All Episodes
Previous Next
March 9, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:46
March 9, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And look at this.
Here's another headline.
The Politico today, they can't believe.
Can you put yourself in their shoes?
For their entire existence, they have been besmirching, impugning, and otherwise relegating the Republican Party to insignificant minority status.
And yet, the most popular, most talked about political figure in the country today is running as a Republican.
Donald Trump.
And the Politico, another story, this headline.
How are they losing to this guy?
How are they losing this?
Trump's opponents are getting beaten by a guy who uses election night press conferences to peddle his brand of steaks and bottled water.
That's not what he did last night.
That's what you saw.
But that's not what he did.
How do these people continue to miss this?
You know, these honesty, you have to understand.
Sometimes this stuff gets frustrating.
I've given these people the answers to every question they've had for the last five months.
And they don't listen here.
And they don't go to my website and read what I've said.
They spend their time at media matters reading these out-of-context, so-called excerpts of what I've said, or they don't even do that.
They get it in their heads that I'm one thing or another and just assume things.
They don't even know how to watch Trump now.
They don't even know how to see Donald Trump the way people voting for him see him.
And not just the people not voting for him.
They don't have the ability to see him the way any American watching that last night on TV sees him.
But if your takeaway from Trump's press conference last night was that it was an attempt to sell Trump steaks or Trump water, you are missing the boat so badly.
It's embarrassing.
If that's what you think that was about last night.
Well, no.
Okay, I'll just tell you.
The only reason the Trump steaks and the Trump water and the Trump vodka and the Trump wine, by the way, Trump extolled the virtues of his winery.
It formerly was owned 2,600 acres, I think, in Virginia by John Klugie, who was the Metro Media Grand Puba.
Now, I've never had Trump wine, and it may be fine, but he's saying it's the finest wine in the world.
And I will guarantee you the people at Chateau Aubreyon, Chateau Latour, Chateau Lafitte Rothschild are looking at that, and shortly, who in the world is going to believe that Trump vinegar is in any way comparable to what they produce in Bordeaux.
But he says it, and people eat it up.
The thing that people don't get, you have these people like at Politico or anywhere, the Washington establishment, party officials, both Democrats and Republicans, and they watch this and they wring their hands and they go, oh my God, oh, this is so embarrassing.
Oh, this is so bad.
Oh, oh, this is so offensive.
They do not understand that Trump knows he's putting everybody on.
And the trick is that he knows his audience knows he's putting everybody.
I'll give you an example of this.
Donald Trump knows that his wine is not the best stuff in the world.
But his shtick is that everything he does is the best in the world.
He's got the best friends.
He's got the best clubs.
He's got the best golf courses.
He's got the best this.
And everybody says so.
And you laugh about it.
You laugh at it.
He's not the kind of braggart that offends people.
He's a braggart that endears himself to people.
It's a personality thing.
And there's the hidden bond, I call it, this invisible way that Trump has of connecting with people.
Some people refer to it as the it factor.
There's all the Q number.
There's any number of ways to quantify it and to describe it.
And you can't see it.
You just know it when you see it.
But Trump knows his wine's not the best in the world.
And he knows people know that.
So be it.
He says it anyway.
And everybody laughs along with him.
And they think it's great.
And they think it's marvelous.
They think it's cute, whatever they think.
But they don't get offended by it.
Like Mitt Romney's getting offended or like somebody else getting offended.
They know that some of the things Trump says, like bringing iPhone production back, they don't really expect that to happen.
Nobody's electing Trump convinced that iPhones are going to be made in America and all kinds of new jobs.
It's the key to that, I think, is this is the way Trump telegraphs his preferences and his support for people.
How many times have I asked people to note, and it happened last night two or three times, it always does.
Sometimes they're fleeting, sometimes the moments, sometimes they take 30 seconds.
But at least three times in every one of these hour-long either press conferences or speeches, Trump goes all humble.
He goes total humility.
He thanks everybody.
He tells them what an honor it is, and they hear it and they know it.
And they recognize the bluster for what it is.
And they're not offended by it.
And this is what I think people can't see.
And if they, again, just to illustrate, if they think the point of this thing last night was a cheap sales gimmick to sell Trump stakes, that's not what he was doing.
He wasn't taking the occasion of this to sell Trump merchandise.
If that happens as an ancillary thing, fine.
But that was clearly Trump having fun.
He's got Mitt Romney, Mr. Stiff Shirt, Mr. Pointy Shirt, Mr. so-called rock rib whatever out there condemning the way he behaves and condemning his businesses and claiming that they're losing money.
And Trump's been very open on it.
Look at you hit me and I'm going to hit you back and I'm going to hit you twice as hard as you hit me.
And if you accuse me of things that aren't true, I'm going to come out and show people are not true.
So once he's doubling down on Trump University, it's like he's doubled down on every criticism there has been.
People are saying his stakes suck, that they don't taste good, that you can't find them, they're out of business.
Well, there they are.
They were on stage.
I saw him last night.
And there are a lot of people.
He was giving some samples away.
People want him.
It's the way he deals with it.
And by the way, he champions the things he believes in.
And that draws crowds.
And that it really isn't hard to understand this stuff.
But if you don't know how to see it, if you don't know what you're looking at, then I can see where you might get righteously indignant or offended or what have you.
But it's a classic, to me, case study in media, so-called media experts not understanding media and not understanding or even being able to spot expert usage of it while they're looking at it.
Anyway, moving on to other things.
This business about Rubio came up in the last hour.
Remember the story?
Where was this story?
Where did it originate?
It was a CNN story, was it not?
It was a CNN story by Jamie Gangel and one of the reporters, don't remember the name.
And the story was that Marco Rubio supporters, people's campaign, were suggesting that he get out of the race before the Florida primary next Tuesday to avoid humiliating defeat, to avoid a defeat that could damage his political future.
And the story, the report said that Rubio was considering it.
Well, after the story hit, there were denials left and right.
The New York Times Today headline: Ted Cruz's campaign, accused of spreading rumors of Marco Rubio's withdrawal.
Oh, really?
Are we going to replay the Ben Carson story here?
Isn't it apparent what we're doing here now?
Ted Cruz had nothing to do with that.
Ted Cruz had not a single thing to do.
It was rubbish.
I don't care if it doesn't matter.
I'm going to tell you it does matter.
The people out there know it matters, and they know this is a BS thing for the New York Times, just like they've known all along that what they tried to do to Cruz over this Ben Carson scenario was BS from the get-go.
Here's how the story starts: it's by Alan Rappaport.
Senator Ted Cruz is under fire from Senator Marco Rubio's campaign, which accuses him and his campaign of employing more dirty tricks ahead of the Republican caucuses in Hawaii.
This is a story from yesterday, and spreading false rumors that Rubio's dropping out of the race.
Emails that appeared to have come from the Cruz campaign were sent to his supporters in Hawaii, promoting a CNN report.
CNN reports that Rubio's own campaign is advising him to get out and that Rubio's considering it.
So Cruz, once again, emails the CNN report, and somehow it's Ted Cruz spreading rumors.
Okay, Cruise Workers somewhere, but it doesn't matter.
Cruise Workers equals Cruise.
It was the Dirty Tricks Cruise campaign.
You have a CNN story.
You have a full-fledged, just like we had a CNN tweet over Ben Carson.
A CNN story about Rubio.
Somebody in his campaign is the single source thing.
They're thinking of getting out to avoid humiliation.
So somebody somewhere to totem poll a cruise campaign sends the story out to some people in Hawaii.
And here we go again.
Cruz campaign accused of spreading rumors.
This is, I don't know how to describe this.
It's so obviously wrong that it is purposeful.
It is an attempt.
This is the New York Times relying on their, in their own world, in their own mind, their irrefutable reputation, their indestructible reputation, that whatever they say is.
And it's aimed at low-information people who may not have heard at the CNN report, but even they included in here.
Emails that appeared to have come from the Cruz campaign were sent to his supporters in Hawaii, promoting a CNN report saying some of Rubio's advisors see no path for him to win the nomination, suggesting he might leave the race before March 15th primary in Florida.
Spokesman for Rubio said the report's false.
Joe Pounder, spokesman for Rubio, said Senator Cruz is up to his dirty tricks again.
So the Rubio campaign went running to the New York Times after CNN reports what one of their own staffers said.
The New York Times said, hey, we'll gladly take that story.
And they run it to Ted Cruz is spreading rumors.
I love it.
Look, I'm infuriated.
Don't misunderstand.
But you just have to laugh at this stuff.
It's so patently ridiculous.
And it's exactly the shape and form the Ben Carson story took as well.
Politico GOP establishment creeps toward Cruz.
A Bush loyalist unnamed said Ted's the only possibility to stop Trump.
Panicked at Trump's dominance, dismayed by Rubio's continued inability to do anything about it.
Some top Republican power brokers are turning to Cruz, putting aside their policy and personal misgivings to back the candidate they now openly label as their best hope to stop Trump's GOP takeover.
He seems to be the only guy who's got some momentum.
Probably the best situated if there's anybody out there to beat Trump, said Austin Barber, a prominent Mississippi-based GOP operative.
Prominent barber.
I've heard that name.
Who could this be?
Oh, it's Haley Barber's nephew.
That's who it is.
Haley Barber of the establishment, Republicans.
It's his nephew tiptoeing up to the line where the establishment might have to get behind Cruz.
Let me take a timeout.
We'll come back.
It's time to start swerving into your phone calls, folks.
Looking forward to that.
So hang in there, be tough.
We're back.
We start on the phones in Dallas today.
This is Steve.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hive.
Hi, Rush.
It's such an honor to get to talk to you once again.
Our last conversation was back in 1983, and I've never had the opportunity to say thank you for the gift you gave me back then.
You say 1983?
Yes, I had the honor of waiting on you at a restaurant.
That'd be 93.
Where?
At a restaurant in the United States.
In Deagle.
In San Diego.
Yes.
83.
Oh, it could have been 83.
It could have been 83 then.
He can't hear me, folks.
Our phone system champion triumphs again.
Steve, go ahead and make your point here, and I'll listen while you're.
We're not going to be possible for us to talk together.
Because when I'm talking, you can't hear me if you're speaking at the same time.
So go ahead and make your point.
The question I have, it seems to me clear, if we wanted to lock up the presidency for the next 16 years, a Trump and Cruz ticket would be the best way to do it.
We would be able to resist the establishment and then give the opportunity over the next 16 years for the core conservative to be able to take back the Republican Party.
I was curious what your thoughts would be on that.
You know, I've not heard that possible pairing.
I have heard, for example, Trump Kasink.
We've heard Trump Rubio.
That would be kind of hard now with what the way that Mr. Trump has been characterizing Senator Rubio recently.
And there hasn't been, I mean, I know he's been hard on Cruz, too.
He hit Cruz last night.
Lying Ted.
Yeah, Lion Ted, you know, Ted's big liar.
He sells up the Bible, pulls up the Bible.
I'm a guy.
I'm a great guy.
I'm a great guy.
I love the Bible.
Puts the Bible down, starts lying again.
Lion Ted, Lion Ted.
Never met anybody lies bigger than Ted Cruz.
Picks up the Bible, says what he says, puts the Bible down, starts lying again.
Can somebody like that be on his ticket?
Look at the combination.
Okay, here's Trump.
Would Cruz do it?
Let's say Cruz does it just for the heck of it.
We're discussing a hypothetical here.
Cruz does it to stay close.
Cruz does it to be one whatever away, one step away, one heartbeat away, whatever.
Cruz gets out of the Senate, where he ostensibly has no friends.
Cruz could provide Trump legislative assistance, liaison assistance, policy assistance, so forth, could be one of the guardrails, if you will, for Trump on the right.
I don't know.
At first glance, it seems like one of these things.
Nah, come on, that would never happen.
But it does establish a firm presence.
You've got two outsiders, and that's what they have in common on the ticket.
And then here's the real question.
You have a ticket like that.
I have to, you know, Brett Baer, he mentioned this on Monday night on special report when they were doing the Hillary roundtable or whatever.
And Brett Baer's not the only one.
I've heard it too.
He talked about all of the Republicans.
Well, not all.
Some Republicans in Washington, elected Republicans, who have told him that if Trump's the nominee, they're voting for Hillary.
And I've heard that too.
And some of them have been quoted.
There have been some Republicans who have allowed themselves to be quoted saying that they are thinking of it, that it's something they might consider, that they might have to do.
Now, stop and think of that for just a second.
Stop and think what that would actually be.
And when these establishment types, Republicans go out and say that to people like Brett Baer so he can then repeat it.
They're not helping themselves.
They are confirming what everybody supporting Trump, supporting Cruz, believes, that they really aren't Republicans, that they really aren't that opposed to the Obama or Democrat agenda.
How in the world, knowing everything we know, do you, as an elected Republican, vote for Hillary Clinton?
And when you do, and when you telegraph it and you're honest that you did it, what does it say about you and the people in your party who agree with you?
Should we go through the roster of Clinton policy beliefs?
Should we spell out what Hillary Clinton being elected president means for the Supreme Court?
And here are we have Republicans apparently running around proudly saying to Brett Baer and others in the media that they're thinking of voting for.
They really think they're helping what by doing this.
They really think that that's going to inspire Trump supporters to abandon him.
What do they think is going to happen when they are open about this?
Now, some of them talking to Brett Baer, it's apparently off the record.
But I think the numbers would surprise you.
The names probably wouldn't, but I think the numbers of Republicans that might be tending in this direction would surprise you.
Because they're taking all of this personally.
They're taking it as personal rejection of them and their breeding and their standing and their brilliance and their competence and their qualifications and their accomplishments and all of that.
But stop and think what that would actually mean.
So let what they're talking about.
So we have a Cruz and Trump ticket, Trump Cruz, put it in proper order, the way the caller mentioned it.
What happens to these Republican establishment guys who dislike both of them?
But let's say that for discussion purposes, that's the ticket.
Can the party unify behind that ticket?
Can the Republican establishment get behind it?
Can the money people donate to it?
Will the consultants actually not sabotage the ticket?
Like they did sabotage Sarah Palin.
It's all valid questions.
Those are all valid questions.
So another break here we have to take.
We'll stop and think about that.
That's an interesting suggestion there in a whole lot of ways.
We will be right back.
Great to have you back, El Rushboy, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Here's Julie in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
It's a pleasure to be with you today.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for calling.
I don't often disagree with you, but I do disagree with your analysis of Michigan possibly going to Trump in the general election.
I have many family members and friends who are very anti-Trump, all Democrats.
And they took to the poll yesterday to vote against Donald Trump by voting for Kate Kasich.
There were robocalls that went out from Mitt Romney, who is still very beloved in Michigan, asking people to vote for Kasich.
And I think a lot of people took that to heart.
And it's a very blue-collar state.
There is no way that I can see this state ever going to Trump.
Okay, well, I didn't say that I thought that was going to happen.
I asked the question as a possibility, given that crazy Bernie beat Hillary and that Trump won the Michigan primary by the polling data was there was not quite right either.
So Trump winning that, I just ask, is it possible that what we've seen here is that Trump could win Michigan in a general?
Now, I know you've got your friends who would never do this or that, and Romney's still beloved there, and Kasich and so forth.
But by the time we get down to November, Romney and Kasich are not going to be factors unless they're still out there trying to gum up the works.
Aaron Franklin, Tennessee, glad you called.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you for taking the call, Russ.
You said the first hour that Cruz can win.
And I want to describe two demographics that I'm not sure you bring out very much that are the reason Cruz can both beat Trump and Clinton, and why it's the same reason that Trump can't beat Clinton any more than Romney could, okay?
And the two groups are, I'm one of them, the evangelical, never Trump voter, but the folks I rub shoulders with, many of them are evangelical, never Clinton voters.
Okay?
And so the never Trump voter, which is me, we're Bible-believing Christians.
We simply believe that God is sovereign.
And that means he chooses kings.
He chooses nations over the course of history for his purposes.
So when I go in the voting booth, it isn't so much to choose the national executive.
I'm just trying to do the right thing.
I want to choose the candidate that has godly wisdom, integrity, morality, character, and leadership.
So if I go in there and the choice is Trump and Clinton, I'm faced with two candidates batting 0 for 5.
I'm not going to dignify either one of them.
And I'm not going to rationalize and vote for the repugnant indecency of Trump just because the pervasive criminality of Clinton is worse.
God will take care of that.
So that's the constituency that I'm in.
But many, many more of my friends are more evangelical, never Clinton voters.
And I think when you talk about the great support for Trump, I'm not so sure.
And I think South Carolina is an indicator that half of his Trump, excuse me, half of Trump support is really very thin.
And they're only going that way because he has momentum and they just like Clinton more.
Well, wait a minute.
Trump hasn't faced Clinton in South Carolina.
I'm not sure I'm following you here.
No, no, I'm just saying if it were to come down to Trump and Clinton, then the only reason they're pushing.
Now, the way you've set it up, if it comes down to Trump and Clinton, you've got nobody to vote for.
That's my point.
But that's okay.
I'm not angry and white, angry male.
I just see God as sovereign.
He moves men and nations.
He'll take care of that.
I don't feel compelled to vote for either one, and I don't think that's a cop-out.
I'm going to go in.
I'm going to write Ted Cruz's name on the write-in ballot.
And that's how many people didn't vote for Romney, right?
Well, look, there is no way a write-in candidate is going to win anything.
A right-in candidate's not going to win any race that we're talking about here that matters.
And if the choice comes down to Trump or Clinton, you're sitting out, which is, if you're not going to make a judgment on the lesser of two evils, as you say, if they're both irredeemable, then you may as well not even vote.
You're right-in isn't going to matter.
And I don't want to get cynical here, but when you look at the demographic spread here, one of the things that's got everybody puzzled is that Trump is getting a lot more evangelical voters than anybody thought.
And the second half of that is, is that Ted Cruz is not winning them all, which is what everybody thought would happen.
This is why I have been saying, in an attempt to be helpful, see, I know what Senator Cruz's strategy has been.
I've talked about it with him long before he ever decided, before he told me anyway, that he was running for president.
I had lunch with him down here one day.
It was a couple, three years ago.
There's an event here every November that David Horowitz puts on called Restoration Weekend.
And he called and said, let's have lunch.
And I did.
And he was talking about the 2012 election and that four and a half, five million Republicans sat home and didn't vote.
And he was telling me, he was laying out strategy for a president to run, although he didn't say that.
He didn't announce to me.
He didn't tell me that he was thinking of getting in.
He was just analyzing things.
And he told me in his view, the four and a half to five million who didn't vote were mostly evangelical.
Some of them were nevertheless rock-rib conservatives that were just unhappy with Romney for whatever reason, unhappy with the party for whatever reason, and had just decided that they weren't going to help anymore.
They have been trying to help, they've been supportive, they've been donating, they think they've been ignored, sabotaged, whatever, after every election.
Well, he said, if those 4.5 to 5 million could be inspired to show up and vote, and nothing else changes, then the Republicans win.
If 4.5 million people that did vote in the McCain-Obama presidency in 08, that sat home in 12, if they had voted that Romney would win, but they didn't.
So his strategy was to focus on those 4.5 to 5 million and just not assume and not take for granted, but just figure that the other Republicans who voted in 12 would again show up and vote in 16.
That the trick was to get those 4.5 to 5 million.
In his view, the majority of them were evangelicals.
He also threw a number out at me that I had not heard before.
And I've heard it since that there are either 39 or 49 million evangelicals out there in the country who vote that way.
Now, I'd always thought the number was closer to 24 million, and they were not termed evangelicals.
Back when this was all being discussed, it was the Christian right or the moral majority or whatever.
But the name now is evangelical.
So Cruz patterned a campaign that was based on targeting that group of people.
And I think it has limited his appeal.
And I think the evidence, because he's capable of reaching out to a much greater base of voters than just evangelicals.
But if he was right, if the difference in winning versus losing is getting four and a half to five million evangelicals to show up, then that's what he's been trying to do.
That's where he's targeting, and you can see it.
Now, along comes Trump, and everybody's now having to rethink what they thought they do, that evangelicals are, what the definition of an evangelical is.
Because most people, most people, not religious, most apolitical or a-religious people in Washington, say, in the media, both parties, people that believe in God, but it doesn't matter to them.
It doesn't have any effect on the way they campaign or govern.
They look at evangelicals and they see kooks.
They see holy rollers, whatever the term is, whatever the derogatory, that's who they think they are.
And now when some are voting for Trump, they are confused like you can't believe.
Because in their world, there is no way a person devoted to God could even watch Trump on TV, much less vote for him.
That Trump is a walking sin, a walking sin after sin after sin that's compounded and compounded.
That he is an affront to God.
That's not who they are.
That is, again, what non-religious people who have no idea who evangelicals are, that's how they think of them.
So when some evangelicals exit polls, entrance polls, admit to voting for Trump, they are totally confused.
They do not understand it because, and many of these are political consultants too, and these political consultants all tend to make every group, however they group them, monolithic.
Such as all white women care about one thing, and you have to target them on whatever that one thing is.
Either they're soccer moms one year, or they're pro-lifers one year, they're pro-choicers, whatever they are, that's how you go, and you get them all.
It's not even considered that within that large group of people, you might have totally different ways of thinking with different value sets.
African Americans, they're thought to be single-issue voters, civil rights, racism, all that stuff.
Hispanics, how are they thought of?
They're thought of within the confines of the immigration fight.
Evangelicals, when analyzed, thought of, looked at by non-religious people, they are thought to be holy roller kooks who are not very bright, who do not think anything that happens to them in their lives is because of anything they do.
That everything that happens is because God willed it.
God makes the flowers grow, God makes the flowers die.
God causes the airplanes to crash.
God causes the airplanes to land.
And that's how they think of evangelicals.
They think evangelicals condemn anybody who says damn and hell.
They think evangelicals never have sex unless the objective is to have a kid.
They think evangelicals do not like anybody talking about having sex.
They don't like anybody swearing.
They don't like anybody cussing.
They don't like anybody bragging.
They don't like anybody saying two Corinthians instead of second Corinthians.
And if they spot them, they're done with them and they toss them out.
And yet, a lot of these people that the establishment thinks they know who they are are voting for Trump and they can't understand it because they look at them as all alike, as identical and monolithic.
And the picture they have of them is the result of nothing but prejudice.
And I'm even throwing a little bigotry.
They think they're all automatically homophobes.
They think they're haters.
They think that all evangelicals have their wives barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, doing nothing but serving whatever whims and demands their husbands are.
They're prisoners in their own homes.
Now, there are religious people like that, but it isn't Christians.
But they don't see where that actually exists in the world.
They think it's existing in America in the evangelical community.
My point is, I got to take a break.
That's what I have to do here.
So sit down.
Let me draw an analogy that I ran into the other day to try to explain this briefly in the time remaining here.
Let's say in your house, you discover an infestation of rats.
You're an evangelical.
Now, the Washington establishment and the, not just them, but people who are not religious and are proud of it.
They're not all God holy rollers.
You know, they're open-minded and they're free spirits.
They think that a holy roller evangelical who has an infestation of rats in his house thinks it's God's will and doesn't do anything about it.
Well, the fact of the matter is, whether you're an evangelical or Jack Nicholson, you do not want your house infested with rats.
The rats in this case are the Democrat Party.
And let's say you've called, you've prayed, you've prayed, you've gone to the pastor, you've done any number of things to get rid of the rats, and nothing's worked.
And you have, maybe you've hired an extermination company, has come out, maybe they cheated you, whatever, but they didn't get rid of the rats.
And some guy comes on TV and promises you he's going to get rid of the rats.
And when he does, he says he's going to get rid of the damn rats.
And he does some other things.
He brags about his sex life and he brags about this and he brags about his achievements and his accomplishments.
And he talks about religion in ways that makes you think he really doesn't understand it, but it doesn't matter because he's going to get rid of the rats.
He's going to fix whatever's wrong.
The point of this is that everybody who is not an evangelical, predominantly liberal Democrats, but there are some in the Republican establishment who do not understand evangelicals, look down on them because they have totally misunderstood and mischaracterized them, thinking they're all alike and they're all single-issue types.
They care only about abortion and pro-life and that they're unforgiving, they're unrelenting, they're inflexible, they're not very bright, all of these things.
And they're not that.
That's not who they are.
So when a third of AP had a story on what was it, March the 6th about Trump's ability to attract evangelical voters confounds analysts.
And the AP number is that one-third of evangelicals are actually voting for Trump.
They don't understand it.
And the reason is they don't understand evangelicals.
They're just like everybody else in a lot of ways.
And they're much more tolerant than they are given credit for.
But they are victimized by so much misconception, preconception, prejudice, bias that it's hard for people to really look at this in Mississippi.
Last night, Trump got 48% of the evangelical vote, according to exit polls.
And Ted Cruz got 39%.
You know how many people's heads are swimming today trying to process that?
They can't for the life of them understand it.
▲
Export Selection