Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
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.

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.