Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 10, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:10:48

The Election Is Only Over When It’s Over | Ep. 1134

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Joe Biden declares the election over and the media demand Republicans repeat that.
	Republicans claim voter fraud and irregularity while Attorney General William Barr authorizes investigations and Pfizer develops a miraculous vaccine possibility for COVID.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	You have a right to privacy protected at expressvpn.com.
	Slash Ben.
	We'll get to everything in the news in just one moment.
	First, let us talk about the fact that everybody wishes that Black Friday and Cyber Monday, that these were everyday things because you could save lots of money.
	But here is an easy way.
	For you to save lots of money without changing anything that matters to you in terms of quality, I'm talking about your cell phone coverage.
	So, you got coverage from Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile.
	What if you could get that exact same coverage but save a bundle on that coverage?
	Well, this is where Pure Talk USA comes in.
	Pure Talk can easily save you over 400 bucks a year.
	Listen, this is all you need.
	Unlimited talk, text, 2 gigs of data for just $20 a month.
	If you go over on data usage, they don't charge you for it.
	One of the ways that the cell phone providers get you is they charge you for unlimited data that you are not using because it is literally impossible to use unlimited data.
	Pure Talk USA is not going to overcharge you for the data.
	Switching to PeerTalk is the easiest decision you will make today.
	You can keep your phone and your number, or get great deals on the latest iPhones and Android.
	Grab your mobile phone.
	Dial pound 250.
	Say Ben Shapiro.
	When you do, you save 50% off your first month.
	Dial pound 250.
	Say keyword Ben Shapiro.
	PeerTalk is simply smarter wireless.
	Go check them out right now and save a fortune on your cell phone bill.
	Check them out.
	PeerTalk USA.
	Dial pound 250 and say Ben Shapiro.
	And when you do, you save 50% off your first month.
	Okay, so.
	The media have declared that the election is over.
	And as I've kept saying, I've been saying this consistently, I've said it since Tuesday night, the election is over when the election is over.
	The election is technically not over.
	Until all of the legal lawsuits come to an end, until the election results are certified, until the electors are selected and then actually vote, the election is not technically over.
	And while everyone seems to be panicking, like really, like sheer panic in the media over the fact that Trump has not conceded the election, Who cares?
	I mean, really, like, who cares?
	I understand that there are lots of people who are very upset that Trump hasn't conceded the election and think it's undermining the integrity of our elections and that more Americans are not going to believe in the integrity of our elections.
	OK, let me just tell you, it's a temporary phenomenon.
	The reality of the situation is that Americans typically don't tend to believe in elections when the elections don't go their way.
	And this holds true for literally every election.
	OK, it's certainly been true since 2016.
	So there are a lot of people today who are pointing to Gallup polling results showing that when it asked about election integrity, election integrity for Democrats, their belief in election integrity began to soar as soon as they thought they'd won the election.
	They're not talking so much about that, right?
	But if you go back all the way to, say, October 21st, on October 21st, only a bare majority of Democrats said that the election of 2020 was going to be free and fair.
	And you're not seeing the media talk about that today because that would undercut their narrative.
	Which is that only Republicans doubt elections, and the reason they doubt elections is because of Trump.
	The fact is, the media were saying for months that we were going to get serious voter suppression, that Trump was moving mailboxes, that the mail service was going to somehow disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people.
	And so if you look back at the polling data, by polling data, Democrats on October 21st, only 51% said they thought that the election was going to be free and fair.
	That same date, only 53% of Republicans thought the elections were going to be free and fair.
	And more than either, independents thought the elections were not going to be free and fair.
	Only 45% of independents thought the election was going to be free and fair.
	In fact, on October 15th, just a week before that, only 40% of independents thought the elections were going to be free and fair.
	Okay, so there's a lot of fluctuation in these numbers.
	Now, after the election, when Democrats think that they won the national election, when they think that Joe Biden was elected, 90% of Democrats now say that they believe that the elections were free and fair.
	So that is a jump of 40%.
	OK, so the media today are all up on Republicans.
	How dare you guys undermine the integrity of our elections?
	I mean, back in October 25th, 57% of Republicans said that they thought the elections were free and fair.
	Today, only 26% of Republicans say they believe the elections are free and fair.
	Okay, well, back on October 25th, only 55% of Democrats said they thought the elections were free and fair.
	Fewer than Republicans.
	And now, 90% of Democrats think the elections are free and fair.
	So, can we just point out that the stats on whether people think elections are free and fair are innately tied to who they think wins the election?
	If you think your guy lost, you think he got cheated.
	And if you think that your guy won, you think the election system was perfect.
	Chef's kiss, excellent.
	And this has been true for quite a long time.
	So I'm seeing a lot of people talking about the dangers of the process dragging on and the legal process.
	It's not dangerous.
	It isn't.
	And once we get to January 20th, somebody's going to get inaugurated.
	In December, the electors are going to meet.
	They're going to vote.
	The fact that the process is taking, like, we are so impatient in our society that this thing wasn't called Tuesday night or Wednesday morning and everybody started running around with their hair on fire.
	And now it's the next week.
	And guess what?
	Joe Biden is being prepped in case he is the president-elect.
	And Donald Trump is still occupying the Oval Office.
	There's not going to be a big battle.
	Trump is not going to lock the doors and start snorting coke and firing guns through the door if, in fact, he is deemed to be the loser of the election by the legal process.
	And just because CNN or MSNBC or Fox News declare something, there is no constitutional provision that says that this now ends the election and the election is over.
	And if you don't repeat it, this means you're a very bad, terrible, no good, very bad person.
	The reality is that if you look at this thing in the bare light of day, Joe Biden looks more likely to be the President of the United States when all of this is said and done come January 20th.
	And the reason for that is because currently he has a 12,000 vote lead in Georgia, a 15,000 vote lead in Arizona, a 36,000 vote lead in Nevada, and a 45,000 vote lead in Pennsylvania.
	In order for Donald Trump to win the election, he would need to overturn the results in Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, or get those states booted out of court.
	That is highly unlikely to happen.
	So if you had to lay money on this thing, you'd lay heavy money on Joe Biden being inaugurated in January.
	But that does not mean that the process is over, nor does it mean that if the Trump campaign shows significant evidence of voter fraud, like really, really significant, like in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of votes, That wouldn't shift the election.
	Is that sort of a hope and a prayer for a lot of Republicans?
	Sure.
	Is it also true that they're going to definitely be able to find evidence of voter fraud and voter irregularity?
	Absolutely.
	They are absolutely going to be able to find evidence of that because in an election that involves 150 million people voting, you would assume that there are going to be some people who engage in voter fraud and voter irregularity.
	And that is a very large number, 150 million people.
	But it's a very hard stone to lift to suggest that hundreds of thousands of votes were shifted by voter fraud or to prove that in court.
	So people might be suspicious after the election.
	Hell, after the election in 2016, 67% of Democrats, literally 67% of Democrats by polling data said that the Russians had switched the vote numbers.
	So spare me all the hysterics about people think the elections are rigged and it's going to completely destroy our democracy.
	Same poll today from Morning Consult that's showing that only 26% of Republicans say the elections were free and fair, showed that in 2016, only 39% of Democrats thought the elections were free and fair.
	Today, it's 90%.
	Is that because they're super consistent about American elections being free and fair, or is it because people tend to follow their partisan nose?
	The last time that there was no partisan gap in terms of election process and people thinking the election was fair was 2004.
	In that election, 65% of Independents, 68% of Democrats, and 66% of Republicans thought that the election was free and fair.
	But even if you go all the way back to 2000, only 44% of Democrats thought that the election was free and fair.
	In other words, in every election where your candidate loses, you tend to think that the process was skewed.
	And in every election where your candidate wins, you tend to think that the process was not skewed.
	So let's take with a grain of salt all of the talk about the end of democracy because this process is taking a while and because Trump won't concede and be great.
	First of all, do you really believe that if Trump said tomorrow, you're right, I lost.
	Do you think if he said that, that all of a sudden Republicans would be like sanguine about this thing?
	That they wouldn't suspect voter fraud or voter irregularity?
	Hillary Clinton, within the week of the election, conceded the election.
	And still, a vast majority of Democrats thought Russians had changed the votes.
	For four years, we got talk about how Trump was an illegitimate president and the election was fixed on behalf of Vladimir Putin and Facebook or some such nonsense.
	Okay, so again, take everything the media is telling you with a grain of salt.
	It is the formation of a narrative whereby anybody who wants to wait to declare the election over is a cat's paw of Donald Trump and is complicit in the rejection of the Republic There's a constitutional process.
	The constitutional process has not been violated as of yet.
	It has not.
	There's nothing in the constitutional process that says that Donald Trump has to concede before he gets to go through his legal challenges.
	So the media are trying to build up momentum for this idea, and this is what they constantly do.
	They find a statement that nobody really made, and then they ask every Republican to defend the statement that nobody really made.
	The media are a big story in all of this.
	The constant driver by the media is a false narrative that portrays one side as eminently reasonable and the other side as eminently unreasonable.
	Again, after years of declaring Stacey Abrams is still the governor of Georgia, spare me the hysterics about people who are wondering whether voter fraud and voter irregularity impacted this election.
	At least voter fraud and voter irregularity, you're gonna have to prove it.
	Voter suppression, there's no way to prove.
	Voter suppression is an unprovable thesis.
	This is what Stacey Abrams alleged.
	She alleged that people not voting was, in fact, the problem in Georgia.
	There's no way to un-ring that bell.
	Because the people who voted, voted.
	And the people who didn't, didn't.
	And there's literally no way to prove that people who didn't vote didn't vote because they were suppressed, or because they just didn't want to, or for any other reason.
	Voter suppression is a far harder charge to prove than voter fraud.
	The good news is, at the end of this process, either large amounts of voter fraud and voter irregularity will have been proved, or they will not have been proved.
	So all of the kind of crazy, insane, hysterical conjecture about how the American Republic is on the brink and everything's going to end because Republicans are following Trump down the primrose.
	We've been hearing this crap for years.
	It ain't going to happen.
	Everything's fine.
	Yeah, I know everything's fine.
	It's not what people want to hear right now, but it is.
	We have a process for this and the process is going to play out.
	So calm your asses down.
	We're going to get to more of this in just one second.
	First, let us talk about the fact That not too long ago, over 100 million people had their personal information stolen in a major data breach.
	Social security numbers, contact details, credit scores, and more all taken from Capital One customers.
	It's not just Capital One.
	Equifax, eBay, Uber, PlayStation, and Yahoo have all leaked passwords, credit card info, and bank numbers belonging to billions of users.
	If you think hackers only target large companies to get your information, you are wrong.
	That is why I use ExpressVPN to safeguard my personal data online.
	According to recent reports, hackers can make up to $1,000 from selling someone's personal information on the dark web, making people like you and me easy, lucrative targets.
	ExpressVPN is an app for your computer and phone that secures and encrypts your data so you can have peace of mind every time you go online.
	The app connects with just one click.
	It's lightning fast.
	The best part is, ExpressVPN costs less than $7 a month.
	That is a great way of protecting your data.
	If a breach can happen to Capital One, it can certainly happen to you.
	Protect yourself with ExpressVPN.
	Use my special link, expressvpn.com, slash, Ben, right now.
	Arm yourself with an extra three months of ExpressVPN for free.
	That's expressvpn.com, slash, Ben, for an extra three months for free.
	There's a reason I use ExpressVPN to protect myself.
	I'm always worried about people stealing my data.
	You should be too, and you should be using ExpressVPN to protect yourself today.
	Expressvpn.com, slash, Ben, for an extra three months of ExpressVPN for free.
	OK, so Joe Biden has declared the election over.
	The media have declared the election over.
	And of course, you're very, very bad if you don't also declare the election over.
	Even if you say the election has a natural terminus, it has a legal terminus.
	We're going to go through the process.
	Nope, you're bad.
	Here's Joe Biden saying the election is over.
	So stop talking about the election.
	The election's over.
	This election is over.
	It's time to put aside the partisanship and the rhetoric that designed to demonize one another.
	It's time to end the politicization of basic, responsible public health steps like mask wearing and social distancing.
	We have to come together to heal the soul of this country so that we can effectively address this crisis as one country where hardworking Americans have each other's backs.
	OK, so the election's over.
	Give it up.
	Then we get Whoopi Goldberg, the specter of Whoopi Goldberg, saying that we have to suck it up.
	You know, we sucked it up when Trump won.
	In what way did Democrats suck it up when Trump won?
	We got four long years of you whining that Trump wasn't the actual president of the United States.
	Not hashtag not my president.
	The women's march in the immediate aftermath of Trump winning.
	We got huge.
	Black Lives Matter protests throughout the summer.
	The idea being that Trump was the font head of systemic American racism.
	We got the media and their collusion narrative that went on for years on end, despite lack of evidence.
	We got an impeachment.
	At what point did Democrats actually come to terms with the fact that Trump had won?
	They never came to terms, which is why they're so celebratory now, because they think that now reality has snapped back into place.
	But spare me.
	Like, really, all this stuff is just blech.
	All these people who are unwilling to accept the results of election now going, you know, you guys, you got to grow up.
	I'm not I'm not willing to hear that from you.
	I'm sorry, Whoopi Goldberg.
	I think you have.
	I think you literally have no leg to stand on here.
	This is well, not literally.
	I assume you have legs, but you have no leg to stand on here.
	Here is Whoopi Goldberg.
	When you know who was elected four years ago, Hillary Clinton didn't say, hey, wait a minute.
	This doesn't feel right.
	Stop the count.
	She didn't say, this isn't right.
	I'm not going for it.
	She didn't say any of that.
	So all of you, suck it up.
	Suck it up like we sucked it up.
	And if you are not sure that you're comfortable with Joe Biden, do what we did.
	Okay, that is literally what is happening right now.
	People are literally going to the courts.
	They're literally filing affidavits.
	So in the meantime, Attorney General William Barr, he has put out a memo to assistant U.S.
	attorneys all over the United States.
	Telling them that if they see credible evidence of election fraud, then they should investigate it.
	This is being taken by the media as a sign that William Barr has militarized on behalf of the Trump campaign.
	Literally changing the legal standard.
	So the headlines are William Barr initiates investigations and the media are like, yeah, but we don't see any evidence of serious widespread voter fraud.
	That's not what the letter says.
	So here's what William Barr's letter actually says.
	He's the attorney general.
	Here's what he actually says.
	And by the way, people are saying that this is him, you know, basically trying to please Donald Trump, that this whole thing is about him trying to appease Donald Trump because Donald Trump doesn't want to accept that he lost the election or something.
	What if the reason that William Barr is doing this?
	I mean, here's here's a possible take.
	What if the reason William Barr is doing this is because, number one, there may actually be credible allegations of voter fraud out there that are worth investigating, and two, if there are not, it is good for the DOJ to be on record saying that they were investigating those things so people feel more safe and secure after the election is over.
	Did it ever occur to anybody that the reason this process exists is so that when the election is over, people at least are able to point to the court cases and to the investigations and say they came up empty?
	It turns out that the Mueller investigation, it was bad and it was badly predicated, but the Mueller investigation did justify Trump's claims that there was no collusion.
	It made it very difficult for Democrats to claim there was collusion.
	Well, after this election, let's say that the DOJ comes up with no serious allegations of widespread voter fraud.
	It's going to be a lot easier for people to point to that and say, okay, there was no widespread voter fraud that decided the election.
	The purpose of the process is not to come to a preset end.
	The purpose of the process is to ensure the integrity of the elections.
	Here was Attorney General William Barr's letter, he said, Last week, our nation once again demonstrated the strength of our democracy as more than 140 million Americans cast ballots to select their leaders. I want to thank each of you and your teams for your extraordinary efforts to ensure that all Americans could exercise this most fundamental of rights with confidence and in safety. Now that the voting has concluded, it is imperative that the American people can trust that our elections were conducted in such a way that the outcomes accurately reflect the will of the voters.
	Although the states have the primary responsibility to conduct and supervise elections under our Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress, the United States Department of Justice has an obligation to ensure that federal elections are conducted in such a way that the American people can have full confidence in their electoral process and their government.
	The Department's general policies with regard to election fraud investigations are contained in the Justice Manual.
	These policies require, among other things, consultation with the Public Integrity Section's Election Crimes Branch in some instances.
	Those policies already allow preliminary inquiries, including witness interviews, to be conducted without ECB consultation.
	In instances in which they are consulted, the ECB's general practice has been to counsel that overt investigative steps ordinarily should not be taken until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded.
	Okay, so in other words, the process usually is that you don't open an investigation or announce an open investigation until after the election results are certified because the crime hasn't actually been finalized at that point.
	What Barr is saying is, here's the problem.
	We have an ongoing presidential election.
	There's a date certain at which the electors will vote on who the president-elect of the United States is.
	And we need to know before then exactly what the outcome of these investigations is going to be, whether they are serious or whether they are unserious.
	And so we are expediting the process.
	Is that really bad that we're expediting the process?
	Or would it be worse if it let's assume for a second that the DOJ actually came up with evidence of widespread voter fraud?
	Wouldn't it be significantly worse if the electors went and voted Joe Biden into office?
	And then two years from now, the DOJ came to the conclusion that hundreds of thousands of votes did shift, right?
	Wouldn't that be a lot worse?
	So he's saying expedite the process so that we can actually make sure that the right person is is elected to the president-elect of the United States.
	He says, In other words, the idea that the DOJ is now shifting votes.
	There's no election to be had.
	determinations and judgments must be made.
	While most allegations of purported election misconduct are of such a scale that would not impact the outcome of an election, and thus investigation can be appropriately be deferred, that is not always the case.
	Furthermore, any concerns that overt actions taken by the department could inadvertently impact an election are greatly minimized if they exist at all, once voting has concluded, even if election certification has not yet been completed.
	In other words, the idea that the DOJ is now shifting votes, there's no election to be had, the votes are already in.
	Given this, and given that voting in our current elections has now concluded, I authorize you to pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities prior to the certification of elections in your jurisdictions in certain cases, as I have already done in specific instances.
	Okay, now, this line has been taken out of context to suggest that Barr is overtly saying there has, in fact, been substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities.
	That is not what he is saying.
	He's saying if you identify such substantial allegations, you should investigate them.
	He is not averring that those vote tabulation and vote irregularities have been widespread.
	He is saying, if you find any evidence or allegations that such voting fraud has been widespread or regularity has been widespread, go ahead and investigate.
	The media went nuts on this.
	Went nuts on this.
	How dare he?
	He says, any investigation of claims of irregularities that, if true, would clearly not impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual state should normally be deferred until after the election certification process is completed.
	While US attorneys maintain their inherent authority to conduct inquiries and investigations as they deem appropriate, it will likely be prudent to commence any election-related matters as a preliminary inquiry so as to assess whether available evidence warrants further investigative steps.
	He says it is equally imperative that department personnel exercise appropriate caution and maintain the department's absolute commitment to fairness, neutrality, and nonpartisanship.
	You're the most senior leaders in the US Department of Justice.
	I trust you to exercise great care and judgment in addressing allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities.
	While serious allegations should be handled with great care, Specious, speculative, fanciful, or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries.
	Nothing here should be taken as any indication that the Department has concluded that voting irregularities have impacted the outcome of any election.
	Rather, I provide this authority and guidance to emphasize the need to timely and appropriately address allegations of voting irregularities so that all of the American people, regardless of their preferred candidate or party, can have full confidence in the results of our elections.
	Okay, should this be wildly controversial?
	No, it should not.
	What William Barr is doing here is not wildly controversial.
	Nothing major is changing.
	He's simply saying that instead of deferring the election investigation until after all of the votes have been certified, I'm now giving you the authority to go and investigate serious allegations of voter fraud if they arise.
	That seems perfectly appropriate to me.
	The idea that William Barr is now, you know, playing offense for Donald Trump here No, no, he's doing what the DOJ ought to be doing, which is investigating serious allegations of voter fraud before the possibility of the rectification of the problem disappears, because it does disappear on a particular date.
	OK, so in a second, we're going to get to some of the allegations that have been levied by the Trump campaign.
	We'll get to that and we'll get to the difficulty of the process, because the realistic And I think that it is important to note that so that we are realistic going forward.
	probably do not change.
	The reason being, again, the amount of voter fraud and voter irregularity is not in the hundreds of thousands.
	Even if it were, it would be incredibly difficult to prove that.
	And I think that it is important to note that so that we are realistic going forward.
	That does not mean we should not investigate every single allegation that is credible.
	We should, obviously.
	I was the first person in America, on Twitter at least, to say all legal votes should be counted, all illegal votes should not be counted.
	Guess what?
	I've been holding this since Tuesday.
	It's hilarious how the way our stupid politics works.
	On Tuesday, I say the outcome of the election has not yet been determined, and everybody goes crazy.
	And then on Friday, I say the outcome of the election has not been determined, and everybody on the other side goes crazy.
	How about this?
	The outcome of the election is determined when it is determined.
	But given the current vote counts, the Trump campaign obviously has a serious legal hill to climb.
	We'll get to some of these allegations in just a second.
	Again, allegations that voter fraud exists are not sufficient to change the nature and outcome of an election.
	You have to prove the size of the voter fraud.
	You have to demonstrate that it would have changed the outcome of an election.
	That's just how the law works.
	Okay, we'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, let us talk about the fact that this holiday season, the post office is going to be super busy.
	You don't have time for that.
	Stamps.com brings the post office and now UPS shipping directly to your computer.
	You can mail and ship anything from the convenience of your home or office.
	Many of us are going to be apart for the holidays, thanks to COVID.
	Well, now you can mail stuff from home or office and you can do so cheaply and efficiently.
	With Stamps.com, anything you can do at the post office, you can do with just a few clicks.
	Plus, stamps.com will save you money with deep discounts you can't even get at the post office.
	Here at Daily Wire, we've been using stamps.com since 2017.
	No more wasting our time.
	Stamps.com brings the services of the U.S. Postal Service and UPS directly to your computer.
	Stamps.com is a must-have for any business.
	Whether you're a small office sending out invoices, an online seller fulfilling orders during this record-setting holiday season, or even a giant warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
	You can print official U.S.
	postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
	Once your mail is ready, just schedule a pickup or a drop-off.
	It is indeed that simple.
	With Stamps.com, five cents off every first-class stamp, up to 40% off priority mail, up to 62% off UPS shipping rates.
	And you get a special deal right now with my promo code Shapiro.
	You get a special offer.
	It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and digital scale.
	No long-term commitments or contracts.
	Just head on over to Stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, type in Shapiro.
	That is stamps.com.
	Enter code Shapiro for that special deal.
	OK, so let's get to some of the actual allegations here.
	So yesterday, Ronna McDaniel, who's the head of the RNC, she did a presser in which she announced that there were 131 affidavits completed in Michigan concerning voter fraud and voter irregularities.
	All of these, every single one should be investigated so long as they are credible.
	As of 4 p.m.
	this afternoon, 131 affidavits have been completed just in Michigan, with over 2,800 incident reports that have been submitted to us since Election Day.
	Two new lawsuits were filed today by people who were working in Detroit, and a whistleblower who has gotten their information to the Eastern District Court of Michigan.
	Okay, so all of those should be investigated and will be investigated.
	It is worth noting at this point that 131 allegations or affidavits in Michigan is unlikely to change the voting outcome in Michigan because the fact is that in the presidential election, President Trump ended up Right now, he's down in the actual vote count by about 150,000 votes, 146,000 votes.
	So it's going to be difficult for him to overcome that burden, even with 131 affidavits.
	Now, listen, should our systems be cleaner?
	Absolutely, right?
	Our systems should be run like Florida.
	Would it be great if there were no voter fraud, no voter irregularity?
	Absolutely.
	But that is not the legal burden.
	The legal standard here is you have to prove enough.
	I'm just telling you so we're realistic about the future here, guys.
	This does not mean the system can't get better.
	It doesn't need to be better.
	What it does mean is if you're expecting the outcome of the election to shift based on voter fraud or voter irregularity, you have to look at the actual hard numbers and the actual legal standard because there is a process.
	It is going to go to court.
	That is the way that this works.
	Now, there are cases where voter glitches do change outcomes.
	For example, Daily Wire, Ryan Savedra reporting, an incumbent Republican in Michigan actually went from losing his reelection race to winning it after officials discovered a technical glitch by which the results from seven precincts had been counted twice.
	Officials responded to the error by urging voters to have confidence in the system.
	Adam Kochendorfer, Republican of Rochester Hills, went to bed Tuesday night believing, with all precincts reporting, he had lost his seat on a 21-member board of commissioners to Democratic challenger Melanie Hartman by 104 votes, but there was a problem.
	According to the Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown, the total from seven precincts in the city had been reported twice.
	So the final count correctly moved Kochendorfer from a 104-vote loss to a 1,127-vote victory.
	Okay, right, so these are small numbers, but those small numbers matter in an election in which there are only 40,000 total votes.
	So you do see stuff like this.
	It is important to note that the presence of voter fraud and voter irregularity does not mean that entire huge election swaths, decided by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of votes, are going to switch.
	This is a point made by the Georgia Secretary of State yesterday.
	So he said, yeah, we're going to find voter fraud, and yeah, we're going to find voter irregularity.
	But he's a Republican Secretary of State in Georgia, by the way.
	He's saying that is not going to likely change the 12,000 vote margin in Georgia.
	Remember, Al Gore couldn't even get via recount in Florida and via all of the legal maneuvering.
	He couldn't even narrow a 1,000 vote differential between him and George W. Bush in 2000.
	Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham presented an affidavit from a Pennsylvania mail carrier.
	His name was Richard Hopkins.
	He's a mail carrier who claims he was instructed to collect late ballots with the apparent intent from postmaster Robert Weizenbach to backdate the votes.
	Hopkins made the claim in a signed affidavit under the penalty of perjury.
	Although, as I understand, Pennsylvania law ballots must be postmarked by 8 p.m.
	on Election Day, November 3rd, 2020 in Pennsylvania, Postmaster Robert Weizenbach directed my co-workers and I to pick up ballots after Election Day and provide them to him.
	The affidavit reads in part, adding, quote, I heard Weizenbach tell a supervisor at my office that Weizenbach was backdating the postmarks on the ballots to make it appear as though the ballots had been collected on November 3rd, 2020, despite them in fact being collected on November 4th and possibly later.
	A U.S.
	Postal Service spokesperson told the outlet it was aware of Hopkins' claim and has referred the matter to the U.S.
	Postal Inspection Service and the Office of the Inspector General.
	Weizenbach did not respond.
	Back to a request for comment.
	Graham said in a statement, it is imperative that all credible allegations of voting irregularities and misconduct be investigated, he said.
	The presidential election remains close in multiple states.
	As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, all credible allegations of voting irregularities and misconduct will be taken seriously.
	I will not allow credible allegations of voting irregularities or misconduct to be swept under the rug.
	Good.
	It'll be fully investigated, right?
	The message of the show today, all of this stuff can and should be fully investigated and will be, I think, and will be.
	Meanwhile, in Michigan.
	A third lawsuit has been filed over Michigan's vote count.
	This one was filed in Wayne County Circuit Court alleging problems with the counting process at TCF Center in Detroit.
	The filing relies on the affidavits of four Republican poll challengers and a city of Detroit employee who said she worked in the city's election headquarters through September, a satellite clerk's office in October, and the TCF Center the day after the election, is according to the Detroit News.
	Besides the affidavits, no actual evidence of the alleged issues was presented.
	The allegations range from restrictions on poll challengers, to late arriving batches of absentee ballots, to the encouragement of early voters to cast their ballots for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
	Election officials said they allowed the maximum number of poll watchers for both Democrats and Republicans, only restricting access to additional poll watchers because of COVID-19 concerns.
	The suit seeks an independent audit of the election, a halt to the certification of Wayne County votes, in order voiding the county's election results and the initiation of a new election in Wayne County. There's also there's already been judges who have turned this down. And meanwhile there's a lot of questions about Pennsylvania.
	Now, I think it is important here to distinguish between allegations of voter fraud and voter irregularity and the changing of the rules that happen in Pennsylvania.
	One reality here is that the changing of the rules all over the United States to allow for mail-in voting, not on request, not absentee voting that you get, you request a mail-in ballot, it comes to you, you then vote, but the vast sending of ballots to people Because of COVID or for any other reason?
	Because supposedly it was unsafe to vote in person even though we literally had tens of millions of people vote in person and no massive outbreak due to it.
	And we'd had evidence from earlier on.
	There was an election in Wisconsin earlier this year in which there were big lines to vote and no COVID outbreak.
	The changing of those rules is in fact a problem.
	And it's a problem that needs to be fixed.
	The changing of the rules to not allow pre-tabulation of the votes before the election day.
	That is a problem and it undercuts faith in the system.
	Pennsylvania rules that suggested that you might be able to count a ballot after it arrived after an election day without a postmark, right?
	That undercuts people's faith in the safety and security of the election system.
	All of those things are systemic changes that are dangerous.
	That is not quite the same as voter fraud or voter irregularity.
	So it's important to tease out the various issues for sure.
	You know, all of these issues, I believe, are going to be teased out.
	And I think that we are seeing responsible rhetoric from people like Mike Lee, from people like Mitch McConnell.
	We'll get to that in just one second, because while we are seeing responsible rhetoric, really, I don't think it's irresponsible for Republican senators to say the process is going to play out.
	We have faith in the process.
	Why is that more irresponsible than simply declaring the election is over and if you refuse to repeat it, you're a bad person?
	Which is the media's take on all of this.
	Here are some of the Republicans responding to all of this.
	So Mike Lee, the senator from Utah, he put out a statement.
	His statement says, Voters on both sides of the political aisle understandably expect and indeed deserve to have a high level of confidence in the results of each election.
	Especially in a close, hotly disputed presidential election, the candidates are uniquely positioned to decide whether to request recounts, verify the accuracy of data, and otherwise take steps to ensure that all votes have been counted properly and lawfully. I look forward to working with whichever candidate emerges as the winner at the end of this process. Okay, and then Mitch McConnell said yesterday, he was talking about, listen, the states haven't certified yet.
	So all of this talk about how if we refuse to just say President-elect Biden, it's because he literally is not President-elect Biden.
	It's hilarious.
	We've had fact checkers who've been like white on rice going after every supposed misstatement by President Trump for four years.
	Then the entire media declare that Joe Biden is, in fact, the President-elect.
	Fact check, he is not the President-elect.
	He becomes the President-elect when the process concludes and when the electors vote for Joe Biden.
	The electors haven't even met yet.
	Here's Mitch McConnell making that very obvious point.
	Obviously, no states have yet certified their election results.
	We have at least one or two states that are already on track for a recount.
	And I believe the President may have legal challenges underway in at least five states.
	The core principle here is not complicated.
	In the United States of America, all legal ballots must be counted.
	Any illegal ballots must not be counted.
	Why is this wildly controversial?
	I'm just wondering.
	Okay, the reason it's wildly controversial is because the media have simply declared that the election is over and they want to move on with their lives, even though, again, the American public have very serious questions, many of them, about the irregularities and the possibility of people playing around with the election.
	So the New York Times has an entire article today about how evil Republicans are, how terrible, terrible Republicans are.
	Declining to recognize Biden's victory.
	McConnell says Trump is 100% entitled to challenge it.
	Okay, well, again, the Biden victory is still preliminary, considering not a single state has certified its election result.
	This idea that we have to bully every single Republican into saying that Biden is the president-elect, even though the process is not yet concluded, Concessions, when you concede an election, it makes things easier for everybody because everybody can then just move on with the assumption.
	But until it's actually formally appealed, that is the assumption, right?
	I mean, it's an assumption.
	It is not, in fact, a legal outcome.
	But the idea here is that you're very bad and you're undercutting the electoral integrity of the United States if you don't call for the assumption to be made across the board.
	And so you end up with stuff like this.
	So yesterday, Kayleigh McEnany was doing a presser talking about voting fraud and voting irregularities.
	Now here is my general rule.
	Politicians and political actors get to speak.
	I think that the Obama administration lied routinely.
	Routinely.
	I think that Jay Carney would go out in those press conferences on behalf of Barack Obama and he would lie.
	I think Barack Obama lied to the American people regularly.
	Barack Obama lied that if you liked your plan you could keep your plan.
	Barack Obama lied that the Iranians were on the brink of moderation if only we made concessions to them.
	Barack Obama lied about a vast number of issues.
	But, you know what?
	You still gotta broadcast that because the American people are entitled to more information, not less.
	And you can always debunk it later, right?
	This is why they have fact-checkers, supposedly.
	But yesterday on Fox News, Fox News did something that, frankly, I haven't seen a lot.
	And it does demonstrate the level of the news media's arrogance when it comes to not just fact-checking news sources, but literally cutting them off because they don't like what they are saying.
	OK, so Kayleigh McEnany was on Fox News and Neil Cavuto, who I generally like, just cuts her off.
	She's doing a presser accusing Democrats of voting irregularities.
	And again, it's either going to be evidenced or it's not going to be evidenced.
	And if it's not evidenced, then people are going to say that Kayleigh McEnany wasn't telling the truth.
	All of that is fair.
	But to cut her off literally in the middle of the presser so that the American people cannot even see the information.
	This is where we now stand.
	Our betters, our media betters, have decided what you can see and what you can hear.
	And that is not appropriate.
	Social media have been doing the same thing.
	Social media have been bullied into shutting down true stories.
	Kevin Roos, who has literally bullied Facebook into lowering engagement on conservative pages.
	It's insane.
	Facebook's entire company is now being run by some woke staffers and a bunch of idiots at the New York Times who write op-eds and send nasty tweets about, ooh, look, look, look, Shapiro's page, Dan Bongino's page, Mark Levin's page.
	People are paying attention to them.
	That's really bad.
	You guys should downgrade them.
	Kevin Roose put out a tweet suggesting it was disinformation to point out that an election result in Michigan did shift.
	It did shift!
	That's not disinformation.
	You just don't like the narrative.
	Tough.
	But the idea here is that social media and media are our saviors because, you see, they are wiser than you and they are wiser than I am.
	And therefore, they get to censor what you see and what you hear.
	Now, again, I'm happy to debunk any claim that is false made by a Republican or Democrat.
	You can do that.
	But first, you have to listen to the claim.
	Here's Kayleigh McEnany being cut off by Neil Cavuto yesterday.
	We want to protect the franchise of the American people.
	We want an honest, accurate, lawful count.
	We want maximum sunlight.
	We want maximum transparency.
	We want every legal vote to be counted, and we want every illegal vote to be... Whoa, whoa, whoa.
	I just think we have to be very clear.
	She's charging.
	The other side is welcoming fraud and welcoming illegal voting.
	Unless she has more details to back that up, I can't, in good countenance, continue showing you this.
	Why?
	I mean, seriously, couldn't you just come on right after that and say, you know, I don't think she provided any evidence of those pretty outrageous charges?
	Couldn't you just come on and say, I can't and good countenance continue showing you this?
	Who are you?
	I mean, seriously.
	Like, what are you, God?
	I can't, you can't see that information.
	You might agree with that information.
	You might be misled, misled.
	You might be misled, right?
	That would be a problem.
	And thus, you cannot see the information.
	Oh, that's great.
	I want my media outlet censoring what I can see and what I can hear.
	That is definitely what I am looking for here.
	And that kind of stuff from Fox News, even the Fox News host last night, Tucker, was like, our own network is beclowning itself here.
	That followed hard on an outtake from Sandra Smith on Fox News, acting exasperated when other guests on Fox News said, oh, you know what?
	We might want to wait for the legal process to play itself out.
	And Sandra Smith didn't realize she was still on camera and was rather skeptical of this claim.
	Whoever has decided to be the president, remember, just because CNN says or even Fox News says that somebody's president doesn't make them president.
	So I think everybody wants to know that this was done properly and legally.
	What is happening?
	Like, Trace, we've called it.
	Okay, we called it and therefore it's called, right?
	And once the media call it, it is the truth.
	That is the way that this works.
	I only have one problem with this, which is that I don't trust the members of our media to make objective determinations.
	Not only that, I certainly do not trust the members of our media to determine what I can see and what I can hear so that I can determine whether their determinations are in fact correct or not.
	We're going to get to more of this in just a second because it is pretty wild how the media have unmasked themselves.
	Generally speaking, the establishment media have unmasked themselves during this election.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, as a parent, I would do anything, anything to protect my kids.
	I'm sure you would too.
	Imagine you're a parent pacing around after your injured child in a hospital room.
	A doctor begins asking you question after question about how your kid got hurt, and you begin to realize they're asking about your involvement in the accident.
	Where were you when he fell?
	How did he actually fall?
	And then you slowly start to see that they think you actually hurt your own child.
	Wondery and NBC News present Do No Harm.
	It's a terrifying true story of a family torn apart by the system that was supposed to protect them.
	Investigative reporter Mike Hicksenbaugh chronicles what happens to the Bright family when their three kids are ripped away from them and the shocking moments that came next.
	With exclusive audio captured as the events unfolded, Do No Harm takes you inside the most harrowing moments of the Bright's family's fight to protect their children.
	Subscribe to Do No Harm on Apple Podcasts, join Wondery Plus and the Wondery app to listen one week early and ad-free.
	I mean, honestly, this is something that seriously a lot of parents worry about.
	I worry about this.
	I worry about the fact that there are authorities Who are out there, you know, on the state and local level, who are willing to separate you from your kids if they believe, without evidence, that you've done something bad to your kids.
	I mean, this is scary stuff.
	And Wondery's podcast about this, Do No Harm, is a must-listen.
	Go check them out.
	Subscribe to Do No Harm on Apple Podcasts and join Wondery Plus and the Wondery app to listen one week early, as well as ad-free.
	Okay, so as we were talking about, the establishment media cannot be trusted.
	I'm gonna show you more proof that the establishment media cannot be trusted.
	You simply should not listen to the narratives that they are spewing at you without checking it.
	That is why we here at Daily Wire are focused in on becoming the replacement media.
	We wish to help you replace the bad information and bad narratives that you're getting from so many pseudo-objective journalists and replace that with something true.
	This is why you should head on over to Daily Wire right now and get 25% off with code election and join the team.
	Join the team.
	You can keep up with us on all of the unfolding twists and turns of the election, which is not technically over yet.
	Not only that, we have big plans for the next four years, regardless of who the president turns out to be.
	Because again, our goal is to replace the media outlets that you used to trust and that are no longer trustworthy.
	That is why we are launching into the cultural space.
	I am happy to announce that Candace Owens, New York Times bestselling author, founder of the Blexit Foundation, We're going to be launching a brand new show with us early next year in Nashville, as well as writing content for us over at dailywire.com.
	We're also launching an entertainment channel so that you're not giving your money to the cuties folks over at Netflix.
	A new investigative journalism team.
	We're building partnerships with like-minded content creators like PragerU.
	We have an ambitious plan for next year.
	We're rolling it out.
	We are the replacement media.
	That is our job.
	We are going to try and replace the outlets that you shouldn't be giving your money to and that you shouldn't be trusting.
	The entire show library of PragerU, by the way, is available to dailywire.com members by the end of the year.
	And again, that's aside from all of the wonderful benefits you already get.
	You get the leftist tiers tumblers, you get the all access live in which I answer your questions, flex my rather puny muscles, and sing to you.
	Again, that is 25% off your Daily Wire membership with code election when you sign up today.
	Because if there's one thing 2020 has taught us, it's that anything can happen.
	You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So when I say that you cannot trust the establishment media, I really, really, really mean it.
	So over the past few weeks, we had the specter of a CNN contributor who had denied on air that he was the anonymous author from inside the Trump administration writing crap about Trump.
	Acknowledged that he was in fact that person, but he lied to Anderson Cooper on air about it.
	Did CNN even suspend him?
	Nope.
	And then, today, we find out that Jon Meacham, the presidential historian, wrote the speech that Joe Biden gave on Saturday night.
	He's been writing speeches for Joe Biden apparently all along.
	And then he's been going on MSNBC and commenting on the speeches that he wrote.
	Sources told the New York Times, according to Fox News, that Meacham had been, quote, playing a larger role than was previously known behind the scenes, both writing drafts of speeches and offering edits on many of Mr. Biden's big addresses, including the one he gave at Gettysburg last month and his acceptance speech at the DNC.
	Biden campaign press secretary T.J.
	Ducklow told the Times, quote, President-elect Joe Biden wrote the speech he delivered to the American people on Saturday night, but given the significance of the speech, he consulted a number of important and diverse voices as part of his writing process, as he often does.
	Meacham, who publicly endorsed Biden back in March, has long been a go-to analyst for MSNBC.
	The Times reported that according to a network source, Meacham would no longer be a paid contributor going forward, but don't worry, he'll still be welcome as a guest.
	Meacham did appear on MSNBC following Biden's speech on Saturday.
	He was asked by Brian Williams, another news anchor who makes up stories about avoiding gunfire in helicopters over Iraq.
	Okay, I'm sorry, the specter of Brian Williams, who's a falsifier of his own stories, asking questions to John Meacham, who wrote a speech for Biden about that same Biden speech, neither disclosing that Meacham was actually the author of the speech.
	That's peak media.
	I mean, that is peak establishment media stuff right there.
	So Brian Williams asked, quote, I'm not the historian that you are.
	I don't have the Pulitzer that you do, but do you concur this is the way we are used to hearing from our presidents?
	Absolutely, Meacham answered.
	Why, you know, it's pretty incredible.
	John Meacham loved the speech that John Meacham wrote.
	Who could have known?
	There's a shocker.
	That's a huge shocker.
	Our media are thoroughly corrupt.
	Thoroughly corrupt.
	Jake Tapper, who again, very often I think Jake Tapper is the only person in the media who will ask a tough question to folks on the left.
	This was not a good example of this.
	So Jake Tapper tweeted out yesterday, quote, I truly sympathize with those dealing with losing.
	It's not easy, but at a certain point, one has to think not only about what's best for the nation, peaceful transfer of power, but how any future employers might see your character defined during adversity. OK, that sounds an awful lot like that sounds an awful lot like if you don't act the way that I want you to right now, people might not hire you in the future.
	So that sounds like so.
	A few minutes later, he followed up.
	And he followed up that tweet.
	And he said, I mean, I don't expect the Ride or Die crew to listen to me, but... So it says here on your resume that you drove a sex offender to testify at Four Seasons Total Landscaping north of the Ticoni-Palmyra Bridge.
	Okay, so that is a reference to Rudy Giuliani doing a much-ballyhooed press conference yesterday about voter fraud.
	But the basic idea that you might want to think about what your future employers are going to think about you and all this, that sort of subtle implication there, which is that if you act the wrong way here, guys, if you act the wrong way here, people might not hire you in the future.
	That is what has led to the backlash.
	And the backlash has taken a few forms.
	One, the rise of alternative media sources like ours.
	And two, the rise of a huge number of Americans who are voting in ways that the media simply cannot detect.
	Because they don't want to be covered by the media.
	They don't want to talk to the media.
	They don't want the attention.
	Because they understand what goes on in these media outlets.
	These media outlets have become thoroughly corrupted by their own bubble.
	They've decided that it's their way or the highway.
	There's actually a fantastic piece over at New York Magazine about the goings-on over at the New York Times.
	And it does demonstrate full-scale how corrupt our media are.
	According to that article in New York Magazine, They're talking about Tom Cotton's column.
	You remember this.
	Back during the election cycle, Tom Cotton wrote a column, the senator from Arkansas, about how the Insurrection Act might in fact be justified to stop rioting and looting in America's major cities if local authorities wouldn't do it.
	And James Bennett, the op-ed editor of the New York Times, ended up losing his job for printing that after a bunch of staffers said they were unsafe.
	Oh, poor babies.
	They were unsafe.
	Because a sitting United States senator wrote a column that 55% of Americans by polling data agreed with.
	Okay, so here's New York Magazine's description of what happened.
	The conversation turned into what more than one Times employee described to me as a food fight.
	During the melee, opinion columnist Elizabeth Bruning uploaded a PDF of John Rawls' treatise on public reason in an attempt to elevate the discussion.
	What we're having is really a philosophical conversation and it concerns the unfinished business of liberalism, Bruning wrote.
	I think all human beings are born philosophers, that is, that we have an innate desire to understand what our world means, what we owe to one another, and how to live good lives.
	Philosophy schmilosophy, wrote a researcher at the Times whose slack avatar was the logo for the hamburger chain Jack in the Box.
	We're at a barricades moment in our history.
	You decide, which side are you on?
	By Monday morning, Bennett was out.
	So, I mean, this is the way that it works over there.
	This is the way that it works over at the New York Times.
	According to the New York Magazine, in the weeks that followed, one opinion staffer told me it felt like no one at the Times got any work done at all.
	There were focus groups, 38 of them and counting, and working groups and innumerable conversations about what the paper should be and look like and who it was for.
	The Mass Ted started holding black people meetings, as one black employee put it to me, in which members of the Mass Ted talked one-on-one with employees of color to sort out why they felt the Times was an unwelcoming place.
	In hashtag newsroom feedback, there were many days in which several people were typing.
	The gears of institutional change were slowly churning.
	Okay, this is the This is the best part of the article.
	They're talking about how the outraged New York Times staff had basically taken over the op-ed page.
	The section sometimes ran into the same problems.
	Last month, Opinion published a column by a Chinese government official arguing for the country's military crackdown in Hong Kong.
	It was a virtual repeat of the cotton situation.
	The hashtag newsroom feedback channel lit up briefly, but the conversation was muted.
	The China op-ed didn't hit home because everyone is exhausted, one Times reporter said.
	You can't be mad all the time.
	Everyone agreed that broader reforms would have to wait until after November, after the election.
	That's when the broader reforms were going to kick in.
	And that's when, presumably, they would start to be angry about the fact that China just subjected Hong Kong to absolute tyranny.
	I think you should trust these people.
	I think you absolutely should trust these people.
	Or alternatively, you should definitely not trust these people and you should go subscribe to Daily Wire.
	It sounds self-serving.
	It also happens to be the truth.
	But subscribe to BlazeTV.
	Subscribe to Daily Wire.
	Go give a donation to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
	Like, seriously, go get alternative sources of media because these people are simply not trustworthy.
	You know, the other predictable effect of all of this is, of course, that shy Trump effect that the media were completely unable to detect.
	And they can't believe it.
	They don't understand why there are so many Americans who simply didn't tell them the truth in polls.
	I mean, where did these tens of millions of Americans who supported Trump come from?
	I mean, it was unthinkable that even a single one of their friends could have supported Donald Trump, let alone millions and millions of Americans.
	So there were two possible ways out of this ideological conundrum.
	Way number one was you could do like Michelle Obama and simply declare that tens of millions of Americans were racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes who are ridden with hatred and simply wanted to keep the status quo.
	That is way number one.
	Way number two would be to actually be a little introspective in the media and say to yourself, OK, we missed it in 2016 and then we missed it again in 2020.
	What did we do wrong?
	What can we do differently?
	And maybe you might want to hire a person or two who voted for Trump.
	I don't know.
	You should think about it.
	Considering that Donald Trump won 48 percent of the vote and over 70 million votes, making him the second leading vote getter in presidential election history.
	Like Donald Trump, part of this is population growth, part of this is huge voter turnout.
	Donald Trump won more absolute votes than Barack Obama did in either of his elections.
	So that means there are tens of millions of Americans who are willing to pull the lever for that guy.
	Is there a single person who voted for Donald Trump and will say so clearly working for the New York Times?
	Seriously, it's a real question.
	Is there a single person working a regular gig at CNN who voted for Donald Trump?
	One.
	I'm not asking for 10.
	I'm not asking for 100.
	I'm asking for one.
	Is there one person at MSNBC?
	Is there one person at ABC News, NBC News, CBS, who will clearly say I voted for Trump and why?
	You can't find one.
	Weird, weird.
	And then, inside the bubble, they're like, well, you know, we are the arbiters of the truth, and we will tell you that elections are legitimate, and we will call elections.
	I can't imagine why there's systemic distrust of the people who are calling elections.
	I can't imagine why there's systemic distrust of people who declare the narratives.
	I can't imagine why the establishment media are blowing themselves out.
	It's amazing.
	The media are saying, you know, it's really bad that Trump is undermining election integrity.
	Hey, you know who undermined election integrity before Donald Trump?
	You know who did it?
	It was you jackasses for four years.
	You undermine the election integrity of 2016.
	You undermine the election integrity of 2018.
	And now when you flip around, you say, hey, listen, our elections are perfectly clean.
	Why should we listen to you at any point here?
	Seriously, why?
	How about we listen to people who are consistent, who say that the process works?
	I said the process worked in 2016.
	I said the process worked in 2018.
	I said before this election, the process was going to work and the process is going to work.
	And guess what?
	There's a process and it's going to play out.
	By this idea that we're supposed to simply blind ourselves and listen to our objective news media betters.
	GFY, man.
	Seriously.
	Now, the predictable result of all of this is, of course, that shy Trump effect.
	So, really, really interesting article by a guy named Eric Kaufman.
	He's a professor of politics at Birkbeck University of London.
	He says, with the final ballots yet to be counted, with the next president still unknown, the polling postmortem is underway.
	So much of the experience of watching returns remarked frustrated MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes was anchored by the polling going into it.
	It was a bad night for polling, an enormous polling miss.
	Why did the pollsters get it so wrong?
	Pollsters typically receive low response rates to calls that leads them to undercount key demographics.
	To get around this, they typically wait for key categories like race, education, or gender.
	If they get too few Latinos or whites without degrees, they adjust their numbers to match the actual electorate.
	But most attitudes vary far more within a group, like university graduates, than between graduates and non-graduates.
	So, even if you have the correct share of graduates and non-graduates, you might be selecting the more liberal-minded among them.
	For example, in the 2019 American National Election Study pilot survey, education level predicts less than 1% of the variation in whether a white person voted for Trump in 2016.
	By contrast, Their feelings toward illegal immigration on a 0 to 100 thermometer predicts over 30% of the variation.
	In other words, when you see pollsters say, well, you know, we properly sampled high school educated white voters, it really matters whether those high school educated white voters are baristas in Seattle or whether they are farmers out in eastern Washington.
	It turns out that education level might not be the greatest predictor.
	It turns out that there might be complicating factors.
	Maybe you're oversampling non-college graduates who are the baristas with the earring and two nose rings working at Starbucks, rather than the guy who is working a manufacturing shift over at the local factory.
	Unless pollsters wait for attitudes and psychology, which is tricky because positions can be caused by candidate support, they miss much of the actions, according to Eric Kaufman, again, professor of politics at University of London.
	He says, looking at this election's errors, I wonder if political correctness lies at the heart of the problem.
	Political correctness refers to the policing of speech so that it conforms to cultural taboos, especially the ones concerning race, gender, and sexuality.
	Those who wield the taboos gain rhetorical power, encouraging them to stretch the meaning of concepts such as racism to encompass non-racist actions such as voting for Donald Trump.
	In other words, if you keep calling people racist, and you keep extending those taboos, people are going to treat the taboos as taboos, and then they will not tell you what they are doing.
	Across all racial groups, 80% of Americans say political correctness is a problem in our country.
	Only the small progressive activist 8% of the U.S.
	population thinks it's not.
	In practice, the burden of political correctness arguably falls most heavily on university-educated Republican supporters.
	Data from a recent Cato Institute survey shows 88% of Trump-voting graduates compared to just 44% of Clinton-supporting graduates agreed that the political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive.
	So he says 45% of Republicans with degrees compared to 23% of Democrats with degrees said they feared their careers would be at risk if their views became known.
	Okay, well that is going to have an impact on that shy Trump effect.
	So where are the shy Trumpers?
	They are not the high school educated whites.
	They are college educated whites.
	Particularly college educated white women.
	They don't want to tell pollsters what they are thinking because they are afraid of the social ostracization as well as people like Jake Tapper saying, well, watch what you're saying in this moment because people might not hire you.
	How does this affect polling?
	According to Frank Luntz, he told Emily Malus, Trump voters were over twice as likely as Biden voters by a margin of 19 to 9 to conceal their intended vote from others.
	I would expect this ratio to be considerably higher among university graduates, which would accordingly skew predictions the most among graduates.
	In other words, just because you're online doesn't mean that you are going to answer honestly these questions, even though they are somewhat anonymous.
	surveys are anonymous, they reason a shy Trump effect should reveal itself and they find none.
	But we know that people who internalize social norms conceal their views in online surveys.
	In other words, just because you're online doesn't mean that you are going to answer honestly these questions, even though they are somewhat anonymous. For example, a recent survey of North American academics found that 23% of academics were willing to state they would discriminate against a Trump voter for a job.
	But the actual share, when using concealed techniques called a list experiment, was 42%.
	Which, by the way, I mean, that's an extraordinary number, right?
	That's 42% of academics saying they would discriminate against a Trump voter for a job.
	You think that's not going to have an impact?
	There's also a problem of blowback among elite Republicans.
	Luntz has said that feedback from Trump-supporting respondents revealed considerable resentment toward pollsters who are perceived as part of a media establishment out to misrepresent them.
	Why would they possibly think that, considering that the pollsters keep saying they are racist?
	This may explain why the polls didn't do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote, but failed miserably among white graduates.
	According to a Pew survey on October 9th, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points with white non-graduates, but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates.
	Likewise, a political ABC poll on October 11th found that Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.
	But the exit polls showed that Trump ran even among white college graduates, 49-49.
	He even had an edge among white female graduates, 50 to 49.
	So pre-election surveys were off by a whopping 26 to 31 points among white graduates.
	By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64 to 35, a 29-point gap, and the polls basically got that right.
	That is a massive error.
	It's a massive error.
	And what that suggests is that Republicans who are more educated, meaning they are more likely to come into contact with Democrats who are telling them they are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes, those are the ones who are being shy about this.
	So what that means for the future is that the more that Democrats and the media rely on this narrative, the more they refuse to actually investigate their own biases and their own hatred for people on the other side of the aisle.
	The more they refuse to hire a single Trump voter to write on the pages of the New York Times op-ed page, the more people are going to internalize the media's hatred for them.
	And then they are not going to tell the truth on how they vote.
	And they're going to vote Republican more and more often.
	This is the good news from the 2020 election, no matter which way it goes.
	And there's a lot of heartache for a lot of Republicans who are looking at the numbers, the raw numbers from Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and they're thinking to themselves that there's a high likelihood that Joe Biden is president-elect.
	Or will be president-elect when the process is finished.
	Okay, here is the good news.
	The good news is, the path forward for the Republicans is rosy.
	It is really bad for Democrats.
	Democrats have decided on a coalition of aggrieved racial politics.
	That is not a winning coalition.
	In fact, demographics are not destiny.
	The argument of both the racist alt-right and the mainstream left is that demographics are destiny.
	That a coalition of blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Asians, that that is gonna be the new minority majority, and that is going to swamp the white vote in the United States, and that it's all about the demographics.
	The alt-right thinks the same thing, by the way, which is why they want fewer people who don't look like them in the country, right?
	It's funny.
	The mainstream left and the alt-right agree.
	Demographics are destiny.
	Then there are the rest of us who think that people ought to be treated as individuals.
	And you know what the evidence bears out?
	That when you treat people as individuals, they act as individuals.
	The New York Times has an entire piece today about how Democrats missed Trump's appeal to Latino voters.
	According to Jennifer Medina, she says, after four years of draconian Trump immigration policies and divisive messaging, the Biden campaign courted Latino voters primarily by reminding them that Joe Biden was not Donald Trump, that if they felt targeted in Trump's America, a vote for Biden would change that.
	That argument resonated for many Latinos who became the second largest voting group for the first time this year.
	But for others, it was Trump who made them feel part of America, not targeted by it.
	Teresa Melio, an accountant in her 60s who immigrated from Cuba and attends an evangelical church in Miami, said, I've been in the country since I was nine.
	I've been through a lot.
	I'm an American.
	Abortion is the litmus test.
	Jesus is my savior.
	Trump is my president.
	Democrats lost in Florida, in part because of lackluster support among Latino voters.
	They did basically no better than they do normally in Texas, in part because Hispanic voters in the Rio Grande Valley moved decisively toward the GOP.
	In Arizona, Democrats will claim both of the state Senate seats for the first time in decades, fueled by young progressive Latino voters.
	For years, many Democrats have presumed demography as destiny, believing that Latinos would come to vote for them with the same kind of consistency Black voters do.
	A growing Latino population they hoped would transform the political landscape and give the party an edge in the Southwest.
	That dream ran into reality in this election, in which the results confirmed what was evident from conversations with hundreds of Latino voters in dozens of settings from the early days of the Democratic Party until the long ballot-counting hours in Arizona over the last week.
	The Latino vote is deeply divided, and running as not-Trump was always going to be insufficient.
	Okay, this is the reality, and it's very good news for Republicans.
	So here's the good news for Republicans.
	There are a lot of voters who voted for Trump, and they lied to pollsters about it because they understand political correctness and its diktats.
	There are a lot of Latino voters who are moving toward Trump because they are not going to be treated as a monolithic voting bloc.
	In fact, there are a lot of Black voters who moved toward Trump by exit polling, and outside shares of Black males voted for Donald Trump.
	Why?
	Because he is as blunt and direct with everyone as he is with everybody else.
	And that has some appeal.
	Also, we have been told that there is no age shift happening.
	We've been told that all of the people who are 18 to 29 and went for Obama in 2008, that they are not shifting, that they are going to remain blue voters forever, and that we're going to get this permanent shift toward the blue as those people continue to age.
	Only one problem, as Sean Trendy at RealClearPolitics points out, In 2008, 18-29 year olds went 66-32 for Obama.
	Today, that cohort is 30-41 years old.
	That cohort went for Biden by 7.
	Today, that cohort is 30 to 41 years old.
	That cohort went for Biden by seven, by seven.
	So either 42 to 45 year olds are really Trumpy or there's doings at transpiring.
	In other words, people shift as they age, as they have families, as they realize that the progressive oddities and stupidities of their youth no longer make sense.
	So if you're looking to a future for the Republican Party, that future for the Republican Party is quite bright.
	And it is worth noting that because, while I know a lot of people are pessimistic right now, The fight is only beginning, as I said yesterday.
	It's time to push.
	It's time to push.
	Donald Trump has wedged open a door with many Latino voters, with some black voters.
	He alienated a lot of suburban women.
	Those women voted for George W. Bush twice and Mitt Romney in 2012.
	A lot of those suburban women will come back.
	The fact is, what we are watching in real time is the Democratic Party alienate so many voters that they've alienated themselves into a minority in the country.
	I truly believe this.
	It's going to manifest itself in the House over the next couple of years.
	It's going to manifest itself in the Senate.
	And I think it's going to manifest itself in presidential races.
	If the Democratic Party decides to double down on the poisonous 2012 campaign of Barack Obama, which suggested that instead of campaigning to Americans as individuals, you have to campaign to Americans as groups, I think it's really going to go badly for Democrats in the coming years as Americans decide, you know what?
	I like being treated as an individual and not as a member of a group.
	And I don't like being called a racist.
	And I'm going to vote however I damn well please.
	And I also don't trust the media that tell me I'm a racist if I don't vote like all of our media betters say that I should vote.
	OK, meanwhile, some actual good news.
	Pfizer announced yesterday that there's a COVID-19 vaccine that is strongly effective in early data.
	According to Stat News, Pfizer and partner BioNTech said Monday their vaccine against COVID-19 was strongly effective, exceeding expectations with results that are likely to be met with cautious excitement and relief in the face of the global pandemic.
	The stock market rocketed through the roof yesterday on the news.
	The vaccine is the first tested in the United States to generate large-stage data.
	The company said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic COVID-19 than those who received a placebo for months.
	Researchers have cautioned that a vaccine might only be 60 to 70% effective.
	This is way, way, way more effective than previously supposed.
	William Gruver, Pfizer Senior President of Vaccine Clinical Research and Development, told Stat, quote, He came out yesterday and he said, this is truly an amazing thing.
	He said, this is a great day for humanity.
	So this really bodes well for us being able to get a handle on the epidemic and get us out of this situation.
	The Pfizer CEO, he came out yesterday and he said this is truly an amazing thing.
	He said this is a great day for humanity.
	Here was the CEO of Pfizer.
	It is a great day for science.
	It is a great day for humanity.
	When you realize that your vaccine has a 90% effectiveness, that's overwhelming.
	You understand that the hopes of billions of people and millions and businesses and hundreds of governments that were felled on our shoulders Okay, that is Dr. Albert Bourla, who is the CEO of Pfizer.
	So Big Pharma is good again.
	Remember that time when Big Pharma was evil?
	Big Pharma is actually good.
	There's a lot of speculation that this announcement was held until after the election.
	That lacks evidence.
	The only evidence that that is the case is that apparently Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they were going to drop a 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of COVID-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage.
	The FDA was aware of the decision. Discussions between the agency and companies concluded.
	Testing began this past Wednesday. When the samples were tested, there were 94 cases of COVID in the trial. This means that the statistical strength of the result is far stronger than was initially expected.
	It also means that if Pfizer had held to the original plan, the data would have been available in October, as Albert Bourla had initially predicted.
	Now, that is not enough evidence that this thing was held for political purposes.
	In fact, Pfizer said the reason that we didn't actually take public money when we were developing the vaccine is we didn't want this thing to become political.
	Here's the Pfizer CEO saying, listen, we weren't working with the election as a timeline here.
	For us, the election day was always an artificial date.
	We were not working with the election as a timeline.
	We were working... I released a letter, if you remember, Meg, to our employees some time ago, saying that the only pressure we feel it is the pressure of the billions of people that are hoping on our vaccine.
	And we are going to follow the speed of science.
	So science spoke.
	And I was predicting that this will happen at the end of October.
	It happened a week later.
	Well, naturally, the media immediately decided that it was time to say that Trump had nothing to do with it.
	So this part is hilarious.
	So the Pfizer head said that we weren't part of Warp Speed.
	What Pfizer's head meant by we weren't part of Warp Speed is we did not take initial money.
	According to Dr. Janssen, who is one of the heads of Pfizer, she said, we were never part of Warp Speed.
	We've never taken any money from the U.S.
	government or from anyone.
	Well, as it turns out, Pfizer is indeed part of Operation Warp Speed, which is Trump's initiative to develop a vaccine, because the government has declared that on the back end, if you develop the vaccine, that the government is going to buy billions of dollars worth of doses from Pfizer.
	So they were, in fact, part of the Warp Speed operation.
	They just were not taking money up front.
	On Monday, a spokesperson for Pfizer clarified the company is part of Operation Warp Speed as a supplier of a potential coronavirus vaccine.
	Okay, and then, hilariously enough, the entire media ran with the narrative that they weren't part of Warp Speed, so presumably Trump had nothing to do with the development of the vaccine.
	The reality is, if the government were not pledging to buy billions of dollars worth of doses, then Pfizer wouldn't be sinking hundreds of millions of dollars, presumably, into the development of the vaccine in the first place.
	Now, Democrats are sort of conflicted over how to treat the news of the vaccine.
	On the one hand, you have Chuck Schumer, who's saying we need to combat vaccine hesitancy.
	Here was the Senate Minority Leader yesterday.
	We Democrats will do everything we can to make sure this vaccine or any vaccine is distributed quickly, fairly, equitably.
	And the challenge is now one of scale and one of delivery.
	Congress should fund a national vaccination program.
	And the administration, whether it's the Trump administration or the Biden administration, must do everything to reach minority and underserved communities, combat vaccine hesitancy, and ensure that the vaccines are free to everyone.
	So number one, that's already been done, right?
	The vaccines are going to be provided to the American public.
	Also, when Chuck Schumer says it's time to combat vaccine hesitancy, maybe he should call up the governor of New York.
	Here was the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, yesterday, saying that he's very angry that the vaccine was developed while President Trump is president because now he doesn't trust the vaccine, which, because this is Captain Science over here.
	Captain Science makes ship the old people back into nursing homes with COVID.
	What an excellent governor he's been, right?
	He wrote an entire book about what an excellent governor he has been, while killing every old person in New York with COVID, apparently.
	Here he was undercutting the efficacy of a vaccine.
	The good news is the Pfizer tests look good and we'll have a vaccine shortly.
	The bad news is that it's about two months before Joe Biden takes over and that means this administration is going to be implementing a vaccine plan.
	I've been talking to governors across the nation about that.
	How can we shape the Trump administration vaccine plan to fix it or stop it before it does damage?
	Unbelievable.
	So he's undercutting the efficacy of the vaccine because, again, you need people to trust the vaccine in order to take it.
	Absolutely unbelievable.
	By the way, in other good news, the FDA has now granted emergency authorization of a COVID-19 treatment made by the American pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly.
	It was given to Chris Christie when he was infected with COVID.
	That authorization only applies to people newly infected with the virus.
	The treatment is approved for people 12 and older.
	The treatment, which is called Bamlanivamibab, Not kidding.
	Bamlanivimab should be administered as soon as possible after a positive test and within 10 days of developing symptoms.
	Dr. Daniel Skowronski, chief scientific officer of Eli Lilly, says it's a great day for science and medicine, sort of a feat of what is possible.
	So we are reaching better therapeutics.
	We are coming close up on a vaccine.
	A lot of that is due to the Trump administration and its mobilization on all of this.
	So, naturally, the media have declared that Trump is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths without giving him any credit for any of this.
	The science that dominates the left is truly excellent science.
	You know what's going to cure this, probably?
	Probably, if Joe Biden just has put on a mask, then all of this will be cured.
	And that's what Joe Biden said yesterday.
	Joe Biden, he finally unveiled his COVID plan yesterday.
	Just going to note this.
	Final note here.
	Joe Biden, who has declared himself president-elect, along with the networks, he laid out his COVID plan.
	It turns out his COVID plan is a task force.
	Yeah, a task force!
	Assemble the Power Rangers, guys!
	We need to have a government task force!
	When I think of efficiency and effectiveness, when I think of how to solve a problem, I think of a task force!
	So he assembled a task force that also includes Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who once famously wrote a piece for The Atlantic about why everybody should accept death at 75.
	Which, if he actually took that seriously, would mean that he should completely ignore COVID, since it is disproportionately killing people above the age of 75.
	In any case, Joe Biden laid out his plan.
	And guess what his plan was, guys.
	Guess what his plan was.
	You ready?
	His plan was put on a mask.
	Boom, boom, pandemic over.
	Joe Biden dropping the hammer on COVID by telling you to put on a mask.
	Huge, huge news.
	Here was Joe Biden.
	We could save tens of thousands of lives if everyone would just wear a mask for the next few months.
	Not Democrat or Republican lives, American lives.
	You know, maybe it would save the life of a person who stocks a shelf at your local grocery store.
	Maybe it saves the life of a member of your place of worship.
	Maybe it saves the lives of one of your children's teachers.
	Maybe it saves your life.
	So please, I implore you, wear a mask.
	And so, I mean, now that Joe Biden has said it, pandemic over, gang.
	And then, did you have questions about that?
	Did you have any questions about Joe Biden's plan?
	I have some bad news for you.
	He's not answering questions.
	So I'm glad that COVID has been cured by this old coot.
	Here is Joe Biden curing COVID by avoiding all questions.
	Catch you later, guys.
	I say masks.
	You say what?
	And then I leave.
	Here is Joe Biden just leaving.
	Thank you.
	Pandemic solved, guys.
	Pandemic solved.
	I'm so glad that the American public decided that this person was definitely going to care COVID.
	Excellent, excellent, excellent stuff.
	OK, one final note.
	Last note.
	Just going to note here.
	Ben Rhodes yesterday.
	The Biden, the incoming Biden administration, they suppose will happen.
	Ben Rhodes.
	He came out yesterday and he said that the Biden team is already having calls with foreign leaders.
	Here is a failed novelist who became the progenitor of the Iran deal, which he then admitted to the American public he lied to the American public about.
	Ben Rhodes is just a bag of garbage.
	He's a bag of flaming garbage left on somebody's doorstep as a Halloween prank.
	He is just the worst.
	So here is Ben Rhodes saying, guess what?
	Members of the incoming Biden administration are talking with foreign leaders already.
	The center of political gravity in this country and the world is shifting to Joe Biden.
	Foreign leaders are already having phone calls with Joe Biden talking about the agenda they're going to pursue January 20th.
	If that reality hasn't sunk in yet for some people in the White House, it will sink in when they have to leave on January 20th.
	Okay, so I'm old enough to remember that time that they tried to prosecute Mike Flynn for a Logan Act violation as the incoming National Security Advisor for having a conversation with the Russians.
	So I guess Logan Act violation's all around now.
	Let's start prosecuting members of the Biden administration.
	I think we need a full-scale investigation.
	I mean, they're not elected yet, and they're having foreign policy conversations already.
	I was fully informed that that was very bad that Mike Flynn did that, even though we had a readout of the conversations.
	Just shows you the utter, utter dishonesty of the media, the utter dishonesty of the Democrats.
	They didn't care two craps about Mike Flynn talking to the Russians.
	But you know what?
	We're supposed to pretend along with them.
	And if we pretend, if we clap loudly enough, Tinkerbell will live.
	All right, so here's my bottom line to all of this.
	Stop paying attention to members of the mainstream establishment media.
	Go get a subscription to Daily Wire or Blaze TV or anywhere else that will provide you actual information that is not biased to the left.
	All right, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.
	Executive Producer Jeremy Boren.
	Our Supervising Producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
	Production Manager Pavel Lydowsky.
	Our Associate Producers are Nick Sheehan and Rebecca Doyle.
	The show is edited by Adam Siavitz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and Makeup is by Nika Geneva.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	Journos wail that Trump will not concede, fraud turns up in swing states, and AOC threatens to leave politics.

▲