All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 15, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:19
August 15, 2016, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, now look, there's a headline here on Fox News.
You got Hillary and Biden out there in Pennsylvania.
And the headline, Clinton attempts to win over the working class.
Now stop and think about that for a minute.
The working class has another name.
The working class is known as the little guy.
And who is it that the Democrats have always been on the lookout for?
Well, the little guy.
Well, who have they lost?
The Democrats seem to have lost ground with white blue-collar people.
Unionized people.
They've lost ground with the union leaders donate money to the Democrats left and right.
But Hillary had to pick up uh bite me, and they had to head out there to uh to Pennsylvania Scranton and so forth to try to shore up support among working class people.
Now don't misunderstand me.
I'm I'm not I'm not one to grasp at straws, but it seems to me that if you are in the midst of a huge land slide win over a flailing and failing Donald Trump, what why do you not yet have your your traditional core constituency wrapped up?
Now, I know that the Democrats made a conscious effort, this goes back to 2011.
It was in November, and there was a guy, Thomas B. Edsall, used to write for the Washington Post, who became uh advisor of sorts, and he wrote how Obama was writing off the white working class as a uh uh constituency as an electoral force.
And the reason was, of course, is that the white working class happened to be the primary group affected negatively by illegal immigration.
And Obama had sided with the illegal immigrants, which is exactly, by the way, what Hillary's doing.
Hillary's out there just making a big pitch for the dreamers.
She's making a big pitch to get them registered to get them able to vote.
It's exactly what we've always told you.
Illegal immigration really is for the Democrats.
It's a voter registration drive.
Anyway, uh welcome back, folks.
Terrific to have you with us on the Rush Limbaugh program here, the fastest three hours in media.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program's 800-282-2882.
Okay, from the Trump stack today.
First off, the Washington Examiner, always correct election forecast model, predicts Trump win 51 to 48.
Now, I think this is the last there might be two.
There might be two polls out there that show Trump either in the lead or tied.
Oh, there's a third.
A guy has written an app.
You know, this is a try this.
I forget the man's name, doesn't matter.
It's not the focal point of the story.
USA Today had the story about a guy who wrote an app for your iPhone, your your phone, your your iPad.
And this app is supposed to be an accurate predictor of who wins.
I don't know how that can be because I don't know how he knows who's buying the app.
I don't know how any of it.
But they USA Today did this big story on this app showing that Trump is much, much stronger than in all of the professional polls.
And what I found interesting about it was why would USA Today push this unless they're trying to mock it and make fun of it, which they didn't appear to be doing.
It appeared they were trying to do a even maybe a little puff piece on the software writer, the app developer here.
Damn it, I wish I it was Saturday, I think I saw it.
And I don't think I printed it out.
Uh or I would tell you the name of the app.
I'll see if I can find it.
And then there's this.
But I mean, that's grasping at straws, is it?
Not to go out and find some guy who's written an app that shows Trump is winning and I don't think that's what USA Today was doing is highlighting the ways in which traditional polsters now have competition.
But this is Paul Bedard in the Washington Examiner.
Donald Trump should win the presidency by a slim margin according to a model that has accurately predicted the popular vote since 1988.
Using several standards to make his prediction, Alan Obramowitz's Time for Change model, done for the University of Virginia's Center for Politics Crystal Ball, shows Trump winning 51.4% to 48.6% for the Hildebeast.
He added that the model shows a 66% chance of a Trump victory.
He added that the model shows that based on a predicted vote share of 48.6% for the incumbent party.
These results indicate that Trump should be a clear but not overwhelming favorite to defeat Clinton.
And there should be about a 66% chance of Republican victory.
If this model showed Hillary winning, it would be the top story in the country, but it doesn't.
So it's relegated to the Washington examiner.
Now, it says also here in an unusual move, Obramawitz is throwing his own model under the bus, suggesting that Clinton will win because Trump is so different from past presidential candidates and has such high unfavorability ratings that his election forecast basics can't be trusted.
Ah!
That's more like it.
So you get a guy that produces a poll that shows Trump's going to win, and then the pollster has to throw it out because Trump is so odd.
Because Trump is so unique that you can't cast him as other Republicans are.
So this poll does not measure candidate characteristics.
It measures voting patterns by party.
But this guy throws his own poll out because he says Trump is such an oddball and such a strange bird that you really can't you really can't use his model in polling this race.
Well, Trump is that, not in the way in which it sounds.
He's a strange bird in the sense that he does not fit any of the political molds that traditional Republican or Democrat candidates fit into.
I mean, he's doing everything in the world you shouldn't do.
And he's doubling down on it.
He's going to states that don't have 10 or 15 Republicans in them.
He's now shifted his campaign from crooked Hillary to the crooked media.
He has not focused on the issues that he was focusing on during the primaries.
He still has these raucous and highly popular, well-attended rallies.
But all the experts say you can't extrapolate from that.
You can't say that big crowds equal votes.
You can't say that excited crowds equal votes.
You can't do it.
That's anecdotal evidence, Rush.
You can't you can't compare that kind of evidence to actual polling data.
So Trump continues to, he's not spending any money.
You know, here's a little interesting observation, by the way.
I'll tell you a little secret.
You'll know this once I remind you of it.
This time of year, every four years rivals Christmas in terms of advertising sales for television and radio.
Political campaign spending is over the top.
It now reaches into the billions.
And in a presidential year, that spending goes on all year, and it intensifies from late August all the way through October, and the amount of money spent on advertising by presidential candidates, and then all the other down ballot candidates.
You've got Senate, you've got house races, you have local races.
It's phenomenal the amount of political revenue, advertising revenue, that broadcast outlets rake in, except not this year.
Because Trump isn't spending any yet.
Well, he's raised a What's the number they say he's raised?
80.
80 or 90 million.
He hadn't spent any yet.
And a Clinton campaign says they know that.
They're waiting because they think that all of that money is going to be dumped into One massive gigantic Trump attack on her.
They don't know what about and they don't know when.
Now, Hillary, she's raising her money and she's spending it, but the broadcast outlets are taking in less money this presidential year than any year they can remember because Trump's not spending any.
And believe me, you might think it matters, but it does.
It matters that Trump can generate free media whenever he went.
That ticks them off.
You know, they don't want to cover him, but they have to.
But what I've noticed, they no longer go the whole rally.
They'll maybe do 10 or 15 minutes, but they'll bump out.
Because they're not going to give him any more free media, not like he got during the primaries.
And he's not spending any yet.
So they're down so much.
So what impact that has on coverage, I don't know.
I don't think it would change much.
I'm not saying if Trump started buying a lot of advertising, the media would go softer on him.
I don't think that's the case.
But I'm just illustrating that this is an entirely different campaign.
And there's lots of scared people.
A lot of them on the Republican side.
The very people, in fact, let me put this in perspective for you.
And you you know that there are many Republicans.
You know that there are many conservatives.
You know there are many Republicans slash conservative think tanks, blog sites that despise the Trumpster.
And they want Trump to lose.
They want him to lose so bad they want him to lose so big, but now they're starting to ask themselves, well, if that really happens, what becomes of us?
The thinking all along has been that Trump will destroy only himself, that Trump will lose only himself.
Now they're beginning to wonder, wait a minute, is there is there a Trump movement beyond Trump?
Meaning even after Trump loses, do the people supporting him still support what they support, believe what they believe, and are they still gonna be mad at the Republicans they're mad at now?
And then they're asking themselves, if he loses that badly, if he if he just gets wiped out, what does that mean for the Republican Party?
Because the Republican Party is what makes them their position in it, their position of prominence in it, their acceptance in it if it goes away, or worse, if it becomes completely redefined.
If the Republican Party becomes something totally unlike what it is now, then where are these people hoping Trump loses?
Where does it leave them?
They're starting to think this now.
They probably have been for a while.
But none of this fits the mold.
And I don't offer this as a as an attempt to comfort concerned or worried feelings.
I'm just making the observation.
As I mentioned earlier, the Wall Street Journal has given Trump until Labor Day to get out of town.
Honest to God, they've editorial with an ultimatum for Trump to get out by Labor Day and turn this all over to Mike Pence.
What do all the tr the Trump deserters think will happen if he loses?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I tell I think their original thought was that here's the here's the thought process and the strategy.
Okay, we hate Trump, that's number one.
Therefore, number two, Trump can't win.
Therefore, number three, we've got to be visible and loud, opposing Trump, which will cement our credibility as good conservatives and Republicans.
And then we gotta help Trump get defeated.
And the thinking goes that Trump will singularly and alone be devastrated, leaving them in charge of the party because everybody will say they told us they were the smart people.
They've known since last summer Trump was gonna screw it up.
They've known since last summer Trump couldn't win.
They try to tell us we wouldn't listen.
They think they're gonna be heralded as a bunch of Nostradamuses.
They think they're gonna be heralded as the guys we should have listened to from the get-go, And the party will thus be theirs.
I think that's what I don't know.
They still think that.
I think they're worried now the party might not even exist if it's if it's as bad as the media wants you to think.
But I think that was their original thought process that Trump alone would be destroyed, and that they would be looked to as oracles.
Well, you I don't know.
I don't know.
I wouldn't say it's delusional thinking, and maybe wishful thinking, but I wouldn't say it's delusional.
Um they don't no, no, no, they don't think they're going to be blamed.
They think that people are going to look at them and say, gee, I wish I'd have listened to you.
Gee, you know, you really are smarter than I am.
Gee, you know what?
If we'd have just listened to you fill in the blank, then we wouldn't have even supported Trump and this debacle wouldn't have happened.
Oh my God, we're sorry that we ever got mad at you.
I mean, I think they probably think that was one of the benefits to opposing Trump.
I have no doubt.
Boston Herald media bias could wind up helping Donald Trump.
Yeah, that's my question from the earliest moments of the program today.
Speculating right here, asking, not answering, speculating and asking.
Is this so over the top, this this this media treatment of Trump?
Is it so bad that it's going to cause its own backlash that people are going to say, my God, nobody can be this bad.
What in the world is and be curious and look further into it.
Well, this is Chris Cassidy, and he writes rampant mainstream media bias against Donald Trump could play right into the GOP presidential candidates' hands, sparking a sympathetic backlash from voters who see unfair press hits as a heavy-handed shadow campaign to boost Hillary Clinton.
Let's be honest about so we're not talking media bias anymore.
We are so past media bias.
We can't even see media bias in the rearview mirror.
We're way beyond media bias.
They are all in.
The media is the Hillary Clinton campaign staff.
There's not even a pretense of objective.
It's so bad the New York Times had to write a front page story last weekend talking about how painful it is for real journalists for the first time in their careers, out of a sense of duty to adopt an oppositional stance to a candidate.
They've never done that before.
And since they've had to do it with Trump, it also looks like they're pro-Hillary and they're so uncomfortable with this.
I mean, that's puke city, but they wrote it.
Victor Davis Hansen quoted here.
His way of thinking is if I take a battering ram and I hit the door long enough, it doesn't matter what I say.
They'll distort it, and eventually that'll hit critical mass, and people will turn on the media and turn on Hillary.
I mean, that's he's not thinking that's gonna happen.
He's speculating.
That's how it could happen, the backlash if it does.
From the Hill.com, Clinton up in two battleground states.
Anyway, the the the pylon news continues, and I've got all kinds of new audio sound bites out of Milwaukee, one particularly, that I read to you that we now have the actual tape from Want you to hear.
Got to take a break now, and we'll be right back, folks.
All right, here's what it sounded like.
This is Saturday Milwaukee after police shot an African American suspect who was armed, a group of people gathered to confront the police, and a protester can be heard saying that he's done talking.
He's finished talking.
This is what he said.
We're done with that.
We want like all people.
No more people.
Hey, no more people.
We can not go have a single white people.
One of us have to go, black or white.
We all gotta go.
Okay, class A I could not understand a word of that.
Were you able to hear that?
No, you got no seriously.
No, help me out here.
If you think I need to read this to people, you gotta tell me.
Okay.
Okay, so Pete, you can understand.
He said we do not want justice or peace anymore.
We done with that excrement.
He didn't say excrement.
We want blood.
Like y'all want.
We want blood.
We want the same excrement.
Except he didn't say excrement.
We want the same excrement y'all want.
Eye for an eye.
No more peace.
F bomb all that.
Except he didn't say F bomb.
Ain't no more peace.
Ain't no more peace.
We cannot cohabitate with white people.
One of us have to go.
Black or white.
All y'all have to go.
So where's our common ground here?
Where do where do we meet halfway?
How many of these guys think General Giant really had his hands up, trying to surrender?
Don't shoot.
Was running away, shot in the back.
How many of you think really believe that?
I'll bet you a lot of them do.
How many of them would change their mind if they could be convinced that hands up, don't shoot didn't happen?
Answer zero.
They want to be ticked off.
This is community organizing, folks.
This is what it looks like.
This is how it works.
This is the end result of it.
And we will be back.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
L. Rushmore, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling, all concern.
Maha Rushy.
Right on.
Okay, here is Canon truck stop.
He's a truck stop in uh El Myra, Missouri.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Yeah, Rush.
I was gonna say that.
Uh a lot of people don't see Trump in the in the total light.
He's a lot like Ronald Reagan was, where he has the ability to talk right past the cameras to the hearts and minds of the American people.
Yeah, I've heard people make that uh assessment.
But look, let me cut to the chase here.
You're familiar with all the negative press coverage Trump is getting, obviously.
Yeah.
You don't believe it?
No.
No, no, I don't.
I I don't, I don't buy into it because the media right now has uh the credibility of uh used car salesman.
Okay, cool, true.
But it still it hasn't depressed you, it hasn't made you mad, it hasn't dispirited you in any way.
You think Trump's still right an eye?
I I think he is.
All right.
I I really believe that, and I also think that uh American people believe that because he's he he's got that ability to talk past the camera.
Yeah.
Well he does that.
And the media and everything else, and that's why they can't control him.
Interesting.
Well, I'm I'm glad you called, Ken.
I appreciate it.
There is a um there's an op-ed piece today in the New York Post by the noted author Harlan Coben.
Coban?
Harlan Coben?
Coben, yeah.
Have you read any of Harlan Coban books?
Well, you really should.
He uh uh the the f he's I guess most known for writing books about his lead character as a sports agent.
They're they're they're they're good books.
Harvin Harlan Coban's a good writer.
He's uh unique in the piece New York Post today.
No, I've I've I've probably read ten or twelve of his books.
And he's got a peace.
You know, there's there's nobody that can explain Trump better than I can.
We all agree with this.
But there's nobody can deconstruct Trump and tell you how Trump does what he does, why it works, why he's developed the bond, the connection that he has with his supporters.
Coben gives it a shot today.
And he's right in in much of his assessment, but where he differs from mine.
And the primary point that Harlan Coben makes is that, and I'm paraphrasing, I'm not quoting him precisely.
But he says that Trump doesn't even really care if he wins.
That all Trump wants is the approval and the laughter and the cheering at his rallies.
So that's all Trump's after.
Trump is after acceptance.
He's after applause.
He wants to make people laugh.
He wants to make people feel good.
And if he thinks he's accomplished that, the end of the day at his rallies, then it's been a great day.
And the way he uh explains this, he uses the example of Trump's Second Amendment people comment.
And he writes down Trump's thought process.
Not what Trump said, but the thought process that produced the words.
And in his analysis, in Harlan Coben's analysis, Trump had to keep saying something until somebody laughed.
And so he kept talking about the Second Amendment and whatever he was talking about during that, and they came out with the line, well, I know the Second Amendment people might have something to say about that, which of course the media, which has no concept of snark or sarcasm or parody, especially if it's aimed at them.
They just, there's the left does not have a sense of humor.
I mean, folks, think about it.
Even their comedians are really nothing more than people ticked off like you can't believe at us.
I mean, left-wing comedians are really angry guys.
And they're saying outrageous things that their people think are jokes, but their comedians are considered serious news commentators, are they not?
I mean, look at John Stewart and they're thought to be serious news commentators more than comedians.
They don't, they think they're sophisticated and have this sense of humor.
They really don't.
But Harlan Coben's theory was that Trump had to say something, and he just kept talking until somebody laughed.
And that he wasn't trying to talk about assassinations.
He wasn't suggesting upright anything.
He just had to say something to get a rise out of the crowd.
But his point is that that's all Trump wants.
That the rallies Trump does are self-contained home runs that provide Trump with the daily dose of acceptance and love that he seeks.
Now, I'm paraphrasing.
I don't have Harlan Coben's piece in front of me.
I'm just sharing with you my analysis of it, having read it earlier today.
Audio soundbite time, I want to hear you, want you to hear a little bit of Mrs. Clinton today.
She and Bite Me are in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
And it basically what Hillary's saying is America's still great.
Everything out there's wonderful and fine.
We just need to keep doing more of this and maybe improve it a little bit, and Trump's not qualified.
Trump is unfit.
Here's how it sounds.
The story of the Rodham's and the Bidens isn't unique.
What's unique is the country where those stories were written.
No matter what Donald Trump says, America is great, and the American dream is big enough for everyone to share in its promise.
You know, this things have gotten so reversed.
Trump is not.
Trump is not saying America isn't great.
Trump is saying the exact opposite.
Trump is saying America is great and can be again, but that these people are destroying it.
This whole characterization of Trump and his speech is a dark, dank place that America is with no hope for anybody.
No, no, no.
That's the Democrats' view.
The Democrats don't know what to do.
Now that they have somehow, in their minds inherited the mantle of optimism, they really don't know how to do it because they don't believe this.
They don't go out and sell the American Dream, they don't sell self-reliance, they don't sell rugged individualism, they don't sell work yourself up your boot stamps, they sell the exact opposite.
But given half the chance, look what they do.
They can't wait to appropriate that stuff.
Hillary Clinton trying to make you think that she and Joe Biden grew up on the wrong side of the tracks.
Through hard work and stick to it if they overcame all these obstacles and have reached the pinnacle.
When do you hear Democrats talk that way lately?
You don't.
They don't, they're not comfortable talking that way, but they think Trump has ceded CEDED, the whole notion of America in trouble to them, which is they're missing that.
That's not what Trump is saying.
Trump is doing what most of the rest of us are doing, lamenting the American greatness that's being whittled away by people like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
Here's the next bite in order.
First, we're going to make the biggest investment in new good paying jobs since World War II.
Stop the tape.
I knew it couldn't last.
So right off of no matter what, Donald Trump says, America is great, and the American dream is big enough for everyone to sh- and how's that American dream manifest?
What government?
Government's gonna be out there growing and expanding, and we're gonna make the biggest investment in new good paying jobs since World War II.
I think it's sad people fall for this.
We have to admit that they do, but I'd like people to think about it rationally.
How in the world is this work?
How does Washington invest in the best paying job since World War II?
When you want one of those jobs, where are you gonna go to get it and what's the job gonna be?
What is it?
Somebody tell me.
Some of you liberal Democrats, please tell me what are these jobs gonna be?
Hillary's gonna put together the biggest investment in new good paying jobs since World War II.
Where do I go to get one of them?
And what they're gonna be.
What are these big paying jobs?
I mean, she's gonna have the best and the brightest come up with this investment.
What is she gonna invest in?
Where do you go?
If you are an investor, I want to invest in high-paying jobs.
Where do you go do that?
What is the investment?
Where do you put the money?
What's the job?
What are the jobs?
Maybe finding Hillary's emails?
I doubt that's gonna be high-paying.
I don't think they want anybody to find them.
Oh, that's right.
Infrastructure, we're gonna build roads and bridges.
Yeah, okay.
So let's take a look at the Forbes 500, 500 richest people in the world.
How many of them build roads and bridges?
Not own the companies that do it.
How many of them build the roads and bridges?
She said, high paying jobs.
We're gonna rebuild the roads, we're gonna rebuild the bridges, we're gonna rebuild the schools, even though we did that in 2009, if you remember.
And we did it with a lot more money.
Mrs. Clinton's investment here is 250 billion, I think she's put a number to it, but this is insane.
Government doesn't create high-paying jobs.
of the kind you can get.
By high-paying government jobs, if you work at a law firm and the Democrats hire, you represent them at a committee hearing.
Okay.
That's a high-paying government job when you already have a law firm and you already have your thousand dollars an hour rate and they hire you.
But there is no government.
What what are you gonna do?
Where are the jobs?
Where do you apply?
What kind of work are you gonna be doing when Hillary's vast expert team gets finished?
And why are we gonna have to wait?
Why have we had to wait?
If Mrs. Clinton knows how to do this, why not tell Obama in 2009?
If you love the American people, and if you see the economies kind of struggling, and you know how to make investments that create good paying jobs, best paying jobs since World War II.
Why do we have to wait until you get elected to see what this is?
Why, Mrs. Clinton, didn't you do this?
You've been around in government for 30 years.
Why only now?
And if you lose Mrs. Clinton, are you not gonna tell Trump how to do it?
So that if you lose, we can all wave bye-bye to these high paying jobs.
So like we're being blackmailed?
We have to elect you for this investment in high paying jobs to happen.
We have to elect you to find out where to go to apply for the jobs.
We have to elect you to find out what the work is.
Does it gonna pay us so much?
More than anybody since World War II.
A responsible press corps would ask her these questions.
What are these jobs?
You know, I I work for the uh I work for the Oshkosh Gazette and I make $70,000 a year.
I want to make $200,000.
Where do I go, Mrs. Clinton?
To get one of your jobs.
They never asked that question, but that's what say that they should happen.
Grab the rest at Hillary bite.
Number 26.
Play the whole thing again.
We got time to squeeze this.
Listen to everything she says here in addition to this massive investment to create all these great paying jobs.
First, we're going to make the biggest investment in new good paying jobs since World War II.
Second, we're going to make college debt free for all.
Third, we're going to crack down on companies that ship jobs and profits overseas, and we're going to reward companies that share profits with their employees like the Scranton Lace Company did almost a century ago.
Fourth, we're going to make sure that Wall Street corporations and the super rich finally pay their fair share of taxes.
Okay, stop it.
And fifth.
Stop it.
I need some time here.
Folks, I'm just telling you, I've heard this is identical to what I heard Bill Clinton campaigning on in 1992.
25 years.
The Democrats have been promising the same stuff.
And if you add it up, you'd have to conclude the Democrats have not done any of this.
Apparently there's still a bunch of Wall Street that they have got to keep from ripping you off.
And apparently they they've been promising you to get rid of your student loan problem for 25 or 30 years, and they haven't been able to do it.
It's the same litany.
They're going to raise taxes on the rich, they're going to raise taxes on business, they're going to punish this business or that business.
Those businesses are still there.
The only businesses losing money are theirs, like wind and solar.
These people, none of what they offer works.
They never pull it off.
I'd like Hillary to go into Milwaukee.
Give that speech on the American dream that she just gave in Scranton, see how it's reacted to there.
I think if you just work hard like Joe Biden and not as the tomatoes hit the stage.
▲
Export Selection