AmericaFest is Turning Point USA’s flagship annual convention, and this December it returns for its sixth edition. Charlie Kirk launched it in 2021 as a place for patriots to gather and be encouraged and equipped through political speeches, activism training, music, and networking under one roof. Held at the Phoenix Convention Center, AmFest has grown into one of the largest and most influential gatherings on the political right.

Last December was the first AmFest held without its beloved founder, a weekend set aside to honor Charlie Kirk’s legacy and carry on the mission he started. His widow and TPUSA’s new CEO, Erika Kirk, has kept the event pointed at what her late husband cherished most: faith, freedom, and love of country. This year’s theme, “Restore the Culture,” carries that same charge.

Last year’s convention drew a massive crowd of 30,000 people, and this year promises to be another knockout. Vice President JD Vance closed that first AmFest without Charlie by asking the crowd: “If you miss Charlie Kirk, do you promise to fight [for] what he died for?” He returns this December as a headliner, alongside Erika Kirk, Donald Trump Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and many of the biggest names in the conservative world.

BlazeTV hosts Nick Freitas and John Doyle will be on the stage as well, bringing the same straight talk their audiences already know them for.

Nick Freitas is a Green Beret combat veteran and former Virginia delegate who built his platform on clear, unapologetic arguments for faith, family, and liberty. On BlazeTV’s “Making the Argument,” he takes on today’s biggest fights surrounding culture, policy, and the ideas underneath them and walks his audience through why they matter and how to combat them.

John Doyle hosts “The John Doyle Show,” a BlazeTV program designed to cut through the noise and speak the truth about where the country actually stands. Younger and blunter than a lot of the names on the AmFest program, he has made his name pushing back on sanitized history, soft official narratives, and leaders who talk about restoring America without meaning it.

AmericaFest 2026 runs December 17-20. The weekend is built to carry forward what Charlie started, keep the mission he set in motion, and mark the country he spent his life defending. Tune in to join the fight and catch Nick Freitas and John Doyle live from the AmericaFest stage.

​Politics, Blaze news 

Democrat Abdul El-Sayed may have given Jewish voters even more pause about him during the Michigan senatorial debate Thursday night.

El-Sayed has struggled on the campaign trail lately. Black and Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democrat have expressed skepticism about El-Sayed, prompting former President Barack Obama to pledge to stump for him in Detroit.

‘If they were undecided going into this debate, I think Jewish Democrats in Michigan just decided who they will vote for.’

The debate against Republican Mike Rogers on Thursday night likely did El-Sayed no favors with Michigan Jews.

For one thing, El-Sayed, who is Muslim, refused to say whether Israel or Iran poses a bigger threat to the United States. He attempted to pivot away from the question, calling it “a ridiculous hypothetical.”

“Our ostensible ally in Israel has lobbied us to go to war with Iran. We have watched as Iran has responded by bombing all kinds of countries in the Middle East and then choking off the world’s energy supply. So this is a situation in which I don’t think we should be a part. I don’t want to be pushed into war by Israel, and I don’t want to be in a war with Iran. I want our money spent here to buy schools and health care and child care here. I don’t understand why that is so inconceivable,” he explained.

Moderator Rick Albin pressed him one more time to choose between Israel and Iran, but El-Sayed once again called it “a ridiculous hypothetical.”

Midway through the debate, Michael LaRosa, former spokesperson for Jill Biden and special assistant to President Joe Biden, wrote on X, “If they were undecided going into this debate, I think Jewish Democrats in Michigan just decided who they will vote for.”

RELATED: ‘The panic is palpable’: El-Sayed facing opposition from key Michigan Democrat groups weeks before election

Throughout the debate, Rogers used his time to remind listeners about El-Sayed’s troubling ties to Islamic terrorist groups.

For instance, though she was never charged with any crime, El-Sayed’s birth mother long worked for a group that was later designated a specially designated global terrorist organization and that may also have helped fund al-Qaeda.

After Rogers brought up the terrorism issue and then mentioned his own mother, El-Sayed seemed to anticipate where Rogers was headed and immediately interrupted: “You goin’ after my mom?”

Rogers also accused El-Sayed of failing to condemn the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as the Hezbollah-inspired attack on Jewish schoolchildren in Michigan back in March. Rogers further claimed that El-Sayed has accepted money from groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

“I did condemn it, and you know it. Come on, my guy, like, don’t make stuff up,” the 41-year-old shot back.

Rogers continued: “He can’t condemn Hamas. He can’t condemn the Muslim Brotherhood. He says his home is Egypt. This is all starting to make sense.”

In mentioning Egypt, Rogers was likely referring to a recently resurfaced video in which El-Sayed states that he carries “dual citizenship” and spent summers in a foreign country. The country was elsewhere identified as Egypt.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, El-Sayed’s campaign said that he “is not a dual citizen by any verifiable metric and never has been,” but that his grandfather had previously “pursued Egyptian citizenship on his behalf, for which he was eligible due to his parents being born in Egypt.”

El-Sayed did respond to the attacks from Rogers, but usually by interrupting Rogers. When allotted response time, El-Sayed often looked into the camera and portrayed himself as the only candidate interested in “you,” the people.

“He wanted to make this about him or me, but the question is about you. Can you afford your gas? Can you afford your groceries?” he said at one point.

After the debate ended, a reporter asked El-Sayed why he did not defend himself against the terrorism-related accusations. He replied by insinuating that the accusations were racist or Islamophobic: “I don’t dignify those kinds of claims because, at the end of the day, again, this is about trying to point to somebody whose name is different to make all kinds of hearsay accusations that are just not worth the dignity of a response.”

The Michigan GOP claimed Thursday night that Rogers had “dominate[d] the debate stage,” while senior Michigan GOP communications adviser Greg Manz added: “Conman Abdul cares more about Palestine than Michigan, which should concern every Michigander, given that the same radical Islamists who fund him also fund the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The El-Sayed campaign did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

For now, El-Sayed maintains a slight lead over Rogers, according to Blaze News’ Poll Watch. For the latest Michigan Senate seat updates — and to follow other important midterm races across the nation — check out Poll Watch, available to Blaze News, BlazeTV+, and Blaze Unlimited subscribers.

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

​Abdul el-sayed, Israel, Mike rogers, Muslim brotherhood, Michigan, Politics 

The Jan. 6 Select Committee’s star witness who milked her time in the limelight for a book deal may soon be visited by consequence for casting shade on President Donald Trump with seemingly tall tales.

Cassidy Hutchinson, the former assistant to previous Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, was reportedly referred by House Republicans earlier this year to the Justice Department for criminal charges.

‘On information and belief, the Justice Department assigned its Civil Rights division to investigate Ms. Hutchinson for potential prosecution and has convened a grand jury.’

Sources told Punchbowl News’ Laura Weiss this week that the DOJ is now pursuing a federal criminal indictment against Hutchinson.

Hutchinson, whom the president apparently suspected of being “a total phony and ‘leaker,'” was accused in a December 2024 congressional report of committing “perjury when she lied under oath to the Select Committee” and of “secretly communicating” with the former vice chair of the J6 committee, ex-Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.), with regard to her testimony.

In 2022, Meadows’ former staffer sat for six transcribed interviews and one publicized hearing with the J6 committee. Hutchinson evidently provided the committee with something in her fourth closed-door interview that they wanted to put on full blast.

RELATED: DOJ report details Biden admin’s apparent conspiracy against parents who dared to defend their kids

Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post/Getty Images

Just days later, Hutchinson was put on the stand to tell the sensational tale of how Trump got into a scuffle with a Secret Service agent and attempted to wrest control of the presidential limousine after his Jan. 6, 2021, speech at the Ellipse.

She did not witness the alleged incident firsthand but claimed to have heard about it from Tony Ornato, Trump’s former White House deputy chief of staff — a claim Ornato has denied.

Not only did the J6 committee entertain what even former special counsel Jack Smith regarded as “secondhand hearsay.” They had Hutchinson testify without bothering to first interview other witnesses who may have provided contradictory testimony, including the two Secret Service agents featured in her story who weren’t interviewed until months later, according to a March 2024 report from the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight.

The March 2024 report noted that the testimony of four White House employees that was redacted and suppressed “directly contradicts claims made by Cassidy Hutchinson and by the Select Committee in the Final Report.”

The December 2024 congressional report, prepared at the direction of Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), asserted that “Hutchinson’s willingness to testify under oath to these demonstrably false claims proves her unreliability as a witness.”

The Trump administration has not forgotten about Hutchinson.

Hutchinson’s attorneys noted in an August court filing, “Prosecution (and further persecution) for her past testimony is not merely speculative. It is a present looming threat. On information and belief, the Justice Department assigned its Civil Rights division to investigate Ms. Hutchinson for potential prosecution and has convened a grand jury targeting Ms. Hutchinson for criminal indictment.”

A federal grand jury was empaneled earlier this week to hear evidence about Hutchinson’s testimony to Congress, sources familiar with the DOJ’s probe told the New York Post.

The White House referred Blaze News to the DOJ for comment. Neither the DOJ nor Hutchinson’s legal representatives immediately responded to Blaze News’ requests for comment.

News of movement on a potential criminal indictment comes weeks after a federal judge dismissed the defamation lawsuit brought by former Hutchinson lawyer Stefan Passantino against a law professor who accused him of coaching Hutchinson “to lie” during her depositions before the J6 committee.

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

​Cassidy hutchinson, Donald trump, House republicans, J6, January 6, Justice department, Liz cheney, Mark meadows, Politics 

Many people supported gay marriage in good faith, based on promises its advocates made. Here are three assurances that are no longer so sure.

LGBT people need marriage.Legalizing gay marriage will make LGBT people feel better.The kids will be all right.

The children of cohabiting same-sex couples seem to fare better than the children of legally married same-sex couples.

Failed promise #1: LGBT people need marriage.

There has been no dramatic “rush to the altar” among same-sex couples. Recent Gallup data show that only 8% of Americans who identify as LGBTQ are married to a same-sex spouse, while 6.4% are living with a same-sex partner. By comparison, 11% of those who identify as LGBTQ are married to an opposite-sex spouse and another 11% are living with an opposite-sex partner.

These figures suggest that much of the increase in marriages among LGBTQ-identified individuals has been driven by bisexual or nonbinary people in opposite-sex relationships. Presumably, many of these individuals could have married the person of their choice, even under pre-Obergefell law.

Also please notice heterosexual people are marrying in much larger percentages than self-identified sexual minorities. Even after years of legally permitted same-sex marriage, same-sex-attracted persons are not drawn to married life “just like everyone else.” Redefining marriage did not radically transform the relationship behavior among same-sex-attracted individuals.

Failed promise #2: LGBT people will feel better if we redefine marriage.

The reality: The mental health numbers for sexual minorities have not improved. In fact, there is some evidence that their mental health has declined. Researchers have long observed that sexual minorities report higher rates of psychological distress than exclusively heterosexual populations. What remains contested is the explanation for those differences.

We were told that stigma and discrimination were driving elevated rates of depression, anxiety, and other mental-health challenges. Reduce the stigma, and the disparities would narrow. Yet after extraordinary gains in legal recognition and cultural acceptance, including gay marriage in the U.S., the worldwide evidence is difficult to reconcile with the so-called minority stress theory.

A study using data from UCLA’s Williams Institute compared different generations of sexual minorities, ranging from those shaped by the Stonewall era to those who came of age during the push for “marriage equality.” The expectation was that younger cohorts, who experienced significantly greater social acceptance, would demonstrate substantially better mental health outcomes.

But the study found that the “equality generation” experienced higher rates of psychological distress and suicidal tendencies.

The researchers acknowledged, and I quote, “Our findings are clearly inconsistent with the (minority stress) hypothesis” that declining social stigma would produce corresponding declines in mental health problems.

A 2025 systematic review of 123 studies from 31 countries reached a similar conclusion. The review found substantially higher rates of depression, anxiety disorders, and bipolar disorders among LGBTQI+ individuals than among the general population. Nor were the disparities small: The rates of distress among LGBTQ individuals were between eight and 11 times greater than the general population.

In fact, the combined studies found that 35.3% of LGBTQI+ individuals reported depressive disorders, compared with 3.8% of the general population, or nine times greater.

None of this proves that discrimination plays no role in mental health outcomes. But surely, if “minority stress” or discrimination were the primary explanation for the high rates of psychological distress, we would have seen some positive movement in these numbers. That is exactly what we do not see.

Failed promise #3: The kids will be all right.

The reality: High-quality recent evidence shows that children of married same-sex partners are not “all right.”

This topic is so important that it deserves its own article. For now, let me give you evidence that casts doubt on the very strong assurances the sexual revolutionaries gave us.

A 2017 study showed that by the fifth year of elementary school, young children in same-sex parent families had significantly lower emotional well-being on three different standardized measures.

The measures include:

interpersonal skills,externalizing well-being (which includes things like aggression and acting out), andinternalizing well-being, which includes things like anxiety and depression.

Compared with children living with their married biological parents, the children in alternative living arrangements have higher levels of psychological problems. The children of same-sex parents, shown on the far right-hand side of the chart, have as great or even greater problems than other children, even children in alternative family forms.

The authors attribute those difficulties to higher instability, meaning that same-sex couples have more changes in relationships and living arrangements.

The ‘hold constant’ fallacy

But this shouldn’t make us feel any better about these findings. More instability in the parents’ relationship is not a factor that we can legitimately “hold constant” or “factor out,” as if it were a completely independent factor. The well-documented increased instability in same-sex parents’ relationship means the kids experience more divorces, breakups, re-partnering, changing living arrangements, and so on. This instability is part of the package of having same-sex parents.

This reminds me of researchers back in the day trying to say that single parenthood isn’t so bad, if you “hold constant” their income. But having a reduced income is part of the experience of having unmarried parents. This attempt to explain away an unwelcome finding in no more valid when applied to same-sex parents today than it was when applied to unmarried parents back in the 1990s.

Another study examined a wide range of family structures, including married biological parents, single parents, cohabiting couples, stepparent families, legally married same-sex couples, and same-sex cohabiting parents.

This study found that children with same-sex cohabiting parents were 3.3 times more likely than those with intact married biological parents to suffer serious emotional problems. Children with same-sex married parents were 5.4 times more likely to have serious emotional problems when compared with biological parents married to each other.

These empirical results directly contradict the assurances we were given prior to the Obergefell ruling. With man/woman parents, marriage supported better emotional outcomes for children than with any arrangement of unmarried man-woman parents. But with same-sex parents, the opposite was true. The children of cohabiting same-sex couples seem to fare better than the children of legally married same-sex couples.

And yes, these estimates were adjusted to eliminate the effect of demographic factors, such as the child’s race, sex, and age. We don’t really know what exactly accounts for these findings. But we can conclude this: The idea that “the kids will be fine” is no longer a slam-dunk, end-of-discussion statement.

Full disclosure: The author of this 2021 paper is my colleague, Fr. Paul Sullins, Ph.D. a retired professor of sociology. If you are going to dismiss him because his clerical collar indicates a conflict of interest, you should probably also dismiss the findings of self-described gay or lesbian scholars. They certainly have an interest in some research outcomes rather than others.

RELATED: Hello Fresh’s unappetizing ‘Pride’ ad exposes the sordid truth about gay ‘marriage’

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Genderless marriage

In any case, I have shown enough to cast serious doubt of the assurances that advocates of genderless marriage gave us. Make no mistake, “genderless marriage” is a better description than “gay marriage.” The court removed the dual gender requirement for marriage. That was a tacit assertion that the sex of the body is irrelevant for marriage and by extension, irrelevant to parenthood.

We were told that gay people needed to get married. Evidently, not too many of them got that memo.

We were told that gay people would feel better. Evidently, and sadly, that is not the case.

Finally, we were told that the kids would be fine. The evidence I’ve presented shows that this is not self-evidently true.

People are making life-altering decisions based on the assurances of activists. The decision to have a child is not a decision that can easily be walked back if you figure out you had bad information.

It’s time to reopen these important conversations.

​Gay marriage, Obergefell v. hodges, Lgbtq, Lifestyle, Culture, Family, Law, Supreme court, Traditional marriage, Children, Countering ‘pride’ 

The only person who could defeat a hurricane, Coach Mike Ditka, has sadly passed on.

Ditka was described by his family on Friday as their “heart,” in words that will strike a chord with football families across the country.

‘He was always there.’

Ditka passed away at 86 years old, with the news coming from Jarrett Payton — son of Chicago Bears legend Walter Payton — who delivered the tragic news on Chicago radio this morning.

Walter Payton was the star running back on the 1985 Chicago Bears team that won Super Bowl XX with Ditka as the head coach.

“It is with profound sadness that we announce the passing of our beloved husband, father, grandfather, and friend, Mike Ditka,” a statement from the family said, per Payton.

“While the world knew Mike as a Hall of Fame football player, legendary coach, and leader of the Chicago Bears’ Super Bowl XX championship team, we knew him as the heart of our family. Mike will be missed beyond measure and remembered forever,” the statement continued.

The family’s words concluded with “love and gratitude, The Ditka Family.”

RELATED: Why Chicago loves da pope

While on 104.3 The Score in Chicago on Friday, Payton gave his thoughts on his father’s coach.

“It saddens me to give this information to the city of Chicago,” he painfully explained. “Everybody knows how much Coach means to me and to my family and to the city, to the Chicago Bears. He has been nothing but an amazing person for my entire family, but also somebody that always made sure that I was OK.”

“He was always there,” Payton emotionally added.

Ditka became a cultural mainstay in the city of Chicago following the Bears’ domination in the 1980s, which turned into international stardom after the Super Bowl win attracted many fans and celebrities to the team.

Actor Bill Murray was often seen with the Bears at the height of his career, while the “Saturday Night Live” sketch called “Bill Swerski’s Superfans” told iconic fictional stories about “Hurricane Ditka” and how the Bears could win a NASCAR race if Ditka was driving their bus.

RELATED: Fans accuse Chicago Bears player of performing Muslim prayer during national anthem: ‘Is this respectful?’

Super Bowl XX. 1985. Ed Wagner Jr./Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

“Da Bears” is in the common North American vernacular because of Ditka’s team, a team he also played on for six seasons in the 1960s.

Ditka spent 10 years coaching in Chicago before rounding out his career as head coach of the New Orleans Saints from 1997 to 1999.

He won Super Bowl VI and went to five Pro Bowls as a player and was named to the NFL 100th and 75th anniversary All-Time Teams. He was two-time AP NFL Coach of the Year as well.

His cause of death is unknown at the time of this writing.

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

​Nfl, Football, Chicago bears, Mike ditka, Walter payton, Sports 

In September 2024, prominent Reformed preacher Steven J. Lawson was removed from Trinity Bible Church of Dallas and from roles within several different ministries after it was revealed that he had an inappropriate extramarital relationship with a woman in her 20s.

While the exact nature of the relationship was never fully explicated, the scandal was enough to “rock the Reformed world,” says BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey, who covered the incident when it first happened.

For a while, Lawson stayed out of the public eye, but he’s recently re-entered with a new book. “Mercy in the Wilderness: How I Fell & What I Found,” which dropped quietly in September, recounts the hidden sin and adulterous relationship that collapsed his ministry in 2024 and frames the aftermath as a story of repentance and God’s mercy rather than a detailed account of what happened.

Several prominent pastors and elders have criticized the book, arguing that Lawson has no business profiting from a book made possible by the sin that disqualified him from pastorship.

“I agree with some of these critics. It’s just too soon,” says Allie, noting that she wants Lawson “to be focused on the things of the Lord, the things of the local church, and the things of [his] marriage.”

But it’s also some of the contents in the book that bother her.

While Allie gives Lawson credit for seeming “genuinely repentant” for the sinful relationship, she criticizes the part of the book where he apologizes for “[emphasizing] God’s holiness much more than his mercy” in his past sermons.

In the book, Lawson judges himself for being a “prophet of doom” instead of “a pastor of grace,” but Allie never thought he did anything but preach “straightforward” about biblical truth.

“There is something about this that strikes me as odd. Like, who are you speaking to? Like, who are you trying to garner the sympathies of?” she asks.

Speculating that Lawson is perhaps triggered by the idea of harsh preaching because he “didn’t like that harshness” when it was his own sin being exposed, Allie says, “I don’t know if the audit on his past sermons is coming from a genuine place or if it’s even correct.”

She also believes he tempered his admission of pride by “listing his credentials.”

“To me it comes across like, ‘Look, I was also producing so much; I was doing so much and giving so much to the world,”’ says Allie, calling Lawson’s list of accomplishments “a little gratuitous.”

She also disliked Lawson comparing his downfall to that of King David’s with Bathsheba.

“That seems to me like something that you allow someone else to do and maybe not something that you do yourself because it does seem to elevate you to this special chosen appointed position like David that might not actually be applicable to you,” she says.

But Allie’s biggest issue with Lawson’s book is that he “doesn’t address those that he has hurt.”

“Now, he does talk about his wife, and he does admit the problems that he had in their marriage and take responsibility there, but other than that, he doesn’t really have a specific address to those that he harmed,” she says.

“If you’re going to come out of silence after letting down a lot of people, those people seem to be like the primary audience that you’re talking to, right? Like, not just not the people who need to be reminded that they, like David, can commit adultery and then be used by God.”

To hear more of Allie’s critical breakdown of Lawson’s book, watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Allie beth stuckey, Repentance, Evangelical christianity, Blazetv show 

Philadelphia police said a suspect punched a victim in the face/neck, knocking the victim to the ground, as the pair passed each other in the intersection of 10th & Reed Streets around 8:30 a.m. Sunday.

Police said “the suspect laughed and continued to walk northbound on 10th Street” after the punch was thrown.

‘What a piece of s**t.’

Police did not say if the victim suffered any injuries, WTXF-TV reported, adding that the physical attack appeared to be unprovoked.

Surveillance video of the attack appears to show the victim’s head turned away from the suspect as the punch is thrown.

Police said if you see this suspect, do not approach, but instead contact 911 immediately. Police said to submit a tip via telephone, dial 215.686.TIPS (8477); in addition, tipsters can use this electronic form to submit a tip anonymously. Police said all tips will be confidential.

Police added that those with any information about this crime or this suspect also can contact the South Detective Division at 215-686-3013/3014.

RELATED: Thug shoves 83-year-old man from behind onto NYC subway tracks in reportedly random attack

Hundreds of commenters reacted to the WTXF-TV’s Facebook post about the incident. The following are some of the highlights:

“It’s Philly, head on a swivel!!!” one commenter wrote.”Why isn’t this being called a hate crime?” another user asked.”Doesn’t fit the Democratic narrative,” another commenter answered.”The victim had his head turned away from the perp. He never saw it coming,” another user observed. “You must be aware of your surroundings at all times.”

More than a thousand comments poured into WPVI-TV’s Facebook post about the incident, and the reactions were similar:

“I wonder what the motive was,” one commenter stated sarcastically.”What a piece of s**t,” another user declared bluntly.”Always be vigilant,” another commenter suggested.”Of course what else is new,” another user wrote.

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

​Physical attack, Unprovoked attack, Philadelphia, Punch, Crime 

Skepticism is mounting about the narrative that a blue wave is set to crash in the midterms. There are, after all, signs that the pollsters may have once again greatly missed the mark.

In a move sure to further shake Democrat confidence, one outfit has openly second-guessed its weighting processes and whether recent polls have properly captured Republican sentiment.

‘People want to see the predictive accuracy of the poll,’ [but] ‘polls can’t really do that.’

State Navigate, a nonpartisan organization that engages in election forecasting and public polling, noted on Tuesday that it conducted a poll last week in an Iowa state Senate district that President Donald Trump won by 21 points in 2024 but that flipped to a Democrat in a January 2025 special election.

The polling outfit contacted over 400 likely voters in the district and initially found that Democrat state Sen. Mike Zimmer had a three-point lead over Republican challenger Joe Stutting and that in the Iowa governor’s race, Democrat Rob Sand was five points ahead of Republican Zachary Lahn.

These results left the pollsters suspicious.

“We noticed two problems in our survey: 1. There are more likely Trump voters who are lying about their 2024 vote for the president than anywhere else we’ve polled, and 2. Even accounting for this, rural Republicans in Iowa are difficult to reach,” said the polling outfit.

A similar miss resulted in humiliation and a career change in 2024 for J. Ann Selzer, whose November 2024 poll showed then-Vice President Kamala Harris with a three-point lead over Trump in Iowa. Trump ultimately ended up winning the state by over 13 points.

RELATED: Vulnerable Ohio Democrat’s last-minute flip-flop on trans insanity has LGBT activists crying

Scott Olson/Getty Images

The pollster found that fewer respondents recalled having voted for Trump in 2024 than likely actually had voted for him and noted in an analysis that has since been reworded, “Donald Trump carried SD-35 by 21 points in 2024, but in our standard version of this poll, which isn’t weighted to recalled vote, likely voters recall a Trump win of just 7 points.”

Because of the discrepancy, the pollster ran the results again. However, this time, pollsters weighted answers so that 2024 recall votes more closely resembled the actual heavily pro-Trump results from two years ago. Working on the apparent presumption that Democrats are poised to fare better this cycle, the pollsters then shifted every region roughly five points toward Democrats.

Despite the blue shift, this change in weighting produced a red result — a red result that was partially hidden by an error in the pollster’s analysis that also skewed toward the Democrat. The analysis said Zimmer was up by two points, when the weighted poll actually showed a two-point lead for Republican Joe Stutting.

Chaz Nuttycombe, executive director of State Navigate, confirmed the analysis error to Blaze News.

The weighted survey also found Lahn and Sand tied in the governor’s race with 45% each.

“That still bodes well for Democrats given the Republican lean of this district, but a 5-point difference shows how weighting decisions can change the outcome,” wrote the pollster in the analysis. “Our experience polling this competitive race raises concerns similar to Echelon Insight’s Patrick Ruffini’s: Republicans, particularly rural Republicans in Iowa, are very unresponsive to surveys, at least for now.”

“The real surprise here is someone actually admitted a mistake,” BlazeTV host and Iowa native Steve Deace told Blaze News. “That’s rare these days.”

“Rural voters have always been the toughest to poll, but throw in how reticent Trump supporters justifiably are to respond to polls mostly from outlets who lie daily about them and Trump, and now you know why Trump has outperformed his Midwest polling every election cycle,” continued Deace. “Assuming most of these public polls aren’t just Democrat ops, of course.”

Texas Senate polls 2026: Talarico vs. Paxtonpollwatch.theblaze.com

This is hardly the first splash of cold water to land on Democrats’ hopes and dreams.

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten suggested last week that Republicans in Midwest races may once again be poised to outperform polls — and that if they do so, as they did in 2018 and 2024, then “there’s a very, very strong chance that Republicans hold on to the United States Senate, even if Democrats win in places they don’t historically win in, like Texas.”

Concerns, particularly on the left, that pollsters are missing the mark again have prompted Emerson College director of polling Spencer Kimball to go on defense.

Kimball recently told the NH Journal podcast that the polling industry “has never been stronger. Our analysis has never been stronger.”

Kimball emphasized, however, that while “people want to see the predictive accuracy of the poll,” “polls can’t really do that.”

“Sometimes they’ll fall on the right side, and sometimes they come up a little light on that side,” continued Kimball. “But generally speaking, they fall within that range about 90 percent of the time.”

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

​Polling, Iowa, Donald trump, Zachary lahn, Ann selzer, Politics, Rob sand 

If I told you the guy at the crease picked the leggy’s googly and it sailed past silly mid-on for four, you’d probably — rightly — think I’d had a seizure.

For those of you wondering, I am talking about cricket, arguably Western civilization’s greatest achievement since free speech, Michelangelo’s David, and whatever they have done to Madonna’s face.

The US national team also draws heavily on South Asian immigrants and famously beat Pakistan in the 2024 T20 World Cup.

I was inspired to write this after reading Andrew Chapados’ piece in Fearless lamenting Canadians’ loss of ice hockey as the CBC starts experimenting with broadcasting cricket.

Don’t get me wrong. I love ice hockey. When I stayed in Nova Scotia, it didn’t take long to understand why these super-friendly people love the game. The speed, intensity, and aggression. I was hooked. The way the refs mostly let ’em fight it out, the mullets … more fights. Some of my most memorable nights were spent watching a game on a big TV with a bunch of fishermen and giant cans of Colt 45.

Sticky wicket

But I am going to try to use this article to defend cricket, though I don’t hold much hope.

For starters, explaining the rules is like asking a crab to describe the chemical composition of water. The traditional version of the game, Test cricket, doesn’t help my case. While baseball lasts a few hours, Test cricket can occupy six hours a day for up to five days — and still end in a draw. It’s also possibly the only sport on Earth where the batsman is applauded for leaving the ball alone.

That said, this is a game that requires skill and nerves. The fastest bowlers send the ball down at close to 100 mph, and a short delivery can come screaming toward your ribs, head, or worse.

But my word, it can be boring.

If golf is a good walk spoiled, Test cricket can best be described as a decent sleep disrupted by a light round of applause — followed by a collective groan when the ball hits someone’s nuts.

Good luck selling that to Americans.

America’s pastime

I love the game for its history and heritage. The English were knocking the cherry around a field decades before the Pilgrims set foot in the New World. Test cricket is a glorious aristocratic vestige of the British Empire. Naturally, its imperial pedigree has also made it a target for the usual colonialism critiques. All the more reason to embrace the game.

At its most traditional, this sport is steeped in British pomp and pageantry. Cricket players dress in pristine whites, stop for tea, and politely applaud opponents who reach a century. At Lord’s, members watch from a pavilion that looks like the setting for a royal garden party.

A Test match can feel like a temporary reversion to Victorian Britain.

Before anyone accuses cricket of being un-American, best check the history books.

Long before Fenway Park was even a pile of bricks or Cooperstown immortalized its sluggers, America had a thriving cricket culture. New Yorkers were playing matches on Central Park’s North Meadow in the 19th century. Benjamin Franklin reportedly brought home a copy of the 1744 laws of cricket from England — it takes 250 years just to learn the LBW rule — and there is anecdotal evidence that George Washington’s troops played a related game called “wicket” at Valley Forge.

Abraham Lincoln is said to have watched cricket, and early baseball great Jim Creighton played both sports. Decades later, even Babe Ruth himself met Australian cricket legend Don Bradman to see what all the fuss was about.

Twenty20 vision

Which brings me to my modest proposal.

For 50 years America has led the way in exporting its culture around the world. It’s time for recolonization. You’ve given us Steven Seagal; it’s only right we give you cricket.

Sure, the British Empire is not what it was — it currently consists of an elderly mailman on Tristan da Cunha and a heavily discounted Prince Andrew T-shirt kiosk in the Falklands — but a fair trade is a fair trade.

Okay, “Under Siege” was good, but hundreds of straight-to-video slap-fests where Seagal’s biggest enemy is the stairway is enough. Seriously, he uses a body double to go upstairs. I have watched this man “fight” sitting in a swivel chair.

Anyway, back to cricket.

The version you are likely to watch — who am I kidding, you won’t watch it — is T20. Otherwise known as Twenty20, it is a much shorter, flashier variant. “Twenty” refers to the number of overs each side gets; an over is six legal deliveries, or pitches.

Purists on this side of the Atlantic call it baseball in pajamas.

The goal is to score as fast as possible. Hitting a “six” is the rough equivalent of a home run. When a new batsman comes to the crease — home plate, basically — he is sometimes introduced as if he were walking into the Octagon. There are fireworks, cheerleaders, and short bursts of Pitbull or some other awful hype music between the action. The fans are rowdy, and the beer flows like a waterfall.

Like American football, it also stops every eight seconds to ask an attractive woman — sorry, a sideline reporter — standing six inches from a player’s face what’s happening.

RELATED: My 1990 World Cup sticker book — and a glimpse of football’s simpler past

Staff/Mirrorpix/Getty Images

The empire strikes back

Believe it or not, this gaudy spectacle is taking root in the U.S.

Driven in large part by a huge South Asian diaspora, America now has its own professional T20 competition, Major League Cricket, featuring six franchises and plenty of international stars. Several of the teams have direct ties to Indian Premier League clubs, including MI New York, the Los Angeles Knight Riders, and the Texas Super Kings.

MLC features lots of international stars alongside a talented contingent of Indian- and Pakistani-born players. The U.S. national team also draws heavily on South Asian immigrants and famously beat Pakistan in the 2024 T20 World Cup. Several of its players came to America to work in tech. These guys are really good, cricket is in their blood, and honestly, even their H-1B team would give Australia a run for its money.

To give you a taste of the madness, during the 2024 T20 World Cup, a temporary 34,000-seat stadium was erected in Nassau County to host, among other matches, India versus Pakistan.

This rivalry makes Packers-Bears look like a Disney movie. Geopolitics is played out with a bat and ball before one of the biggest audiences in world sport.

America’s acquiescence truly arrives in 2028, when cricket returns to the Olympics for the first time since 1900 — in Los Angeles, of all places.

So America, open your arms. You’ve conquered baseball, basketball, and football — but not soccer; your women’s team is hilarious. Now let a bunch of foreign blokes in neon pyjamas take over for a few weeks.

Forget the British Empire striking back. This is the subcontinent striking back.

To borrow a well-known phrase: Howzat!

​American culture, Baseball, Cricket, Golf, Ice hockey, Los angeles, Olympics, T20 world cup, Major league cricket, Sports, Lifestyle, England, H-1b visas, Immigration, Pakistan, Central park, Letter from the uk 

Many conservative Americans feel so discouraged by the Republican Party’s slow progress and long record of disappointment that they’re vowing to withhold their vote in midterm elections in hopes of making a statement that ignites change.

On a recent episode of “The John Doyle show,” the BlazeTV host called this “the dumbest political strategy ever.”

First off, Doyle doesn’t hold the same hopeless sentiments about the Republican Party and its inability to correct course after the last “60 years of betrayal.”

“We’ve got good guys in positions that matter. Things are starting to look a little bit better, if not perfect,” he says, “but still, you’ve got these bad-faith actors capitalizing on leftist social media incentives, trying to cloud any positive perception that patriots have of the Republican Party by pointing back to that 60-year history of betrayal that we are all intimately familiar with.”

“Thinking that you’re going to hold the historically controlled opposition party accountable by not voting, punishing them by withholding your vote? This is basically — and we’ve done the math on it — the stupidest political strategy in the history of both politics and strategy.”

He denounces the idea that America needs more political parties to choose from. These third parties, he argues, “are spoilers, but they have no chance of winning.”

“If you want to get something done in America, you’ve got two parties to choose from. … A winning third-party candidate would not even change that anyway,” he argues, “and even if you did change it, it’s hardly like it would result in anything better or fix anything at all, and in fact, it would likely make things a lot worse.”

“[A multi-party system] means you can’t actually have nearly as much bipartisanship, and the establishment Republicans are far more forced to work with MAGA than they would be otherwise. It’s actually to our strength and to our benefit that we have [a two-party system].”

Doyle then turns his attention to another group of conservatives who believe “that the best way to get the Republican Party to listen to them is to not vote or go out and vote for Democrats.”

“The basic argument goes: The Republican Party is not working in the interests of the right wing. It’s not doing enough deportations; it’s not doing enough to deal with leftists; it’s not doing enough for young white men … so by not voting and punishing the Republican Party, the Republican Party would then realize they do actually need to do these things in order to win over these groups of people,” he explains.

“What they’ll often point to as evidence for this is that the Republican Party often tries very hard to win over minorities who don’t vote for them. And still, the Republicans will give them concessions; they’ll do leftism light to try to pander to these groups. So therefore, this obviously would work for the young white male patriot too,” he continues.

But the same logic doesn’t apply, Doyle argues.

For starters, young white males and young people in general are not seen as likely to turn out, he says, and he points to data showing about 50% of those eligible actually vote in a presidential year, dropping to just over 25% in midterms.

Second, the GOP is not one room of “elites” you can punish by staying home. Rather it’s a stack of factions, and the MAGA one — “very often young white men themselves” who are “on our side” — is inside it and still gaining ground.

“You don’t really need to try to punish them by not turning out or voting blue. They kind of get what’s going on, and you’re just going to kneecap them if you do that,” Doyle warns.

To hear his full analysis, watch the episode above.

Want more from John Doyle?

To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​John doyle, 2026 midterm election, Blazetv show