All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:47
July 13, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, as promised, here we are, my friends.
It wasn't long.
It was just a little over 21 hours, and right back at it we are.
It is great to have you here, a programming note.
This is annual uh member guest golf tournament time.
So I'm going to be out Thursday and Friday, a couple of vacation days.
So we're going to do open line Friday on Wednesday today, which means that pretty much whatever you want to talk about is fair game.
It'll be permitted.
You know, I'm a benevolent dictator here Monday through Thursday, but on Friday I turn it wide open, so we're going to do that today.
Anything, including if you want to go all nerd, if you have tech questions.
I don't want to put ideas in your head, but I want to give you an idea that you don't have to be bound strictly by news of the day, politics, what have you, if so, if you're so inclined.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address, L Rushbow at E IB net com.
This is so predictable to me.
You know, I didn't have a chance to really listen to it or study Obama's speech in Dallas yesterday because it happened while the program here was on, so I had a bone up on it later in the day.
And it was predictable.
The reaction to it was predictable.
The drive-by's.
The drive-by just thought it was the greatest speech ever.
It was just over the top great.
I mean, it was so timely.
And it was so presidential.
And even some in the conservative media found it necessary to praise Obama's speech.
And we know why this happens.
It is because some in the conservative media don't want to be seen as constantly uh pestering the guy.
So it's uh it's thought that it'll add to their credibility if they can acknowledge that the president did something well, did something good uh presidential, even if it was only a portion of the speech, but my take on it was entirely different.
I I think I think the first half of his speech yesterday seemed to be high-minded and unifying, but he blew it all to smithereens.
Because I think what the first half of the speech was was a setup for the political hackery that was to come.
I mean, it it wasn't as if the speech suddenly and unexpectedly veered off course.
Obama knew that he had to give the impression he was a healer and a unifier before he could pivot to what he really wanted to say.
And I I took it, you know, I'm sitting there watching it like everybody else did, and I'm I'm absorbing it, and I felt like I was a political sucker punch.
The second half of the speech is what Obama really wanted to say but couldn't unless he preceded it with the so-called unifying remarks beforehand.
I was thinking about something while watching the speech yesterday, because it did you know that uh he he mentioned himself 45 times.
I I joked to the staff here when the speech began.
I said, let's have a tally on how many times he says I. And people count that now.
Forty-five times Obama said I. By the way, Loretta Lynch in her congressional testimony yesterday said I don't know 74 times.
And do you remember yesterday on this program, the first thing I told you was I just finished watching Hillary and Bernie Sanders and their so-called joint unification speech, where Bernie was endorsing Hillary, and I said, you know, Bernie's droning on like he always does, and Hillary was standing there like a bobblehead doll, just nodding up and down and applauding and then and then looking, I don't know, vacant.
And then when she got it to speak, uh she indulged in the usual screech.
Didn't take long.
Somebody counted the number of times Hillary Clinton nodded four hundred and five times.
Well, I knew I wasn't off the path when I kept noticing this bobblehead doll appearance 400 actually six times, 406 times during the crazy Bernie endorsement speech.
Um, but here's the thing I was wondering as I'm as I'm watching Obama, and and we hear people on the left and then the drive-by media talking about how Obama tries to unify and bring everybody together.
What a great effort he made.
Oh, it was just stupid.
Why draw a moral equivalence?
Here he is at a memorial service for five slain Dallas police officers.
Why draw any kind of a moral why you mention Alton Sterling and what went on in Minnesota?
Why it I mean you can mention it but this effort to draw some kind of moral equivalence as though there is we can understand all of it happening.
This inability to look at something and proclaim it wrong.
Well, yeah, okay, so he knew he'd get he'd get grief from the left.
I don't think he cares when he got grief from the left.
I I think the guy's got his agenda and he's full speed marching it down the path.
I'm just I when this year began, I warned everybody, I said, folks, this this year coming up uh with the Republicans having given Obama a clear road, signaling they're not going to oppose anything, not even his policies.
You know, Mitch McConnell and Ryan announced they were going to oppose Obama.
They didn't want to appear to be opposing or creating any negatives for the Republican presidential nominee.
So Obama knows he's got a free road, so why does he care?
You know, the left might come at him and say he wasn't left-wing enough or he wasn't pro-black lives matter enough, or what I don't know.
I this I don't think there's any doubt where Obama stands with people on the left, but I want you to stop and think about something.
I want to set it up by acknowledging something that we all know.
Obama knows it, Michelle Obama knows it.
Everybody knows it.
The entire narrative of Ferguson, Missouri is a lie.
Hands up, don't shoot is a lie.
The story that a racist cop went hunting and found an innocent gentle giant walking down the street when he should have been on the sidewalk, contemplating excitedly, this is part of the story.
He was eagerly anticipating his freshman year at college was Michael Brown.
And this racist cop went hunting, and he found a guy breaking the law, walking in the street, and he got up in his face, and he all bullied him and so forth.
And Brown was immediately deferential and put his hands up, don't shoot, don't shoot, and the cop shot anyway.
And that is the story that came out of there.
And that story fed the entire narrative of Black Lives Matter and whatever they're trying to do to create controversy and division.
And it fed the new Black Panther meeting.
It was a lie.
It's a total lie.
Everything about that Ferguson story as repeated by the media and prominent Democrats and civil rights activists was a lie.
What if?
I want you to think about it.
What if, in the aftermath of Ferguson, Missouri, Barack Obama as president of the United States, meaning president of the whole country, meaning president of everybody here, had scheduled a national address from the Oval Office,
an address to the people of America, and told them the truth about what happened in Ferguson after the grand jury investigation was complete, after it was inarguably so, after we learned exactly what happened, that the Gentle Giant had robbed a convenience store, that he was looking for mechanism to smoke some dope, he had bullied the clerk in the 7-Eleven convenience store or whatever, is walking down the street.
He attempted to overtake the cop in his car.
He had defied the requests and the orders of the cop.
He had taken action which resulted in the cop shooting.
Everything about that story was not true.
What if Obama had gone on TV and Simply told people, for the sake of national unity, for the sake of understanding, for the sake of promoting and acknowledging the truth.
What if Obama had gone on TV and acknowledged what really happened and had told everybody that what they think happened in Ferguson didn't happen?
What do you think the aftermath might have been?
Well look, Snerdley is uh telling me in the IFB.
Snerdley's in New York today because he had to go up early to get ready for our guest.
Who we who's guest hosting tomorrow?
Oh, yeah, yeah, Mark Belling tomorrow and Buck Sexton, late of the CIA will be in here on uh on Friday.
Right, okay.
So Sturdley is saying if he'd done that, then the left wing would have started impeachment proceedings and they would have started threatening and so forth.
Well, that would have been its own story.
Everybody would have known that Obama was telling the truth, and he had the truth on his side.
Just imagine this is what we expect of presidents, is the point.
We don't expect presidents to further and promulgate lies and misinformation for the express purpose of creating, fomenting deadly anger.
Presidents try to quell these situations.
They try to get a handle on them and ratchet down the tension, particularly such an opportunity existed here because the truth was the truth, and the truth was not part of the narrative.
Now, if that had happened, and I can't predict in the alternative future, but uh, but I have to I have to think that that uh the aftermath of that incident, uh the the lie would have been short-lived, and the anger would have subdued, maybe it had been redirected toward Obama, I don't know.
Uh but remember it fed Baltimore, it fed Freddie Gray, it fed the situation in New York with the uh uh Eric, uh forget his last name.
Who was it?
Yeah, Eric Garner, who uh who also died of a heart attack, not a chokehold.
That's another lie that was told.
This guy selling knockoff cigarettes on the street of New York.
Knockoff is telling, because New York City taxes are so high that the guy could make a living selling black market cigarettes.
He's selling black market cigarettes for some reason, he came to the attention of the cops.
They ended up applying a restraining hold on the guy, but he had a heart attack.
It was not the chokehold didn't kill him.
The cops did not kill the guy, but that's not the story.
There's so many lies that have been created and then, if not promoted, they have not been quelled by the White House, which which makes me question motive.
Why not?
Well, of course, I know the answer to this.
And you do too.
You know the answer lies in the president's agenda and is rapidly becoming the uh the Democrat Party agenda.
I was looking at a Democrat Party platform, you won't believe, folks.
The Democrat Party has been totally now taken over by the radicals.
I mean, just insane lunatic radicals are now the mainstream of the Democrat Party.
You can be you look at the Democrat Party platform in 08, look at it in 2012, they acknowledge the legitimacy of the Second Amendment in these platforms.
The platforms don't matter much in terms of future governance.
I mean, they they're they're they're not binding on presidents if they win the election to implement the platform.
What platform basically does is tell you what the base of the party thinks about things.
Because the base of the party dominates in primaries and they end up on the committee that writes the platform.
So the platform gives you an indication where the base of both parties are.
The Democrat Party is not only is it not John F. Kennedy's Democrat Party, it isn't Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton's Democrat Party.
Hillary Clinton is a, well, I don't want to be too much.
She's a radical in and of her own right.
But this, you know, she she tempers her radicalness with enough proclamations and statements that make her appear to be mainstream in enough areas, but there isn't any mainstream anything in The Democrat Party platform.
And I'm telling you what happens when there's no opposition.
When there's no opposition, when there are no guardrails, when there's nothing to stop people from descending to their extreme worst, that's exactly what's going to happen.
And I'm here to tell you the extremism in America can be found almost exclusively on the Democrat side.
And that extremism has been documented in their platform.
And it was speaking in Dallas yesterday.
This idea of finding a moral equivalence, taking the occasion of a memorial service and a funeral for one of the cops.
It was a funeral for one of the cops yesterday.
And to take the occasion and use it to amplify that statement, it's easier to get a glock than to get a computer or a gun.
Come on.
What in the world can that possibly represent?
That kind of statement.
There's nothing unifying about that.
It's not even true.
And he knows it isn't true.
So that's that's nothing but a provocative statement designed to illustrate an actual opinion held by Barack Obama.
And he turned that whole thing yesterday into yet another attempt at gun control.
I think it's the yes, ladies and gentlemen, there's a chapter.
If you haven't heard this, buckle up.
It's a chapter of the NAALCP, the National Association for Advancement of Liberal Colored People.
And somebody in some chapter prominently has now claimed that the death of Micah X Johnson was nothing more than a modern-day lynching.
Yeah.
The guy who assassinated five Dallas police officers and injured eleven or twelve others.
So the police rally and they use their explosive robot bomb to kill the guy, and now the NAALCP is running around accusing that action of being a lynching.
Innocent people were lynched.
And the NAALCP said, we don't know if the guy was a shooter.
We don't know if the guy did it.
We're just taking their word for it.
We don't take their word for it.
We don't trust them.
We don't believe them.
They're making it up.
We don't have any evidence the guy was a shooter.
We don't have any evidence not going to be blew him up with a robot bomb.
It's a lynching.
Hey, here's the unity.
You start talking like that, man, that's going to really bring us all together.
We had a caller yesterday, a young African American from Brooklyn, who wanted to know why I referred to any black person talking about their legitimate past as a grievance.
And I gave him an analogy.
A grievance, the purpose of grievance, the way to understand grievance in the modern-day Democrat Party, grievance politics does not seek a solution, is the difference.
Grievance is a strategy.
Grievance is a method whereby to advance an agenda.
It's not something being used to seek a resolution.
That's the quick definition.
It will take a brief time out, and we will continue after that.
Yeah, Obama at the memorial said it's easier to buy a Glock than a book or a computer.
It just demonstrably not true.
There's no background check for a computer.
There's no background check for a book.
Everybody already has a computer anyway when you count their cell phone.
It just patently not true.
It's one of these things that's designed to appeal to low information people and get them all revved up emotionally.
And therefore it is irresponsible.
Not only that, when you have a phone, I don't care what kind of phone, it's easy to buy a book.
It's easy.
It's as easy as it is downloading an app.
You can't download a Glock On your phone.
It's just it's ridiculous.
But that's the kind of thing this president does.
He's been saying it for years.
He said it at least three times that I can remember.
Now the lynching comment that came from the Reverend Curtis Gatewood, who is the field marshal for the NAA LCP's North Carolina branch.
And the former second vice president for the North Carolina NAA LCP State Conference.
Who made the lynching comment?
Here's the quote.
He's a make no mistake, by taking this black suspect and demonizing and using a killer robot bomb to blow him up in this unprecedented and barbaric manner and without a trial in a court of law is the truest and most literal example yet of a high-tech lynching.
Gatewood wrote.
He went on to call Clarence Thomas the most vicious Uncle Tom to ever serve.
What is Clarence Thomas get dragged into this for?
This guy couldn't wear Clarence Thomas's shoes.
This guy couldn't even stay in the same room with Clarence Thomas.
This guy does not know one-tenth the courage and bravery and intellectual fortitude of Clarence Thomas.
Why drag Clarence Thomas into this?
Why call this a high-tech lynching?
Where are all these efforts to unify?
Somebody tell me how all of this or any of this is designed to unify.
Well, it isn't.
You can't convince me.
This isn't about unifying.
Daily Caller has a story, pure research poll, race relations more negative today than any other time this century.
Well, that's only 11 or 12, 14 years was big.
Just a couple more things before we move off of this.
Because there's big news in the political front.
There's huge polling data.
I can't wait to get to this for a host of reasons.
It's uh polling data from Battleground states, Hillary Clinton is plummeting.
But there's even more to this that I that I want to point out.
We'll get to it in mere moments.
Also, major, major backlash aimed at Hillary Clinton from Bernie Sanders supporters.
The drive-by's did not tell you the truth about this yesterday.
Bernie Sanders supporters were not wildly embracing Hillary Clinton.
They were not happy that Bernie endorsed her.
They're feeling sold out.
They're feeling they're mad at Bernie for giving up.
They're mad at Bernie for pulling out, they're mad at Bernie for selling out.
Bernie's supporters never did understand what Bernie was there for.
They never did understand it.
Bernie was never going to be the nominee.
Bernie Sanders supporters never, they either didn't believe it when they were told or they didn't consider it, but they were never ever aware that Bernie Sanders was never going to be allowed to be the nominee of the Democrat Party.
They bought it hook line and sinker that he had a chance.
He was winning all those primaries, and he was not getting the delegates, and they were getting fit to be tied.
And they are not happy on a number of levels.
And it shows up in these battleground state polls.
Anti-Hillary Democrats are rising in number.
We acknowledge there are anti-Trump Republicans.
We know that.
I mean, there's still a faction of them trying to deny Trump the nomination at the convention.
I'm not kidding, you probably were this.
There's some never Trumpers out there now trying to talk John Kasich into accepting the Republican nomination if they can find a way to run a coup to keep Trump from getting a nomination.
We know that there's some anti-Trump Republicans.
But nobody ever stopped to think that there were a serious contingent of anti-Hillary Democrats, but there are.
And according to this polling data, there may be more expressed as a percentage.
There may be a greater number of anti-Hillary Democrats than there are anti-Trump Republicans.
But there's a bunch of things that need to be said to put this in perspective.
Just Not just give you the polling data raw, because how we got there is fascinating in and of itself.
But just a couple more things on Black Lives Matter and all that.
Rob Robert Wood, there, Bob Woodson is a I first heard of him even before I started this program.
He was he's African American.
He was described as a uh a neighborhood activist when I first heard of him.
Uh not in the sense that Obama was a community organizer.
Uh Bob Woodson is a conservative uh and always has been.
And he's quoted in a column at thehill.com today, written by Selena Zito.
And the headline of this column is even at a funeral, dividing the nation is apparently good politics.
This is she doesn't agree with it.
The writer doesn't.
She thinks it's abhorrent, but uh by all intents and purposes of media analysis, it worked for Obama to politicize this memorial service and funeral.
But here's a quote.
Civil rights icon Bob Woodson doesn't just blame Black Lives Matter for inflaming racial tensions.
See, look at what Fox News is doing.
He says, This is what ticks me off with conservative broadcasters are going to have on Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
I'm just quoting what he says here.
I'm quoting what he says.
Don't anybody go jumping off on me here.
It is what ticks me off with conservative broadcasters.
They'll have on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and then Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingram become the foil.
And he says, in short, the face of opposition to Black Lives Matter is O'Reilly and Ingram.
He said, nothing against them, but that's not helpful.
It's not helping anybody.
They're broadcasters.
What he's saying is you need people in from the community who can take on Black Lives Matter with credibility.
I mean, there'll be nothing unusual about the fact that Fox anchors on air talent on balance would uh you know oppose.
But there's another point that he's making.
Why continually bring in Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?
What is that doing to help anything?
It's causing viewers, you know, bring in these two ancient relics of the civil rights movement, have them wax eloquently with a bunch of extreme wackoism, then you have your Fox talent react to it.
It's all a show.
Woodson's concerned that it's all a show, it's not solving anything, it's not advancing anything.
Besides that, it's giving credibility to a bunch of relics, a couple of relics here, that no nothing really to offer here in this.
Bob Woodson has little respect for Black Lives Matter provocateurs.
He finds them morally bankrupt, whose uh only determination seems to be 15 minutes of shame rather than concrete resolutions to problems.
Exactly.
That's what you have to understand that's wrong with the grievance industry.
And the grievance industry is owned solely by the Democrat Party.
And the way to recognize it, because I uh I want to hearken back to the call that I had yesterday from the uh African American from Brooklyn.
What's wrong with talking about why do you call it grievance?
And I gave him an analogy and I told him why, but the point is this.
The grievance industry seeks to create victims.
But more importantly, the grievance industry does not want solutions.
So you say, well, then why have the grievance?
Aha.
That's the right question.
Why have a grievance if you don't want to solve it?
If if if you have a grievance issue, say it's uh slavery and you demand reparations.
Well, that isn't gonna happen, but even if it did, it wouldn't end there.
They'd move on to something else, because the whole point of the grievance industry is not solutions, it's to continue.
The effort to tear down, to destroy, to transform, and that's what Obama is helping facilitate.
And that's what the American people are not used to seeing is presidents that facilitate and Assist in movements to tear down the fabric, the traditions, the institutions of a great country.
They don't know what to make of it.
Afraid to say anything about it.
A lot of people are because of the president's race, and you know how that is, that silences everybody.
That paralyzes anybody in the opposition, or a lot of people.
But Woodson is saying he doesn't just blame Black Lives Matter for inflaming racial tensions.
He says, look at what Fox News is doing, and it's this.
His point about this is two things.
A, why give these jokers airtime as though they're still relevant and credible when all they are is a couple of hustlers seeking continued fame and revenue.
They're not interested in solutions either, is Woodson's point.
And they're not.
These would be the you know, Sharpton and Jackson be the first two guys to stop it if it looked like a solution was actually in the offering.
You ever solve the problem, what do you need these guys for?
That's true of many left-wing causes, by the way.
They don't want a solution, they don't want it to stoppage.
Too many people living high on the hog, too many people with a great living with fundraising, siphoning some of the money.
In the meantime, all this stuff is tearing at the fabric of our country.
People are profiting from it.
Hence my question, who's benefiting from all this?
A lot of people are, but it isn't the country anyway.
You look at it.
Woodson said, Look, Fox should not be using Sharpton or Jackson, these other race hucksters.
All they're doing is continuing the divide.
And I'm forced to conclude that some people on the right have begun forming their own grievance industry and were lack in reaction to Black Lives Matter.
And I think what he means by that is that there are people who are continuing to profit by this strain and the controversy, uh, either in website clicks, click bait, audience to television and radio, so forth.
I think that's what he's talking about.
His his real grievance, his real criticism is that he doesn't see anybody involved actually trying to solve any of this.
And that's true.
Starting at the White House on down, that's what's missing in all this.
There's no effort to solve any of this.
What whether the grievances are just, whether the complaints are just in some cases or not, doesn't matter.
There's no effort to really solve this.
All that's going on is more and more exploitation for personal gain.
The personal gain could be the advancement of a political agenda.
It could be increased fundraising from which you siphon some money for your standard of living.
But there's way too much benefiting happening here.
Way too much.
And there isn't any solving.
Nothing is oriented towards solving anything.
And that's what grates on me.
Who among us wants a rest of our lives to be featuring this kind of stuff day in and day out, week in and week out?
What does this do to the nation's morale?
What does this do to people's overall attitude, the pursuit of happiness, life, liberty?
What is all this do?
You got this stuff hanging over your head every day, these constant allegations of racism, bigotry, sexism that are bogus to begin with, and then you have no effort to actually solve the problems people are bitching about.
It leads nowhere good, folks.
It leads nowhere positive.
It leads to a tipping point.
It leads to a breaking point.
It leads to a boiling over somewhere.
You can't be engaged in all this.
You can't create all this havoc.
You can't start randomly shooting people, blowing things up, not seeking a solution.
And there isn't any solving going on.
But worse than that, there doesn't seem to be any effort at solving anything.
Especially on the part of the provocateurs.
I'm reminded of Yasser Arafat.
It was obviously before he died.
Bill Clinton was still in the White House.
And you know, every president wants to be able to say they solve the Middle East peace crisis.
Every president wants to be able to say that they brought peace to the Middle East, which means peace between the Palestinians, the Israelis, peace between the Islamists, the Jews, peace between the Muslims and the Christians in the Middle East and all that.
Every president yearns for that.
So Bill Clinton, after numerous summits at Camp David, finally offered Yasser Arafat everything he had been demanding over the years.
Some of it outrageous.
Some of it literally undoable.
But Clinton offered Arafat everything he wanted, I think even a couple of bonus things.
What did Arafat do?
He left.
He got out of Camp David faster than you could say, get me Marine One.
He was out of there on the way back to his Fatah headquarters, wherever they were.
He wanted no part of a solution.
He wanted no part of this being resolved.
No way, shape, manner, or form, offered everything he wanted.
What does it tell you?
They're not after what they claim to be after.
You let them have it, you offer it to them, and the same thing would happen today.
You offer whoever these radical malcontents are, offer them what they want.
Not going to solve anything.
They're not going to accept it.
Under the guys, you don't mean it.
We don't trust you.
You couldn't possibly be granting us everything.
No, no, no, we don't believe you.
And they would use that to further deepen resentment.
That's what bothers me.
There's got to be an end to this.
There's got to be a solution to this stuff.
After 200 some odd years.
But look, it's only getting worse.
And now we have this Pew survey, race relations, more negative today than any other time this century.
Sixteen years, big whoop.
But seven and a half of those years include the presidency of the first African American elected to the job in this country, and it's gotten worse.
I remember somebody predicting that was going to happen.
I'm not sure who it was.
Somebody predicted that was going to happen.
Like a year before the election, somebody predicted.
Was it that's right?
It was the guy who said I hope he fails.
That's right, that's right who it was.
Good memory, Snerdley.
Absolutely.
I'm making a promise.
We're doing open line Friday and Wednesday.
We're going to get the...
The phone calls very soon in the next hour, if you're on hold, where a lot of people are.
Please stay there if you can.
We appreciate your patience.
Just last week, ladies and gentlemen, I, your host, was accused of being in something called data denial syndrome.
I was accused, along with Newt Gingrich and countless others, of being in data denial syndrome.
Meaning that I was one of the people who refused to believe the polls when the polls presented news that I disagreed with.
And this was bad.
It's very, very, very bad to suffer from data denial syndrome.
It was, I think it was me.
It was uh Romney, I forget, I forget who else, but there were number three of us prominently mentioned as suffering from data denial syndrome.
And it was about polling data that showed Trump just getting his clock clean by Hillary.
The Donald and his supporters are running out of time to face this reality.
The election is four months away.
And Limbaugh and others who have yet to recover from data denial syndrome refuse to admit the truth.
That Trump's a disaster, that Hillary is pulling ahead, that Trump is not even doing anything to close the gap.
And they cited how I was one of many who didn't believe the 2012 polls.
And I cop to that.
I had my reasons.
Okay, so just last week, I'm lumped in a group suffering data denial syndrome because I don't I won't accept the reality that Trump is losing and losing big and that Hillary is pulling ahead.
That the polling data was very clear.
And these people in Trump in data denial syndrome look at the polling data, and if it doesn't suit them, they won't believe it.
And the accompanying to that was these kind of people are not helpful to you.
Okay, fine.
So where are we today?
There's a story from July 1st.
Bloomberg, Clinton spending roughly $500,000 a day on TV ads.
Trump zero.
Story goes on to say how Hillary is cleaning Trump's clock.
Trump isn't even campaigning.
He's talking about himself and a Mexican judge.
He's not even campaigning.
Hillary's pulling ahead.
Hillary's spending all this money.
Trump doesn't have a chance.
Story from today.
Swing state stunner.
Trump has edge in key states.
Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio.
Hillary is losing ground in key swing states despite no money.
No parent campaign.
Now, what am I to do?
Since I suffered data denial syndrome, am I supposed to not believe this?
Because it's different now than what it was a couple weeks ago.
What am I supposed to do?
No, no.
The point is that two weeks ago, the experts said that it was over for Trump.
The polls said so.
Hillary was pulling ahead.
I was accused of being a data denier.
Now two weeks later, Hillary is is is falling.
Trump is gaining honor.
Swing states.
▲
Export Selection