Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

WATCH: Stu takes a look at the latest poll numbers for the Presidential election

October 30, 2012
Wilson

Writer

With every news channel dedicated to Hurricane Sandy, attention next week's Presidential election has faded to the background. Even worse, the Benghazi crisis risks fading into the background of the news cycle. How are the battleground states shaping up? And what role will independents play in the election?

Stu explained that one of the most interesting polls came from NPR, which previously had Romney down seven points nationwide.

"The poll today came out with NPR and had Romney up one. So an 8‑point swing from the last poll," Stu said. "The key to this poll is they have Romney only leading by one. With independents Romney is winning by 12. If Romney wins 51‑39 on independents, there's no way he's only winning by 1."

"And I think this is where they are screwing it up. This is where what I'm talking about happens. Because it's independents that are the ones that aren't being counted right. It's the TEA Party vote that says I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent. And if he's up by 12 points, there's no way he wins by 1," Glenn said.

"You just have to do everything that you're supposed to do and get out and vote and grab a neighbor and bring them as well."

 

Transcription of the segment is below:

GLENN: Let's take a look at some of the state polls and where things stand now. Stu it up on the, if you're watching on TheBlaze TV, he's on the set for the election night coverage which isn't finished yet but we're putting the numbers up on the board, a gigantic board. It's actually, we took an old picture from the, I think 1960 race with Jack Kennedy from CBS and this is what ‑‑ I mean, we modeled our studio after that. It's a giant chalkboard in the back and it has all of the 50 states and where the, you know, where the poll numbers are. Will take me through the interesting places here, Stu.

STU: Well, all right. Let's go to what we have kind of a toss‑up races as we've been talking about. Colorado is one that's pretty close. Latest Rasmussen poll has Romney up 4 there, 50‑46. It's a pretty important state and one that I don't think Romney necessarily counted on at the beginning but he's polled well there. I t's kind of gone back to a toss‑up in some of the polling averages. Real Clear Politics has it right now at an exact tie.

GLENN: So Colorado is drifting back towards Obama?

STU: Yeah, the last few polls have showed that, but the Rasmussen poll ‑‑ I know you like Rasmussen most and he's been shown to be one of the most ‑‑

GLENN: Accurate.

STU: ‑‑ accurate pollsters around. So we used that generally where we could.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: So that's a big state for Romney.

GLENN: Colorado, you know, anybody who is in Colorado, you like your guns. Let me make a prediction: If Barack Obama wins on Tuesday, Wednesday you will not be able to ‑‑ the waiting list for guns because you won't be able to buy one not because of the government but because they will be selling at such high volume. It will be staggering. Wednesday will be the biggest gun sales day and next week will be the biggest gun sale week in the history of the world if Barack Obama wins next Tuesday.

STU: That happened last time he was elected, too.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, it will be ‑‑ it will dwarf that. It will dwarf that.

STU: Wow. Ohio is obviously the big state the it's got the fancy light on it and that's how you know it. But the fancy State of Ohio is still the biggest one. The latest poll from Rasmussen has Romney actually winning Ohio 50‑48. If that happens, he's got a really clear path to winning 270 electoral votes.

GLENN: I'm just so afraid of ‑‑ I'm so afraid of corruption. It really comes down to Cincinnati. Have we made the decision yet if we're going to be up in Cincinnati or Columbus this Friday? We had plans for three days of rallies up there and then the hurricane hit and we can't get our people out of New York and from all over. So we can't do it. We're supposed to do something possibly this weekend in Chicago and Ohio and Wisconsin and I don't know if we made that decision yet. Do we know?

STU: My last, what I last heard was Columbus on Friday.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: But I don't know if that's done yet.

GLENN: I've heard ‑‑ here's the problem. If you look at the numbers of registered voters in Cleveland, this is why they're hitting Cleveland so hard, Cleveland is way out of balance. It's almost all Democrat and they are trying to get Cleveland to vote in overwhelming numbers. That's why you have to get out to vote if you're not in the Cleveland area, you've got to get out and vote and overwhelm the rest of the state. Don't think that you're in a sleepy little town that doesn't matter because it does. You've got to get in there and vote and tear it up.

STU: Some of the other swing states, Glenn, Iowa we're showing a tie at 48‑48.

PAT: Wow.

STU: Another big state. Michigan is actually closer than a lot of people projected, especially because of the way Obama has tried to use this auto bailout as one of his big issues. Right now Obama only up 4 in Michigan. This really could go either way although still Obama would be favored there. Wisconsin is another one. Paul Ryan brings that one a little bit closer than was expected as well. Right now that one's tied in the latest poll, 49‑49.

GLENN: That's amazing.

PAT: Wow. That's huge.

GLENN: It really all depends on turnout. It really depends on turnout.

PAT: Kind of the way we have this right now so far is with ‑‑ if we give Romney the states that he's ahead in including Ohio, it looks like it's about 281‑257 Romney.

STU: A few other states, Pat. I don't know how you have them. Virginia. You probably have that for Romney.

PAT: For Romney.

STU: Right now the latest poll's 50‑48 Romney.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Wait, wait. Are you going to give Michigan to Romney? Because we're doing this on the polls, too.

PAT: No. So far I got that for Obama.

GLENN: Michigan for Obama?

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Pennsylvania you would have I would assume towards Obama.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Still leaning that way, although it's tightened recently. 51‑46 is the latest poll we have.

GLENN: Wow. That is within ‑‑ that is within striking distance.

STU: Yeah, it's not impossible.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: I mean, this could wind up being a sweep of the electoral college. It could be a sweep.

STU: Meaning ‑‑

GLENN: Either way.

PAT: Well, I mean ‑‑

STU: 540‑0?

GLENN: No, no.

STU: 538‑0?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: I mean a real landslide.

PAT: Yeah, it could.

GLENN: I mean, this could end up being a ‑‑

PAT: It could. I don't know if that's the most likely scenario but it could happen.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Well, with all of these states being so close, I mean, look, what was the ‑‑ give me the number of the day before. Somebody look up for me the number of ‑‑ the polling number for the Wisconsin recall the week before, three days before and the day before if we have it. What were the polls saying? Because didn't that win by six points or eight points? And I don't believe that poll was accurate.

STU: No, you're testing me and I don't know off the top of my head, Glenn. We can look it up to are sure.

GLENN: But don't you remember it being that way? Towards the end it looked like that thing wasn't going to pass.

STU: The Scott Brown one is a good example of that, Scott Brown in Massachusetts where he, a few weeks, just a couple of weeks before that election was trailing by 20 points and wound up coming all the way back and actually winning and becoming the senator and now he's running for a very tight reelection.

GLENN: Right. I think this happened in Texas as well where it's like six or eight points different than what the last polls say right before election time. I mean, if that holds true, all of these numbers are ridiculous. Anything close goes to Romney. And that's Ronald Reagan.

STU: Yeah. You know, it seems unlikely at this point that all of these would go that way.

GLENN: No, it does. I mean, I know it seems unlikely but ‑‑

STU: It's possible.

GLENN: It is possible because of the TEA Party and the 9/12 vote.

PAT: Well, let's give them the two states that are closest. Let's give them Michigan and Wisconsin. And if you did that, it's 307‑231. That's huge.

GLENN: That's huge.

PAT: That's a landslide.

STU: Yeah, it's not even going to be remotely close.

GLENN: Give him Florida.

PAT: He's got that.

GLENN: Did you give him Virginia? What is Virginia at right now?

STU: Virginia right now I think is two points lead for Mitt Romney, 50‑48 is what we have it at.

GLENN: Okay. What is left up on the board?

STU: A couple of swing states. New Hampshire. Did we talk about that yet?

GLENN: No.

STU: New Hampshire is 50‑48 Obama right now.

GLENN: Give it to Obama.

PAT: I did.

STU: Nevada is another one that's close, Obama 50‑48 as well, Obama.

GLENN: Give it to Obama.

STU: Florida has been trending towards Romney for a little while. The latest poll has him up two in Florida. And North Carolina is, I don't even know if you can count that as a swing state anymore. It looks like Romney's going to take that one, 52‑46 Romney right now.

GLENN: What about Iowa?

STU: We did hit Iowa here but it was ‑‑ let's see.

PAT: It was tied, wasn't it?

STU: 48‑48, an exact tie.

PAT: Tied.

STU: Give that one to Obama maybe.

GLENN: Yeah, give it to Obama. And Colorado give to Romney.

PAT: Yeah, okay.

GLENN: 301‑237.

PAT: I got 275‑263.

STU: And that's ultra tight, one state makes the difference there. And that's what's interesting.

GLENN: I wonder which state we gave on the bubble chart.

STU: There's one poll, Glenn, that came out today was from NPR and the last poll had Romney down 7 nationwide. The poll today came out with NPR and had Romney up one. So an 8‑point swing from the last poll.

GLENN: But here's the key to this poll.

STU: The key to this poll is they have Romney only leading by one. With independents Romney is winning by 12. If Romney wins 51‑39 on independents, there's no way he's only winning by 1.

GLENN: And I think this is where they are screwing it up. This is where what I'm talking about happens. Because it's independents that are the ones that aren't being counted right. It's the TEA Party vote that says I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent. And if he's up by 12 points, there's no way he wins by 1. You just have to do everything that you're supposed to do and get out and vote and grab a neighbor and bring them as well.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.