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

October 30, 2012

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.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

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

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

Where did all the water go?

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

The cost of secrecy

Transparency is an imperative

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

Or is it about self-preservation?

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Is climate change responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Are the L.A. fires a product of years of mismanagement?

Do you think controlled burns are an effective way to prevent wildfires?