It's a delight to have you here, Rushland Boy, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
As I continue on as America's real anchorman and doctor of democracy and truth detector, the telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to send an email, we got a new email address.
Elrushbow at EIBNet.us.
Elrushbow at EIBNet.us.
Okay, some of the polling data here.
Let's see.
Reuters.
This, something going on happening one week ago at this time, Hillary was up 12.
Two weeks ago, she was up 12.
And then she was up nine.
And the latest Reuters Ipsos poll, Hillary leads Trump by five.
Now, remember, this is the poll.
The Reuters poll.
It does not permit people to say that they are undecided.
In fact, it was, it was last Tuesday.
It was just a week ago that it was 12 points.
And it was Friday that she was up by eight.
That's right.
They had two polls last week.
So the headline could easily be, Trump trims Hillary's lead by seven points in less than a week.
In a separate Reuters-Ipsos poll that includes candidates from small alternative parties, Clinton leads the field by a smaller margin.
39% support Hillary in a four-way poll, 36% for Trump, 7% for Gary Johnson, 3% for the Green Party nominee, Jill Stein.
So the translation, when all the parties are in the mix, as they probably will be in November, Hillary only leads by three, which is within the margin of error, and she's not even at 40%.
And you know, folks, again, it makes sense.
I want to get back to something I mentioned in the last hour.
I think it's a seminal moment.
Most of my life, and I'm sure most of yours, presidential elections have been largely determined by the state of the U.S. economy or the perceived state of the U.S. economy.
And in 2008, I'm sorry, 2012.
Well, 2008, it did matter.
That's right.
In 2008, McCain was leading until the financial collapse.
The reported financial collapse happened.
And then it was over.
And in 2012, Bush was still being blamed for the economy.
Here we are at 2016.
The last eight years have seen dramatic economic decline all across the board in this country.
In addition, the last eight years have seen the heated debate over Obamacare.
Obama signing it into law after having lied to the American people about fundamental aspects of it.
You like your doctor?
No problem.
Keep your doctor.
You like your policy?
No sweat.
Keep your policy.
Not only that, your premiums are going to be coming down on average of $2,500 a year.
None of that was true.
The unemployment rate is more like 23%.
When you get into African-American and minority unemployment, it's at 25% or 50% with teenagers.
We have 94 million Americans not working.
By all that's holy in American politics, the Democrats ought to be finished.
They ought not even have a chance using old traditional metrics.
In the old days, when the economy was bad, the sitting president got blamed for it.
His party was blamed for it.
No matter what they did, it was almost insurmountable.
By all rights, Obama and Hillary should be in the 30% range here.
And Hillary ought not to have a prayer.
So why doesn't the economy matter as much?
I've already announced my theory, so I won't repeat it again in case some didn't hear it.
You know, when I say something about anything, that's pretty much it.
There's not much left to say.
So sometimes I dial it back.
Why is the economy not a big deal?
And I still think this is a story out of Germany.
I need to remind you of this again, too.
Germany is a typical socialist democracy in Western Europe.
And they do what all socialist governments do.
They promise the moon.
They tell you that they're going to take care of you, get you through the rough spots.
Government's got the answer to every problem.
Government is the solution.
Government's where you turn to for any problem.
You have government levels.
The playing field government makes it.
Fair government does all of this.
Well, Germany just issued a warning to its citizens as part of an elevated terror threat.
Germany has just told its citizens that they're on their own when it comes to food and water in the event of a terror attack.
Now, isn't that convenient?
A government which gets votes by promising everybody that they're going to take care of them.
However, that is interpreted.
They're going to keep you from starving.
They're going to keep you fed.
They're going to get you with a phone.
They're going to keep you connected to TV.
They're going to make sure that you have some kind of income.
They're going to do something.
You're going to be okay.
We will take care of.
Vote for us.
But then, when a real crisis hits, they are nowhere to be found.
And they'll tell you in advance, you're on your own.
Isn't that just cheek?
I think it's classic.
I think Anthony is so instructive.
I think it's so illustrative of who and what socialist governments really are at a base level.
So easy to understand.
If the government can provide you food, water, shelter, cable TV, cell phones, and a moderate income for your vote every day of the year, why can't they take care of you when the nation's under assault?
Isn't that when they really should be protecting you?
Isn't that what government is ultimately responsible for?
Is protecting and defending its people.
The people that live in the country.
The government of Germany, Angela Merkel.
The government's out of there.
Morning Consult, another poll.
Trump closes gap to near margin of error.
Now, the Morning Consult poll, on a scale of ABCDE, they have a B rating from the experts at the 538 website.
And in this poll, what do we have here?
Trump trails Hillary by three points in a new national poll from the Morning Consult outfit, shrinking a deficit that has alarmed Republican operatives who fear that Trump may be hurting the prospects of Republican candidates down the ballot.
This survey taken August 24th through 26th, Trump erased a six-point lead to a three-point lead.
It's 43 to 40 registered voters.
It hasn't been this close in the morning consult poll since July.
So the polling data continues all over the board.
Now, I'm sure there are going to be some polls later on this week that show these margins a little better for Hillary, NBC, Wall Street Journal, ABC, Washington Post.
I mean, they're going to go back and forth.
But the point is, there isn't any unanimity on them.
There isn't any sameness about them.
So it's all over the board.
And it leads me to believe that a lot of these outfits are having trouble finding what they really think is a good sample.
You go registered voters, likely voters, adults.
The LA Times USC poll, the daily poll that they publish at midnight every night, sample of 3,000 people, 400 of whom are identical every poll.
The same 400 are polled every day with 2,600 different people added every day.
And this is a wash now.
It's almost a dead heat.
This is the poll that Trump was up seven before the Democrat Convention.
And the Democrat Convention happened.
Hillary got a bounce up to, I think, six and a half.
And now it's back down to dead heat.
So the politics of this continues to confound people who continue to look at this through the standard political prism, which I continue to maintain is a distortion and not predictable per se as to Trump and his fortunes.
Now, back to the audio soundbites.
I have 11 bites here.
We've broken this up.
There are 11 bites of the drive-bys taking a clip of me from last week laughing.
Really, I was uncontrollably laughing over two things.
One was a New York Daily, I mean, this story was just over the top.
The people at New York Daily literally outraged that I had pointed out that the Agriculture Department was granting money to lesbians if they would go farm.
They thought it was just atrocious what I was saying.
And all I was doing is reporting an actual news story.
And the way it was written, I just, I couldn't stop laughing.
And then Trump does his supposed flip-flop on deporting illegal immigrants.
And I noticed that it wasn't hurting Trump among his supporters.
And I just, I started laughing again.
And I said, who would have believed?
It's still funny now when you think about it.
The Republican Party's been trying for eight years to get its base to go along with some form of amnesty.
And who would have thought that it was Donald Trump that would make it happen?
And I was barely able to contain myself.
So the drive-bys took that and ran with it and started asking other Republicans to react to it.
Where we are, we're up to soundbite number six on this.
This would be John King on CNN Inside Politics yesterday.
And he is discussing, that's just him.
And then Julie Pace of the AP is next.
Here's in the media.
Mr. Trump will concede on this issue.
You have to include this guy.
I think his name's Rush Limbaugh.
Who knew?
You mentioned what's like doing Jeb Bush today?
Who knew that it would be Donald Trump to come and convert the GOP base to supporting amnesty?
He said it, Rush, that is part of that.
Lev, give me a minute to regain my composure.
I mean, he was like hysterical there.
Yeah, and they were, I was.
I totally was hysterical.
I really was thinking, poor Jeb, as serious and earnest as all these people were about it.
And then Trump comes along and the media reports he's flip-flopping on this and all of a sudden supporting amnesty.
And it didn't matter to Trump's supporters.
It just has, that's the kind of thing that just befuddles any other candidate, flip-flop like that, and it is over.
With Trump, it didn't even matter.
That's what was funny about it.
Here's Julie Pace, the ABC, sorry, the AP White House correspondent.
It is hilarious.
Ever since the day after the 2012 election when Mitt Romney lost, Republicans have been talking about the need to get right on immigration.
You had candidates in this race like Jeb Bush, like Marco Rubio at a certain point, who actually had looked for policy positions that could get Republicans right.
And they get sidelined in a primary where Trump pushes everybody to the right again.
Frankly, it is hilarious.
I can understand why.
And up next, we go to Friday Night CNN, Aaron Burnett out front.
This is Bakari Sellers and Jim Sciuto.
And let's see what this is.
Yeah, this is Trump and Amnesty.
It's another bite.
Same roster.
I'm going to channel my inner Rush Limbaugh because I had an opportunity to hear Rush, I believe it was yesterday morning, when Rush said it is amazing to him that first they started with the gang of eight, and then they tried Jeb Bush.
And the person to bring amnesty to the base of the Republican Party.
Rush Limbaugh actually laughed when he brought that point up.
And I quoted Rush Limbaugh.
Oh, isn't it amazing how they love to quote me when it fits their template, when it fits their narrative?
Don't they just, all of a sudden, I become the most credible person in the country.
I become a political oracle when I'm saying things they think fit their narrative.
Now, we're going to go back to old buddy Robert Costa.
If you remember, Robert Costa, the Washington Post, was on the Charlie Rose show some weeks ago.
And he and Charlie were in earnest discussion over how difficult it is to ascertain just how much support Trump has.
And it was Robert Costa who pointed out that maybe the drive-bys are missing a whole lot of people.
He used two numbers.
70% of the American people think the country's on the wrong track, and 50% of eligible Americans don't vote.
And Costa said, what if a bunch of them show up?
What if Trump has connected with them?
And what if Trump is the guy to bring them to the polling place for the first time in years, maybe in their lives?
He said, we won't know until Election Day.
It's impossible to, I mean, they're not registered.
Well, they're registered, but they're not likely because they don't vote.
You know, the likely voter is the primo sample.
Adults, hardly worthwhile.
Registered voters a little bit better, but likely voters, that's where they go.
And these people, as non-voters, can't be said to be likely.
So they're missed.
And there are a lot of them.
And make no mistake, that has been poo-pooed by the drive-bys in other places, but I'm telling you, in the deep, dark corridors and crevices of the Democrat headquarters, that possibility scares them because nobody will know.
They can't identify them.
And it is thought that they're not being found by pollsters.
Now, other people think that's just BS.
That's silly.
That if there were that many people and were just hankering to vote for Trump, we would know, and he'd be doing better in the polls.
So Costa is back on PBS.
This was on Friday, Washington week.
The hostess, Susan Davis, she said, Mr. Costa, over and over, we have heard that there's nothing that Trump can do to shake his sort of fundamental core support.
Nothing that can break that up.
But does changing one of his core positions on immigration, could that hurt him with his most strongest supporters?
We always remember that line, I could go on Fifth Avenue and shoot someone.
And I would still have their support.
For now, we're seeing the right wing of the GOP stick with Trump.
They think at his core, if you listen to Rush Limbaugh shows or talk to different people on the right, they still think Trump's Trump and he's going to build the wall.
But there's more reservation on that side.
Right.
Okay.
I've got to take a break here because of the constraints of time, and we'll be right back.
Don't go away.
Okay, last soundbite, CNN.
See, last night, Jeff Lord is on with Jim Sciuto, and they are discussing one of my ideas.
And I want to play the bite because Jeff gets one thing, only one thing a little wrong here that I want to correct, but you will hear what it is.
Rush Limbaugh had a great suggestion about this to test the willingness of my friend Basil and others.
Let them come and give them a path to citizenship, but they can't vote for 25 years or so.
That would be an interesting proposition to see what the reaction is.
People come in the country but not have the right to vote?
Yeah, or 25 years or so.
If they've come illegally, they don't get the right to vote in America for 25 years.
I didn't say grant them citizenship.
You can't grant them citizenship and take away the vote.
I said amnesty.
I've said all along, and nobody has taken me.
Look, can we all agree that if I came out for amnesty, it would do a lot to push it over the finish line?
I might lose my radio show, but I can push it over the finish line, right?
With one proviso.
So there are a lot of people that would love to have me supporting it, right?
And I've offered to.
I have told, well, I've told Chuck Schumer, and I've told Karl Rove, I've told anyone, look at, I'll be on your team.
I'll come out and I'll promote amnesty as a way of solving the problem with one proviso.
Those granted amnesty are not granted citizenship for 10 or 15 years, meaning they can't register to vote 10 or 15 years.
And let's just see.
Let's just see what kind of support there is for this, because the whole reason the Democrat Party wants this is they see 11 million new voters.
They see a brand new permanent underclass.
So I wanted to correct this.
He didn't make a mistake.
He just misspoke.
I would never suggest we grant people citizenship and deny them the right to vote for six months, much less 25 years.
It's amnesty that I was talking about.
We just want to forgive them, right?
Okay, they're here.
We're going to admit that we're not going to send them back.
That's amnesty.
We're going to forgive their crime.
We may, you know, here's another thing we could do.
Here's another thing we could do.
We could increase their tax rate as a penalty.
How do you think that would fly?
Can't vote for, let's say, 15 years and have to pay the full Medicare tax.
Now, I'll even, let's not even, let's not complicate this.
Don't add their tax rate.
Just leave it alone.
And I guarantee you, I wouldn't have any takers.
Now, you might have some patient Democrats.
You say 10, 15 years?
Okay.
All right.
I'll go for that.
I'm sure some would want to take it, but it would expose what this is all about.
Another obscene profit timeout.
And we get back to the phones when we get back.
We got some more polling data here.
This is from Emerson College.
Three new Emerson College polls show a tight race shaping up between Clinton and Trump in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania.
43% deadlocked in Ohio.
You've heard of the Emerson poll, right?
Yeah.
Clinton leads by three in Pennsylvania, again, so Tyden, Ohio at 43.
Clinton leads Pennsylvania 46 to 43 and by five in Michigan, 45 to 40.
Gary Johnson, Libertarian, 7% of the vote in Pennsylvania and Michigan, 10% in Ohio.
The Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.
These people are going to be there in November.
So it's best to calculate them.
Jill Stein, 2% of the vote in Ohio, Pennsylvania, 3% in Michigan.
Trump in the Emerson poll still has a significant gender gap.
Women favoring Clinton by 26 points in Michigan, 15 points in Pennsylvania, and 13 points in Ohio.
Younger voters favor Clinton over Trump in Ohio, 50 to 32.
In Pennsylvania, 42 to 39.
In Michigan, Trump leads with young people, millennials 45 to 33, between 18 and 34.
That is an outlier.
A lot of my friends have millennial kids.
It's amazing.
You know, I could do a whole show on this.
It's amazing what the millennial kids think, and they don't think at all what their parents thought, which is amazing.
It's interesting in its own right.
I mean, their parents were conservative.
They were not extremist radicals.
They're just standard operating Republican voters and conservatives.
And their kids never really rebelled against it.
But they go away to college and they come back and they're not recognized.
And in some cases, the parents, the friends of mine, the parents have also begun to adopt what their kids believe.
That's really fascinating to me.
But the upshot of it is that in the examples I have personal knowledge of, what I'm being told by my friends and the parents is that their millennial kids just don't like Trump at all.
And they think government's wonderful and great and the most important thing in people's lives and so forth.
I take some of this with a grain of salt, but there's some evidence in the polling data that Trump does have a bit of a gap with young people that I think he could erase.
But you know what it is?
You know what the reason for the gap is?
They don't like the yelling.
They don't like the constant arguing and bigger.
It makes them nervous.
They don't want to hear it.
It's okay if it happens in a reality show.
But they're just made nervous by it.
But I think they could be reached.
But of course, I am the ultimate optimist.
I always have been.
Back to the phones.
Douglas, Canton, Ohio.
Great to have you.
Glad you waited.
Hello, sir.
Hello.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Hey, your turn.
Have at it.
Yeah, you know, this thing about Huma's marriage problems.
Yeah.
I think it's fake.
I think it's a setup so that no one will interrogate, because Huma's wide open to interrogation now.
You mean investigation?
That kind of thing.
As far as the pay-per-play and all that stuff.
Yeah.
I think that they're going to use the Huma's marriage problems to keep the news media and anybody else away from her because they have to feel sorry for her.
She's going through so much in her marriage that you just can't bother her.
I can understand your thinking on that.
You think that Weiner took the pictures in his bulging package underwear with the child next to him as part of the trick, and then tweeted it, whatever he did, texted it out to this supposedly brunette bombshell that he's sexting with.
And all of this, that Weiner did this purposely.
Now, I don't put anything past Hillary.
Okay.
Well, and Hillary's in charge.
When you put it that way.
And, you know, I just heard on the news that Trump said that Huma is probably better off without Weiner anyway.
They're going to use that against Trump.
Why would they use that against Trump?
They will.
They'll use it against Trump.
Well, I mean, Huma's obviously decided it, too.
Huma's decided she's better off without Wiener.
Trump comes along and says it's probably true.
Why could I get him in trouble?
Because they'll blame him for saying, well, you're trying to cause more trouble in their marriage.
Oh, in other words, it's none of his business.
He ought to stay, not tweet about that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, that's all I had to say.
Okay.
Douglas, I'm glad you called out there.
I'm happy you're thinking about things.
Obviously, Huma wants to be Hillary's chief of staff.
No question about that.
She obviously has not been chief of her husband's staff.
That we can make book on.
She's out there strolling the sidewalks with Hillary.
You've seen this picture on Drudge.
They're dressed like twins.
They've got a white slacks and they've got turquoise tops.
And Chelsea is in the background, like she doesn't matter, walking behind him.
It looks like they're window shopping or doing something.
I don't know what.
Look, look, I don't think this is a trumped-up thing.
I mean, because I think Weiner is this arrogant.
I think Weiner is entirely capable of this kind of risky whatever.
But there is a story out there that is not going to be told now about Huma and her mother and who her mother is, the magazine that her mother edits and what her mother believes and how it could be embarrassing to Hillary because Hillary has included Huma's mom in a number of appearances that Hillary's made in the Middle East.
And the upshot of it is that Huma's mom is a full believer in Sharia and a full believer that a woman, a wife's primary duty, is to give her husband sex when he wants it.
There's nothing feminist about Huma's mom.
I mean, she is, it's a Paul Sperry story.
He's done a lot of research on Sharia, like Andy McCarthy has.
And his story was published yesterday in the New York Post.
Huma Abaddon's mom linked to shocking anti-women book.
And if Sperry is right about this, then Huma's mom is full-fledged Muslim Sharia, in which women are second-class citizens.
Now, you may say, well, what?
Well, it doesn't jibe with Hillary.
Hillary doesn't believe any of that.
Hillary certainly doesn't believe that the role of a wife is to give her husband sex whenever he wants it.
Wife's job is to deny it in Hillary's world, whatever he wants it, and then beat him up for asking.
So it's a strange connection out there.
It's a strange association.
And then that gives rise to what was Huma doing with Wiener in the first one?
What was that all about?
What is there in common?
And that's dangerous when you start poking around in people's relationships.
That's a minefield because who can explain love if they're – I mean you don't even want to go there.
Certainly not.
It could be as simple as the pictures.
All right.
Okay, so you think it could be just the package.
The package could be the deal.
Okay.
Well, it's not.
Here's Mark in Phoenix, your next sir.
Welcome.
Great to have you here with us.
Well, thank you, and hello to you, and a special hello from my wife, who is a huge fan of yours.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Thanks for my call.
Real quick, on the immigration issue, I think that many of the candidates, Trump in particular, sort of talk around it, and I just don't think they're doing a good job.
So I have like a three-step program I'd like to get your feedback on.
One is simply stop the flow.
That's security of the border by whatever means we need to.
But I think the next ingredient that nobody talks about is to stop the incentives for coming here and start implementing the deterrence.
So in other words, if you're here illegally, if you've come here illegally or you're caught coming across, you're considered a national threat.
And we're going to have to deal with you in a very serious measure.
So stopping the border, telling them you're really going to treat them at a time.
Now, wait, the incentives are a tough one.
No, no, no, no.
Because everybody wants to come here, and we don't blame people wanting to come here.
No, no, no.
I agree.
And I think that they should come here, but through the legal process.
But if they're going to sneak across or come through illegally, then we have to consider you a national security party.
Can they?
Can they, obviously?
And then the other issue that I never hear anybody talking about, and it seems so simple to me, you perhaps will relate to this.
You and I are about the same age.
But when I was a kid watching Saturday morning cartoons, I always remember, and it's still stuck in my head, the PSA service announcements that if you're here in the country and not a citizen, you have to register with the government.
So why not have everybody that's here illegally that's here illegally register?
And if you choose not to register, now you're considered a national threat.
And if you get stopped, you know, you're going to face some serious consequences.
But if we register everyone, which we could easily do, now we know what the number is.
Is it 5 million people, 50 million people?
Because that's part of the challenge.
Well, but you still might not find them all.
People that come here illegally and get here illegally and then don't get involved in a traffic stop or some other kind of crime.
Technically, you could maybe find them when they get hired.
Look, I get your drift, and I think you're defining, in essence, the Trump supporters' basic link to Trump on this is that he's going to do all.
He's going to stop this.
He's going to stop the influx.
We're going to shore up the border, and we're going to maintain the country.
We're going to protect it.
We're going to make sure that it's not overrun and that people that break the law don't get away with it.
Really, it's a law and order issue as much as it is anything else.
I don't think most Trump.
I think the way the media goes after this, analyzes Trump, is not at all the way his supporters do.
I don't think they're anywhere near this critically attentive to it.
It's a broad-based issue to them, not macro.
And that's how they hear Trump dealing with it.
It's like I think most Trump supporters think this isn't complicated, and the efforts to complicate it are how we have gotten into the mess.
It isn't complicated.
We got a law that says you cannot be here illegally.
It is illegal to come here and stay here.
And we enforce the law, and everything would be fine.
But we don't enforce the law.
And that's why everybody's been out of shape.
And if the rule of law goes by the wayside, then what else, what other glue is there to hold us together?
It's really not that complicated, but people want to make it so.
Because the more complicated it is, the more simpleton-like they can make Trump out to be and his supporters.
Don't doubt me.
Fastest three hours in media feels like it just started with my brilliant take on Colin Kaepernick, the Kaepernick caper in America.
Now it's over.
But there's always tomorrow, folks, and we will be here.