All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 25, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:56
October 25, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Folks, do we have a treat for you today?
We went back to the audio and video archives of nearly 30, what, six years ago, 34 years ago, to share with you election night coverage from 1980 on NBC News with Tom Brokaw, John Chancellor, David Brinkley, and Judy Woodruff.
It's coming up in mere moments.
Requires a little bit of setup.
Great to have you here, as we're off and running on yet another excursion into broadcast excellence here on Tuesday.
Rush Limbaugh 800-282-2882.
Folks, let's tweak the media.
You know, we love doing this now and then.
There's yet another story today about how I am to blame for the upcoming Trump landslide defeat.
Yesterday's was in uh uh the Washington.
Well, you know what?
Yesterday's was in the Washington Post, too.
Uh yesterday they had some think tank guy from AEI, right that I am to blame.
Today it is an uh uh Catherine Rampelli, is it her name?
It's an opinion writer at the Washington Post.
Want to save the Republican Party, drain the right wing media swamp, leading off with me.
So apparently, folks, here's what's going to happen.
Here comes the media tweak.
This is gonna be fun.
I I previewed this by Mr. Snerdley, and he was his mouth fell open when I told him my plans.
So here you go.
On election day, uh Trump massive landslide defeat.
Uh, and and that night they're gonna blame it on me on TV.
So what I should do is announce my resignation on November 9th.
As I can't continue any longer since I single-handedly, not even on the ballot, will be single-handedly responsible for the Republican Party's massive landslide defeat.
The only thing I can do is what they do in Great Britain or in Japan, corporate leaders, everything goes south, you resign, maybe even commit harikari.
Uh it's nearly so what happens if Trump wins?
It's going to be blamed on me too, folks.
I can't win either way.
Trump wins, I get the blame.
Trump loses, I get the blame.
So all I can do is to save face and in a matter of resign and have my resignation speech prepared for uh what is election day?
November 8th and November 9th.
Now, okay, let's see what the drive-bys do with this.
Let's see how many of them Limbo announces resignation on the if let's see what happens with this.
Because the media that will report on what I just said will never hear what I actually said.
They will read what I said as reported and uh by others.
Okay, um we have just incredible, incredible amounts of information today.
For example, a new CNN poll.
Did I not tell you this is gonna happen?
There's a CNN poll.
Clinton leads by five heading into the final two weeks.
This is the CNN ORC, CNN orc.
Uh poll.
Hillary leads Trump by five points as the campaign heads to its final 14 days.
Uh Democrat nominee just shy of 50%.
Hillary, nowhere near well, she's near it, but she's beneath 50%.
She tops Trump 49-44, 3% back Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.
Bottom's falling out of Gary Johnson, but it always happens with these third party people.
So his 3%'s gonna be less than that on election day.
Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee is at 2% in this poll.
Meanwhile, yesterday here in West Palm Beach, I should have I should have helped out right across the bridge here, Snerdley.
Tim Kane came to town.
Did you see this?
30 people showed up.
Not get 30 people show up for a Tim Kane rally in West Palm Beach.
30 people, meanwhile, up in Tampa.
Trump's got what, 10,000 inside, 7,000 outside that want to get in.
There literally is no, and okay, if you want to compare to Pence, Pence in North Carolina, he called us when he landed there yesterday.
His crowds are numbered in the hundreds and in the low thousands in certain places.
Tim Kane with 30 people showing up.
I mean, I don't care What happens in this election?
There is no excitement for the Democrat ticket.
And uh there's no personal connection to either of these people.
In any way, shape.
They're sitting ducks.
And I had somebody tell me yesterday that they think the polls are right.
But the theory that they have behind the polls being right.
If you look at things just objectively here, Hillary ought to be up 50.
If you look at the way this thing is shaken out, you've got Hillary Clinton with a four to one money advantage, fundraising money advantage.
You have Hillary with the entirety of the mainstream media behind her.
We have an unprecedented alignment of the Democrat Party in the media.
When I say unprecedented, the media's always been tilting left, but I mean they have actually become unabashed and admitted campaign workers for Hillary Clinton.
The journalists or reporters that are having dinner with Podesta and Hillary's aides and so they're not even bothering to deny it.
They're all in the tank.
So you add the money up, you add the money advantage.
You add the the the fact that not just the drive-byers are for Hillary, but they are daily and in unison trying to destroy Trump.
It is amazing, so goes this theory that he is even within 10 points in some of these polls when you look at what has happened here.
That Hillary Clinton ought to be up by 50, given Trump's not experienced in the political game.
He doesn't have a ground game in a lot of states, he doesn't have a lot of polsters, he didn't have the traditional trappings in it.
He's within 10, now five points here at the uh at the CNN poll.
So we have uh what else do we have?
Uh, there's all kinds of little extraneous things uh to add that that add up to this.
I didn't get into detail yesterday, but the professor, with a remarkable track record predicting Trump to win based on energy during the primaries.
That's this guy's model, his formula.
And it is said if you apply this guy's theory to every election in the modern media era, which would be you know, you go back to the 1920s, that he would have only lost one.
He would have called every election correctly using his theory.
We will explain the details as the program unfolds.
Jay Z is going to do a concert for Hillary in Cleveland to try to get out the black vote.
People start to analyze Jay-Z's lyrics.
You know, here you have Elizabeth Warren having a cow out there yesterday over Trump calling Hillary a nasty woman, but then Jay-Z is going to be headlining concerts, and every other word is bitch ho, whatever.
Uh, in his well, I that's what they are.
If he can sing them, I can say them, right?
And of course, it doesn't matter, and there's no hypocrisy perceived in uh in any of this.
Did you hear about the guy who ended up insulting women in yoga pants?
This was in uh in in Rhode Island.
Did you hear about this?
This is hilarious.
The saga began Wednesday with a letter to the editor in a local Rhode Island newspaper criticizing women over 20 who wear yoga pants in public.
It snowballed into a yoga pants parade Sunday afternoon, hundreds of people walking past the guy's house.
Guy wrote the letter.
A few death threats were aimed at him, according to the author, who said he only had intended satire.
His name is Alan Sorentino, 63, a letter published by the Barrington Times newspaper last week.
He said to all yoga pant wearers, I struggle with my own physicality as I age.
I don't want to struggle with yours.
Please stop wearing these yoga pants in public.
So all these women said, well, screw you, buddy, and they put on their yoga pants and they marched by his house in a yoga pants parade.
It was supposed to be funny, Sorentino said, because what kind of tormented, uptight individual could possibly care enough about yoga pants to write such a letter.
That was his attitude about himself.
A crowd that included young girls and older women met in front of the Hamden Meadows screw all about 2 p.m. wearing colorful array of yoga pants.
And they were just resoundingly offended that this guy would say this.
He says this was no different than a 65 year old guy walking into a supermarket with a speedo.
You just wouldn't want to see it.
Well, we don't want to see you in yoga pants.
Yoga pants make women crazy.
But well, here's the thing.
Who would have known what this guy did actually drew an entire crowd of women to his house?
You could look at this.
Oh, he's gay.
He's openly gay.
Well, I didn't read far enough into the story to know that.
Well, what an unfortunate thing.
What an unf to be able to draw an entire crowd of women to your house and do nothing with it.
Oh man.
Well, I'm glad you told me that.
I didn't know the guy was gay.
I hadn't written.
See, I don't even think of those things.
That just didn't even occur to me.
It's a total shock.
Okay, we're going to go to the audio sound bites and to start this.
Oh, and I was taken out of context in a major way yesterday by Katie Turr at NBC last night on the NBC Nightly News, which we'll do deal with here in just a second.
But first, um, yesterday on this program, I discussed the 1980 election, Ronaldus Magnus and Jimmy Carter.
And in it, I described the election night coverage that night, and how I will never forget it, because this was the election that they called it for Reagan before California had even closed the polls.
It was such a landslide.
Yet the last polling data going into the election in 1980 had Jimmy Carter winning by nine points.
And so Cookie went back to the archives and got a bunch of audio from John Chancel War, Judy Woodruff, Tom Brokow, and David Rickley on NBC's election night coverage of 1980, simply because of the way I have described it yesterday.
It was even discussed on Fox and Friends today.
So we'll start with those two just to set it up.
Here first is Brian Kilmead from This Morning, Audio Soundbite number four.
Rush Limbaugh, the most impactful radio host in the history of men, weighed in.
Polling date in 1980 had Jimmy Carter nine points winning by nine points, four or five days out.
I will never forget that election night, folks.
In 1980, it was so bad for the Democrats.
They got skunked so bad.
Jimmy Carter conceded before 10 P.M. Eastern time.
Those three networks, you should have seen the long faces.
And all of the reporters that were at various campaign headquarter locations.
Next up, Steve Deucey, same program, Fox and Friends this morning.
I was driving around yesterday when Rush was talking about that.
Look, the mainstream media says the race is over.
We've seen too many elections where at the last minute, for some reason, something moved the needle and the candidate bounced back.
It's not over.
All depends on who goes out to vote.
Rush was saying the Democrats, they think they've wrapped it up, that Trump is history.
And he said that's why Hillary Clinton and her camp, they're now moving into the red states like Texas and Utah.
They think they've wrapped it up in the blue states.
Right.
They're either doing that for psychological purposes, or they actually think they've won, and now they're heading in there to try to sew up the House and Senate.
So this is a treat, folks.
I'm happy to be able to share this with you.
Election night coverage, November 4th, 1980.
NBC.
We start with the late John Chancellor.
John Chancel War, as Tom Brokow pronounced his name, John Chancellor.
John Chancel War was a anchor, and then he became a uh one of these anchors emeritus.
Retired, but always around during the big events.
He became a commentator, threw his opinion in there when it was identified.
It always threw his opinion in there, but they gave him the opportunity to say this is his opinion later on.
But this is in the meat of his career where he is anchoring and reporting and all that.
And our first soundbite is with John Chancel War.
Good evening and welcome to NBC News'coverage of the 1980 presidential election.
Our team of correspondents, analysts, pollsters and commentators is assembled here in New York and around the country to see if Jimmy Carter can win reelection or if Ronald Reagan will be going to the Oval Office.
We have been polling around the country in the key states, NBC News and the Associated Press.
And what we're learning in the key states is that makes us believe that Ronald Reagan will win a very substantial victory tonight.
Very substantial.
our belief as of the moment, based on polls in key states.
That was how coverage opened.
And he was talking about the exit polls.
AP and the networks all combined to pay for and conduct the exit polls back in 1980.
And it's still the case pretty much so today.
But how rare is it to have the election night coverage kick off with folks?
It looks bleak out there if you're a Jimmy Carter fan.
We uh you're learning here in our research in our election polling out there, makes us believe that uh Ronaldus Magnus will win a very substantial victory tonight.
Very substantial.
That's our belief as of the moment.
Up next was Judy Woodruff.
She at the time was the White House correspondent for NBC News, which means that she was uh very, very tight with the Carter administration people.
The only way to describe the mood here at the White House, John, is is just to say that it's very sad.
Uh perhaps the best indicator was uh Jody Powell's teenage daughter Emily, who I saw a few minutes ago with tears in her eyes.
But it does seem obvious uh that uh the miracle story of Jimmy Carter, the unknown Georgia governor who finally made it to the White House is just about in an end.
See, they can't, even though Reagan is in the middle winning a landslide here, it's all still from the perspective of Jimmy Carter, and how sad that it is.
How unfortunate Jody Powell's daughter was in tears.
Uh the miracle story of Jimmy Carter, the unknown Georgia peanut farmer governor, finally made it to the White House just about to end.
Up next, Tom Brokaw, NBC election night coverage, 1980.
John, there's been a lot of talk in the course of this election that someone may win an electoral victory, but not the popular vote here tonight.
We're going to show you the popular vote right now and show you that Ronald Reagan is not only running ahead in the electoral vote, but he is running substantially ahead in the popular vote as well.
Three percent of the precincts reporting in nationwide, Ronald Reagan with a percentage lead of about 11 points now over President Jimmy Carter.
Three precincts.
Three precincts, or three percent of the precincts nationwide.
Reagan was up by 11 over President Carter.
They're on the verge of calling it.
We go back to John Chancellor.
Well, the time has come.
You've seen the map, we've looked at the figures, and NBC News now makes its projection for the presidency.
Reagan is our projected winner.
Ronald Wilson Reagan of California, a sports announcer, a film actor, a governor of California, is our projected winner at 8 15 Eastern Standard Time on this election night.
It certainly is 8 15 on election night.
This race has been volatile, fluid, mercurial, whatever, but I don't think anyone anticipated that it would eventually would become a floodgator.
I can't help but recall in 1966 riding around in a Greyhound bus with him as he was trying to win the Republican nomination for governor of California, and a lot of people were laughing at him then in 1966.
And they have learned in every election in which he's been involved, never laugh at the chances of Ronald Reagan.
815, folks, an hour and 15 minutes after they went on the air.
It's over.
And they can't believe and they could have called it the first five minutes after they went on the air.
We still have to hear from David Brinkley, which we will do after this.
Okay, back to our special coverage of NBC's special coverage, election night 1980.
Our last signed soundbite comes from David Brinkley, who at the end of the evening, he was he was the uh resident experienced guru at NBC at the time.
This was not long before he left went over to ABC.
And our final bite, after they've declared Reagan the winner, after just an hour and 15 minutes of coverage.
8.15 p.m.
They made the declaration.
Brinkley decided he needed to ask a question and make some observations of the other NBC journalists.
I would like to ask a question of you folks.
We have here what I think reasonable it could be called a landslide or certainly something approaching a landslide.
Where did it come from?
Nobody anticipated it.
No polls predicted it.
No one saw it coming.
How did that happen?
I don't want to knock the polls because I believe in them and they generally do very good work.
One thing I've wondered have a lot of people, did a lot of people decide to vote for Reagan, but didn't want to say so?
Well, that's always been a factor that he's an actor after all.
A lot of people have made fun of him, and maybe I ought not to be publicly in favor of him.
Again, I don't want to pick on the polls, but uh there was none of us in sight.
They were bamboozled, they couldn't figure it out.
Reagan was an actor.
The polls didn't say anything.
This is going to happen.
They were beside themselves.
He was an actor, he's a sports announcer.
Could it have been Brinkley wanted to know?
Could it have been that a lot of people decided to vote for Reagan didn't want to say so?
We talk about the margin of error, but we need to talk about the margin of shame.
And that is how many people are just ashamed to tell voters they're going to vote for Trump.
Versus how many people were ashamed to tell these polsters are going to vote for Reagan.
They were doing to Reagan what they're doing to Trump, folks.
No, no, no, no.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm not predicting anything here.
I stand by what I said yesterday.
I don't know.
Folks, I just don't know.
I know what I wish for.
I know what I hope is happening, but I don't know.
I can't come here with ontological certitude, bravado, and confidence, and predicting you what's going to happen.
I could.
I could, but I would have to do it with a proviso or a or a caveat.
I just find this interesting that Reagan was regarded much the way Trump is, except Reagan was governor of California.
He had run for the nomination of the Republican Party in 76.
But he was laughed at.
They thought he was dumb then.
They thought he was slow-minded and dim-witted back then.
They thought he couldn't speak.
They thought Reagan, it's amazingly, a guy that later became known as a great communicator, couldn't speak.
He couldn't communicate with people.
He paused.
He seemed to lose his train of thought halfway through his sentence.
It's incredible the similarity in media treatment and Democrat Party Truth.
There was disgust.
There was uh not taking him seriously as a buffoon, is uh I mean Tip O'Neill, even after he became president, called him an amiable dunce.
Which is what the Democrats always do.
The way the Democrats try to dispirit everybody and and and impugn people is just basically insult their intelligence.
If you're not Democrat, if you're not liberal, you're an idiot.
You're kook, something's wrong with you.
And Reagan got that same kind of treatment.
And Jimmy Carter, of course, was beloved.
Peanut farmer came out of nowhere, governor of Georgia.
Uh normally Democrats hate Southern accents.
But if it's one of them, because Southern accents equals deliverance equals hay seed equals idiot.
But you had to look the other way of Jimmy Carter, and then here came Bill Clinton later.
So depending on where the Southern accent's from, they'll make an exception and not and not be prejudicial about it.
But for the most part, a Southern accent may as well be a slave owner as far as Democrats are concerned.
They want no part of it.
But they love Jimmy Carter.
Even though, and by the way, to take a look at some economic circumstances.
In 1980, the economy of this country was in a tank after four years of Jimmy Carter.
I mean, it was desperately bad.
Unemployment was sky high.
Interest rates, unlike today, were sky high.
Fourteen percent interest rate on a mortgage, for example.
18% on a on a car loan.
It was just, it was incredible.
There was a Reagan and uh uh Carter had had seen us through a couple of uh near near depression recessions.
Uh all of this coming out of uh Watergate, which happened in 1972.
We had energy crisis after energy crisis, we had gasoline lines at gas stations, we had the price of gasoline was skyrocketing, percentage basis had a genuine impact on people's standard of living, and they couldn't find work.
The welfare state was still the welfare state, but we didn't have anywhere near the unemployed and out of work doing as well financially back in 1980 as we do today, and this is a fundamental difference.
In in this year, 2016, we have 94 million Americans not working, but they're not panicked, like the unemployed in 1980, 79, 78 were.
Because in 1978, 79, if you're unemployed, you didn't have a phone, you didn't have a Big screen TV, you didn't have an air conditioned house, and you weren't guaranteed to be eating three meals a day.
You had welfare, you had unemployment, but you didn't have the kind of government support systems, safety nets that exist today.
So that's a difference.
But today, the economic circumstances are really no different.
Most of the new jobs that people are getting are part-time because Obamacare.
And Obamacare is falling out exactly as it was designed.
The I to show you how bad this really is, these people announced yesterday that the average Obamacare premium is going up 25% next year, and they do this two weeks before the election.
Now, normally they would try to hide this until the day after or the week after the election, but they can't.
The problem here is that it's not 25%.
In some, that's an average.
In some states, premiums are going up a hundred and sixteen percent.
In Texas, they're going up 70 or 80 percent.
In Wisconsin, it's off the charts how much health care premiums are skyrocketing.
Nobody can afford it.
Nobody's gonna be able to.
You add to that, and remember now this was pitched.
Obama lied to everybody.
Premiums are going to come down $2,500.
If you like your doctor, your plan you get to keep it.
There isn't going to be any interruption of what you have if you like it.
All lies.
Health care is in as bad a shape as it has ever been after eight years of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party running it and running the U.S. economy.
But in this day and age, even though it's got his name on it, for some reason it just doesn't attach to him in terms of accountability, as it should.
It is his legislation, and the Republicans had nothing to do with passing it.
There wasn't a single Republican vote for it.
In 2010, the Republicans didn't even have enough votes to stop it.
That's how outnumbered they were after the uh 08 election and the uh before the in the Senate.
Uh they certainly got the numbers in the House, 2010 midterms, but not in the Senate.
There's no way they were going to override any veto.
They just they couldn't stop it.
So now it's fully implemented.
What people don't know is this is exactly what was supposed to happen.
You know, in Philadelphia, we're down to two insurers.
Only two companies you can buy health care from.
And you have the penalty if you don't buy, but you can't afford to buy.
It's an absolute disaster.
Other areas of the economy are a disaster.
Economic growth, there isn't any.
One percent per quarter, four percent growth rate per year if we're lucky.
There is no expansion, there is no productivity increase.
There isn't a sense of well-being and optimism about the nation's future, but that hasn't attached itself to the Democrats for some reason.
They are not accountable.
It certainly hasn't attached itself to Obama.
That's why Mrs. Clinton run around and talk about the need to improve the economy.
She ought to be dead on that politically on that score right there.
She ought not be able to cite the economy at all as a positive.
She ought not have any credibility at all on the economy.
She and the Democrat Party have overseen the destruction of one of the greatest systems of health care in the world, ours.
But there are similarities.
The economy's in bad shape, unemployment, not as bad by number.
The unemployment rate back in the in the 1980 election was honestly reported.
It was double digits.
It's the same thing now, but they've jiggered with the way the system is calculated, the numbers calculated, and so it it it's reported as like 5%, but it's not 5%, but low information people see that it's 5%.
So it does have the same degree of impact, but life experience is the same.
I mean, people are living the misery.
People are live, you have the open borders, illegal immigrants crossing uh depressing wages, doing work that uh doesn't cost much for employers to hire them that are not skilled, they're not educated, they can't command high wages, it's depressing wages for the American people.
Uh, then you get into Trump's riff about all these jobs that have left the country because of NAFTA and other things.
I mean, it's not pretty out There.
It literally isn't pretty.
And you have a candidate on the Republican side running against the system.
Reagan did too, wanting to blow it up and start over.
And Reagan comes out of nowhere, at least as far as these people are concerned in the establishment.
I cannot emphasize for you folks, because I know many of you were not paying attention in 1980.
You might have been alive.
Even if you were, you don't remember it.
That's why we went back to the audio archives.
I'm telling you, back in 1980, the media and the Washington New York establishment was as disdainful of Ronald Reagan as they are of Trump.
Now, and I'll tell you something else, and you you're certainly you're not going to remember this because it wasn't, the media landscape wasn't the same.
But the Republican establishment hated Ronald Reagan too, just like the Democrat establishment did.
There was a burgeoning conservative movement back in 1980, which was not bifurcated and split up, and there were not any internecine wars going on.
It was basically led by William F. Buckley in his magazine National Review and Reagan.
I mean, they were the figureheads, the leaders, and everybody was enthused and signing up and joining the cause, and there were knockoffs happening.
Other magazines started up to mimic uh national review, but there was nobody in broadcast media that was conservative.
It was just ABC, CBS, NBC.
Reagan didn't have a Fox News equivalent, you didn't have a talk radio equivalent.
And the conservative movement back then was all in for Reagan.
Might have been some outliers that weren't from jealousy or whatever reason, but for the most part, the conservative movement back then was unified around the concept of defeating Democrats.
The conservative movement today is not so unified.
The conservative movement is not today oriented around the concept of beating Democrats.
They have other objectives.
There are many different objectives, and so therefore there's not unity on the Republican side, either among Republican Party just itself or the Republican Party conservative movement or the conservative movement by itself.
There just isn't any unity.
And yet on the Democrat side, uh morning update today featured all kinds of things that various groups, constituent groups in the Democrat left are doing that are frowned upon.
But the Democrat Party's not throwing those groups overboard.
They're accepting them, and they everybody's unifying around the concept of feeding us.
We don't do that.
We haven't done that since Reagan, actually.
They want to try to tie this to new media and uh Fox News and Talk Radio with Reagan leaves in 1989.
And that's when coincidentally I show up, and that's when all these internecine wars within the conservative movement, and then Buckley died.
And so that's the that's when all these intramural internecine wars began for primacy dominance, smartest guy in the room, competitions began in the conservative movement.
So there's some differences, is my point.
Back in 1980, the conservative movement was all in for Reagan.
It was the it was the result of the Goldwater landslide defeat and the ensuing years from 1964.
Republican Party was not all in for Reagan.
They were not as opposed to Reagan as they are of Trump, don't misunderstand.
And once Reagan won, they all wanted to be on the team.
It was a landslide.
Everybody wants to bask in that glow.
And then as the Reagan years began, then the Republicans, certain members of the party began to individually fall out and start talking about problems they had and secretly telling the media they thought Reagan was a dunce and a danger to world peace, adopting the Democrat line that Reagan's finger with a nuclear button couldn't be trusted.
So nothing really that uniquely different among the Republican Party establishment.
Never like conservatives, never was really all in for Reagan except after the landslide elections, as I say, that's a bright light, everybody wants to shine in it.
The difference is the conservative movement back then was of singular mind and purpose.
And that was promoting itself, expanding itself, persuading people to join it, and defeating the left.
That doesn't exist today.
So they're just saying there's some differences.
And I'm not trying by playing these bites, I'm not trying to say that we're facing or looking at a likely repeat of history.
It'd be great if we were.
I'm just playing the bites to show you that polls can be wrong in identical circumstances or circumstances close might be repetitive.
Do you want to hear another coincidence?
You know, you've heard uh the the newspaper headline uh d uh shows Dewey defeats Truman.
1948, when in fact it was Truman that defeated Dewey.
The newspapers went to press with the wrong winner in the headlines.
You happen to know the Chicago Cubs were also in the World Series in 1948.
Just as they are in the World Series this year.
Coincidence?
You tell me.
Okay, want you to listen to Soundbite number 10 one more time.
David Brinkley.
About an hour and a half into election coverage in 1980, it's around 8:30 Eastern time, Reagan has won in a landslide.
California polls are still an hour and a half away from closing.
Carter has conceded, and they can't figure it out.
I like to ask a question of you folks.
We have here what I think reasonable it could be called a landslide, or certainly something approaching a landslide.
Where did it come from?
Nobody anticipated it.
No polls predicted it.
No one saw it coming.
How did that happen?
I don't want to knock the polls because I believe in them and they generally do very good work.
One thing I wondered have a lot of people did a lot of people decide to vote for Reagan, but didn't want to say so?
Well, that's always been a factor.
He's an actor after all.
A lot of people have made fun of him, and maybe I ought not to be publicly in favor of him.
Again, I don't want to pick on the polls, but uh there was none of us in sight.
Well, I don't want to pick out a polls, but he didn't tell us this.
They didn't get us any indication it is.
There's a lot of people that uh voted for Reagan, they want to say so.
Uh clearly could be happening this year.
They are shaming Trump so much that it might be causing a lot of people to not say they're voting for Trump because they don't want uh to uh give any sort of idea here.
I'm no, I'm looking at the sound, but I just got here.
What is this?
Uh oh, the Cubs are not in the World Series in 1948.
It was 45.
See, I'm just gonna stop listening to incidental information people pass on to me, and I'm gonna look it up myself.
Now I'm being told the Cubs are not in the World Series in 48, it was 1945.
But we'll deal with that in a second.
Just happened on CNN's inside politics, John King spoke with political correspondent Nia Malika Henderson.
Remember, I told you at the beginning of the program that we can see it happening.
Two different actually, there were three pieces yesterday and one so far today, uh, opinion pieces that are getting ready to blame Trump's massive defeat on me.
So much so that I have announced considering resigning on November 9th.
As a matter of honor, if it's my fault, even though I'm not in the ballot.
But here, this this speaks for itself.
And this is Nia Malika Henderson explaining to people why Trump is the bad guy he is.
Hillary Clinton will have her moment, likely her historic moment, and people will be waiting to see what he says.
And I think the truth is, even if he concedes that night, it's likely that he might go back a couple of days later and say, well, I'm not really sure whether or not this thing was on the up and up.
You know, I think he's very much on track to be more of like a Rush Limbaugh figure.
I mean, he was never running as a statesman, so to expect that on Tuesday night he'll give some sort of gracious concession speech is unlikely.
And I think no matter what he says, his people are likely gonna see Hillary Clinton as an illegitimate president.
They saw Barack Obama in many ways as an illegitimate president, even though McCain conceded.
Now, what in the world do I have to know?
What why is my name thrown in there?
He's uh very much on track to be more like a Rush Limbaugh figure.
I've never run for anything, I've never failed to concede, and I've never, after losing, gone back and challenged the loss two or three days later.
But nevertheless, we can answer the question.
I told folks, if this goes the way they think it is, they are going to clear the playing field next.
That will be the objective, just to wipe out and eliminate all opposition.
And no matter where you turn, Washington Post, New York Times, now CNN, you can see signs of what they have in mind.
We'll be right back.
You know, folks, even when I think I'm wrong, and even when you think I'm wrong, I end up being right, it wasn't the Cubs, it was the Indians.
In the World Series in 1948, and they're in it again.
In fact, the series opens tonight in Cleveland, in case you didn't know.
Anyway, and another analysis coming up here in Moments About Nia Malika Henderson might have actually meant in claiming Trump is going to be a figure like me.
It could have been a compliment.
▲
Export Selection