All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 8, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:23
November 8, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, Rush Limbaugh talent on loan from God.
It's great to have you here.
The telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800 282-2882.
The email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.us.
That is our new email address.
Okay, let's review where we are.
We're going to be getting the phone calls probably in this busy broadcast segment.
Normally the opening uh segment in the hour is the monologue segment, but I might get some phone calls, and I know you're chomping in the bit out there, folks.
I intended to get to it uh last hour, but late breaking news uh took precedence over that.
Just to review.
Came out yesterday from the Pulse Opinion Research Survey.
And it was published at the Washington Examiner by Paul Bedard, and it finds 51% of Hispanics believe there has been too little, too little done to enforce immigration law.
What's more by a margin of 49 to 36%, Hispanics support a policy causing illegal immigrants to return home by enforcing the law.
Folks, this is goes against the grain of everything that we have been led to believe about the Hispanic vote.
We've been led to believe, conditioned to accept, the Hispanic vote is voluminously omnivorously overwhelmingly for the Democrat Party, like 7030 for the Democrat Party, that the Hispanic vote is for amnesty, that they want open borders, and they want anybody within a Latino or Hispanic last name to be permitted into the country.
That there is almost a monolithic view.
So therefore, when Hispanic voters vote, they are all voting one way, or the vast majority of them are, and that of course is for the Democrat Party, in this case Hillary Clinton.
And this we have been hammered with this.
Well, not just this election cycle.
We've been hammered with this since George W. Bush was president.
The whole topic of amnesty and illegal immigration came up.
And as conservatives and Republicans, we have been told that we're on the wrong side of this, and we're never gonna win the presidency.
I want to remind everybody this.
Since 2005, I guess 2004, and certainly since 2008, we have been told by the Democrats and the media that we will never, as Republicans, win the presidency again unless we change our policies and support the Democrats in comprehensive immigration reform, which means amnesty for whatever millions of illegal aliens are in the country at the moment.
The Democrat Party has told us this.
The Chamber of Commerce has told us this, and Republican Rhinos.
Republicans in name, only moderate Republicans have been telling us this.
Specifically us conservatives, that we are causing the President's uh the Republican Party to never win the White House again.
It's all been put on us.
We have been told we have to moderate.
We've been told we have to change on this.
We have to uh uh modify our beliefs and accept the notion of amnesty because the Hispanic votes monolithic.
Now, I've rejected it.
I've rejected in principle, I've rejected it logically.
I have rejected it because I don't trust the political agenda of those telling me this.
I, for example, refuse to believe that there's a single Democrat out there that ever wants us to win the White House again, and they tell us you guys are never gonna win the White House if you don't change on amnesty.
Really?
You want us to win the White House?
You care so much about us, you want that to have I don't believe that.
I also don't believe that any one group of people outside of African Americans vote monolithically.
We know that women don't vote monolithically, we don't, men don't.
You have to subdivide them.
You have to go college educated, non-college educated, you have to go working class, upper middle class.
You have to start dividing these groups of people to find voting patterns.
Gender alone, race, well, gender alone doesn't do it.
Ethnicity doesn't do it.
And in race matters, only African Americans, and that numbers 92 to 93%.
So that's why It's dramatic.
If you learn that African American turnout, say in early voting in places like Florida, North Carolina is down, which it appears to be, that does not vote well for the Democrats.
But this poll of Hispanics, 51% essentially support deportation.
That goes against a grain of everything we've been told.
Now, the reason why this may matter is because in this election cycle, remember polling data is used as a weapon, folks.
It is used to make and shape public opinion, not reflected.
And we've been told that the Hispanic population in this country is massively in favor of Democrats, no matter who the candidate is, because they want everybody of their ethnicity to get into this country.
That's what we've been led to believe.
That's what they want us to believe.
That somebody named Garcia wants anybody else named Garcia in the world to come here.
Somebody named Gutierrez wants everybody else named Gutierrez to be able to be admitted in this country.
That's what they want us to believe, that there is that kind of unity.
Well, I've never subscribed to that.
I think it's bogus.
I think it is insulting to Hispanics and Latinos to treat them as though they all think like robots, and thus can be programmed to think that way by the Democrat Party.
And this poll seems to confirm what I think.
If this poll is right, if this survey of Hispanics is right, then it blows to Smithereens what we've been told about early voting, particularly in places in Florida.
What they're telling us is that late breaking Hispanic early voting turnout in Florida means it's Hillary Clinton all the way.
Well, not if some of them are voting for Donald Trump.
It doesn't mean that.
If even a 20 or 30% of them are voting for Donald Trump, it blows the whole model that the Democrats and the media are trying to get us to swallow.
So keep a sharp eye on that.
The next thing we heard, and I warned you about this yesterday, exit polling data is going to be released during the course of the day.
And you have to be really careful with this.
Because I can't shake my suspicions.
The same people that we don't trust to be objective in the news and telling us the news every day, the same people doing these polls.
So if we automatically are suspicious, if we automatically reject the so-called objectivity of mainstream news networks, why would we not question whatever those same networks telling us tell us via their polling data?
Exit poll data has traditionally not been released in terms of the horse race aspect until after the polls close.
But a bunch of um high-tech titans said this is all out the window.
We get the data, we're going to put it on our website.
A couple of them said this yesterday.
So what's happened is that uh morning consult, a legitimate polling outfit, partnering with Politico, has released one to date to this moment, one bit of news that they have gleaned from exit poll analysis,
and it is that a huge percentage of voters are saying in exit polling they want a strong leader more than anything else in the next president.
Well, who does that tell you that they're voting for?
Who would assign strong leader to Hillary Clinton?
Who especially when you're comparing her campaign and her candidacy to that of Trump.
Then if you if you go to the morning consult Twitter page where they promote all of this, that that this story that has the exit poll data that the majority or vast number want a strong leader more than anything else, the headline to that story, the link, doesn't say anything about that.
It says voters tired, angry, fed up, want election to be over.
Well, now that doesn't sound like a bunch of people excited about what they're seeing as it relates to maybe how Hillary Clinton is doing.
But again, caveats, folks.
2004, exit Poll data turned out to be almost exactly opposite of the vote count.
The exit poll data in 2004 had John Kerry winning, and in early on, it looked like it would be a landslide.
And George W. Bush ended up winning when the actual votes were counted.
From the UK Sun, never seen anything like this.
Astonishing lines of voters form at polling stations across America as residents make the biggest decision of a generation.
And they have a clip from a video showing a long line of people snaking through an American town as tens of millions of Americans go to the polls today in the biggest decision and a generation.
Got to be careful with that too, folks.
I'm not trying to put damper on things, but I don't like creating false anything.
Hope, expectation, what have you.
And every year, since I've been doing this 28, 29 years, every election, I get phone calls and emails from people telling me that the turnout where they vote has never ever been hired.
Higher.
It's just through the roof.
It happens every election.
You can make book on it.
So that doesn't carry uh a lot of weight with me.
Although, if it if it does tend to confirm the massive crowds and enthusiasm that we saw throughout this election for Trump, then you might have to consider it.
From CNN, early voting data suggest Clinton lags in North Carolina compared to 2012.
This has to do with two groups of people.
Voters age 22 to 29, that would be our millennial generation, and African Americans.
And in both cases, turnout early voting numbers are way, way down from what they were in 2012.
So they're suggesting here that Romney, who barely won North Carolina, with numbers far worse than are being reported today, are reported that what this means is that Trump may be doing better in North Carolina than anybody ever imagined, according to polling data.
Here's another observation.
I made it in the last hour.
I want to make it again.
This campaign has been going on intensely since Donald Trump took the escalator down Trump Tower and made his announcement on June the 16th.
So we're looking at roughly a year and a half.
That year and a half, we have had pundits, analysts, commentary commentators in the commentariat.
We've had strategists, we've had experts, we've had you name it, we've had pollsters telling us for this entire year and a half, telling us what the snapshot of the country is on that particular day.
Think of all the polling data that's happened.
Think of all that you've read.
Think of all the polling and other news, political news that you've seen, heard, and absorbed for a year and a half.
And where are we?
A year and a half later, nobody knows what's going to happen today.
What does that mean for what this last year and a half means in substance?
It means that every day we get all excited, we get anticipatory, we can't wait for the next bit of news.
We're all hoping that the news is beneficial of what we want to happen.
We go back the next day for more, and then the day after that we go back for more, and we just keep going back, and we keep going back, and we hope and hope that the news we're gonna get every day buttresses what we want.
Some days it does, some days it doesn't.
But it's all presented as though this is what's happening.
This is what we know right now.
This is what they're telling us who's gonna win.
They'll take a poll in September of last year.
They'll say, they'll say poll Jeb Bush versus Hillary, then Trump versus Hillary, and they'll tell us what the result would be last September.
14 months out.
Nobody knows.
So after a year and a half of all that, here we are at that day, election day, 2016, and nobody can tell you what's gonna happen.
No, the lesson is you have to learn how to absorb all this stuff, and you have to keep in mind that everybody's dealing with the future, and there isn't anybody who can tell you what that is.
It tells you not to go through the ups and downs that they want you to go through.
Don't, you know, try to try to maintain an even keel.
It's tough if you follow this stuff, and your emotions are involved.
You want to believe the good news you hear, you reject the bad news you hear.
But in the end, what does what somebody told you last September mean today?
What does whatever the news was in June mean today?
Well, in some cases it could mean something.
We just don't know.
Maybe there is ill-feeling toward Mrs. Clinton over Benghazi.
Maybe this email stuff that uh has been an emotional seesaw.
Maybe it has had effect, pro or commoner.
Not really any way to tell until tonight is over.
So the lesson is stay engaged.
It's never over two months away.
It's never over a week away.
It can end up being that way after you get the results, but you don't know for sure beforehand.
In Florida, we have the same situation as we have in North Carolina, at least according to early data, and that is that in in counties where there are many more or a few more Democrats, Republican turnout is much higher.
Uh we are hearing that early voting numbers are not nearly what they need to be for Mrs. Clinton.
Then again, you have to remember that people are still in line to vote today.
People are still at home having not left to go vote.
People are still out there driving around living their lives, not knowing if they're going to vote yet.
And they're hearing all of this.
And there are efforts underway as we speak to suppress the vote on both sides.
But the drive-by media is trying to suppress any Trump turnout.
There's no question about it, you have to resist it.
It's their natural state.
That's why this news about the morning consultant politico about want a strong leader, uh fascinates me.
But here, they can release something in the next half hour.
Another exit poll question that they ask voters.
And the answer to that question could indicate they all wanted Hillary.
You can't, you just have to stay flat line here.
And try not to get, particularly those of you who haven't voted yet, don't let whatever is being reported during the day-to-day affect you.
Just if you've made up your mind you're going to vote, make sure you do.
Let's take a brief time out.
We'll come back and then get to your phone calls right after this.
Don't go anywhere, folks.
And to the phones we go, we're going to start with Charles in Noblesville, Indiana.
Charles, thank you for calling and waiting.
It's great to have you here, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
Great to talk to you.
Appreciate that, sir.
I told your screener, I'm 68 years old, and I've never voted in my life.
And that's certainly not something I'm proud of.
But uh somehow just the thought of Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House just makes me sick.
And with all of all that's at stake for this country, I had to do what little I could to stop it.
So you are primarily voting for the first time to vote no for Hillary Clinton.
That's really what's inspiring or motivating you here.
Yes, that is.
We know what Donald Trump can be.
I mean, we can we can see him for what he is, but compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton, you know, to me there's just no choice with good conscience.
If you ask me, Hillary Clinton is a woman who ought to be facing impeachment charges for what we know she has done.
But here's another thing we know that as long as the establishment is anywhere near it near power, that isn't gonna happen.
Uh I'm I'm told that George W. Bush and Laura Bush voted for Hillary Clinton today.
Now, on one level, I mean it's personal.
Remember what Trump said about Jeb.
And Trump has had some unkind things to say about George W. Bush.
But stop and think, aside from that, think about party loyalty, think about issues, think about direction of the country.
How does anybody vote for Hillary Clinton?
I do not understand how anybody who is not a Democrat can vote for Hillary Clinton.
Just it doesn't compute.
Unless it's not about that to a lot of people.
And I submit to you, it's not.
I submit to you that if you're in the club, and by the club I mean the establishment.
If you are among the few elites in Washington and New York that actually, for lack of a better term, run the country.
You're going to hang together with other club members.
That's how I think this happens.
Hillary Clinton's not seen as a Democrat.
She's not seen as she may be on one intramural level an opponent, but she certainly is not an enemy when somebody from outside the club happens to be running, i.e.
Donald Trump.
Members of the club call it a click, call it a fraternity, call it a whatever you want to call it.
They're going to hang together to preserve the existence of the club and its exclusivity.
Back in a second.
Hey, we got another story here from the Washington Examiner.
This one's by Michael Barone.
This is not the same story that gave us the polling data on 51% of Hispanics think that there ought to be some deportations.
Baron pieces headline, could Hispanics be surging to Trump?
And from the article, the evidence comes from the Los Angeles Times poll, and so should be taken with a grain of salt, but still, the LA Times poll is showing Hispanics voting 47% for Clinton, 44% for Trump.
Does this represent a surge of Hispanics toward Trump or away from Clinton?
Probably not, in my view, writes Baron, but if it does, the big surges of Hispanic early voting in Nevada and Florida may not be as good a sign for Clinton as every analyst has assumed.
Did I not just tell you that?
Did I not just tell you it's exactly what this polling data means on the surface?
For it to mean, see, here's the way you have to look at this is there are some areas of conventional wisdom that the media puts out there and they put it out there and put it out there and put it out there, and it just becomes accepted.
One of those items is that Hispanics love Democrats.
Another item is that every Hispanic wants every other Hispanic in the world to be able to come into America whenever they want.
So those two things are stated and they settle in.
And uh the lazy analysts at drive by media just accept it and believe it.
After all, it's their friends that are saying it.
They don't question it.
They certainly don't question the idea that Hispanics think monolithically.
It's insulting, but they don't question it.
Well, I do.
I know plenty of Hispanics that vote Republican.
I know all kinds of conservative individuals with Latino and Hispanic names, born in this country.
There's gazillions of them out there.
And they're not automatically Democrat.
And they're not automatically pro-open borders and pro-amnesty.
But yet when we hear any polling data of Hispanics, it's not that.
It's that they are monolithically thinkers, thinking about the pro-Democrat, and that they all are open borders.
So the polling data today just blows that sky high.
So you're looking at the polling data and you measure it against what you think you know, and you don't know what to believe.
And then you ask yourself, okay, are they toying with this?
Are they playing games with all this?
These are things you just can't know, and you have to ultimately trust your gut or trust somebody else's gut who is telling you what it means.
That would be me.
So the LA Times bowl does show a pretty even split between Hispanics for Clinton and for Trump.
Not the way it's supposed to be.
You're supposed to get 70, 80% of the Hispanic vote going Democrat.
Automatic, they say.
Trump getting 44% in the LA Times poll.
Now the LA Times poll itself has been disregarded of the drive-by's because it's always shown, except for a couple of weeks, Trump leading.
By the way, the final LA poll times today, Trump plus three, the final uh IDB tip poll today, which is the poll that called 2012 exactly, has Trump plus two.
All of the other drive-by polls have Hillary anywhere from plus three to plus five.
And in every one of those polls, that's within the margin of error.
In fact, let's stay on this line of thinking for just a second.
Uh the CNN story, again, early voting data suggests Clinton lags in North Carolina compared to 2012.
Daily caller.
Trump edges out Clinton in Michigan on election eve.
This story says that uh Trump holds a slight lead over Hillary on the eve of the election, according to a newly released poll, Trafalgar Group.
That's a Republican-leaning firm, it says here, surveyed 1,200 likely general election voters in the Great Lakes state on November 6th.
Trump garnered 48.5%, Clinton 46.8%.
Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got 2%, 2.8 and 0.9%, respectively.
A Fox 2 Detroit Mitchell poll reported Clinton at a five-point lead in Michigan on November 3rd.
Real clear politics average shows Trump at 42, Clinton 47.
So that's that five-point spread, but that's also in this poll margin of error.
So again, it's all over the place, but there are late signs, particularly when it comes to the early voting, that it's not going according to conventional wisdom.
From a white-knuckled politico, Trump hangs tough in battleground states.
Clinton consistently ahead in national polls, but the state level polls tell a different story.
Donald Trump's still in the hunt, they say here.
While Hillary remains consistently ahead of Trump in national election eve polling, the race is closer in the most populous battleground states where Trump could still spring an upset.
New surveys in North Carolina and Florida show the race for those states, 44 electoral votes combined on a knife's edge, suggesting that Clinton has not locked down an electoral college majority despite her national advantage.
And by the way, despite the mainstream media's claim she's already won, are you aware the last two, three days of drive-bys have been treating this as though it's over?
That Hillary has won.
It's all over, but the shouting.
And then they began to add in, but you know what?
It looks like you maybe Trump could win the Electoral College.
It looks like they're starting to set up that possibility.
It's only because they're not confident she has won.
They don't know, folks.
There are simply too many variables here.
And there are too many little bits of things they think they can count on that are not showing up, such as the two glaring examples of the early voting numbers and by whom in North Carolina and in uh in Florida.
CBS.
The journalists at CBS this morning, yesterday, demanded to know if Donald Trump will be a graceful and gracious loser tonight.
You know, like Al Gore was.
And like John Kerry was, and like Obama and Hillary were when they lost.
Oh, yes.
We've got that out there.
We're already wondering whether Trump will concede.
So at CBS, they have an over.
Now the ABC tracking poll.
Clinton 47, Trump 43 on election eve.
Clinton maintains a narrow four point advantage over Trump in the Washington Post ABC News tracking poll.
47% support Clinton, 43% support Trump.
Now the Washington Post doesn't bother to mention it.
They partner with ABC on this.
What they don't bother to mention, when you drill to the bottom, there's a PDF included here, 12-page PDF document with all the polling data in it.
You drill down to the bottom, and you will find they sampled 37% Democrats, 31% Republicans, and 27% independent.
And then this, you have to drill down deep to find this.
Clinton's edge in the Washington Post ABC poll does not reach statistical significance given the polls two and a half percentage point margin in sampling error around each candidate support.
What they're telling us is that our poll doesn't mean anything.
Because there's a total 5% margin of error here.
Two and a half percent either way for both candidate.
So they are saying the poll doesn't mean that Hillary will win, but you have to drill down way, way, way to the bottom of their story to read them right that they say the difference in Hillary's lead is not statistically significant.
If it's not statistically significant, it's not significant, period.
It means why did you bother reporting it then if it doesn't mean anything?
Is the right way to react to it.
So why do we have this is my point that I raised earlier.
Why do we have months and months and months of polling?
If time after time they end up saying when it comes down to crunch time, they can't predict how things are going to turn out.
What does that mean to you?
What what does that actually tell us the polling data is used for?
If they can't tell us via their polling who's going to win and what could they possibly be using it for?
This 47 to 43% edge that Hillary has is identical to the same poll in mid-October.
It hasn't changed.
Meanwhile, the LA Times poll.
Hillary 44.6, Trump 46.8.
It's it's roughly a three-point Trump lead.
Who do you think will win?
Hillary 52, Donald Trump 42.
Two different questions.
And in the IDB poll, Trump holds a two-point lead over Clinton as election day arrives.
Here is uh here's Alice in Springfield, Illinois, we head back to phones.
Hi, Alice, I'm glad you called.
How are you?
I'm good.
Thank you for taking my call.
Um, I have a couple things I wanted to say.
Uh, first of all, my husband and I have five kids, and we all just love fresh revere.
Um the kids were pretty excited when they heard you announce a new book coming.
Oh, I'm glad you reminded me.
I've got so caught up in this.
I I didn't mention it yesterday or today yet.
There is a new Rush Revere book.
That's right.
Thank you for thank you for jogging me on this.
I'll make sure to mention this as when we finish your call.
Well, my my 12-year-old son um wants to be a movie producer and make movies based on those books.
Oh, oh, that's just fabulous.
That's absolutely wonderful.
Um the second reason I was calling is um we are in Springfield and one of the few reliably Republican parts of Illinois.
Um, when my husband went to vote at seven this morning, he was voter number 32.
When I went around 11 o'clock, I was number 476.
And the average number of voters for the entire election day is 500.
So that seems to be a pretty pretty big increase to almost hit that before noon.
And you are probably interpreting this as Trump support coming out, right?
I hope so.
Yes.
Yeah, I I hope you're right, too.
It's it's as I say, I've got I could do nothing today if I wanted to take calls from people reporting turnout as record where they are in email the same.
Uh For what it's worth, I drove by my polling place and it looked like nobody was there.
I said, you know what?
Maybe I should stop now.
Maybe I ought to go in there now.
It didn't look like anybody was there.
And then I got a note from a friend that who went to vote at no, no, that was like 7.30.
He voted a little bit after 9, and they'd already set a record for the number of people who'd voted during the day.
So it just tells you what you see.
I didn't see I mean I've seen long lines in my polling place.
I didn't see anything like that.
Now I learned that by 9.30 they had broken a record or close to it.
With so much early voting in Florida, you really don't know how to measure election day turnout anyway.
Anyway, uh I appreciate the call, Alice.
Thank you so much.
This this next rush revere book, Rush Revere in the presidency.
We announced it last week.
It's out there for pre-order.
It climbed to number one on Amazon in two or three hours after the announcement.
And it just it makes us so gratified, so so grateful for all of you out there.
But this book is about the presidency.
It's uh, I don't want to give too much of it away.
But well, you know what these books are.
These books are a way of teaching the truth of American history to young people who may not be learning it in school.
And we use a talking horse that time travels to take people actually back to the events.
These the readers actually experience significant events in American history.
They're taken there as readers by the magnificent device of time travel and a talking horse.
The horse's name is Liberty.
And it allows us to be creative as we can in bringing actual historical events to life rather than reciting them as events that you can read about and hopefully memorize.
It has a much greater impact on learning this way.
And it's just uh this is like the third year, this is the fifth book.
And these are real books.
These are hardcover, not paperback little things.
They're not picture books.
Uh these are books that respect the reader, respect the intelligence of the audience, and have a definite mission here to acquaint young people with the truth of the miracle and greatness that is the founding of this country.
And this book specifically has to deal with the or deals with the presidency and George Washington and how it came to be and how it is itself a unique aspect of American exceptionalism.
Brief time out, we will continue in mere moments.
After this.
So I'm going to tell you right now what Nate Silver's saying.
Nate Silver appears to be hedging his bets out there.
You know, Nate Silver is the wonderkined poll analyst that the left treats as the Pope.
Nate Silver is infallible.
Except he isn't anymore.
Nate Silver doesn't actually do polling.
He takes all the polling data he can find, processes it, and then rates candidates on a percentage chance of winning.
And his latest had Hillary with a 60-some odd chance and Trump at a 30-some odd chance of winning.
However, Nate Silver, founder of the 538.com blog and polling firm, says that many 2016 polls may prove incorrect.
Because so many Americans are undecided or else say they are backing third parties.
Nate Silver in a tweet this morning said undecided are much higher than normal.
So the risk of a polling error in either direction is higher than usual.
Silver is cautioning people to be ready for a major failure by pollsters in predicting America's last-minute choices.
Now, Nate Silver, to avoid a riot, says that Clinton is still likely to win, but then lists all the possibilities where she might not win.
Here are his three possibilities.
A solid Clinton win, an epic Clinton blowout, and a close call, Trump probably wins.
Those are the three possibilities.
If the polls understate Trump's support by 3%.
By a uniform margin of 3%, Clinton still wins, although just barely, Silver said.
But no matter Nate Silver today is declaring 2016 polls less reliable than prior years, maybe hedging his bets a little bit, maybe covering the old dairy air just a little bit here.
It just means what we've been trying to pound into people's heads for the longest time.
They don't know.
And because nobody does.
Look at Trump's candidacy presents a dynamic that they can't factor.
That's the problem that they're having when you get right down to it.
Let me take another brief time out, my friends.
We'll come back and continue shortly, right after this.
There's another great indicator here that you can look at.
It might give you an indication.
Wrong track, right track.
You know what the wrong track number is?
Latest 70% wrong track.
Now, if people associate Hillary Clinton with things that have this country on the wrong track, and a practically every Trump supporter will do that, then we could be looking at something huge today.
▲
Export Selection