All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 17, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
28:16
3458 Donald Trump Is Winning | Bill Mitchell and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everybody.
It's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio, back with a good friend, Bill Mitchell, who is taking his 8'9 frame and squishing it into a tiny window just for your entertainment and convenience.
Bill is the host and creator of Your Voice Radio and one of the most influential non-candidates in social media during this election cycle with close to 100 people.
1,000 Twitter followers.
And Bill, just before the show, you dropped a number on me.
It escapes me now.
How many impressions?
106 million hits in the last 28 days.
106 million impressions.
Hey, sounds like you've got quite a show lined up.
So you can follow Bill on Twitter at twitter.com slash MitchellVII.
That's Mitchell the 7th.
Just like Malcolm the 10th.
YourVoiceRadio at yourvoiceradio.com.
How are you doing today, Bill?
Oh, I'm good.
I'm good.
I tell you what, people on Twitter ask me, you know, how can I hang in there?
You know, how can I stay so positive?
And I love this stuff.
I mean, the greater the battle, the greater the victory.
So I think this is great.
And doing battle against the forces of darkness, which is what I consider the Hillary campaign, is very motivating for me.
I like it.
So I really consider myself on Twitter to be the Trump campaign suicide prevention squad because there are so many people I've been putting out some videos rebutting some of these wild accusations from decades past in airplanes that apparently never existed and so on.
And underneath the videos, and this has really started to crop up over the last week, I don't know if you've noticed this, but There are a lot of despair trolls out there who suddenly just seem to be emerging.
And what they're doing is they're saying something like this.
They say, well, you know, I do like Trump and it'd be great if he got in, but frankly, there's just no way he can.
It's mathematically impossible.
He's done, which is a shame.
I really wanted him to get in, but it looks like we're going to have to settle for Hillary.
Like that kind of stuff.
And it's actually quite effective because, you know, it sounds like they're positive, but they've recognized reality.
But dear Lord above, and for those who want to follow Bill, and you should, on Twitter, you kind of pump out the information.
How is it that people like you and I stay positive?
Well, by a little tactic we call looking at the facts.
And that seems to be quite important.
So there doesn't seem to be...
Much in the real world support for Hillary Clinton.
There are a bunch of polls, which you call heavily Democrat, heavily over-educated or over-propagandized people, heavily female, like all of the bases that you would expect who would be more likely to vote for Hillary.
But in the real world, lawn signs and people's conversations and so on, there just doesn't seem to be the tangible support that's showing up in the polls.
Yeah, that's true.
You know, we did a summary of a bunch of the recent polls that have come out, and they averaged down to D plus 11, meaning 11 points more Democrats in each poll than Republican.
And if you look back at 2008, I believe the electorate and exit polling was about D plus 7.
So what the media pollsters are trying to say is...
That the electorate is so enthusiastic for Hillary Clinton this time that she's actually going to get four points more of a Democrat advantage in the turnout than Barack Obama did in 2008.
Now this, despite the fact that in the primaries, turnout for Democrats is 20% less than 2008.
So, you know, it's like the Democrats are saying, you know, don't believe your lying eyes.
You know, believe us.
Because as Seven just said, they're, you know...
Polling, to me, is like a scientific hypothesis because, frankly, if you're going to poll 600 people and say this represents 250 million, it's not a scientific fact.
That's a hypothesis, okay?
And then you've got the biases of the pollster built into that.
You've got the fact that only 10% of people answer their phones built into that.
You've got all kinds of biases built in, so it's definitely a hypothesis.
And when you take a hypothesis into the lab, you have to test it.
We call that the empirical evidence, the evidence on the ground, the physical evidence that backs up your hypothesis.
If the physical evidence doesn't back up your hypothesis, you don't throw out the physical evidence, you throw out the hypothesis.
In this case, back in 2008, I remember when Obama was running, they were bragging about yard signs.
Oh, yard signs are a great indication.
Rally signs is a great indication.
Obama is dominating social media.
He's everywhere.
He's everywhere.
He's got to be winning, and he won.
This time, they're saying rally size doesn't matter.
Yard signs don't matter.
Nobody's even buying, you know, Hillary hats and shirts.
Nobody bought her book.
I think that Cain just gave a rally or a speech down in Miami and 50 people showed up.
De Blasio just gave a speech for Hillary and 40 people showed up.
You know, Trump gives two 20,000 person rallies a day.
And to say this is meaningless to me is beyond ridiculous.
Well, and as you've Pointed out in Google Trends, there's almost twice as many results for people typing in how to vote Trump as for how to vote for Hillary.
You know, the Reddit's, the Donald's is a very active message board with countless members.
And there's no Clinton equivalent of that anywhere that I've been ever seen.
Look at number of individual donors.
2.6 million individual donors.
That is a record for Trump.
And it really is when you get out of the sort of manipulated world of left-leaning number jiggory and into the real world of where there's tangible, measurable things regarding enthusiasm for candidates.
It's like complete opposite planet.
It really is.
And one of the things you've got to watch for is a lot of these pollsters realize we're onto them with their sampling, with the oversampling of the Democrats.
So what they're doing is they're burying the bias in other subgroups.
For instance, statistics show that 30% of the electorate that actually votes has got a degree.
That means 70% are non-degree or blue-collar type voters.
This is Trump's strong suit.
Trump is particularly strong with the blue-collar voters because they're the ones who feel like they've been most wronged by the system, and Trump can help them with his trade policies, his tax policies, this sort of thing.
So what they're doing is they might have a reasonable breakdown between Republicans and Democrats, but then we find that instead of 30%, half of the poll is college-educated, which dramatically undersamples blue-collar voters, which are Trump's strong suit.
And the funny thing is, They say these polls are scientifically random.
Well, they're scientifically random.
Why is the oversample always in favor of Hillary?
Always.
I mean, it is never not.
Never.
Hundreds of polls, it is always in favor of Hillary.
How is that random?
I mean, there should be polls that come out that have subsamples, you know, in favor of Trump.
Never.
Now, I actually, I both dislike polls and like polls because I'm Mr.
Ambivalence, but I dislike polls because I don't care.
I don't care what other people want to do.
The important thing is to make the case for what you think is important in the world and to hell with what the average opinion of somebody who has the time to pick up the phone and answer a long survey.
And of course, we've got 20 million registered voters that didn't even bother voting in 2012.
I mean, who the hell is polling them?
them.
And that's the big giant unknown in this election because Trump is pulling people like me into the political arena.
And I never thought I would be in this position in the political arena in my life.
And so there's a lot of people who are coming into the fold.
They're not being polled.
And so that's the great unknown.
So I dislike it because, you know, you do what's right in the world and who cares about what other people say at the end of a phone and what they're actually going to do in the voting booth may be quite different from what they're saying.
But I also like the polls a bit.
Bill, because I love the fact that That the Democrats are giving themselves a false confidence for victory.
I mean, if I were on the Democrat side, there's no way I'd do D plus 8, D plus 9, D plus 12.
I'd try to get it minus, and I'd say, people, we're cratering.
You need to redouble your efforts.
You've got to get out there.
We're going to lose.
The fact that they're saying, oh, we've got this in the bag, it's like – I mean, I don't know.
I'm not a political operative, but it seems retarded to me.
I mean, it's sort of like if your sports team is really, really down – You don't say, we've won, because then people don't practice harder.
I mean, recognize that you're losing so you can turn it around, but they don't seem to be doing that for reasons I can't fathom.
Yeah, there's a reason why the week before the Super Bowl, you don't give press stuff things to say you're going to win by 40 points, because it just motivates the other team to come out and beat you.
And, you know, one of my favorite tweets is to send out this picture of a bear, a grizzly bear, charging, and it says, you know, don't poke the bear.
And that's what they're doing.
I mean, they are really just annoying the base and motivating us all the more to get out and vote because they're saying that we don't matter.
We don't count.
What they say is true.
They're trying to say that they create the narrative and we're saying, no, we create the narrative now.
And I think the fact that we're on social media and that we've got stuff like this, you know, your show, my show, all these shows that are on.
I tell you what, it really equalizes the playing field, in my opinion.
So I'm very positive about Trump going forward.
Let me put it this way.
If Hillary was really winning, these pollsters would not be putting their reputation on the line by creating these ridiculously oversampled polls.
They'd be doing fair polls.
And then we'd be just going with the results.
But Hillary isn't winning.
And that's why in the empirical evidence on the ground, you see no evidence.
I mean, there is no...
I don't remember ever where somebody was supposedly running away.
I mean, they are saying that Hillary is going to beat Trump bigger than Obama beat McCain.
And, I mean, you could tell everywhere that Obama was going to beat McCain.
But, I mean, there's no evidence anywhere that Hillary is even in this race.
There was a...
A freshness and a politically correct bromance that occurred with not just Americans, but of course, a lot of the Western world when it came to Obama.
Obama would go to Germany and get, what, 200,000 people coming out to see his speeches.
And when you have a tough time rustling up a couple of dozen speeches for one of the Democrats for Cain or maybe a couple of hundred for Hillary, that is evidence of a significant apathy.
And that, of course, to me, is one of the very telling but subtle things going on in this election bill.
I'm sort of curious what What you think of this.
When Hillary is polling very well, but there's no enthusiasm for her, it means that people don't like her.
They just want her to continue whatever policies are currently putting, you know, a roof over their head, food in their mouth, whatever, you know, socialist redistribution schemes she's got cooking up, and there are quite a few.
It's like, well, we don't like her, but we sure like the free stuff, so we're not going to show up to her rallies, but we really want to vote for her, not because we like her, not because we care about her or have any enthusiasm for her, We just want this broken, dying system to cough up a few more hairballs of fiat currency nonsense for us to consume before the crap hits the fan.
And that, I think, is one way of looking at the discrepancy between the attendance at the rallies and the actual polls, or the even inflated polls.
Yeah.
Well, you know, it's really hard to say because it's kind of a dichotomy because on the one hand, we see that apparently degreed people prefer Hillary.
And yet, if you look, for instance, at the LA Times poll, she is losing the sample of people that make over $70,000 a year and winning the sample of people that make under $35,000 a year, which doesn't make any sense at all.
You know, it's just crazy.
But what we're seeing in the polling is that every one of these polls, you notice how they keep coming in, but Hillary's up six, Hillary's up seven, Hillary's up six, Hillary's up seven.
And yet, the underlying sample in the polls are all over the place.
Now, how do you have samples?
You know, where the inputs are all over the place, but you have the exact same result every time.
What they call it in polling, they call it mirroring.
And if you think that these pollsters aren't like a club and they don't get on the phone and talk with one another and compare results before putting them out, you're being naive because they do.
And they mirror one another because as the election comes up, nobody wants to be hanging out there with that one poll that's the outlier And look like a fool.
So if they're going to be wrong and they're all wrong, then it's okay.
Well, we were fooled by the electorate.
You know, this was a new election.
We didn't get it.
So that's what you're seeing right now is they're clumping together and you're getting these polls that are all very similar.
Of course, you had the NBC Wall Street Journal poll, which is always an outlier, and they had Trump down 11, but they also, in their sample, they also had Obama beating Romney by 14 points, you know, and Obama beat Romney by 4 points, so you can see what the sample's like.
Well, and the degreed people, I mean, there's sort of two things that popped into my mind.
Because, of course, a lot of the people say, well, of course, the more educated you are, Bill, of course, you're more likely to view Hillary Clinton in a positive light because you're so well-versed in economics and politics and history and all that kind of stuff, right?
But to me, it's quite simple.
Number one, if you have a higher degree, you're more likely to have been subjected to relentless degrees.
A multi-year social justice warrior leftist indoctrination, which is one of the reasons why the Democrats want free higher education for everyone because it's like, hey, we can get the people who pay taxes to be forced to pay for the indoctrination of people who want to take that tax money away.
So yeah, if you've got more of a degree, you're more lefty, you're more indoctrinated, and so on, and I think that's fairly easy to make that case.
And number two, of course, more degreed people aren't facing competition from wave after wave of unskilled immigrants pouring into America Taking a half a trillion dollars of wages out of the equation, knocking down the most vulnerable communities' wages and pushing them onto welfare at higher and higher rates.
So, yeah, the combination of leftist indoctrination plus the fact that you're not facing competition from illegal and illegal immigration from the third world.
Okay, yeah, I can see where you can come.
It's a pretty heartless position to take, I think.
Yeah, well, you know, I've been an executive recruiter for 30 years and I've interacted with a lot of different people.
It seems like the higher level of a degree someone has, the more likely it is they'll be working for a salary for someone else.
The lower the education, the more likely they'll be entrepreneurs and be rich.
I mean, a lot of the most wealthy people in the world do not have a college degree.
And to equate having a college degree with intelligence is a false association.
And as proof, go to a college campus on a Friday night and go to the local college bars and talk to the graduating seniors.
They are dumb as rocks, most of them.
They have no idea what they want to do with their lives.
They're going to move back to mom and dad when they get out of school with a ton of debt.
So, you know, they've been through college.
This does not mean they're educated.
It means they're indoctrinated, as Stephan just said.
Well, of course, the more people who come into college, the lower the...
Requirements have to be.
So you're just getting fewer and fewer really intelligent people in college.
So a college degree don't mean what it was when I was younger.
Actually, it just kind of struck me that you're an executive recruiter who's trying to get Donald Trump a job.
I just sort of found something interesting in my mind.
But let's talk about women.
Because I think women are one of the big challenges for getting Trump into the White House.
I'm sure everyone has seen these graphs where it says, you know, if white males voted...
I mean, it's pretty much a complete landslide for Donald Trump.
And there's two categories of women.
The unmarried women seem to be leaning more towards Hillary.
The married women seem to be leaning more towards Trump.
And I would assume it's because the married women already have a, quote, provider who is their husband, whereas the unmarried women who don't have providers and who may want to have kids and may end up as single moms and so on do want the government to step in and fulfill the role formally provided by an actual provider.
And I think it's going to be a big challenge to get the unmarried women to look at some of the benefits of a Trump candidacy.
How would you pitch Trump to them?
Well, I think that it's hard.
It's hard.
I can see why married women would support Trump because they're worried about their kids and their families in the future.
The unmarried women are going to be much lower on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
You know, thinking much more about just survival, abortion, having government assistance with the cost of raising their children that they've got children.
But that's just a tough get, Stephan.
I don't really know what to say exactly, other than the fact that I think that the rallies that I've been to, there were a lot of single women there.
You go to a Trump rally, half the crowd is women.
And you get the impression from these polls that women hate Trump.
But I can't say there's any easy answer to that that I can think of, Stephen.
Yeah, I mean, one of the things that I would say is I think that most women who are single would like, if they want to settle down, of course some don't, but if they do want to settle down, then they want to have a husband.
And if they want to have children, then they want to have a husband who's a reasonably decent provider because I think the statistics are very clear that the women who stay home with the kids for the first couple of years and breastfeed the kids, the kids do way better.
Breastfeeding actually increases IQ.
It's one of the few things that's known to do so.
So for single women, you know, you do want a man who's going to have a job.
You do want a man who's going to have some stability.
You do want a man with some kind of decent income.
And that's middle class or above.
And Hillary Clinton is targeting a lot of people with massive tax increases, extra regulations, problems in the economy.
And so it's going to reduce the number of decent men who are available as providers for you to marry if you go with Hillary Clinton.
And then you're going to end up relying on the state.
And the mathematics is pretty clear that relying on the state, you know, I don't think there's a person alive who's middle aged or so who's going to outlast the state in terms of its capacity to provide revenue, because it's going to run out of money pretty damn quickly.
And so if you go with the state, It's going to reduce the number of men available for you to marry who will be decent providers who are going to help provide for you and your children.
If you go with Hillary Clinton instead of a husband, well, they're going to run out of money and there won't be the men available to help pick up the slack.
Well, you know, I think that this campaign has focused so much in the last couple of weeks on the gotcha stuff.
You know, the crazy sexual assault...
Claims which have been debunked one by one against Trump.
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
And listen, I don't want to sound shallow, okay?
But Donald Trump is a billionaire.
He dates, before he got married, dated, you know, supermodels, you know, Mr.
Universe type level of beauty, okay?
And if you've seen these women that are coming out of Trump, I don't think he would risk his life to assault these particular women.
Let me just, without sounding terribly shallow...
He's got a type.
And that type is double digits.
They're not it.
They're not it.
They look more like typical Hillary supporters than somebody that Donald Trump would chase after.
Which is kind of weird that his fetish for three decades happened to be far-left Democrats.
Who would have known, right?
Anyway, here's the thing.
When you really get down to the issues of the campaign, if the campaign ever gets back to the issues, Listen to Hillary's economic plan.
Hillary's economic plan, this is it.
For jobs, we're going to install solar panels.
We're going to fix potholes.
And then they say, well, how are you going to pay for that?
Well, Hillary should say, if she's a good capitalist, well, we don't have to pay for it, it pays for itself, because that's how capitalism works.
Supply and demand, you know, revenues have to exceed costs, and that's how you create a profitable enterprise.
But she says, well, we're going to pay for it by taxing the rich.
Well, how much are you going to tax them?
Well, they're a fair share.
So Hillary's idea for increasing employment is installing solar panels, fixing potholes, and taking money away from the people that hire people for good jobs.
And, you know, here's the thing is, when a Democrat says a job, they don't mean a career.
They mean, literally, that you can spend 10 hours a month mowing grass, and you officially, in the Obama economy, have a job.
You can lose your full-time job where you were making a salary, And full benefits and then go out and have to get three part-time jobs to replace that.
And then the Obama economy, they just created two jobs.
This is what she's talking about when they're talking about creating jobs.
But Donald Trump is talking about not creating just jobs where you're flipping hamburgers and McDonald's or waiting tables or mowing people's grass or doing something beneath your intellectual level.
But they're talking about actually creating careers where you can actually build a future for yourself.
And you're not living paycheck to paycheck.
It's an entirely different dynamic.
And I'm hoping that somehow we can get back to it, although more of the media, who knows?
Let's talk a little bit about Hillary's health.
Because Trump, of course, came out recently with the suggestion that it might be somewhat wise to request a drug test.
This sounds crazy.
I understand this.
It's not like they're both competing in some Olympic decathlon, but the idea that there would be a drug test before the next debate is startling to some people.
I wonder if you can help step people through the rationale behind that suggestion.
Well, the problem that he's got is he doesn't want to find out if she's a smoking pot or a crack addict or something like that.
What he wants to show is that they're pumping her so full of drugs that To make up for her Alzheimer's or whatever it is that she has so she can seem normal on stage.
As he said, she seemed really hyped up on stage and that goofy grin she's got on her face and the constant laughter and the giggling and so on and so forth.
So it just doesn't seem normal.
And I can't remember any presidential election where one of the candidates with three weeks to go basically took an entire week off from the campaign trail.
Nobody has seen her.
And the media doesn't find this at all interesting in any way.
They're not intrigued by this at all.
I guarantee you if Donald Trump went off the campaign trail for a week right now, they'd be like, what's wrong with Trump?
Sorry to interrupt, but do you remember when he took a couple of days off because his grandson or granddaughter was being born?
He went to go for the expansion of his family tree, and people were like, he's giving up!
He's over!
It's done!
He's gone!
No, he's got a grandkid!
I mean, give the guy a break!
It's ridiculous.
So, I think what they're doing is they probably have Hillary on some sort of...
You know, they say that in the WikiLeaks thing that her Scooby van that she's got actually has a bed in it.
I think they probably got her on IVs.
They probably got her on some sort of drug stack.
So come time for the debate, she can seem like she's healthy.
But this is not a healthy woman.
This is a woman who's got severe health problems.
And I think that all they're trying to do...
What Chuck Schumer said.
Chuck Schumer said, we want to elect Hillary because we want to get control of the Supreme Court.
That's the only reason they don't care.
They do not care about Hillary.
She is merely a vessel to bring money into the party and to get in there so they can get control of the Supreme Court.
Once she gets in the White House, she can hide out.
She can be ill all she wants.
If she passes away from her illness, they can replace her with another one of those hacks.
They just want the keys to the White House.
And the fact that Hillary's there is just because she's the most convenient person to have.
Well, and I think Milo Yiannopoulos has made this case that the vote is basically about the Supreme Court and the failure or future of the Republic.
And I think that's something people should really strongly consider because presidents come and go, but it seems like the Supreme Court just hangs around forever.
Now, Professor Norpoth, you pointed out, he's predicted five out of the last five presidential elections correctly.
He's got an 87% chance that Trump is going to beat Hillary.
How does he come by that rather staggeringly high number?
He's the Bill Mitchell on Twitter factor.
And that's the only factor, otherwise it's zero.
Bill ups at 87%.
I think, I think...
I haven't studied his work.
I need to.
Anyway, I think that the main reason why he may be saying that is what I've been saying all along.
That all this stuff that's going on, all these scandals, all this stuff, this is just fluff around the edges.
The core of this is that this is a change election, just like 2008 was.
Just like 2008, only 28% of the electorate is happy with the direction of the country.
That's what it was in 2008.
It's exactly the same now.
When you have a change election, the status quo candidate does not win, period.
The change candidate wins, period.
And right now, we still have about 15 to 70 percent undecided out there in the electorate, which is a record for this level.
So these are people that know who Hillary is, don't want her, and they're just waiting for Donald Trump to be reasonable enough for them to say, okay, I'm going to give this guy a shot.
That's why Obama won.
Obama didn't win because he had the experience to be president.
He didn't win because he had been vetted.
He didn't win because he's perfect.
But you know what?
People thought, you know, he sounds great.
He looks great.
He's the antithesis as far as intellectualism from George Bush.
You know, he can give a great speech and not stumble over himself.
Let's roll the dice and give him a shot.
And that's kind of what's happening now.
I mean, Hillary is the John McCain of 2016.
You know, John McCain was a status quo candidate.
John McCain never stood a chance.
And I think what's going to happen is Donald Trump is going to win this election, and history will look back and say, you know what, Hillary Clinton never stood a chance because she was a status quo candidate.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
Well, and I think you could say that she might have had a chance if it wasn't for the incredible advancements in social media and reach that are able to deconstruct false narratives from the mainstream media in real time.
This has never happened before.
I've been doing public stuff on YouTube and other places for 10 years, and the amount of reach in this election...
It's so enormously different.
It is night and day from just four years ago, and that is a factor that is really, really hard for people to grasp who are, I guess, our age but not as digitally wired as we are.
Yeah, I'm just, you know, as a fellow guy on YouTube, I look at your YouTube numbers and I'm just like, wow, you know, it's just remarkable.
I think you had Mike Cernovich on there one night.
You had like 350,000 views or some amazing amount like that.
But yeah, it really is remarkable.
And even our little show.
I mean, we've had...
We've had, between our speaker presence and our YouTube presence, we've had shows that have done like 70,000, 80,000 views for just one show now.
So, it doesn't happen very often, but every once in a while.
So, yeah, it's remarkable what's going on in the Twitter exposure.
I mean, I'm not some guy that's paid a million dollars a year by the networks to be a talking head.
And here I am, you know, on Twitter, getting 10 and 11 million hits a day sometimes.
No, because the media slanderers would have stuck to the point where it would have turned off some of the undecideds.
And now what's happening when media slanderers are put forward and then they're deconstructed in real time, sympathy accrues to the victim.
Because I think everybody who's had any prominence online has been trawled at one time or another, and I think that they all recognize what that's like.
I think there's a lot of sympathy coming out of Trump for these desperate moves by the media to avoid dealing with any substantive issues and just fire off the smear cannon hoping to cover the person in mud to the point where you don't want to give them a votey hug.
So I really want to take time to say thank you, thank you for taking the time with us today.
I want to remind people twitter.com slash MitchellVII.
Follow him.
It's great.
It's entertaining.
It's thought-provoking.
Yourvoiceradio.com.
I, in fact, will be on your show very soon.
So I'm looking forward to that.
Bill, always a great pleasure, and I hope that you have an exciting next few weeks.
Okay, thank you very much.
I'm looking forward to it.
I think we're going to be winners on November 8th.
I'll talk to you later.
▲
Export Selection