All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 24, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:54
October 24, 2016, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I'm so happy you're here, folks.
It's great to be back with you after a weekend of anticipation.
Waiting to get back here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Great to have you.
Telephone number 800-28282.
Email address L Rushbo at EIBNet.us.
I have never in my life, and I I really've struggled to remember I wasn't I wasn't old enough in 1964 to be aware of such things.
I mean, I I knew who Goldwater was.
I even went to a Goldwater whistle stop.
My dad put us in a car, took us over to Southern Illinois where Goldwater was going through, knew it was a landslide.
Didn't know why, didn't know anything about the conservative movement, knew nothing of any of that.
Um that aside, I have never in the rest of my life from 1964 forward, I don't think I have ever seen anything like we are witnessing today, where our side has already conceded defeat.
Our side has given up.
Our side has concluded that we are going to lose, and in a massive landslide, and they are already making plans for recriminations after the election.
A bunch of people you never heard of are preparing to sort out the blame and responsibility for those who made this all possible.
And I'll give you three guesses who they are zeroing in on.
Excuse me, your beloved host is to blame for all of this.
Your beloved host is to blame for the other conservative hosts doing what they're doing.
I'm to blame for Trump being a candidate.
I am to blame for it all.
And they're all lining up, uh, getting prepared to exonerate themselves, of course.
I'm talking about Republicans, I'm talking about conservatives.
People that are quasi conservatives, think tank people you've never heard of, are lining up now.
Already conceding that it's over, conceding that it's a landslide, they are conceding we've lost the House, they're conceding they've lost the Senate.
It's almost like they want that to happen.
Never seen anything like this before.
But we are in the midst of it.
And for all that that is worth, while that's all going on, there's a whole lot of people that have not given up.
Mainly you.
There are a whole lot of people not willing to concede any of this yet because there's too much that doesn't make any sense.
As we will explore in great detail on the program today, the WikiLeaks document dump has produced an email from Podesta with go-to instructions on how to create polls.
That show an overwhelming Democrat majority for the express purpose of dispiriting and depressing Republican opposition.
Now, just to be clear, I have no idea what's going on.
I have no idea who's going to win.
I don't have the slightest bit of inside information.
And I don't feel confident giving you a straight up and down opinion on this.
There's too much we don't know.
There are too many things that we have learned that make me question all kinds of conventional wisdom.
But I'll be the first to tell you I haven't the slightest idea what's going to happen.
I'm like you.
I watch everything that's going on.
Some of it makes sense and some of it doesn't.
And like you, I have questions about things that you uh uh question.
And the the idea that, or the fact that so many others do not have any doubt whatsoever, don't have any questions whatsoever.
It's over.
Trump is going to lose in a landslide like which we have never seen, maybe Goldwater proportions.
And we've got uh evidence here that that may not be the case.
And that evidence is being ignored and discounted by some, And it's being desperately clinged to by others.
If you look at the behavior of the candidates, it doesn't make any sense.
Trump's out there everywhere he can go, drawing massive crowds.
Hillary's hibernating.
Kane and Obama and a bunch of others are sitting in for Hillary.
She's nowhere to be seen.
The others, her surrogates are out there, and even her surrogates are not drawing crowds.
There's not a whole lot of excitement.
And Obama, when he shows up to do a campaign, can't stop talking about conservative media.
He can't stop talking about it.
Here's a guy who has mastered and succeeded with practically every agenda item that he had to one degree or another.
And he's not even happy.
He's still bent out of shape that I'm here.
He's still bent out of shape that there's a Fox News.
He's still bent out of shape that there's a conservative media.
Now, before we get into the polling data and some of the things with Podesta and the emails and some of the contradicting polling data, just got this.
And it is a Breitbart piece by Julia Hahn.
But it's actually the report of a Reuters poll.
And the headline is this.
Donald Trump catching up to Hillary Clinton in later's latest Reuters poll.
Now, I remember saying some time ago that as we get closer to the election, you can expect the polls to.
I mean, if they're if they're if they're being jury rigged now, if the polls right now are not accurate, you can expect them to get more accurate as we get closer to the election because the pollsters want, of course, to be able to say they got it right.
This story from Breitbart, it's kind of confusing the way I got this, so you have to give me some allowances as to as to whether I'm reading from Breitbart or Reuters here.
I can't really tell.
I got this right before the program started.
I've not had a chance to click links myself.
Reuters is reporting that Donald Trump is gaining on Hillary Clinton, according to the report, voters have been receptive to Trump's message that the political system is rigged against his campaign and against the interests of the American people.
Reuters found that an astonishing seven in ten Republicans believe that a Clinton victory would be the result of a rigged process.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gained on his Democrat rival Hillary Clinton among American voters this week, cutting her lead nearly in half, according to Reuters Ipsos polling released on Friday.
So this is last Friday.
Clinton led Trump 44 to 40 according to the October 14th, 20 Reuters Ipsos polls.
It's a four-point lead.
That compared to 44 to 37 in October.
Well, wait, this looks really old.
I'm sorry.
People send me these things that I think I can trust.
And it looks like this is data is from last Friday.
Let me put this aside.
The reason this was seductive, because it dovetails with some other things that I've got here, and this looked like I was going to be added to it.
But it's inconclusive, and I can't draw any definite data from it at the moment.
I do not want to give you anything that's wrong or old, packaged as new.
But here's the here's the if if if if the polls are all showing Hillary Clinton ahead by 12 points, 11 points, 10 points, take your pick, and growing.
I mean, I'm just going to share with questions people are asking me.
Played golf yesterday, everybody I runs in, I've yet to run into anybody's for Hillary.
And by the way, I go a lot of places where it's it's not exclusively Republican or conservative.
I'm not attaching any big meaning to this.
I'm just trying to give you as much information as I can.
I still can't run into anybody who doesn't desperately want Trump to win.
And without fail, people ask me a variation of the following.
If all of these polls show Hillary ahead by all of these points, 10 points, 11 points, 12 points.
How do you explain that her rallies are ghost towns and Trump fills arenas?
And then people say to me, Does the media really have this much power?
Does the media really have that much influence?
And I answer, I always answer yes.
They do.
And it's because we have to look at the population as a whole in determining media influence.
There's a whole lot of people, even now, who are paying attention to this with 50, 40, 50% of their ex in the other the other half, they're out doing other things.
They don't dig deep, they just hear what's reported and they hear what's reported and drive by media.
ABCCBS, AP primarily.
AP would be the primary news source for, I'd say 80% of low information voters.
AP leads at Yahoo News, AP leads at Facebook, AP leads, you know, Twitter, this kind of stuff.
And that's what people are going to see.
And that's what they're going to form opinions.
Yes, they do have that much control on people.
Let's listen to Obama.
This is yesterday in Las Vegas.
He was at a Hillary campaign event.
For years, Republican politicians and the far right media outlets have pumped up all kinds of crazy stuff about me.
About Hillary.
About Harry.
They said I wasn't born here.
They said climate change is a hoax.
They said that I was going to take everybody's guns away.
So people have been hearing it, they start thinking, well, maybe this is true.
So if the world that they've been seeing is that I'm powerful enough to cause hurricanes on my own and to steal everybody's guns in the middle of the night and impose martial law, even though I can't talk without a prompter.
Then is it any wonder that they end up nominating somebody like Donald Trump?
This guy's obsessed.
This guy ought to be sitting on top of the world, folks.
He ought to be sitting on top of the world.
The Republican nominee for president is about to be vanquished in one of the biggest landslides in the history of this country, right?
And the third term of this guy's administration is about to be elected in a landslide unprecedented since 1964, right?
Everybody that believes in Trump and everybody that believes in Republican conservatism is about to be vanquished to obscurity.
It is so bad that even the Republican Party is getting ready to form a circular firing squad and start pulling the trigger on October 9th, hoping that talk radio and Fox News are in the middle of the circle.
And yet this guy is obsessed.
This guy is obsessed with what critics are saying about him.
Have you seen his approval numbers?
His approval numbers are 55%.
Who in the world believes this guy's going to institute martial law?
I mean, who in the who believes this guy's going to come after their guns?
Who believes this guy starts hurricanes?
Isn't that what they accused Bush of?
These guys, for all intents and purposes, accused Bush of steering Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans.
Don't doubt me on this.
There were left-wing websites all over the place saying Bush wanted that hurricane to wipe out New Orleans because he wanted to wipe out black people.
And he wanted the rest of the population to go to Texas where they'd be counted as Republicans.
It was absurd what they were saying.
The lunatic fringe is on the left in this country.
It's not here.
But here's Obama.
I'm just saying that if the polls are right, that this is going to be one of the most historic landslides, i.e., victories ever.
Certainly since 1964.
And this guy can't bring himself to be happy.
He is obsessed with Republican politicians and far right media pumping all kinds of crazy stuff about him, about Hillary, about Harry Reid.
Climate change is a hoax.
Everybody's guns being taken away.
Let's not forget fast and furious.
The effort has Been made.
It's not that Obama will take everybody's guns away.
The way these people do things, let's take Fast and Furious.
For those of you new to the program, let me explain to you what that really was.
Fast and Furious was a federal program hatched by Obama and then Attorney General Eric Holder.
Major assault rifles, huge, very powerful guns, were purchased legally from gun shops in Arizona.
They were then sold.
Part of the plan was to have those weapons bought, and this was key.
They had to be bought in America, traceably bought in American gun stores.
That happened in Arizona Phoenix.
Those guns ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
Those guns were then used in the crimes committed by Mexican gun cartels.
The administration hoped that there would be such outrage over this that the American public would see the story.
You mean to tell me guns like that can be bought in America and end up in the hands of Mexican drug lords who can then run around killing people?
Well, Mabel, we gotta have tougher gun control law.
They wanted the American public to demand tougher gun control laws.
They know they can't go take guns out of the hands of people.
They know there's the second amendment.
If they could get rid of it, they would, but they can't.
There are too many Democrats that are not going to vote for something like that.
So the way they do it is to try to create a mass hysteria.
The program backfired because it was discovered.
That's how I know about it, and a number of other people know about it to tell you.
But this is how things people are manipulated, and this is how the left traditionally has done this and countless other things in order to achieve their objective.
Sometimes they don't wait for public opinion.
Obama just issues an executive order to do things.
But I still, the guy sounds just really, really upset here at a time when if we believe everything we're being told, he ought to be ex just just uncontainably happy, wouldn't you think?
Now you might want to get into personality types and start saying, yeah, but he's a kind of personality's not happy till everybody adores him.
I maybe I don't even want to go there.
Strictly within the bounds of politics.
His anger, his paranoia, his this this rant here at a small section of the media that doesn't buy hook, line, and sinker, whatever he says, bothers him to such an extent that it's really curious to me.
Now we went back to the archives of this program to find out when we could find the earliest instance of my warning you about the use of polling data to shape public opinion rather than reflect it.
And we found an instance from 2004, October 11th, 2004, during the middle of the Bush carry campaign.
I'll have that for you right after the break.
Don't go away.
Back in 2004, October 11th.
The first instance week and finding, it probably predates this, but uh 2004, still 12 years ago, ladies and gentlemen, and this is what I said back then.
I think the objective of certain people who engage in polling is all about is an attempt to shape people's minds, an attempt to make up their minds.
Polls have not become just a snapshot.
You've got these polls being used to influence the media, which has admitted its chosen choice, or its chosen candidate, which is Kerry, tries to position the polls and the reporting of the polls.
I couldn't begin to tell you what's going to happen because of the polls.
And I it seems like there's a new one every day.
And well, there is a new one every day because these are tracking polls, they get updated.
And I know people live and die by them on both sides.
I can't tell you how this is going to turn out.
Really can't.
The country's clearly chosen sides have got media advocating its own candidate and then a new media, us advocating ours.
It's a new ball game out there, and it's just too many variables to be able to rely on any single source of information.
Twelve years ago, it's the same thing we're discussing.
Bush ended up winning that election, although I don't think it ever had carry up 10 or 11, but the the polls did have John Kerry winning the election in 2004, and the exit polls indicated Kerry had won the election.
None of it turned out to be true.
And there's a new email, a John Podesta email exposing the Democrat playbook for rigging polls through over samples.
And there's a story many people have written about this.
I have one here from ZeroHedge.com.
For all of you out there who still are not convinced the polls are rigged.
We present to you the following Podesta email leaked earlier today, this is over the weekend, that conveniently spells out in startling detail exactly how to rig the polls.
The email starts out with a request for recommendations on over-samples of polling in order to max what we get out of our media polling.
Also, want you to get the Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February.
By market, by region, get all this compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
I will explain when we get back.
Okay, a couple of things.
First off, this Reuters poll.
This Reuters story, it's nothing to do with Breitbart, so forget that I meant that was it was just confusing in what was sent to me.
I've had time to go through this.
This is a Reuters story on Friday.
Trump gains on Clinton.
Poll shows rigged message resonates.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gained on Hillary Clinton among American voters this week, meaning last week, cutting her lead nearly in half, according to Reuters Ipsos polling released on Friday.
The polling data showed Trump's argument that the November 8 election is rigged against him has resonated within members of his party.
And then he go on to talk about 70% of Republicans believe that the system is rigged and that elections can be rigged.
And Reuters extrapolates from that to mean that it's working.
That Trump's message is causing the polls to tighten.
Okay, so we have that.
That's from Friday.
There hasn't been anything over the weekend change arguably other than an ABC poll left out.
And it's over the top, double-digit lead for Hillary Clinton.
And it's based on phenomenal disapproval of Trump.
So just hang on before we get to that.
I just wanted to get this Reuters confusion wrapped up.
Mistake I made when I got this right before the program.
I thought it happened just now.
I thought it was news today.
It was news from Friday, wasn't clearly marked.
So I apologize for the confusion, but now we've got it straightened out.
Now back to the Podesta emails that have been discovered, written about here by Zero Hedge.
For all of you who still are not convinced, this guy, Tyler Durden, it's a pseudonym.
I don't know who he really is, but the website is Zero Hedge.
And he writes, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced the polls are rigged, we present to you the following Podesta email leaked early today, and this is yesterday.
This story is from Sunday.
The Podesta email leaked earlier today that conveniently spells out in startling detail exactly how to rig the polls.
The Podesta email starts out with a request for recommendations on over-samples for polling in order to maximize what we get out of our media polling, quote unquote.
So here's verbatim from the Podesta email.
I also want, and he's of course this is going to Clinton campaign staffers and others who are associated with the Hillary for President effort.
I also want to get your atlas folks to recommend over-samples for our polling before we start in February by market regions, etc.
I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
Now, I infer from this that we're not talking about their internal polls.
They are attempting here to set out guidelines that they want the media to follow in order to procure and produce certain sets of data.
The email includes this Podesta email includes a 37-page Guide that has poll rigging recommendations.
In Arizona, oversampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended from the email.
Research, micro-targeting, and polling projects.
One, oversample Hispanics.
Two, use his Spanish language interviewing.
Three, oversample the Native American population.
For Florida, Podesta's recommendations are consistently monitoring samples to make sure they're not too old and that they have enough African American and Hispanic voters.
Meanwhile, independent voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more Democrat friendly.
So the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.
This whole email, if I'm understanding this, is actually a manual for pollsters on how to produce the results Podesta wants.
Now, I have to tell you, folks, even if I were to believe that the polls are rigged, and like I'm telling I don't know, folks, I wish I could tell you.
I don't know.
People, like I said, come up to me everywhere.
Rush, how can this be?
I mean, Hillary doesn't draw crowds.
Obama's crowds are not that big, and wherever Trump goes, it's just it's phenomenal.
And the energy between the two sets of supporters is not even comparable.
I said, I don't know.
The conventional wisdom is that you cannot infer from crowds votes.
You cannot assume they're all going to vote.
You can't assume they're all gonna vote for Trump.
You can't assume that they're all there because they want to vote for Trump.
You can't assume any.
There's nothing scientific about looking at a big crowd at any event.
The analogy I've given, you look at look at the crowd of a football game.
Let's say you get 75,000 people in the stadium.
You don't know what they think about what they're watching.
Yeah, but is that a good analogy?
You got two teams playing at the same time in that venue.
Trump and Hillary are not on the same stage at these rallies.
These are Trump supporters, obviously showing up, and they are filled with energy.
And even with these guidelines and suggestions from Podesta on how to rig the polls, what we have to believe is that all of the people that run these polls, the ABC, Washington Post, NBC, Wall Street Journal, CBS New York Times, Monmouth College, you name it, every one of these polls waits for guidelines on who to sample from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
And I understand many of Well, what's so strange about that, Rush?
We're learning that reporters go to dinner with Podesta, and we're learning that reporters clear their stories with Podesta, all of which is true.
And by the way, nothing in this wiki leaks dump has ever been denied, folks.
The only thing the Democrats say is you can't trust it because the Russians produced it, and that it's illegal.
And by the way, there's conflicting data now that the Russians have nothing to do with this.
Julian Assange is apparently told somebody that knows him well that the Russians have nothing to do with the data that he is releasing and how he got it.
The Russians have nothing to do with it.
And people have asked, well, how come they're in stuff on Trump?
Why isn't WikiLeaks releasing stuff on Trump and the Republicans?
And Assange's answer, because nobody sent us any.
WikiLeaks doesn't, WikiLeaks is a publisher.
They sit there and they mind their own business and they wait for people to send them dirt, is what happens.
Now, in some cases, I imagine Assange will get on the phone and try to cajole and make deals with people he knows have information that's whistleblower and leak-oriented.
But for the most part, WikiLeaks are just sitting there waiting for somebody to send them something.
They're waiting for somebody to hack something and then send them the results.
And if they don't have anything on Trump or the Republicans, it's because nobody has gone to the trouble to hack them and send whatever they've got over to Assange.
Now you would think the Democrats would be trying to hack Trump and the Republicans, and you would think that the Democrats will want to get it up, but do the Democrats need WikiLeaks.
They don't.
They've got their own drive-by media.
I mean, if if if uh Podesta and the gang hack, say Trump computers or Republican National Committee computers, they don't need to go to WikiLeaks.
They just need to call the New York Times.
the Washington Post, you name it.
Anyway, uh, we are being led here to believe in this guy at Zero Hedge obviously thinks that the idea of oversampling really what it comes down to is oversampling Democrats.
You just vastly oversamples Democrats on the basis that Democrat turnout is going to dwarf Republican turnout.
I mean, that's the reason why you would do it if you're a scientific pollster.
And then you get a result.
So if you got a sample, 37% Democrat, 27% Republican, uh 31% independent.
Well, what's that going to produce?
Obviously, it's going to produce results largely unfavorable to Trump.
If only 27% of your sample is Republican, and the other 70 some odd is Democrat and independent.
What do you think you're going to get?
And this is the point that people who believe this story are making here.
And then if you look at the polls that we're talking about, vowala, they are all magically oversampled with Democrats.
I mean unrealistically oversampled with Democrats.
But they carry with them the impramater of science.
These polls have the respectability and the credibility of being scientific.
And they've enjoyed this up to now, so that whatever they say is unquestioned, much like the consensus of scientists on climate change.
Here we have a consensus of scientists and polling data.
But if it's garbage in, then you're going to get garbage out.
I wish that I could sit here and tell you that I without question think the polls are rigged.
I have thought so in previous elections.
In 2000, I remember I was being interviewed on a Fox news channel by Paula Zan, and it was a week or two before the presidential election.
And the polling date at the time had Al Gore up three or four points.
And I remember telling Paula, I don't believe it.
I just thought that that doesn't compute.
It doesn't make sense.
I didn't think there was that much love associated with the Clinton administration, that Gore was kind of a, you know, a dry ball.
Bush had raced through the Republican primaries.
He had raced through the fundraising and come out of nowhere and shocked everybody, if you recall, much like Trump has.
In fact, there's a guy, we'll get to it here later in the stack, there's a guy who has predicted the last five presidential election winners.
And he's predicting Trump will win.
And his reason is not what's happening now.
His reason, his formula relies totally on what happened during primaries.
And this guy essentially says that Trump just steamrolled everybody in the primaries.
He would have steamrolled Hillary in the primaries.
He would have steamrolled Crazy Bernie.
And on that basis, he thinks not enough significance change that Trump's going to win this.
And he's got the last five right.
I don't know, folks.
Like I say...
Anyway, it turned out in 2000 to close that loop that Bush finally did change those polls.
They tightened as we got to the closer to the election.
I was on that show two weeks out.
And then over the weekend, we got the Bush DUI story that was released.
And it almost lost Bush the election.
So they told us.
Bush was cruising in the polling data to a two or three-point win, and the DUI story was released, and it rocked the Bush campaign.
I mean, because it apparently was true, and Bush had never talked about it, so they were scrambling.
I think it was the weekend prior.
Might have been five or six days prior.
I'm not sure which.
Anyway, Bush ends up winning.
It was uh close as uh Nat's eyelash and the Florida recount aftermath.
And then in in 2012, I honest to God, folks, I thought Romney was gonna win by five or six.
There weren't any polls that said that.
I thought they were all using an incorrect turnout sample.
The way I was looking at it was the 2010 midterms, in which the Republicans won landslides.
It was the Tea Party.
Democrats lost 700 seats, all told, nationwide in the 2010 midterms.
And I said, you know what, they're not using that turnout in the 12, 2012 presidential polls.
But turns out they never do.
They always use turnout from the previous presidential election of which is 2008.
And then they base the 2012 turnout on that and whether it'll be replicated by Obama or not.
And it turned out I was wrong.
When I thought the polls were wrong and that Romney's going to win by five or six, Obama won by 3.8.
So I'm not I'm not comfortable here assuring you one way or the other, but there's clear evidence here that the Democrats have seen to it that the polls in this presidential cycle are oversampling Democrats.
And there's clear evidence the pollsters have done that as well.
Got somebody on the phones that wants to disagree with me that the polls will not tighten this year.
It's a fascinating.
We'll get to that as soon as I can.
Okay, so we've got the polling data.
We've got the pedesta emails.
We we we have uh penesta emails advocating oversampling Democrats and Hispanics and uh Latin uh Latinos and Native Americans.
And we're gonna polling units doing this.
And in fact, we have here an ABC poll.
This is the ABC News Washington Post poll, Hillary Clinton's vault to do a double-digit advantage in the inaugural ABC News election tracking poll.
This is gonna be their daily poll.
Their inaugural ABC News 2016 election tracking poll, boosted by broad disapproval of Donald Trump on two controversial issues his treatment of women and his reluctance to endorse the election's legitimacy.
Likely voters by sixty-nine to twenty four percent disapprove of Trump's response to questions about his treatment of women.
All told Clinton leads Trump by 12 points among likely voters, 50 to 38 percent in the national survey.
And uh it's her highest support, his lowest to date in ABC News and ABC News Washington Post polls, Gary Johnson 5%, and Jill Stein at 2%.
Let's go to Pat Cadell talking about this.
This is last night in Fox News Channel.
Harris Faulkner speaking with Pat Cadell.
She says you are an expert in polling.
So tell me about them.
The polls are everywhere.
The Washington Post poll last week was four points.
If you believe that the race changed eight more points in her direction this last week, then I don't know what event you're looking at.
You have three tracking polls, not only the daily tracking polls, not only investors daily, which was the best for several cycles.
You also have Rasmussen and the LA Times, all of those show the race, Trump ahead by a point or even.
The one-off polling may have problems.
The Washington Post poll, for example, had a nine-point Democratic Party edge.
Any poll with a nine-point party edge for the Democrats ought to be thrown out.
I've never seen the polls in such contradictory numbers.
Right.
Nine-point edge.
That's the oversampling he's talking about.
He's never seen it like this.
Thinks the poll needs to be thrown out.
Pat Cadell worked for Jimmy Carter.
Couldn't take it anymore.
Couldn't take either, I guess it was Carter couldn't take what happened in the Democrat Party years ago.
And uh he's he's now, and he's a polling expert.
That's what he did for Carter.
He and uh Jody Jody Joe, what's the guy's last name in the metal block?
It doesn't matter.
Uh for purposes here.
Now, on this poll of of Reuters which which says that Trump is gaming on Clinton, poll show rigged message resonates.
I often wondered when when here came these reports about Trump and the women that uh like the the access Hollywood tape.
When that first happened, my instinct was That you know, at some point the American people are gonna grow wise to all this, and they're gonna start resenting this obvious October surprise type procedure every four years designed to do nothing but manipulate them.
And I wonder at what point will people grow wise and stop being affected by it?
And I don't know if we're seeing that here in the Reuters poll where rigged message is resonating with people.
We'll just have to play it out.
Okay, now the investors business daily poll is out today.
Trump's up too.
That is the poll that got it exactly right in 2012.
Their sample is interesting.
The Democrat or the ABC sample is just completely out of whack.
I mentioned it once before.
I'll remind you when we get back.
▲
Export Selection