The Glenn Beck Program - Best of The Program | Guests: Sohrab Ahmari & David Steinberg | 10/15/20

Episode Date: October 15, 2020

Merriam-Webster changed the definition of “sexual preference” after Senate Democrats told Amy Coney Barrett it’s “offensive." Investigative reporter David Steinberg details the latest on Rep. Ilhan Omar: A Somali-American candidate claimed to have discovered a vote-buying scheme that she called “worse than Somalia.” New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari details how Twitter and Facebook admitted to censoring the paper’s story on Hunter and Joe Biden’s alleged dealings in Ukraine. BlazeTV’s Steve Deace debates Stu on the legitimacy of the election polls and the possibility of a Trump win. Rep. Chris Stewart discusses whether Section 230 reform is enough to stop social media censorship, or if conservatives are better off on Parler.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, we've got some great stuff on today's podcast. Breaking News on Elon Omar and the scandal that apparently no one wants to pay attention to. We have it now on tape. It's taken us months to get it translated. We have the author of the story. It's an exclusive story only on Theblaze.com. It is about vote buying in Minnesota, in the Somali community. It's dead to rights.

We have very. that story for you. Also, we have the op-ed editor of the New York Post talking about not only the story of Hunter Biden and now all of the documents that have come out and look like it proves everything we said in our specials on Hydra to be true. We have that story for you, but also we have the story of the pushback from Twitter and Facebook. And we have a pushback from Twitter and Facebook. And we have the poll numbers and Stu and Stu and Steve

Dease kind of go at it head to head and you also probably want to stick around and don't want to miss Glenn's story about and if you're an NFL fan you'll know this name Patrick Mahoney the quarterback of the Kansas City Chiefs you'll really appreciate

I thought that was his name I don't know who he was it was an embarrassing moment you're not going to want to miss that one all on today's podcast don't forget by the way to go to blaisTV.com slash Glenn. You can get the code, save our election. Save our election. We'll save you 20 bucks. You can get the Glenn special yesterday on hijacking the election, also Studez America, lots of other great stuff. No, no baloney, but some Mahoney. Patrick Mahoney. Playstivie.com slash Glenn. Save our elections. It was an honest effort. It really was on my part. Save 20 bucks. Here's the podcast. the investigative reporter who has dedicated the last few years of his life to Elon Omar and the

now story that has just been posted at the blaze.com about the Minnesota Democratic candidate that is alleging outright vote buying by Minnesota Democrats. And she says it's worse than Somalia. And she is from Somalia. Welcome to the program, David. How are you? Good. Thanks for having me on. You bet. Thank you for your hard work and your great story on the Blaze.

David, tell me the story again in a nutshell. I just went over it, but tell me your version of the story here on what happened. Well, the big thing going on here is that this isn't an edited, this isn't a sting operation. This woman is a Democrat. She was running for city council in Minnesota, Minneapolis. list. And again, this is the city council, which recently voted to defund the police. She is a defund the police supporter. So this is a very progressive left-wing Democrat. She's running for that seat. On July 6th, she gets on to Facebook Live. She speaks only in Somali.

She's very upset. She talks for 15 minutes. She says, I'm announcing that I'm no longer going to go door-to-door campaigning because she's so upset that everybody she meets says, my vote is $200. And apparently, they're saying this because they were promised this by somebody else. So in this video, she says, you know what? If someone promised you $200, don't vote for me. Just go get your $200 and vote for them. I don't want any part of this. And then she describes two specific instances she witnessed while she was out campaigning.

She says she met these eight women and they wanted to vote for her and her campaign had sent a van to drive them to the poll. And this is perfectly legal helping get people to the polls. She said they were eight mostly elderly women. They all get there and they're all waiting around for the driver and they start to tell him, sort us out, sort us out. The driver says, I don't know what this means. So the driver calls her up. He asks her what it means. She says, I don't know what it means.

Apparently, they were all promised $200 by somebody else. And they were expecting the $200. And so she tells the driver, take him back home. I don't want any part of this. She describes another situation where she met an older woman. She asked if the woman had voted. And she said, oh, yeah, sure, I voted already. So who did you vote to her?

I don't know. And apparently, after a few more questions, the woman revealed that a Somali man came around, knocked on her door, and took her ballot. Now, this is apparently such a widespread situation that, as she says in this video, the elder Somalis in the community, a lot of them simply do not understand that buying votes is illegal in the United States. She says these are older refugees. Most of them have not been able to learn English. They came from a very poor background. They escaped a war. And they've, since they've gotten to America, they have been exploited like this.

They simply don't know. They think it's just how it's done. And so this woman, who I'm describing her as a patriot in the article, look, she wants to defund police. She's very radical left. I don't agree with her. But what she says in this article is this is a country of laws. This is going to destroy our community.

It has to stop now. You all know about it. We all know each other here. and you all know sooner or later, this is going to come down on us. And this, she's very upset that this is bringing a terrorite on the Somali-American community there. And to be honest, she's right.

You know, Trump has been very hard on the community, and he is in every rally he discusses Omar. He discusses what's going on with Minnesota in the refugee community. And that reputation, there are a tremendous number of people in this community. They're all my sources, and they've had enough. They're intimidated. They want to join America.

They don't want to live like this. And they feel like they have to keep their mouths shuts. This woman had enough. She just got on Facebook live, talked for 15 minutes in Somali. She said her name. She says, I know people are going to say, I'm crazy. I'm a snitch. But she said, you know what?

People know. They already know. and you're all going to get caught. And she's not a nobody. I mean, she is the former head of the fundraising for the Democratic Party in Minnesota. Is she not? Yeah, the DFL is the name of the Democratic Party in Minneapolis. She was the head of fundraising for the DFL office in Minneapolis.

She has been selected for several state boards and commissions by the governor of Minnesota. this is not a newcomer who just decided to run and had no vote. This woman's been around. She's, uh, it seems like at least 15 years of volunteering and campaigning and activism in the local Democratic party. She knows everybody. And she just had enough. She was tired of people asking her for money. And she was tired of seeing the seniors get exploited.

And she just post this very upset video. I didn't edit it. You posted the whole video on the same. We posted the entire translation. We got two Somali translators, one person to translate, one person to check it over. And everything you see there is exactly what she said. And as of this moment, the video is still live. She posted this on July 6th.

That won't be up there for very much longer. We do have all of this burn to disc, do we not? I'm sorry? We do have all this on the hard drive, don't we? Yes, yes. What you have posted right now is stored on the Blaze. We did download it. We have archived everything.

And it's not going anywhere. We did reach out to her for comments. It's been two days, and we have not heard back from her. But, again, if we do hear from her, the first messages, of course, this is incredibly brave. We think she's a patriot. We're glad she did this. And she wouldn't be necessarily a friend of the Blaze.

She probably, I mean, she is a. progressive Democrat. Absolutely. Again, she, if you look at her campaign page, she was certainly on board with defunding the police. She said, disfund, dismantle, rebuild, what was her motto on that? Absolutely, I don't expect she would be a fan of anything we post. But again, my point of view on this, again, I mean, who do you think my sources have been for two years? Somali refugees, Muslim refugees in the community, which is about 80% Democrats to begin with, but they're scared, they're intimidated.

They've had enough. They want to be more. So, David, how do you mean they've been intimidated? Who's intimidating them? Oh, the elder voters. People come around collecting ballots, and they simply think they have to give them the ballot. because this is how it went in Somalia, and she describes it. She says, you know, we have all these other problems in our community,

and now you can add corruption of seniors to that list. There's everything that you have put in this article has been verified and re-verified, and you can see it with your own eyes. You can read the text. Again, somebody translated. Then we went back, and we had somebody else. independently translate to make sure that it was all exactly what we say it is, and get her words exactly right.

And so all of this is all buttoned up. There is another part of this story that may or may not be true that we will only know if a subpoena, but it goes to Keith Ellison. And I don't know if you want to or care to share that, but it would explain why nothing is being done by the Attorney General. You want to share that? I'm happy to share that. Look, the election is coming in two weeks, and if we have several thousand votes purchased in a swing state,

look, Minneapolis could be decided by a couple thousand votes in Minnesota. The state, the presidential election might be decided by Minnesota. So somebody's got to look into this now. So what I've heard is that Saeedo Shai is her name. After she posted this video on July 6th, she received a text from Keith Ellison with two words, Shut up. Now, apparently people were trying to get her, after she explained this to people, they were trying to get her to show the phone and to just see the evidence of what happened.

and she walked away and left. She was not willing to share that. But yes, that is the story circulating is that after she posted this, she gets a text from Keith Ellison, shut up. David, you told me a few months ago that you had confidence because you knew the FBI DOJ was looking into this, and not this particular thing, but Elon Omar and all of the corruption that was happening there

with Keith Ellison, et cetera, et cetera. Now we have this. Why hasn't anything been done? Is it just deep state all part of it? All I can say is that it's been almost a year. I'd say I think 11 months since there was initially a meeting set up with the Minnesota DOJ and the FBI to receive, to speak with some witnesses and to receive, to speak with some witnesses and to receive information.

Some of it has been published, some of it not. And I do know that the FBI then brought on an agent from ICE and also an agent from the Department of Education, Inspector General's office, because Ilhan Omar's marriage fraud is, it absolutely appears to be partly, Part of it was immigration fraud. Part of it was student loan fraud.

After she got married, both she and her brother, husband, attended North Dakota State University for two years. The marriage essentially started two months before school, and they separated two months after she gets her degree. And they certainly would have received, being married, they would have received a much better student loan deal. So it was also sent. to the Department of Education.

David, I want to just consider something. I just remembered in talking to you. I remember back in the day, this is probably 2010, of hearing how out of control the State Department was in settling all of these Somali refugees in one place, that it was unusual, and that they had just set up a whole Somali community. And they picked Minnesota,

and the people involved at the time said, I don't know why this is happening, why it's in Minnesota, and they just picked it and picked this whole community up and planted in Somalia. Now with everything we know about the State Department, I would wonder if they knew exactly what they were building there. Well, look, if you head back to,

I believe the Bush administration was when this first began, they started to do DNA testing on the scene in West Africa among the applicants. And they completely shut off the Somali refugee program, went up to, I believe the number was 83% of tests proved that families were not actually related to each other. Now, again, I'm not here to criticize people fleeing the war zone. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm not here to Chris. I'm saying what they did was they brought people to this country

who could never assimilate because they came here under illegal circumstances. So what you have in Minneapolis, you have a community that was destined to fail, destined to be run by strong arm, you know, people like Ilhan Omar's campaign. Because it's lawless. Nobody wants to snitch. Everybody has a secret. And that's what happened. And this woman is just, she's tired of it.

She, you know, she said it's worse than Somalia. It's lawless. We have certainly heard of people afraid to speak, not because of the bad actors in the Somali community, but because everybody has relatives back home in Somalia. And they know who has power back there. For example, Ilhan Omar's family is the most. powerful family in Putland, which is the Northern Republic. Somalia is essentially split into three loosely combined nations at the moment, unstable. The North part, Puntland, Garo, I believe is the

capital. She has the most powerful family in the city over there. David, thank you so much for this. Please keep us up to speed on it. There is an exclusive article now on the blaze.com. front page read it share it with as many people as you can while you can if you are ready for some really great news keep listening built bar is back and it is unbelievable if you've been listening to my show this year i love built bars uh it's an all-american story this is a client i asked to be on the show because i didn't listen to my wife again and she's been telling me about it but it has protein bar on it and those always tastes like a dormant this is unbelievable the mint brownie flavor? Oh yes, baby. It is life-changing. The new bars taste better than ever. In addition to the

12 original flavors, Built Bar just added cookies and cream, carrot cake, caramel brownie, lemon almond cheesecake, apple almond crisp. I mean, it's just, it's great. Built Bar, delicious, nutritious, high protein, low calorie, high fiber, low carbs, 100% real chocolate and 100% really good. Plus, they've reset the code for this new launch. Right now, go to BuiltBar.com. Use the promo code back. Get $10 off your first order. promo code Beck, builtbar.com. This is the best of a Glenn Beck program.

Let me go to So Rob Amar. He is the op-ed editor for the New York Post, author of The Unbroken Thread. And he has been witnessing in a part of this in real time on what is going on. So, Rob, welcome. Glenn, thanks for having me. So tell me, first of all, quickly, and we'll get back to it maybe later, quickly tell me the Joe Biden story that was posted yesterday.

So, and Joe Biden's story, you'll remember that Joe Biden has repeatedly and emphatically denied that there was nothing untoward going on between his family, his dynasty, and Ukraine, while Mr. Biden was vice president. was vice president and the second most powerful man on earth playing an outsized role in the destiny of that embattled eastern European nation he's denied it but um the new york post my colleagues i'm not the reporter on this i can't take any of the credit for it i'm just our opinion or op-ed editor but our reporters got hold of the contents of a hard drive um that appeared to belong to Hunter Biden, and they include emails showing that the firm called Burisma, it's a shady Ukrainian energy firm that had Hunter on its board of directors paying him at least $50,000 a month, nice work if you can get it, that they had asked him to arrange a meeting with his father.

And so it becomes clear why our illustrious vice presidential son, you know, otherwise has no special expertise in Eastern European energy markets and oil and gas matters, was being paid $50,000 a month. I mean, it was obvious all along, right? Why does the Risma pay Hunter Biden and $50,000 a month? We get it. It's influence peddling. And so in addition to other things that just corroborate that, you know, this is the real. material, you mean, he also, among the cache of materials are all sorts of personal photos, including photos of Hunter, with in his mouth smoking, you know, I said debauch stuff.

But the important thing is that we were very clear from the beginning about how we got hold of this material. It was reported deeply. It was based on much more solid sourcing than mountains of stories published in center-left outlets over the past four years. Sure. That can't-nain sources, telling unnamed sources, telling the reporter, and none of those got censored by the major social media platforms

the way this story is. And this story, in this story, I mean, it's either a very good fraud or it is the truth and the reason why I say a very good fraud is it confirms all of these threads that most people aren't even covering. It covers all of the threads and all of the players that, if you've really been doing your homework, if you really know the story of Burisma, et cetera, et cetera, it all fits. It all fits.

Yeah, I mean, when there is something very delicious about this, because we've, you know, the past four years talking about collusion, collusion, collusion, that never, never materialized. The special counsel, again, in his report, Robert Mueller definitively ruled out there having been any collusion between team Trump and the Kremlin, or any Russian assets or elements, definitively ruled out. Then at the end of this hail end of its four years, it's almost like some sort of Greek tragedy or comedy. You know, you find a cash of material that confirms that there was influence peddling,

certainly with foreign entities when Joe Biden was vice president with his clan. So yesterday they came out and said Joe Biden, because in this information, it shows that Hunter Biden asked for a meeting with the Burisma officials and Joe Biden in Washington. And Joe Biden said, well, there's nothing on the official schedule. However, there's a hole in his schedule exactly where that meeting was supposed to take place. And also the July or the January 5th meeting that we know now. because of handwritten notes, he was a part of with President Obama that went against what the FBI was saying. We know that happened, and that's not on his schedule. So what does it's not on my schedule even mean?

So, Gwen, if I may, I just want to rehearse the denial that the Trump, that the Biden camp put forward yesterday. Okay. And it goes through it, it has three elements. and it's very amusing if you think about it. So the first element says a bipartisan committee found that, you know, Joe Biden had done nothing wrong in Ukraine, concluded that. That's a non-sequitur. We have due evidence.

So it doesn't be whatever, you know, various congressional bodies found, fine, that's very nice, but we have new evidence. That's, you know, we have the smoking gun or the smoking crack pipe, if you will. So that, I can do that. The second one was, the second one was the post-examination. did not tell us that Rudy Giuliani was involved in obtaining this underlying material. Okay, but plenty of newspapers don't go around saying who their sources are. So that, again, is a non-sequit.

And then the third thing they said was that the meeting, and this is, you know, as you know, if you know lawyers, if you know PR people, they choose words very, very carefully. They said, the meeting did not take place as alleged by the New York Post, as alleged by the New York Post. Okay, so but then in a political story, they said they couldn't rule out the possibility that an informal get to get. We're being banned. We're not being, Facebook has reduced distribution. They said they had, and you can't post it on Twitter.

This is a story where the complainant has not disputed really any of the facts in the story, right? The person who's being accused. They haven't, Hunter, it does not say that I didn't write those emails or anything like that. So Twitter and Facebook are acting on a case where even the person who's being accused in the story isn't really denying the core facts. So now here is what happened yesterday. We know that Twitter and Facebook throttled you back. Twitter actually, I think, banned your post. Did it not?

Correct. So it began with a Facebook official, actually, named Andy Stone. Andy Stone tweeted, although he's a Facebook official, but he used Twitter to say that, you know, I'm paraphrasing, but I won't link to that awful New York Post story, but it certainly deserves fact-checking. In the meanwhile, we have taken steps to reduce its distribution on our social media platform. Now, the thing to know about Andy Stone, before we get into the actual substance of that stuff, is Andy Stone, in his bio says, before he joined Facebook, he worked for, as a staffer for, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, and for the Democratic Congressional Campaign to the DCCC. That's weird.

So you have essentially a Democratic operative who's at the levers of control for, you know, where free speech really happens, right? We have theoretically, we have a First Amendment where I can go in a, you know, I live in Manhattan, I can go on a street corner and sort of bang drums and be like, Hunter was corrupt, but that's not where speech really happens in our day and, where it really matters is on these privately owned platforms. That's where free speech either lives or dies. And the person who controls the levers is an openly democratic operatives proudly says he works for center boxer and used to work for the DCCC and is reducing distribution.

And then a couple hours later, I think I tried to post the story and I noticed I got an error message from Twitter. determine that this story is harmful alongside our partners, and so we're not going to let you post it. So here's what you get today. Today, when you get the post of, hey, make sure you read our follow-up, you're not going to get it because they're not circulating it. But I tried to click through on the story, and it says, warning, this link may be unsafe. The link you're trying to access has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially spamming. or unsafe in accordance with Twitter's URL policy. This link could fall into any of the below categories.

Malicious links that could steal personal identification or harm electronic devices. Spammy links that mislead people or disrupt their experience. Violent or misleading content that could lead to real world harm or certain categories of content that have posted directly on Twitter are a violation of the Twitter rules. back to the previous page or ignore this warning and continue. That is so damaging to not only your traffic, but also your reputation, that I think there's a lawsuit to be had in that. Well, I will leave that to our legal team, but what I will say is that we are talking about America's oldest continuously published

newspaper that was founded by one of our founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton. And I get goosebumps when I say that about it. the post. And so, you know, this is not some sketchy website where they can do this to without consequence. This is an old newspaper, a beloved newspaper in New York City, a paper that's a local paper, but also has a national and global voice and imprint. And, you know, the closest thing to an argument I saw from a Twitter safety thread they had put up, they said, this includes, you know, information that was, you know, unauthorized for release. Well, my Twitter friends, let me tell you about the Pentagon Papers.

Let me tell you about the Trump tax story. All of journalism is practically built on disclosing things that people don't want disclosed. That's the line of works that you and I are in Glenn. So what does that mean? So what is the solution to this? Where do you see this going? So, Rob.

Glenn, I, you know, we're conservative and we're used to, I mean, I am, we're used to talking about, you know, everything being a market-based solution to everything. But I think, you know, there are situations where market actors can become monopolistic and we have a, you know, a great Republican trust-busting tradition. the way that these operators can silence dissident voices, essentially. I mean, I described it in a column in today's paper. I said, this is a kind of neototelitarianism, and it's not the kind of totalitarianism where, you know, you have this hardened man in a darkened cell driving a screw under someone's nails and so forth. It's just this kind of, you know, kind of Silicon Valley type,

who's very righteous and certain that, you know, he's educated and he knows better than the American people and they shouldn't be able to decide for themselves what information they read and what conclusions they draw. It's better if someone enlightened like himself or herself decide for them. I'm an engineering. I went to engineering school. I know tech, so I know better than you. And that's profoundly un-American, but they have the power because that's where, as I said,

this is where speech really happens. If we have free speech, it lives or dies on these platforms, not just on a street corner. And so I believe there has to be reform of, you know, the law governing a lot of these platforms. It's called Section 230. And it's all very complex. But the bottom line is, look, if we at the New York Post publish libelous material against someone, we can be held liable in court for publishing liable. if you broadcast libel, you can be.

But this law in the 90s created a kind of carve-out that said, you know, platforms that are these neutral platforms can avoid liability. They're like bulletin boards. So the stuff that you, various people come and post on there, even if it's libelists, they're not treated as publishers the way, the way your program is or the way, you know, our newspaper is. is treated under the law. And they're specifically allowed to censor, you know, prurient content, right? But the whole philosophy behind Section 230 was that they would act like neutral arbiters other than these kind of specific categories of pornography and so forth.

But, you know, now they're not. They're really acting like publishers. Twitter has a kind of worldview of its own. Like right now, if you go on Twitter, there's a kind of, the first page that opens up says discover or search. I can't remember. And it kind of presents what Twitter's own editors think are interesting stories. And today's is, guess what?

The Washington Post confirmed that Joe Biden did not push that troublesome prosecutor to be fired. Literally says that there is video of Joy Biden saying, sorry, I get angry about this stuff because it's such gaslighting. There is video Joe Biden saying, I push that guy out. I threatened the Ukrainian saying if he's not fired by the time out. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. So I just want to get both of you on to see what you agree on and what you disagree on and where the differences are. Because I get a happy vibe from Steve.

I get a very sad vibe from Stu. And I just want some hope in my life. So if you both agree with what Stu says in the end, please spin it in such a way. you know, I'm not buying the stool. I already have the rope. Donald Trump is going to win by 45 points. That's my prediction. And we keep the Senate?

Oh, gosh, they're going to have all the senators. Even the ones not even running. They're going to resign and get appointed to be Republicans. Wow, that's great. Okay. So, Steve, start with the, let's start with a happy talk and the good news. Tell me why we shouldn't believe the polls and which polls are accurate. You know, I just goes to show you how weird this year is.

that I am now where America goes for optimism. I don't even know what to do with that. I know. I know. I know the feeling. They came to me. They came to me for common sense. You just reasonably are like, well, we want him to explain it. What?

That's how screwed up you are? This is usually the stage of the election when you all put me in a closet so I don't ruin this thing down the stretch. But the reality is that the methodologies are just deeply flawed. And I think we could have two separate debates. who's going to win the election and are the polls correct? And I just look at just this morning, three of the last four polls that were included in the RCP average, Real Clear Politics polling average, are putting Donald Trump in the danger zone of breaking Herbert Hoover's record for the worst popular

vote finish in the two-party era when it was just a two-man race of an incumbent president. He got 39.7%. You look at the base energy Donald Trump has. You look at the energy of the crowds that he can draw. You look at where the unemployment numbers are. I think we're going to get a massive economic growth report here at the end of this month. There's just no way possible Donald Trump is going to hover anywhere near on a, and then how polarized the country is, how radicalize the opposition is. There's no way he's getting a Herbert Hoover-like popular vote percentage. And I just go back to 2008. I mean, guys, tell me right now, right now, which campaign do you think, if you didn't look at a poll, if you looked at every other metric, which campaign do you think was in better shape?

At this state, without a- McKeene 2008 or Trump 2020, which one? Which, wait, wait, which one? Trump 2020. Or McCain 2008. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. Absolutely Trump 2020. Well, the good news for you is the real clear politics polling average at this point had John McCain about three and a half points better than it has Donald Trump. So in that election, Barack Obama got the biggest Democratic presidential election victory

since LBJ's historic romp in 1964. So then to me, we're starting from a baseline, Glenn, that the polls are at least wrong, that Donald Trump is at least in as good as shape as John McCain was in 2008. And then we can debate how much better shape from there. I will tell you that I think it is possible to see, now, not with the historic reasons of Obama, but I think there is in the GOP the kind of momentum that Barack Obama had in the Democratic Party. Not the crossover independence. I'm not talking about that.

But the people who are in the party, I think there is the kind of he's got to win kind of. kind of attitude that Obama had in the, this is going to be great historic. You've got to vote for him because what it says about you in history. I think that's the same kind of momentum. I agree. I think the momentum is there on the opposite of that as well. He's got to lose or America is over. And I think both of those dynamics are at play.

You look at the voter registration energy on the Republican. side all over the country, Republicans are actually winning early voting right now. Never happen as far as I can never remember. But you look at the amount of money Democrat candidates are raising all over the country. It's insane amounts of money. I think that just further proves this isn't going to be some historic 12-point popular vote margin loss. It's not even going to be some historic. I mean, Barack Obama, I just said that the biggest win since 1964, he won the popular vote by seven points. Joe Biden's going to do better. than that and against a sitting president with this kind of loyalty amongst his own base,

there's no way that's going to happen. So I'm not arguing that Trump is going to win. I can't bet political futures in Iowa. If I could and you gave me plus 160 or plus 200, I'd absolutely put 100 or something on Trump. What I do it straight up? No. Okay. But if you were going to give me value odds, yeah, you bet I would bet him. But that's a different question to are the polls right. Okay. Those methodologies are flawed, clearly. Before we get into the methodologies, Stu, comment on what he just said,

because those are good points. Yeah, and I think, I don't think there's much there that I disagree with. I don't believe it's going to wind up a 12 point. I mean, there are polls out there that are showing that, but I don't think that's going to be the reality.

You know, the average poll right now is around what's the RCP at right now, is seven or eight. It's increased a little bit since that debate, but it's been bouncing around, beach in the high single digits basically. I do think we'll see some narrowing before election day. I'd be surprised if Donald Trump loses by more than John McCain.

I think Steve's right on that. Like, I mean, my impression not looking at a poll would be that they're in better shape. But again, he, you know, this has bounced perfectly for Joe Biden. You know, I mean, what is Donald Trump's best strength as a campaigner? Large in-person rallies. He's tried to do that. But for most of the year, they've basically, been illegal, right?

He's in the middle of the, you know, the pandemic and all of the things that that bring along, but it doesn't only bring along negative things like, you know, economic despair and all of that with Trump. It also brings out incredibly positive things for Joe Biden in that you can hide him. I mean, they've been able

to literally hide this guy. I don't know if you've seen a single crowd of Joe Biden's. They just, they show them at an, in an airport hangar and they never show the crowd. Because there's nobody there. Yeah. And, you know, I think Trump entered the first debate with an opportunity to change the narrative and take him from a place where he was, I think, throughout the

summer, which was behind, but, you know, within striking distance with a couple of big, good, positive events. And he had three of these debates to go. The first one, it's, you know, we all covered it together. We all thought it was a terrible debate. And it seems to have, affected the polls in a negative way for Trump. Debate number two gets canceled because Trump's got the coronavirus. And debate three is, it's supposed to happen next week, but is it? I mean, who even knows? We're now seeing that Kamala Harris has people who are traveling with her that have tested

positive for coronavirus. So would you be shocked in the least if Joe Biden? Again, this is one of the reasons I don't understand what Trump was doing tonight. You have an opportunity. Joe Biden is going on television for a length, a period of time. time and actually going to talk in front of the camera. The last thing in the world I want people to do is to not see that. And now Donald Trump is on another network who's going with Savannah Guthrie,

who hates him, who hates his guts. Like if I was Donald Trump, I would walk out on stage with a television with ABC's broadcast of Joe Biden and just hold it up to the camera and hope people watch that. Because honestly, like people know who Donald Trump is. They need the problem I think that Trump has here is that people, unlike 2016, where they hated Hillary Clinton, they don't have that visceral hatred for Joe Biden. And he's just a non-factor. So they're looking at Trump and trying to guard it.

So I would agree with Steve that there have been some outlier polls. I think the ones in double digits, I just don't believe. I think I'm with Steve. I just inherently don't believe them. All right. So I want to get to methodology because that's where Stu always you live there. And so does Steve. Oh, yeah.

Steve was a campaign guy who used to, you know, commission polls, and he reads them, you know, he used to for a living. He knows what they mean. And Stu has done the same over the 20 years that I've been with him. And I want to see where you agree and disagree on the polls and their methodology. Tell me about the methodology and where you think these polls are falling apart. And if there are any polls that you trust. Well, I trust methodologies, not brands. I need to know, it's similar to when I looked at COVID models earlier this year.

I didn't say I'm an epidemiologist. I just said these models are bad. Those are two different questions. Okay. Same thing here. When you have a model, and that's what a poll is, it's a model. A poll is, assumptions and premise and logic have to add up to the conclusion. And then you've got to be able to reverse engineer it, meaning that when I see your conclusion

and then I go backwards and look at how you arrived at that conclusion, it makes sense to me. So let me give you two polls and brands that a lot of conservative audiences trust. In 2016, Rasmussen was the most accurate national poll. Last week, it put out a poll that had Trump down by 12 points. And it had him with only getting, only getting 76% of Republican voters. Despite the fact he's averaged an 87% approval rating throughout his presidency with Republicans, despite the fact that four years ago, Glenn, he faced guys like you, me, and not the fake conservatives, but real ones, like you, me, Ben Shapiro,

that didn't want to vote for him four years ago, that he doesn't face this time. And they said he's going to get one out of, basically one out of every four Republicans. That would be the worst by a Republican president since George H.W. Bush in 1992, who had Ross Perot. That's clearly not going to happen. And that 12-point decline of Republican voters from 2016 was their entire top line result of Biden plus 12. And then look at the most recent Fox poll. So Fox has a poll, and here's their dual headline from,

Fox News. Biden widens lead, but people, but Trump widens the gap of people who think he's going to win. If I, if I was doing a poll and I asked people, hey, who do you think is going to win? And it was like 30 point swing difference or 25 point swing difference from what I was going to wait my top line results. I fire myself for that. Okay. I mean, I cannot believe Fox News published that garbage. One of those things has, those. both those things, Glenn, can be false. One of them can be true and the other false. They cannot both simultaneously, though, be true.

Yeah, I mean, there's been some polls I've seen where he's outperforming every Republican among Hispanic and black voters over the past just several decades. And he's down by eight and ten and twelve points. I think, though, like, when you look at this as a whole, right? Because I think I see these same results, I think, as Steve is seeing. And we're maybe looking at slightly different things. things. He may be very right. I believe the final vote will not be 10 or 12 points. However, there's a lot of room between there's a polling error and Donald Trump winning this election.

There's a significant issue. Here's why I don't disagree with any of your analysis. I mean, I could, Stu, I could come back with a counter pro-Trump analysis, but it would be really splitting hairs. This is why I'm zeroing on these methodologies, because I think these methodologies are the same thing as the bad corrupt COVID models we got earlier this year. It's a Psiop. It is trying to convince you. Don't believe what your eyes see. Yes, Trump pulled in 25,000 people down the street from me last night and 30% of them were registered Democrats. Don't believe any of that. Don't believe any of that. Here's our poll the next morning he's going to lose by 12 points. Just like throw out the laws of immunology, virology, biology, and biology.

Antibodies doesn't mean you're immune anymore. There's no T-cell immunity. What is it? We don't know. Never heard of it. That's why I'm zeroed in on the models because I think what it is is a SIAB operation, just like the COVID doomsday IHME models and Imperial College models were the same. It's a model with the intent of generating a policy result. That's what we saw with COVID. And this is a model with an intent of generating an outcome electoral result. That's what I think you're seeing right now.

All right. So then let's go here. What do you think is going to happen? What does your gut tell you is going to happen? If I worked on the Trump campaign, this would be my brutally honest analysis, Mr. President. I really believe whatever items are trending on social media the day before the election will determine whose narrative is driving out turnout. I think it's a very volatile election.

I think it's all driven by negatives and no aspirational or no inspirational aspects at all. And therefore, I think on a given day, my prediction of who would win this election would be determined by what stories are trending, what narratives are trending, whoever's dumbest last loses. I really believe that. I think that could be a four or five point swing right there within 24 hours. And I think, you know, one of the, because you mentioned the impact on the way these polls are going for a lot of people. And I think that's, it's true. A lot of people are looking at this. Oh, maybe it's hopeless and maybe I won't go. I do see the opposite to on conservative media, and this is not what Steve's doing here at all.

He's doing obviously a much more detailed analysis. But there's a lot of like social media people on the conservative side who are kind of giving this idea that like, look, in 2016, everybody said the polls are wrong. And that, you know, look, they were wrong last time and they're going to be wrong again this time. And this idea that like the Democrats are going to be sobbing into their arms and they're going to be all their tears are going to be piling up in the streets

and we're all going to laugh at them. And I don't think that a lot of people at least, you know, real hardcore Trump supporters who are on a lot of social media have the idea that this is where this is. Like, there is a point here

that Donald Trump needs to do what Steve's talking about, right? He needs to be on the right side of these late breaking issues. It's not a thing where Trump is killing, is crushing this and winning by a ton

as it's presented by so many on the right. And I feel like the opposite psychological thing might happen where conservatives are like, wow, they all said it was wrong last time. What are

I need to do. I don't need to go out and knock on that last door. I don't need to make those extra phone calls. I haven't met a conservative yet that feels that way. It's all over social media for sure. Well, that's unfortunate. I have met people who think he's going to win, but they always go, he's going to win, right? You know what I mean? That's different than, ah, he's going to win.