All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 22, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:45
October 22, 2012, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, folks, the one o'clock gallop poll is out, and it's 5145 Romney.
Six points.
That's down a point for Romney.
He was at 52 over the weekend, and but Obama's, what is it?
Um Obama's disapproval went up one point.
So the the lingering question here about if let me just share a wandering thought with you.
Here you have Gallup, which was not among the top five most accurate vulcars in 2008.
I think Gallup was around 15 or 16.
It was Pew and Rasmussen.
In fact, Rasmussen and Pew, I think about one and two in 2008, and Rasmussen has it 4947 Romney right now.
Now, you've got Gallup at 5145, 5245, 5146, right around there.
And the only one showing anywhere near that kind of national lead.
You've had Axel Rod pressuring the biseases out of them, threatening to sue them, investigate them, Department of Justice for uh three weeks minimum.
Reuters is attacking Gallup today in a story, which I've never seen before.
I've never seen one polling unit attack another.
Not like this, but they're doing it.
Gallup says, oh no, no, we're we're we've done everything you wanted.
We're we're weighting the minority voters even more, and it isn't helping Obama, and and we're we're accounting for some other things you wanted us to account for, and it's not changing.
In fact, our likely voter questions are a little bit more pro-Democrat, Gallup is saying, and it isn't mattering.
But they're still the only one out there.
Now here's the question.
We've got two weeks.
Is there time for an event or two to take place where Gallup could adjust their poll to 4747 or even 4746 Obama?
You know, Obama's been nowhere near 50% ever in the Gallup poll.
He's not been.
Is there is there anything that could what I'm getting at is, and I know people get mad at me when I do this, but I'm suspicious.
I'm just naturally suspicious that what Romney has going for him right now is mitum.
The momentum is all Romney's right, and it has been since the first debate.
In the polls, I think the momentum's been with Romney even before that, but we'll just stick with the polls.
And the one thing that the regime has always counted on is this sense of inevitability.
In every poll, they were always ahead.
No matter that Obama never got to 50.
It was just always they wanted everybody to think that Obama winning was a foregone conclusion.
And that was worth something.
That that thought, that psychological reality alone was worth a couple points in the polls.
Every poll showing Obama winning, no matter what.
That suppresses depresses Republican vote enthusiasm by design.
Then that debate happened, and there's they couldn't hide it anymore.
If they were hiding Romney's support, they couldn't not after that debate.
So then the momentum shifts to Romney.
And two things happen with that.
Romney big momentum by itself is huge, but then they destroy this whole notion that Obama was a lock.
And don't discount how important that was to the regime, or it would be to any candidate.
The assumption everywhere that you're gonna win is worth a point or two anyway.
Well, Romney's momentum destroys that.
And now the regime is in a place that they haven't been.
They're on the low end of the polls, there's no momentum with them, and the inevitability, the the lock is gone.
So if you are on Obama's side, what do you need to do?
You need to stanch the bleeding, and how do you do that?
You stop the momentum.
How do you do that?
Let's say in this debate tonight that it's another wash, that there's nothing major that happens here to scare people away from Romney.
Well, where are they gonna go to get Obama's momentum back?
Or where they're gonna go to to cut Romney down to size.
Well, hello, Gloria all red, or some late October surprise.
This Iranian thing was fascinating to me, by the way.
I didn't finish my thought on this in the first hour.
Over the weekend we heard news that uh Obama'd struck a deal with the Iranians, and uh they were gonna shelve their uh their nuclear pursuits in exchange for us ending the sanctions.
And that was supposed to go, all right.
Oh man, Obama Obama, he's tough.
He talked down the mullahs.
Well, then it obviously wasn't true because the regime then put out a story saying, no, no, no, no, no, that hasn't happened.
Which means somebody in the regime is still leaking sensitive national security information.
Because the New York Times was hellbent on maintaining they had been told that by somebody at the regime, that we had struck a deal with the Iranian.
Then the news shifted to we're talking that Obama and Iranians, the Iranians are talking, and then that became something that's not good for Obama.
Senior Iranian parliamentary sources revealed on Saturday that the Swiss envoy to Tehran has quoted President Obama as acknowledging Iran's nuclear rights.
Swiss ambassador Tehran, Livia Lou Agusti, attended a meeting with senior Iranian foreign ministry officials a few days ago to submit a letter from Obama to Tehran's leaders.
And the reason for that is we don't have diplomatic relations with Iran, so we have to find a surrogate.
And we found this Swiss ambassador.
Vice Chairman of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Hossein Ibrahim told FNA, the Iranian news agency, that during that meeting, Augusti, the Swiss ambassador, had told the Iranian officials that Obama recognizes Iran's right of access and use of nuclear technology.
So now that's not something the regime wants out there.
And if you'll notice it's not being widely reported, but it is kind of important, isn't it?
That Obama sent a message to the mullets, say, look, we recognize your right to have nukes.
All the while publicly Obama is saying, I'm not going to let them have a whip.
But I'm not surprised.
During Obama's campaign of 2008, I recall we had various interviews Obama had given in years prior.
Chicago radio stations and so forth.
He was asked, for example, about American exceptionalism.
He would say, well, uh, I imagine the Swiss think they're pretty exceptional too.
Meaning we have no claim on what is American exceptionalism business.
We have no claim on that.
And I happen to know, I can't, I can't quote you the specific interview, but I know that Obama has said, well, who are we to tell people they can't have something?
He might not have said it that exact way, but uh he said that that, well, we're not the only ones in the world in title of stuff.
Now we we know that that Barack Obama, we know it.
We know that Barack Obama does not hold this nation in high esteem in traditional ways.
American exceptionalism uh superpower status.
Remember, Obama's a social justice guy.
And a social justice people believe this country has benefited unfairly from an exercise and projection of power that has been mean and unfair to other smaller nations in the world.
So to me, it is entirely believable that Obama would believe in his heart that, hey, if the Iranians want nukes, we're it's not not none of our business to tell them they can't have any.
Now, publicly Obama make it sound like he doesn't want them to have nukes, he'd never say this publicly, but he has.
He's intimated it at least, that's how I know it.
I also know it because he's a liberal.
I also know it he's actually a radical, and I and as as uh Reverend Wright, that whole crowd, I'm telling you, they all think alike, and they would all be offended at the notion that the United States somehow should have the right, authority, ability to tell any nation they can or can't have anything, such as nukes.
That would offend them.
It does offend them.
So this story on sanctions, when I again when I first saw that, I said, well, it's good to know who the Iranians are endorsing.
Then the regime denies it.
But the New York Times insists that a high government official told them.
So we have a leak.
It may well be that this is something Obama wanted to announce in the debate tonight.
And somebody leaked it.
It may well be something he wanted to use later, closer to the election.
It may well be that it's something he doesn't want to come out because he thinks it might hurt it.
Who knows?
But this is why he's not telling us what a second term agenda is going to contain because it's going to have stuff like this.
The second term agenda will have things in it, such as, well, uh think it's our purview to uh tell the Iranians what they can and can't have.
It's not right.
How would we like it?
If the Iranians told us that we couldn't build any more jets.
That's how he thinks of it.
Well, how would we like it if Country A told us we can't do stuff?
Don't doubt me on this.
I'll say something else about a second term agenda.
For you people who are well healed in the world of finance.
I saw something speculated about business insider, I think was the website over the weekend.
Any of you remember the Matrix movies?
What's that actor's name?
Uh that played.
Yeah, Keanu Reeves.
He took the red pill, remember?
Remember the red pill?
What was the red pill?
Do you remember what the red pill did?
It just wiped out the current reality, just eliminated current reality.
There are some people speculating that in a second term Obama would simply cancel all American debt.
Just cancel it.
And in the process, totally destroy the value of the U.S. dollar.
Just cancel it.
You're asking, how does he do that?
Well, you work with the Federal Reserve, you just cancel a debt.
You just wipe it out.
Say we're we're canceled, we're starting fresh.
We're starting brand new, starting all over.
And then what do the tricoms do?
What happens there?
It's not anything etched in stone, but this is the kind of thing people are speculating about could have.
This is, by the way, would not be good.
No, no, no.
That would not be good.
Don't misunderstand.
It'd destroy the dollar.
It would destroy the value of the dollar.
Plus a whole bunch of other things.
But I'm telling you, these are the kind of things people are speculating would be in store for us in a second term.
And that's why Obama's not talking about it.
He doesn't dare.
He doesn't dare illuminate the possibilities of a second term.
There's no way.
This Iranian stuff is an example, what he might do with the debt, the deficit, and any number of other things.
So it's uh it's vitally important that people remain focused on that fact that Obama is not detailing a second term agenda.
There is a reason, a very solid reason, not solid good for him.
It is good for him, not for us.
He wouldn't he wouldn't stand a chance of re-election.
If he's going to do more, what we're going to raise taxes more, redistribute more, take even more money out of private sector, expand the welfare roles even more.
Not a prayer.
Not especially that internal question, the NBC Wall Street Journal polls, 62% of the people in that poll say if Obama wins, they want him to make a drastic change in direction.
We were talking about polls earlier.
There's one other interesting story from Reuters, I want to get into in a minute.
Reuters attacking Gallup, saying their poll is illegitimate.
Never seen that before.
Reuters is also have also has a story came out yesterday.
Headline, McCain voters defecting to Obama are older white males.
Reuters wants us to believe that a bunch of McCain voters, older white males have made the decision to vote for Obama.
And I read the story.
I've looked at data they provide.
I don't see how this adds up.
I will share with you that data.
You can decide for yourself when we come back.
Have a question for the official program observer.
Mr. Snerdley, have we have we had a single call that maybe you didn't put on the air?
Because I know we haven't had one on the air.
Have you had a single be honest, single call from a white guy, old white guy, claiming he voted for McCain but now going to vote for Obama?
You have not.
Okay, we have not had such a call, and we've certainly not one on the air out of ask Snerdley because for every call that gets on the air here at about 2500 that don't.
Well, no, not now.
If we get one, if I say that we get one, you'll put it up first.
Everybody in the world will call and say that they're one just to get on the air.
So Reuters has this story.
McCain voters defecting to Obama are older white males in today's highly polarized political environment.
It's somewhat surprising to find voters who backed McCain in eight now support Obama, but they exist.
Roughly 5% of respondents in Reuters' polls said they chose McCain in 08 and are going to switch to Obama in 2012.
This number peaked at around 9%, two separate times over the summer.
Who are these defectors?
The McCain to Obama switchers are 55% male, and 34% of them are 55 or older.
Overall, Obama trails Romney 34 to 52% among white men over 50, about 72% of them are white.
Now let's numbers run together when you're listening to them, but I want you to follow this, because I don't think these numbers work.
Reuters is claiming older white males who voted for McCain are defecting to Obama.
That's one.
Reuters claims roughly 5% of respondents in their polls said they chose McCain in 08 and are going to switch to Obama this year.
And 34% of those are 55 or older.
Then Reuters says, and this is interesting is the key, overall, Obama trails Romney 34% to 52% among white men over 50.
Now that's an 18-point difference.
That's the key number.
As of right now, Reuters'own number.
Obama trails Romney 34% to 52% among white men over 50%.
Which makes me question this entire article.
Because according to the 2008 exit polls, as reported by the New York Times, among men in both categories of 45 to 59 and 60 and older, McCain beat Obama by 15%.
So among white men in both 45 to 59 and the 60 plus demo, which would include 55 plus, McCain beats Obama by 15%.
Now, if Romney has an 18-point lead over Obama by Reuters' own admission now, that is 3% higher than the support McCain got in 2008, according to New York Times exit polls.
Now, admittedly, we're using New York Times exit polls to determine the uh the the makeup of the of the voters in 2008.
But using that data, you would have to say that more older white men are moving to Romney, not away from him.
18% is three points higher than 15%.
The older white male vote for Obama, 15% in 2008.
Romney is got him by 18%.
I it's I might have got one of those backwards, but the point is it's a three-point difference.
Romney is leading by three points over what McCain got in 2008.
Romney's doing better by three points.
How in the world this becomes white male voters defecting to Obama mystifies me.
I don't know.
We might have caught him in something here.
But it's clear that this is an attempt to suppress depress Republican turnout.
No question about it.
You want to hear some of the comments of these white guys that voted for McCain now voting for Obama and it let no, you gotta hear some of this.
Right now, if I had to choose, it'd be Obama.
He's more personable, said William Holliday, 58-year-old retiree from Convass Township, Michigan.
Holiday said that in general he leans Republican.
Yeah, I voted for McCain four years ago in spite of the fact that he picked Palin.
Because I thought that was a cheap trick he pulled there.
He uh worries that if Romney's elected, he'll put Cheney and Rumsfeld back in there to run the show.
Now, folks, I don't know about you, but I don't know any Republicans who are worried about Cheney and Rumsville.
They would much prefer either.
Republicans here would much prefer Cheney and Rumsfeld to Van Jones than anybody else in the in the regime.
Jeffrey Baker, 56, retiree in strong Maine, thinks Romney's refusal to release his taxes disqualifies him.
If you can't be honest from the start, I don't want you in the Oval Office.
Oh, really?
Jeffrey?
Honest?
As though Obama has been.
Obama's more for the whole country than Romney is.
Romney, that's his honest feelings.
He doesn't really care about the 47%.
This is just too pat.
This is this is the kind of things that the Democrat base says.
These are all the hot buttons of the Democrat base.
Cheney Rumsfeld, the 47%.
Palin, dirty trick.
Obama's more for the whole country.
Jeff Waltrip, 56 retired electrician.
Electrician and retail worker who's voted Republican all his life, says Romney's out of touch with lower income Americans, and he mistrusts Romney's religious conviction.
Well, why not cap it with an anti-Mormon comment?
And all of this Reuters finds among old white guys voted for McCain.
But what's he been consulting with Whoopi Goldberg?
Has Jeff Waltrop maybe been talking to Whoopi Goldberg about Mormons?
This guy watched the view.
By any chance.
Anyway, so you got this Reuters story and the Reuters story attacking Gallup for their uh their fraudulent poll.
Here is Ed in Fort Myers, Florida, as we head back to the phones.
Ed, great to have you on the EIB network high.
Well, thank you, Russia.
So thrilled to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Um I hate to think where where we would be if uh if it weren't for you.
I think that's the same thing, I must tell you.
My comment concerns my comment concerns the uh over sampling in these polls.
Uh and the way that's uh reported or or described.
The um if there were a poll that would be 30 percent Republican, 40% Democrat, the description is a ten percent oversampling of Democrats.
But that's not really correct.
If it were a hundred people in the poll, it would be thirty Republicans and forty Democrats.
That would be ten Democrats more than Republicans, and that would be ten out of thirty, which is a thirty-three percent over sampling of Democrats.
Oh, you're gonna go all engineer on us here.
Yeah, he c he wrote that down, huh?
All right.
Numbers are really hard for people when they can't see them, so you have to walk me through even even me.
You got 40 percent Democrat, 30 percent Republican, that's reported as a plus ten Democrat advantage, but you say it's actually plus thirty in terms of percent?
Thirty-three.
Thirty-three.
Okay, how do you get there?
Well, if there were a hundred people in the poll, there would be thirty Republicans and forty Democrats.
Right.
That would be ten more Democrats than Republicans.
That's right.
And that would be ten out of thirty, because there were thirty Republicans, and that's thirty-three percent more Democrats than Republicans.
Well, why do you take ten out of thirty and not ten out of a hundred?
Because it's ten there are only thirty Republicans.
They they sampled if they sampled thirty Republicans and thirty Democrats, it would be zero.
But they sampled ten more Democrats than they did Republicans, and there were only thirty Republicans in the first place.
So that would be thirty-three percent more Democrats than Republicans.
Well, there's no question the math works the way you're doing it.
The only question that that I anticipate the audience having is even though there are only thirty Republicans in the poll, we still have a sample of a hundred people here.
We've got forty Democrats, thirty Republicans, that leaves uh thirty, we'll say independents undecided, which you're throwing out, they don't matter for what you're doing, right?
No, they don't matter because we're only talking about the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
The difference being ten out of the Okay.
All right, then here's the next question.
If what you say is thirty-three percent more Democrats than Republicans, then how does that manifest itself in the results that the poll says?
Like if if you the poll is skewed by thirty-three percent.
The poll is okay, uh so a poll that shows, let's let's just let's get one.
Uh and bear with me here.
I'm way behind you on numbers.
I'm not good with no 40 Democrats, 30 Republicans, and let's say the poll shows Obama 49, Romney 47.
Yep.
That's not the poll, that's the poll result.
Yes.
That's what they're reporting.
The poll is 4947 with a sample of ten more Democrats than Republicans.
So it depends on how many they sampled, yes.
Right.
Well, I'm using your number, 40 and 30.
Yes.
So I've got 40, 30, and then 30.
So you got 40 Democrats, 30 Republicans.
You say there's 33% more Democrats.
Okay, that poll, I the this hypothetical shows Obama 49, Romney 47.
Does that mean, according to your calculations, that we have to take 30% away from Obama, away from 49%?
What I'm getting is how does this how do what I haven't I haven't actually thought that through, but uh I think it would be something like if you're gonna compare the only the results in in the percentages of 49, 47, then it would be ten out of uh sixty.
In other words, there'd be thirty if you if you did a stra a proper poll, there would be thirty three uh thirty Republicans and thirty Democrats.
But we don't have thirty Democrats, we have forty Democrats, which is ten more out of out of the base of thirty for Republican.
If you say ten percent or uh thirty-three percent more Democrats than Republicans, yeah, but what I'm trying to get by the Republican.
So it'd be ten, it would be ten divided by seventy as a percentage spread on the results of the poll.
I I know you la I lost you there.
Well, only because I'd have to divide it on paper to get what that number is.
Uh I'm just saying it's real simple.
I got thirty I sample thirty uh Republicans and I sample forty Democrats.
How many more Democrats did I sample?
Ten.
Right?
No, no, I understand all this.
What I'm trying to get to is what does it mean when they also tell us that of these forty and thirty that forty-nine percent prefer Obama and forty-seven prefer Romney.
What does that the thirty-three per sh does it change Oh yeah.
Well, how?
How can we it's going to change it in terms of a higher percentage for Romney in that case.
Yeah, and the way people are doing it, if in in your example, if we got a 4947 Obama lead with a sample of of ten more Democrats, then we're thinking it should be uh probably two percent.
Two percent.
Yeah.
Okay.
Out of the 4947, it's really fifty-one forty-six.
Because that for for your call to to mean something here, we've got to know what your thirty-three percent calculation means to the final result that they are reporting.
Not what final it's it's going to it's going to skew it substantially.
In other words, uh the 4947 example that you that you picked would probably be somewhere around 5146 in reality.
For who?
For uh the the 49 being uh uh uh Obama.
So it'd be f excuse me, it would be the other way around.
Sorry.
I got I got that backwards.
If they sampled an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the percentages would f the improvement in the poll would be beneficial to the Republicans.
Well, but uh there's that that thirty percent undecided we don't we're not factoring here.
No, because the only reason I'm asking you, you're making it you're you're making a big deal.
You're try you're trying to to to conclude or or you're trying to get people to conclude that the polls are even more phony.
Oh, yes.
But I don't see how.
I don't know, I don't know what to make of the 4947.
Well, i if you had uh you know uh you do your own poll.
You sample thirty Republicans, you sample forty Democrats.
Why did you sample forty Democrats?
Well, ostensibly because you sample ten more Democrats than you did Republicans.
Right?
Right.
So that's a thirty-three percent more Democrats than Republicans.
Than Republicans.
It's not thirty-three percent of the total, it's thirty per thirty thirty-three percent more than they did Republicans.
Right.
No, I don't I understand all that.
I'm just I'm see it's what if you have Obama at 49, Romney at 47 with a Democrat plus ten sample, then people will conclude that Romney might be ahead by five rather than down by two.
And they're trying to get that.
They're just using the the the ten grader.
When you change the way this is looked at to 33% more Democrats, then people are gonna conclude that Romney's even further ahead, or better that Obama's even further behind.
And I just don't know that that works.
I don't know that anyway, uh I appreciate the call.
Uh and uh I think statistically uh you are correct that that's the way to analyze the number differential, but I don't know how anybody can take that and then apply it to what the reported uh end of poll data is and make the adjustment.
Anyway, got to take a brief time out.
Sit tight, folks.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, before we move on, let me explain what the previous caller was just trying to say.
It's a semantic argument only.
In the example he gave where there are 40 Democrats and 30 Republicans sampled.
The conventional wisdom now, the the the the way of reporting that is a Democrat plus 10 sample.
And in raw numbers it is point was that it's much greater than 10 in reality.
That it is a 33% increase in the number of Democrats sampled.
Not ten.
Doesn't change the outcome it's simply his way of driving home how out of proportion the oversampled Democrat polls are.
Nothing more than that.
You have 40 Democrats, 30 Republicans is reported as a Democrat plus ten.
It is in raw numbers.
But in terms of the percentage that polling unit actually talked to thirty three percent more Democrats than Republicans, which would help to illustrate just how out of kilter such a poll is with such a sample.
When you won't find a sample like that in election returns you will not find Democrats plus ten say in 2010 in terms of people showed up turnout if you're just a semantic thing.
It doesn't change the outcome of the poll as reported it's just a more accurate way of looking at the out of balance situation among those polled.
Here is uh Dave in Allatown Pennsylvania I'm glad you waited sir you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi Rush pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you.
Hey you were talking about um your website with another caller I actually am a member of your website and I actually use it as a tool to show people that actually like Obama or not even registered to vote why they should, you know, go with Romney.
Um this started back on Easter Day when I got together with my in laws and they're pretty liberal and they started talking about health care.
So I popped up your website and you know I showed them the way it really is and then of course I had to back it up with some other things because you know just in case they didn't believe that it was you know the truth coming from you.
Well of course you get people like that you show my website Whoa everybody knows that Limbaugh makes it up or everybody knows that Limbaugh lies so how did you deal with that?
Well I just have to go maybe to a couple other different news articles and why they're all contained there every source for facts that I offer is linked to it my website which you know every source.
Right well that's what I mean I had to go to other other places just you know just to prove that it was you know the way it was and then um they they actually got it then they started talking to people at work and I I talk to people but you know fast forward to now we we get together every like 10 to 12 days we get together on a Monday night and then the following week on a thir you know ten days later on a Thursday night and then back to a Monday night.
But what I do is I listen to your show every day and when you say certain things I'll mark the time down and then um you know just go make a whole list and when we get together we eat first and after we eat around seven o'clock at night I go down the list of everything you might have talked about and then they figure they talk about or they they pick which one they want to talk about and then I'll fast forward on your website to that time and then I'll let it play out and then we'll talk about it.
But um since then we now have seventy two people that regularly come here from nothing.
Seventy two people and they're mostly Democrats coming where?
Where do you do this?
At my house.
Your house you get seventy two people coming to your house my house right we do it outside in the garage I have like a not the nights at Columbus Hall.
You're doing it in your house in my house we get together like every ten days we come to my house.
Seventy two people do this?
Well there's seventy two regulars now.
There's actually we had a little more at the last time we got together on Thursday again, just last Thursday.
And most of these people are Democrats.
What gosh, I would love to see one of these meetings.
I can I I'd love to take pictures of it and send it to you.
If you want to you can actually see the faces of the people that you've changed.
I mean, it's it's nice.
It's it's really growing.
And I I I can't believe that Pennsylvania is not gonna vote Romney.
I mean, these people are out there every day, too, trying to get people in.
Well, Pennsylvania, you you you live in Allentown, so you know Pennsylvania's three states in one.
You have Philadelphia.
The suburbs in Philadelphia used to cancel out Philadelphia in the old days.
Now, Philadelphia was all, you know, social, liberal, political liberty, and then you have the suburbs that kind of cancel it out.
The suburbs don't cancel it out as much anymore.
Then you've got the central rural part of Pennsylvania.
Then you go to the uh the west side of Pittsburgh and and so forth.
It's really three different states, depending on what part of the state that you talk to somebody in a state, they will tell you you don't see how in the world Obama can win it.
But if you talk to somebody from Philadelphia or the suburbs, I don't see any way that Romney could win it.
Hey, Snerdley, I want you to get Dave.
I know he's still on hold, and I want you to get his mailing address because we've got to send him a bill.
He's using he's spreading my website out over seventy-two people.
We have to send him a bill for 71 website subscriptions, or else do another bake sale.
We're giving it away out there, but it's worth the cause.
But still, we got to protect our property.
▲
Export Selection