All Episodes
Previous Next
March 16, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
March 16, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah.
I don't know what it means.
I mean, if it has any lasting impact.
You know, you don't know about early impressions and how long they last, but the contrast in Hillary Clinton's speech last night.
You know where she was?
She's over in West Palm Beach somewhere.
Yeah, she was.
I actually think that she was somewhere down at Lake Worth.
They called it West Palm Beach.
It might have been.
But she was here, and of course, Trump was out at Mar-a-Lago.
The contrast, by the way, greetings and welcome back, folks.
Delight to have you here.
Greatest thing in my day is to have everybody here be doing this.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate that you're there and having the chance each day to do this.
800-282-2882.
And we're going to phone soon in this hour.
A great roster of people that want to weigh in here.
I mean, Trump, obviously a different Trump last night.
No press conference.
No braggadocio.
Well, not much.
There wasn't a lot of bombast.
It was.
I mean, the biggest thing he did last night was put Lewandowski up there and give him a shout-out, which basically said to Trump Bart, whatever.
Breitbart, did I say did not mean to do that?
Which basically said to Breitbart, well, there are other critics, though, not just Breitbart, not the other critic.
No, what Breitbart actually didn't criticize.
That's the problem.
Anyway, that was a big deal.
Putting Lewandowski, because the drive-bys have been asking for Lewandowski's scalp.
There's not much of a scalp there.
It's a buzz cut.
They've been asking for his scalp, and Trump said, yeah, you want me to get rid of my guy?
Well, here, my guy is standing right beside me with a shout-out tonight.
So up, screw you.
But that was said in pictures.
He didn't say anything to anybody.
He did his usual press is disgusting.
But you laugh at that when he, the media doesn't, but I do.
But his speech was confident.
It was joyful.
He was happy.
He was having a good time.
He was at home.
He was in his surroundings.
Hillary Clinton was miserable.
She was mad.
She seemed mad.
She came close to sounding like that screeching soundbite we have.
And they can't do a day.
We can't name when.
Hey, Ray, right, right, right.
Hey, Ray, Ray.
Take out the crash.
Whatever it is she's shouting.
That's what it sounded like last night.
I'm thinking, the woman just won.
She just vanquished Crazy Bernie.
Did I not tell you, by the way, that Crazy Bernie was never a factory.
How do you square?
I even had Snerdley yesterday.
Who's Crazy Bernie?
He's coming on.
He's going, it's Crazy Bernie not coming on.
He won Michigan.
Yeah, he didn't win the delegates, have you noticed?
Crazy Bernie got wiped out yesterday.
Totally wiped out.
Crazy Bernie was never going to be the nominee.
So the face of the Democrat Party now is Hillary Clinton and Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz.
But Hillary, the contrast in those two speeches last night was profoundly different.
Hillary did not look like she was happy.
She didn't look like she'd won anything.
She didn't look like she was celebrating any kind of a victory.
And these people, they have been running the show for seven years.
And even a victory speech is a litany of complaints about the country.
The unfairness, the discrimination, the racism, the bigotry, the inequality.
And they've been running the show for seven years.
It just...
She was at the convention center over there.
Is that where that was?
Okay, well, then they had a deal at Lake Worth earlier, because I know they were down at Lake Worth.
I saw that.
So she said at the convention center.
It was striking to me.
Now, as I said, I don't know if impressions made last night last from here to November.
You just never know.
But that was nothing to make any commercials out of as far as the Democrats are concerned.
Has Hillary ever looked at – well, she smiles now and then, but I get your point.
They're always mad.
Sternly asked me, have you ever seen Hillary happy?
I don't know.
Let me think about that.
Have I ever seen Hillary happy?
Well, I guess not if I can't think of any occasions.
But I've seen her smiling.
I've seen her.
There was none of that last night.
It was striking to me.
Anyway, here we go with the audio soundbites.
And yesterday I threw something out there, and I got a note.
You do not know how you have blown things up.
I said, what do you mean blown things up?
Your comment about Jeb.
I said, nobody said a word to me about that.
Well, they wouldn't.
And I said, I've not seen this.
Oh, no, it's not in the media, but you have got everybody.
You blew it up to this.
And all I said was, in talking about Kasich and the future of the GOP hanging on Ohio and the possibility we get to a contested convention.
And who runs the contested convention?
Folks, I'm here to tell you: if you don't think this is a possibility, you do not yet fully understand who we're dealing with here.
The whole purpose for them in a contested convention is to get somebody other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.
There's no other reason for one.
A contested convention, as far as the established, they don't like either of these guys.
They don't like Cruz.
They don't like Trump.
And yet they're pushing for a contested convention.
Big whoop.
A contested convention simply means you don't have a winner coming out of the primaries.
So you have votes.
First ballot, second ballot, third.
Brokered is an entirely different thing.
And that's what they ultimately want to do.
They don't want to leave this up to votes.
Certainly not of the voters.
They want the grand poobahs and the power brokers at the convention's votes to determine the nominee.
Stop and think for a second.
If you think I'm all wet on this, and I realize many of you do, you think I've gone overboard in analyzing who these people are.
Don't doubt me on this.
Do not doubt me.
I'll come up with an analogy or two if I have been unable to persuade you so far.
But look, we have Trump, we have Cruz.
Theoretically, if things hold, neither of them is going to show up in Cleveland with 1237.
That could change, but as of now, Cruz would have to have an incredible run from here on out.
And Trump would have to, if Kasich stays in there, he's going to take delegates from somebody.
Cruz is going to take his share of delegates too.
I mean, it's not, it's not, it's more likely that nobody gets 1237.
Now, the Trump people have a scenario where they get right to it on the number, but I won't bother with you the intricacies of that right now.
So we have this contested convention.
What's the point if Trump, let's just set up a hypothetical.
Trump has 1,100.
Cruz has 900.
I'm making numbers up.
Kasich has 164, whatever he's got.
One more delegate that he has now.
Let's be generous.
The magic number is 1237.
Okay, so the theory that I've heard last night from all the smart money is, well, it's Trump's.
I mean, you can't not give it to him.
For crying out loud, there'd be a riot.
There'd be a walkout.
Oh my God, it would be horrible.
You can't not give it to Trump.
Really?
Why have a contested convention?
If you're going to give it to whoever shows up with the most delegates, even if they're short of 1237, if that person's going to win it, then what's the big deal?
The big deal is it will be an opportunity for the establishment boys, and there's some women in there too, by the way, to get one of theirs in there.
And yesterday I suggested it could be Jeb.
Jeb's who they had their early fantasies about.
Jeb started out with $115 million.
Jeb Bush, back on December 14th, December 12th of 2014, said the strategy was to win the nomination by winning the general by losing the primaries.
Remember that?
He's going to win the general by losing the primaries, meaning he was going to swamp everybody with money.
He wasn't going to have to kow-tow to the Republican conservative base, meaning he wouldn't have to kow-tow to guns.
He wouldn't have to kow-tow to immigration.
He wasn't going to have to kow-tow to social issues.
He was going to snake right past all he's going to get.
Well, that would be how he does it.
Contested convention turns into a brokered convention, and the establishment boys say, Well, you know what?
Neither Trump nor Cruz got close enough.
It's wide open, man.
And they engineer their.
So I said that yesterday.
That's when I got the note.
You blew things up.
But I didn't know anybody else did.
Here's an example of it.
It was on CNN.
America's Choice 2016.
Anderson Cooper talking with David Axelrod and the forehead, Paul Bagala, about the Trump presidential campaign.
And they got around to talking about this.
I disagree with you that the establishment will never give up.
I think if Donald Trump is close, if he's in the 45 to 50 range, I think they're going to be resigned to the reality of this thing.
To deny a guy who's right on the doorstep of claiming the nomination, you'd rip your party apart.
Can you imagine that convention?
Rush Limbaugh was saying that Jeb Bush is going to come back, that he's going to be the one.
Many Republicans believe if they nominate Donald Trump, it'll destroy the Republican Party.
Others believe that if they fight the nomination on the floor, it will destroy the Republican Party.
Did you note there that nobody said Limbaugh?
I don't know what he's talking about.
Did you note there that nobody said, oh, Limbaugh, that's crazy.
Did you know that nobody said that?
They kind of let it go right on by.
Did you note, Axelrod, what they were talking about here?
I disagree with you, probably, Bagala.
I disagree with you that the establishment will never give up.
I think if Trump is close, 45 to 50 range, I think they're going to be resigned to the reality, to deny a guy who's, that's my whole point.
It's, can you, you'd rip the party apart.
No, they don't.
That's not, that's not the concern.
Ripping the party apart's not the concern.
Well, it is, but secondarily, it's personal.
It's what they would lose.
And all I'm saying is they'll take advantage of every opportunity they can to hold on to what they have at the moment.
You can see it.
You can see it when you hear them talk on TV.
They're thinking about whether they actually do it.
Achelrod says down to nip and tuck time they wouldn't do it.
But I guarantee you they're thinking about it.
They're dreaming about it.
They're strategizing about it.
They are making sinister plans even as we speak to figure out how to hold on to what they've got.
It's big, folks.
It's huge.
We're talking about an existence that 99.99999% of the American people will never have, will never enjoy, will never experience.
You just don't throw that away.
You just don't let it go without a fight.
Here's an interesting bite.
Now, this was on SquawkBox on CNBC this morning.
Becky Quick speaking with a Republican National Committee Rules Committee member by the name of Curly Hugland about the primary race.
And she said, hey, look, if Donald Trump heads into the nomination, maybe he's short of the number required.
If you give it to somebody who has a much lesser percentage of voters who turn out for these primaries, don't you worry that you're just going to send chaos and anger into the Trump supporters and the people who feel like their votes then don't matter?
No, I don't think that's the case once it's, you know, if it would just be understood.
We have a problem with the media, unfortunately.
That's a problem.
The media has created the perception that the voters will decide the nomination, and that's the conflict here.
We're just one of the political parties.
Political parties choose their nominee, not the general public, contrary to popular belief.
Folks, did you hear what you just heard?
Did it sink in what you just heard?
This is a Republican Rules Committee member.
I guarantee he's going to be walking this back at some point.
But he's not going to walk back what he meant.
Curly Hugland.
No, I don't think that's the case.
Once it's understood, once we explain to the people what's really at stake here, once we, establishment poobahs, once we explain what's going on, they'll fully understand what we are doing.
Our problems the media.
The media just doesn't give us a fair shake.
You know, it's a problem.
The media has created a perception that the voters decide the nomination.
The media focuses on these primaries and these election returns and the delegate allocations.
And that doesn't mean anything.
Political parties choose the nominee, not the general public, contrary to popular belief.
Well, then, what is all this about?
Is this just a scam for money to be spent and earned?
Is that what this exercise is?
Is the entire primary process nothing more than a fundraising and fund allocation effort?
It's how the party gives back to the media with ad buys.
It's how the consultants earn their money by being hired by the candidates who then raise the money.
The consultants devise the ad buys of which they get 15%.
Is this how party members stay wealthy and stay connected while creating this illusion that the voter outcome actually determines things here?
And see, once, see, folks, once you understand what I just said, once you understand what's really going on, you'll be fine with it.
This is how your party remains relevant and you want your party to remain relevant.
But that's not the only one.
Here's Bob Schieffer brought back from the Jurassic Park graveyard for election coverage on CBS.
Gail King, speaking with him on CBS this morning, she says, let's talk about John Kasich.
He wins in his home state of Ohio, but it was close.
It was close.
He's considered the GOP establishment.
What does that say when he has only won one race?
He's barely won it in his home state.
What does it mean, Bob?
What's it mean?
All that says is that that makes it a possibility that they can block Trump from getting the majority of delegates before they get to the convention.
I think Paul Ryan will wind up as the nominee if they get it to the convention.
I would bet that what would happen then if you had Paul Ryan as the nominee, he would put John Kasich on the ticket as the vice president.
No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio.
All right, now here's a guy, a Schieffer.
He knows the establishment.
He pals around with them.
Even the Republicans.
They all know each other.
Got to take a break.
But we will review this when we get back.
Very good.
You remember that name, Curly Hugland?
He was the guy we talked about yesterday.
He's North Dakota.
He's the guy who said that delegates are not bound to vote the way their voters did on the first ballot.
And he's out there still talking.
Here's Rachel, Noblesville, Indiana, as we head to the thrones.
I'm really glad you waited.
Hello.
Hi, Mr. Limbaugh.
First, I want to start and say that I've listened to your show since I was really little and I love it.
But I was just calling because I'm really frustrated with people who are my age and actually people in general, but a lot of the college students who open their mouths about the elections, about the candidates without doing any kind of research at all.
Like I've asked people who they support and I've gotten students my age saying Bernie Sanders and the only thing they can say is free college.
And my response is there's no such thing as free college, that I'm not going to go to college for four years and then pay for other people to go to college.
And I mean, with Donald Trump and Cruz, because I'm a Cruz supporter, and people just don't do research and look into their past.
It is just really frustrating.
Well, you know, I ran across a phrase the other day that actually helps me understand a lot of things.
And it's this.
People very rarely remember what you say, but they never forget how you make them feel.
It's especially important.
What it is, it's an axiom for actors, if you want to know the truth.
And in the case of politics here, Bernie and Trump are making their supporters feel really good.
It doesn't matter what they're saying.
When it comes to free college, now, of course, college debt is so high, tuition is so high.
Young people, they're not stopping to think that nothing is free.
They actually want to believe that Bernie means it.
They want to believe that it isn't going to cost them anything.
But, of course, it will cost them.
And what value is it ultimately if it doesn't cost anything?
Why even bother having an education if it doesn't matter enough to pay for it?
Can you hang on, Rachel?
I've got a break.
I want to continue exploring this with you if you can wait.
Okay.
Good, cool.
Back in a second here, folks.
And we're back to Rachel in Noblesville, Indiana.
Thank you for waiting.
I want to ask you what you meant when you said you wish these college-aged kids your age realized there's no free education.
You then said you don't want to pay for other people's education.
What do you mean by that?
Well, there's no such thing as free, as I had mentioned before, but someone's got to pay for college.
So if you have, like, I have a little brother, if she goes to college for free, where did that money come from?
The colleges have to make money somehow.
So our taxes are going to increase.
And so when our taxes increase, I have to pay for it.
So it becomes very socialist.
I mean, that's what Bernie Sanders is.
And you're frustrated that these kids don't understand that the money has to come from somewhere.
Yes.
Like they aren't even trying to say that.
See, I join you.
I totally understand where you're coming from.
And if you let it get hold of you, it'll frustrate you till the end of the day until you figure it out.
It is frustrating.
So here you have Bernie.
And Hillary, by the way, has picked it up now.
Hillary's talking the same thing.
I heard her in her thing last night talking about, she didn't use actual words that Bernie used, but she made it clear that college is going to be free.
Okay, so you hear that.
And the frustrating thing is, why don't people who applaud, why don't they, well, how are you going to pay the teachers?
How are you going to pay the light bill?
Who's going to pay for the upkeep of the buildings?
Who's going to pay?
And then the football program.
No, not entirely.
I mean, it's a good answer in many ways.
But the point is, the frustration is real when you hear the targets of demagoguery get away with it.
Let me ask you people quick.
Does anybody really believe, I know the Democrats say it.
But do any of you in this audience believe that if Hillary Clinton's elected president or if Bernie happened to be, do you really believe that we would get to the day where admission to every college and university is free, including doctoral programs, including post-grad.
At what point, and if not, oh, no, we can't give that.
It's like the minimum wage.
I think it should be 15.
Fine, why not 20?
Good point.
How about let's make it 25?
No, we can't go 25.
Why?
Wait a minute now.
So we finally found a cutoff point where you think the minimum wage is too high.
Why?
That's when you've won the argument.
Okay, when you're talking about making college free, at some point people go, no, no, no, you can't make post-grad free.
Why not?
If all the rest of it's going to be free, why can't you make medical school free?
Well, we're just talking about four-year undergrad.
Why?
Why not all of it?
But my question, does anybody really think it's going to happen?
I don't see it.
I don't doubt they want to try, and I don't doubt they'd lie their teeth off trying to get votes on it.
But it's never going to happen.
The universities require income above and beyond.
There has to be a value attached.
If a college education is free, it becomes worthless, folks.
But when I hear all this talk go on, another thing hits me is how successfully Powers that Be have succeeded, how well they've succeeded in convincing everybody that if they don't have a college education, they don't have a life.
And that's part of the racket.
That's part of the whole scam, part of the whole racket.
No, I'm not anti-education.
But let's face it, it's a left-wing racket.
And the idea of free, you know what I think they would do more than make college free?
This is something they would do.
And this would happen in a campaign, and that's forgive student loan debt.
Now, if you want to worry about the Democrats actually doing something, plan for your reaction to that.
Because that, they already, under Obama, they administered a student loan program.
They actually administer the loans.
Now, Obama took it over.
They run it through a couple banks, but it's no longer an individual financial institution program.
The government essentially runs it.
So don't be surprised if Hillary proposes forgiving student loan debt.
That's as close as they'll come to free college.
If you forgive the student loan debt of everybody who has any, then what do you do about people just now starting?
Do you also forgive their debt that they haven't yet incurred?
Do you, how do you do that?
I don't think it's too much.
They can't get away with its demagoguery, plain and simple.
But they depend on these universities and the people in them too much to devalue it by making it free.
It's going to be, and they might make it at certain places, junior colleges, community colleges, somewhere to start just to say that they're doing it.
But it's going to be like most every other promise the left makes, empty and a lie.
Oh, you doubt me.
Well, grab your average African American and ask him what he believes he's been promised the last 50 years and ask him how much of it he's actually gotten.
Including they're going to end racism.
They're going to end discrimination.
They're going to end bigotry.
They're going to end all that.
They're going to punish all the bigots.
Going to punish all the racists.
You ask people who've been waiting for 50 years for the Democrats to come through with their promises what they've got.
And the answer is a big fed zero.
Isn't that why we all wonder why they continue to vote for them?
And what we have learned is they continue to vote for them because their greater fear is what the Democrats have convinced them the Republicans will do to them.
Is a greater fear than realizing the Democrats don't mean their promises.
You want to really get down to it, Rachel.
Here's the battle.
Stop and look at it this way.
Capitalism must be perfect.
There cannot be a single error.
There cannot be a single thing that goes wrong with it.
Otherwise, everybody jumps on board and claims it's flawed, it's unfair, it's discriminatory, and yet socialism and government can destroy lives.
And there's no such review.
There's no demand placed on government.
There's no demand placed on socialism, but every demand you can think of for fairness and equality and everything else is placed on capitalism.
And it's not allowed one failure.
It's not allowed one discretionary bad move.
Socialism is allowed to ruin everything.
Why?
Because of the good intentions.
That's why the Democrats always want to be judged on their good intentions and never the results.
War and poverty.
War and poverty dates back 1964.
Percentage-wise, the same number of people in poverty today as then.
Same people complaining about it.
It's the same issue.
It hasn't gone away.
We have spent $10 trillion on it, and it hasn't gone away.
It is a demonstrable failure in any way you analyze things.
It is a boondoggle.
It's a total failure.
And yet it survives, and the people behind it continually are applauded and given credit.
Why?
Because they care.
Because they have good intentions.
The Republicans, they don't care if people are poor.
They just want to deny them benefits and so forth.
It's a branding thing.
It's the way the Democrats have succeeded in defining their enemy and defining their opponents as a way to cover up for their abject failure of everything they promise people.
Ask the feminazis, are you happy?
After 50 years of the feminist era, what are we faced with?
An uncontrollable rape crisis on campus.
How can that be when the feminists and the Democrat Party have been running universities for all these years with all the love and all the tolerance and all the compassion and all the openness?
Why have universities become cultures of rape?
And why is there no analytical savagery of these universes?
Why is there no critique?
Why is there no properly affixing blame here?
Because of the good intentions.
At least they're trying.
So the good in Bernie Sanders, well, he may, maybe he can't give away college, but he wants to.
He really cares.
That's the trick.
Here's Bob in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yeah, regarding the duffed-up at the Trump rally in Chicago, I think Trump has the far left so off balance that they had to adjust their tactics to really play on his terms, just as he did with the media had always kind of set the rules.
Trump has got everything kind of reversed where he has the media following him playing by his rules.
What I mean by that is for the longest time, the left has had such a political correctness playing field.
Wait, wait, wait, just wait, wait, just a second, just a second.
What is she so damn mad at?
Oh, never mind.
I'm watching Hillary's acceptance speech last.
She looks fit to be tied.
She looked like she was mad.
Maybe she caught Bill with Jennifer again.
I don't know what, but she looked ticked.
I'm sorry to do this to you, Bob.
But it was just a replay of her acceptance speech last night.
She's literally.
Anyway, your point is that the people protesting Trump are angry that he's getting away with violating political correctness.
Well, political correctness was the rule that they had.
It was like kryptonite to the Republicans.
Trump is immune to that political correctness.
I mean, before, when a Republican stepped over the political correctness line, the left slapped him down, and the Republican would either have to publicly walk it back or worse, apologize.
Kind of looks like a fool.
You know, King played by those rules.
Rounde played by those rules.
Even G.W. Bush politely kind of took every sucker punch the left threw at him.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, Trump isn't doing that.
And he's completely blown up the PC rules.
And now the left is trying to all they have left.
You know what, folks, I think there's something to this.
Bob, I actually think you're on to something here.
But first, those are not protests at Trump rallies.
The thing that happened in Chicago on Friday, those were riots.
Can we use the proper term?
And it's important because they're, what do you mean, First Amendment?
Everybody has the right to show up.
Everybody has the right to protest.
Maybe so, but you don't have the right to freaking riot.
And that's what they were.
Riots do not come under the protection of the First Amendment.
And those were riots.
That's what the left does.
And they're called protests to make it look like the time-honored art of dissent is being practiced.
And that's not what's going on.
But his point here, I think, Bob, you have struck gold here.
Let's put it another way.
The Democrats can say anything.
Any Democrat, any actor, any left-wing boob anywhere can make any crass joke, can make any insult whatsoever, and they never get called on it.
They can violate political correctness left and right, and they are applauded for it.
But Republicans can't.
One slip up and they are gone.
One slip up, one violation of PC, and here comes the entire leftist army descending on him to try to wipe them out and destroy them.
Trump is immune.
Trump can say what he wants.
Trump can do what he wants.
And it doesn't hurt him.
And they are livid because PC, the enforcement of PC, is one of the primary weapons the left uses to keep their opposition chilled, frightened, and silent.
You know, Trump said something last night in his speech from Mar-a-Lago that actually, I hadn't thought about this, but it's true.
He was going on about all the money, the negative ads.
It was kind of funny.
He was talking, he was entertaining clients at his skybox down in Dural on Sunday for the final round of his golf championship there.
And right before the final shot being made, the event being over, Adam Scott won the break for local commercials.
It's two of the worst anti-Trump spots, and he's trying to get his clients not to see it.
So he's pointing out, look at that grass.
He's had the greatest grass you've ever seen on a golf course because all these anti-Trump ads are running.
But the point he made was, though, whether it's true or not, but he says more money has been spent savaging him in negative ads than any other candidate.
And he said, folks that don't understand it, but I go up.
I go up in the polls.
The negative ads are helping me.
I can't explain it.
But he's right.
And that ticks them off.
You stop and think of the JEBEC.
They spent all that money on Rubio.
They got to Trump late, but it hasn't hurt Trump.
That's another one of these age-old tenets that have to be thrown out.
Everything the political consultants thought they knew has been turned upside down and rendered irrelevant in this campaign.
You know, I've watching, I watched all the coverage last night.
It was my job.
And I was, I'm still amazed at the number of people that apparently do not understand the basic Trump supporter.
It's amazing to me how many people trying to figure it out insult those people as a means of trying to explain to themselves how Trump is doing it.
It isn't hard to understand this, to me anyway.
And you've heard me explain it.
I've spent hours doing it.
Maybe just a couple more things to try to convince people, but it may be a lost cause anyway, because I don't think they want to understand.
And look, I'm talking about analysts on TV.
I'm talking about people presented to us as the wise men.
We're supposed to watch TV in these networks, and there are people there supposed to have more insight than we have, and that's why they're there.
And so many of them don't seem to get this, which is perplexing to me.
But we stick with the phones.
Matt in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Welcome, sir.
It's great to have you here.
Thanks, Rush.
Hey, my point I wanted to make was, if you look at the excitement factor with Donald Trump, now I'm a Ted Cruz supporter.
Right.
All right.
But when you look at the excitement factor with Donald Trump, it looks like 2007 with Barack Obama.
And everybody, I mean, who's coming to the polls, I mean, it's just incredible.
And then you look at the Democrats.
Their poll numbers are down, way down.
There's no excitement there.
And Donald Trump's got all this excitement.
Now, the difference between Obama in 07 and Donald Trump now is that the media created Obama, where Washington, the dislike for Washington, has created Donald Trump.
And just as where the media would allow anything to go with Barack Obama.
Now, wait, wait, wait, wait.
You're close.
You know, you're onto something here, but one thing, I think Trump made himself.
I don't think Washington dislike.
Washington dislike Buttress's support, but Trump, see, this is why they can't touch him.
Trump has been all over American media for years.
They've seen him interact with Omarosa.
They know Omarosa loves him.
They know women that he worked love it.
They don't believe all this crap that he doesn't like women.
They've seen how he reacts with people on these TV shows.
Donald Trump has been all over American media for 30 years.
And so all these efforts to portray, it doesn't work.
You're right.
The media made Obama.
They did not make Trump.
Now, they might be adding to Trump's allure by trying to destroy him, but I don't think you could say the media made him by virtue of their sliming him.
What they've done is they've made the people that have followed him because the people are so upset.
And just like they always gave Obama a pass, you know, they're not going to be able to say anything negative.
Well, maybe.
I've got to take a break.
Hang on again if you have time out there.
Vote turnout yesterday in Florida.
It was a record for a primary.
It was up 21%.
When I went to vote, there was no one there.
When I heard turnout was a record, I was stunned.
There was nobody there, not a single person.
And they were mad when I showed up.
A coffee break.
▲
Export Selection