship with its overwhelmingly largest trading partner, the United States, remains strained.

Vague 'ambition'

In a speech Thursday to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, Carney publicly welcomed a proposal unveiled a day earlier by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

“Yesterday, President von der Leyen spoke of moving beyond CETA to an alliance for the future — opening the door to Canada becoming the European Union's first associate member,” Carney said. “Canada welcomes this ambition.”

But “associate member” does not currently describe an established category of EU membership that Canada can simply enter. Carney acknowledged that the two sides would have to determine what the new relationship actually entails.

“An alliance for the future is a unique, positive approach that we will define together, building on our common strengths and based on our shared values,” he said.

That ambiguity raises an obvious question: What exactly would Canada be signing up for?

If “associate membership” ultimately means adopting elements of the EU's regulatory regime without receiving the voting rights of a member state, Canada could conceivably wind up with some of the obligations of membership but little say in writing the rules.

Migrants welcome?

Immigration is another unanswered question. Carney explicitly called for deeper “people-to-people ties,” including allowing young people “to live, work, and study where they want on either side of the Atlantic.”

While that's not an explicit call to adapt the EU's freedom-of-movement rules or to accept European migration policy, it seems fair to ask: How far does Carney ultimately intend that mobility to extend?

The same questions apply to regulation. Would closer integration require Canada to conform to more EU rules on technology, trade, climate, or other areas? Would Canada contribute financially to European programs? Would Ottawa have any formal role in making rules it agreed to follow?

None of those questions has an answer yet. That's precisely the problem with celebrating “associate membership” before anyone has defined what it means.

RELATED: MEME-FODDER MARK: Carney blew up the trade deal. Now Canada is the punch line.

Andrej Ivanov/Washington Post/Getty Images

Jumping the gun

Carney nevertheless offered a sweeping description of the relationship he wants.

“Canada and Europe should secure our strategic autonomy through deep cooperation in the full range of strategic capabilities, including critical minerals, defense industrial capacity, AI and compute, energy security, space, and payments,” he said.

“We should move towards seamless digital trade in non-agricultural goods and a wide range of services."

The proposal would build on an economic relationship that already includes the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, as well as Canada's participation as the first non-European country in the EU's Security Action for Europe defense initiative.

But there is an enormous economic reality hanging over Carney's European ambitions: The United States remains by far Canada's largest export market.

Europe may offer Canada opportunities to diversify. Geography and decades of economic integration, however, aren't easily wished away.

Tempting tariffs

President Donald Trump has already warned that he could respond with tariffs if he concludes Canada's closer relationship with the EU is directed against the United States.

When asked about possible Canadian associate membership Wednesday, Trump responded, “If I think it's at all a hostile act, I will put very serious tariffs” on Canada.

Carney did not name Trump in the passages of his European Parliament speech dealing with Canada's desire for greater economic independence. But he repeatedly argued that the changing international order requires Canada and Europe to become less vulnerable to pressure from more powerful countries.

“The objective is not self-sufficiency. It is collective resilience,” Carney said.

He argued that Europe offers Canada “market power,” research, advanced manufacturing, and a growing defense industry, while Canada offers Europe energy, critical minerals, and expertise in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, space, and finance.

“Where our strengths differ, they complement,” Carney said. “Where they overlap, they create scale.”

Crucial omission

Carney also invoked Canada's historic ties with Europe and described the two as natural partners in defending democracy and the rule of law.

“We are not fair-weather allies. We do not pursue zero-sum deals,” he said. “Our commitment to the rule of law, and our unyielding defense of human dignity, individual freedom, and democracy share the same deep roots.”

At one point, Carney credited European resistance movements and European institutions with preserving the continent's freedom.

“Freedom was won thanks to the heroism of the European resistance during the war,” he said.

That account conspicuously omitted the enormous American contribution to the liberation of Western Europe — not to mention that of Canada itself, Britain, and the other Allies — as well as the postwar American role in European security through NATO and the Marshall Plan.

Carney ultimately framed the proposed partnership as a means of insulating Canada and Europe from coercion by larger powers.

“Canada and Europe are each strong. Europe and Canada are stronger together,” he said.

The goal, he continued, is to ensure that “no one can control our open markets, impair our sovereignty, threaten our territorial integrity, or undermine our freedoms, our democracies, our rule of law.”

Carney sees Europe as Canada's path toward greater “strategic autonomy.” His critics may wonder whether Canada is reducing its dependence on one enormous neighbor only by binding itself more closely to a distant political and regulatory bloc.

And until Carney and the EU define what “associate membership” actually means, Canadians won't know what obligations come with the invitation — or what their country would be getting in return.

The Kennedy Center Is A Shrine To The D.C. Decadence. Tear It Down

In the nearly 15 years I lived in Washington, D.C., I probably visited the Kennedy Center just a handful of times, but what’s more important to know about the center isn’t the building or who performs there. It’s the center’s location in the city and the people there who claim it as a status symbol. […]