Everyone Got It Wrong… Well, Almost Everyone

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Everyone got it wrong… well, almost everyone. Frank Cannon, president of American Principles Project, and a respected conservative political strategist with more than 30 years of experience, got it right consistently throughout the 2016 election cycle:

And check out this nugget from Frank’s most recent piece in Townhall, “Trump’s Path to 270 Is Easier Than You Think,” which was published two weeks ago:

But what if we challenge some assumptions? Imagine that these polling turnout models are oversampling Democrats by a couple percentage points, overestimating turnout for Hillary Clinton and plugging in numbers that would even exceed President Obama’s historic turnout in 2008 and 2012 — and when you investigate the cross-tabs on some of these polls, you absolutely see evidence of this taking place. What if the polls are getting it wrong, even slightly?

And what if there is a true Bradley Effect taking place with Donald Trump that is impacting polling results, i.e. a statistically significant number of Trump voters who are afraid to publicly announce, even to an anonymous pollster over the phone, that they are Trump voters in fear of social backlash, especially following the aggressive attempts by the radical left to intimidate and silence Trump voters by using charged language and even by threatening violence?

Continue Reading

Six Lessons from Donald Trump’s Great Victory

Donald Trump (photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Congratulations, President-elect Trump. Congratulations to the historic, never-before-seen governing majority he assembled. It’s time to hope I was wrong and work for President Trump’s success — for America’s success.

Here are my first six takeaways from last night’s historic victory:

1.) The RNC’s “Autopsy” from 2012 got it exactly wrong in arguing the key to victory was less social conservatism and more of the standard GOP economic message. One key to Trump’s victory was to combine social conservatism with a new populist economic message. White evangelicals voted for him in record, never-before-seen numbers: 81 percent to 16 percent according to exit polls. That tops George W. Bush’s record of 78 percent in 2004.

2.) Latinos were the dog that didn’t bark. Build a wall, chastise Mexican immigrants as rapists, threaten to deport illegals — despite Trump’s often unusually harsh tone, he actually gained slightly more of the Latino vote than Romney did, 29 percent versus 27 percent. In Florida, he won 33 percent of the Latino vote. Apparently, Hispanic voters care less about immigration than elites think they should.

3.) The biggest loser last night was the donor class. According to OpenSecrets.org, Trump raised $250 million — less than half of the $687 million Clinton raised.  Trump demonstrated that you can lose the money primary and still win the election. Television is no longer king. This is a huge opportunity for social conservatives in particular; as donors recognize giving to super PACs is just padding the pockets of consultants who make money whether they win or lose, they are going to be looking for new more effective political vehicles. Continue Reading

Top Five States to Watch Tonight

From left: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

With just a few hours now separating us from the first election results, here are the five states I’m watching most closely tonight:

1.) North Carolina

Obviously, North Carolina is a key swing state in the presidential race, which is likely to be very close, but I’m even more interested in the results of the gubernatorial race between Republican Gov. Pat McCrory and Democrat Roy Cooper.

We’ve been talking about this race for months. McCrory has been under fire from a coalition of radical progressives, corporate bullies, and special interests for his support for HB 2, a bill that stopped an effort in Charlotte to redefine gender and give grown men the right to shower and access changing areas with young girls in public facilities.

The fate of HB 2 — and our best line of defense in the progressive war on gender — rests completely on the results of this race.

2.) New Jersey

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) is a strong conservative representative in New Jersey who came under fire for criticizing the NRCC for financially supporting Republican candidates who support same-sex marriage. Millions of dollars from outside special interest groups have since poured into New Jersey’s 5th congressional district to defeat Garrett in his race against special interest lobbyist Josh Gottheimer. With the NRCC declining to help Garrett at all, and with only a small coalition of conservatives refusing to abandon him, there’s no doubt he’s an underdog heading into tonight. Continue Reading

Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? We Make Our Electoral College Predictions

Happy Election Day! With voting set to conclude this evening — make sure to vote if you haven’t already! — it’s time to reveal our predictions for who will be sworn in next January as the 45th President of the United States.

Will it be Donald Trump? Or will it be Hillary Clinton? Here’s what our writers think:

Steve Wagner — Trump wins 274-264

A surprise upset in Wisconsin, plus key wins in the swing states of Florida, North Carolina, and New Hampshire, propel Donald Trump to a 10-point electoral college victory.

Shane Vander Hart — Clinton wins 307-231

Hillary Clinton’s advantage in early voting, plus an uptick in Hispanic votes, is enough to push her over the top in Florida and Nevada while preventing Trump upsets in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Terry Schilling — Trump wins 278-260

Donald Trump ekes out a close win in Florida while using high turnout from working-class whites to pull off upsets in Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Maine’s 2nd congressional district (ME-2) — enough for an 18-point electoral college victory.

Matt Bowman — Trump wins 270-268

Swing state wins in Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and ME-2 give Donald Trump just enough electoral votes to eke out a 2-point victory over Clinton.

William Upton — Clinton wins 283-255

Victories by Donald Trump in Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire are not enough to breach Hillary Clinton’s firewall, as she wins North Carolina and the White House.

Mary Powers — Trump wins 272-266

Despite losing Nevada, Donald Trump shocks the political world by winning Virginia and uses victories in Florida, North Carolina, and New Hampshire to complete his 6-point electoral college triumph over Clinton. Continue Reading

Trusting Hillary Is the Best Reason to Vote for Trump

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Some have made the argument that Donald Trump and Mike Pence won’t move life, marriage, and religious liberty issues beyond the status quo.

Well, I think we can be certain that Hillary Clinton will change the status quo. For the past 40 years, the status quo has been that the federal government does not pay for elective abortions. Clinton, however, is committed to repeal of the Hyde Amendment and other government limitations on abortion funding. She is also opposed to the ban on partial-birth abortion, or any limitation on abortion at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason.

For many years, the status quo has been conscience protections for medical personnel and medical students who object to participating in the performance of abortions. Religious hospitals have also been protected from having to perform elective abortions in their facilities. Clinton, however, believes that religions are going to have to change to accommodate things she deems to be rights, such as abortion. People will no longer be allowed to assert religious beliefs to justify ‘discrimination’ — despite the fact that Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law to protect the exercise of such beliefs.

For thousands of years, marriage was recognized as the union of one man and one woman — and Hillary Clinton expressed support for that position. However, if a photographer or wedding planner declines to be actively involved in a same-sex wedding ceremony due to his or her religious beliefs, does anyone believe that Clinton will support the exercise of such religious beliefs? Continue Reading

I Did It. I Voted for Donald Trump. Here’s Why.

Donald Trump (photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Tomorrow is Election Day. Tomorrow, we vote.

I want to talk a little bit about why I am voting for Donald Trump.

Early on in the GOP primary, I did not support Trump. My feelings on Trump were mixed. I thought his debate performances were entertaining. I enjoyed watching him destroy squishy establishment Republicans like Jeb Bush and John Kasich. Unlike many of my peers, I liked his brash demeanor, and I was captivated by his willingness to fight the liberal media.

But I had trust issues, many of which I wrote about here at The Pulse 2016. Was Donald Trump a true conservative? Was he really pro-life? Could he be trusted?

Abortion was my biggest concern with Trump from the very beginning. But Trump, wisely, made committing to the pro-life movement a priority. In his policy platform, Trump went further than any other GOP nominee in history, promising to…

  • …apply a litmus test to judicial appointees and nominate “pro-life” Supreme Court justices.
  • …sign the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a 20-week ban on abortion.
  • …defund Planned Parenthood.
  • …protect the Hyde Amendment and fight against any government effort to commit taxpayer funds to abortion.

It was because of these commitments that I declared I would vote for Donald Trump in an op-ed in The Daily Caller in May:

And as President, [Trump] will promote a culture of life. He will make saving lives a priority.

Does he say stupid things? Absolutely. Trump has evoked every emotion within me.

Continue Reading

WATCH: Pro-Life Group Releases New Ad Supporting Trump

As we enter the final hours of the 2016 campaign, the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List is making one last effort to nudge swing state voters toward Donald Trump.

In a new online ad released on Friday and currently running in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, SBA List highlights Trump’s criticism of Hillary Clinton’s extreme position on late-term abortion in the final presidential debate last month:

You can watch the full exchange between Trump and Clinton at that debate here.

Paul Dupont is the managing editor for ThePulse2016.com. Continue Reading

Donald Trump Sets New Pro-Life Standard

Donald Trump (photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

The only thing a candidate can ever offer is words. He can’t act on what he will do because he’s speaking about the future, not the present.

Yet Donald Trump has actually raised the bar for what pro-lifers can expect from Republican candidates, despite his troubling personal history on the issue.

This sounds counter-intuitive: even if pro-lifers support Trump, shouldn’t they feel they’re taking a step backwards? Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry urged this in The Week, saying “If pro-lifers vote for Trump, the Republican Party will never again give them what they want.”

But Gobry and others are ignoring Trump’s positions — and those positions actually improve the pro-life movement’s bargaining position in the Republican Party.

Take the ever-important Supreme Court. Past Republican nominees have actually refused to say they would appoint pro-life justices. Unlike Democrats, the GOP establishment has considered “litmus tests” taboo.

Trump has blasted through this judicial glass ceiling. He has not only specified his justices will be pro-life; he has named a list of them from whom he will pick. He even told Hugh Hewitt he would be fine with Republican senators holding up or filibustering his nominee if he veers from the list — because he won’t.

And Trump’s list is stellar. It includes people like Judge William Pryor who, during his Senate testimony to become an appeals court judge, explicitly and courageously said he opposes Roe v. Wade (instead of what most nominees say, which is usually something vague about following the law). Continue Reading

Is Believing There Are Only Two Genders “Antiquated”? This Columnist Thinks So…

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Apparently, if you’re from North Carolina and believe that there are only two genders — male and female, just to clarify — then you’re an “antiquated” bigot who is potentially costing your neighbors jobs and economic opportunity in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

At least, that’s according to Forbes.com columnist Corinne Jurney.

That’s right. If you reject the newest junk science which asserts there are 58 genders (why limit it to just 58?), then you’re the equivalent of racists and segregationists in the 50’s and 60’s.

Of course, this is absurd and untrue.

Beyond the obnoxious assertion that we should give up on reality, truth, and morality simply because corporate America has decided what values and beliefs are tolerable and intolerable (quite interesting especially coming from the left, which has consistently claimed that corporate America is evil in all aspects), it’s laughable that this passes as a compelling argument.

Just look at how confidently Jurney asserts the new gender theory as fact:

The law requires citizens to use the public facility that corresponds with their ‘biological’ gender. This edict aligns with the antiquated idea that gender is a binary construct, inherently marginalizing transgender people. The Justice Department has sued the state to overturn the law.

Jurney actually put the word “biological” in scare quotes, number one.

Number two, she asserts the idea that there are only two genders is “antiquated.”

So the approximately billion-year-old “idea” that men are men and women are women is antiquated because the LGBT lobby says so. Continue Reading

High Stakes for 2016: Judy Shelton for Fed Chair to Make America Great Again

The Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, DC (photo credit: Dan Smith, CC BY-SA 2.5)

In The Daily Caller, freelance writer Johannes Schmidt writes “On November 8th I’m Voting For Our Next Fed Chair.” It’s an especially astute column.

While many commentators correctly have focused on the effect of the election outcome on appointments to the Supreme Court, too few have focused on the next president’s appointments to the Fed. This also is of capital importance. Schmidt writes:

The policies implemented by the Fed are especially important (albeit often insidious) because money is our society’s most basic medium of exchange. The manipulation of its value affects every day citizens both in the short and long terms. Decisions taken by central banks–be it to toy with negative interest rates, engage in endless rounds of quantitative easing, or pay banks to keep loanable funds in sterile depository accounts—inevitably impact the value of the dollars we use to buy groceries today or pay off our mortgages over the next couple of decades.

Perhaps more daunting still is the fact that a lack of rules or central bank predictability makes international trade and cooperation difficult, at best. Without central bank coherency, monetary disorder will continue “to undermine the logic of competitive markets and the notion of free trade,” as was previously noted in The Hill.

But do our candidates understand the gravity of their 2018 Fed chief appointment? Are they satisfied with our current discretionary regime and adherence to the failed dual-mandate, or do they think that a return to a rules-based monetary system is critical?

Continue Reading