Transcript of Newt Gingrich interview

Glenn is back on TV! Watch Glenn's new two-hour show available live and on-demand Monday through Friday on GBTV.com! Start your two week free trial HERE!

Below is a rush transcript of Glenn's interview with Newt Gingrich this morning. A full article and video of the interview is not available HERE!

GLENN: Lot to do today, a lot to do. And we begin right now with Newt Gingrich. Look, this is ‑‑ so you know, I am... I am increasingly disinterested in Washington because I don't believe the answers lie in Washington. However, we all have to be responsible and we all have to do, you know, the right thing and pay attention to politics and vote. Now is the time to ask the questions of each of the politicians.

Newt Gingrich is a man that I've met several times. I've had dinner with him when we were in Washington, D.C. He seems like a very nice man. We don't know each ‑‑ we're not buddies, but I have been around him enough to know that, you know, he's a ‑‑ he's an honest guy, a decent guy that has always shot straight with me. I want to make sure that you understand and that he understands that this is not a gotcha interview. I have serious concerns with Newt Gingrich, but it's not a gotcha interview. This is just, I'm asking questions because I truly, deeply care about the country just as much as Newt Gingrich does but we differ on the answers, I believe. I'd like to have him convince me that I'm wrong. I would love to have him convince me that I'm wrong. Mr. Newt Gingrich, how are you, sir?

GINGRICH: I'm doing well. How are you?

GLENN: I'm very good. Let's start with ‑‑ let's start with a piece of audio here where you were talking about healthcare and you went down the progressive road with Theodore Roosevelt.

GINGRICH: And for government to not leave guarantees that you don't have the ability to change, no private corporation has the purchasing power or the ability to reshape the health system, and in this sense I guess I'm a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. In fact, if I were going to characterize my ‑‑ on health where I come from, I'm a Theodore Roosevelt Republican and I believe government can lean in the regulatory leaning is okay.

GLENN: Regulation and the government scares the crap out of me and I think most Tea Party kind of leaning conservatives, and Theodore Roosevelt was the guy who started the Progressive Party. How would you characterize your relationship with the progressive ideals of Theodore Roosevelt?

GINGRICH: Well, that depends on which phase of Roosevelt you're talking about. The 1912, he's become a big government, centralized power advocate running an a third party candidate which, for example, Roosevelt advocated the Food and Drug Act after he was eating ‑‑ and this supposedly the story, after he was eating sausage and eggs while reading up to Sinclair's The Jungle, which has a scene in which a man falls into a vat at the sausage factory and becomes part of the sausage. And if you go back to that era where people had ‑‑ dealing with the Chinese where the people had doctored food, they had put all sorts of junk in food, they ‑‑ you know, I as a child who lived in Europe and I always marveled at the fact that American water is drinkable virtually anywhere.

So there are minimum regulatory standards of public health and safety that are I think really important.

GLENN: Okay. So you're a minimum regulation guy on making sure the people don't fall into the vats of sausage?

GINGRICH: Yeah. What I'm against is the government trying to implement things because bureaucracy's such a bad implementer, and I'm against government trying to pick winners and losers. I mean, there's no accident that the Smithsonian got $50,000 from the Pierre plane and failed and the ‑‑ from the Congress, and that the Wright brothers invented the airplane because ‑‑

GLENN: Okay.

GINGRICH: But I do think ‑‑ and I think almost everybody will see this, I believe. You want to make sure, for example, if you buy certain electric things that they don't start fires in your house.

GLENN: Got it.

GINGRICH: You know, that kind of thing.

GLENN: But you're not into picking winners and losers. So you would not have done the GM bailout?

GINGRICH: No. No, absolutely not. I think they would have ‑‑ I think they would be better off today ‑‑ remember you can have ‑‑ you can have a bankruptcy for reorganization, not for liquidation.

GLENN: Right. But you are ‑‑

GINGRICH: They go through a reorganization bankruptcy, they would be much better off than they are today.

GLENN: Sure. But you have selected a winner when you are for, quite strongly, the ethanol subsidies.

GINGRICH: Well, you know, that's just in question. When Obama suggested eliminating the $14 billion a year incentive for exploring for oil and gas, everybody in the oil patch who's against subsidizing ethanol jumped up and said, hey, you can't do that. If you do that, you're going to wipe out 80% of exploration, which is all done by small independent companies, not by the majors. I supported, I favored the incentive to go out and find more oil and gas. Now, that's a tax subsidy. It's a bigger tax subsidy than oil ever got. But I want American energy to drive out Saudi Arabia and Iranian and Iraqi energy and Venezuelan energy. And so I am for all sources of American energy in order to make us not just independent but to create a reservoir so that if something does happen in the Persian Gulf in the Straits of Hormuz, the world's industrial system doesn't crash into a deep depression.

GLENN: Why would we, why would we go into subsidies, though? Isn't ‑‑ aren't subsidies really some of the biggest problems that we have with our spending and out‑of‑control picking of winners and losers?

GINGRICH: Well, it depends on what you're subsidizing. The idea of having economic incentives for manufacturing goes back to Alexander Hamilton's first report of manufacturing which I believe was 1791. We have always had a bias in favor of investing in the future. We built the transcontinental railroads that way. The Erie Canal was built that way. We've always believed that having a strong infrastructure and having a strong energy system are net advantages because they've made us richer and more powerful than any country in the world. But what I object to is subsidizing things that don't work and things that aren't creating a better future. And the problem with the modern welfare state is it actually encourages people to the wrong behaviors, encourages them not to work, encourages them not to study.

GLENN: All right. You said if you are a fiscal conservative who cares about balancing the federal budget, there may be no more important bill to vote on in your career than in support of this bill. This was what you said about a new you entitlement, Medicare prescription drug program.

GINGRICH: Which also included Medicare Advantage and also included the right to have a high deductible medical savings account, which is the first step towards moving control over your health dollars back to you. And I think is a very important distinguishing point. On the government, my position is very straightforward. If you're going to have Medicare, which was created in 1965, and was created at a time when practically drugs didn't matter. There weren't very many breakthroughs at that point. To take a position that we won't help you with insulin but we'll pay for your kidney dialysis is both bad on a human level and bad on financial level. Kidney dialysis is one of the fastest growing centers of cost and we spend almost as much annually on kidney dialysis as the entire National Institute of Health research budget, about $27 billion a year right now. If we say to you we're going to pay for open heart surgery but we won't pay for Lipitor so you can avoid open heart surgery, it's both bad (inaudible) but it's also just bad financially. So we ‑‑

GLENN: But aren't you starting with a false premise here? If we're going to have the Johnson Act, then well, then we should do this. Isn't that starting with a false premise? Shouldn't we be going the other direction instead of building on ‑‑

GINGRICH: Which is why ‑‑ which is why they had both Medicare Advantage, which is the first (inaudible) diversity and choice in Medicare, and it's why they put in the health savings account model, which is the first big step towards you being personally in charge of your own savings. And I think that that's a ‑‑ your point's right. The question is how do you manage the transition so it is politically doable. And I ‑‑

GLENN: But you believe ‑‑ no offense, but you believe voting for something that is ‑‑ you're trying to transition into smaller government by also supporting a bill that has in it a gigantic giveaway?

GINGRICH: Well, you've already given away ‑‑ that's my point. I don't see how one defends not having the ability to avoid the requirement for surgery, which is what this is all about. And the question is can you live longer and more independently and more healthily with the drug benefit than without it, and I think that if ‑‑ and you can make the (inaudible) and say, well, Medicare. A, you won't win that in the short run. So you're going to have Medicare. And the question in the short run is, so you want to have a system that basically leaves people with bad outcomes, or do you want to, in fact, maximize how long they can live and how independently they can live.

GLENN: All right.

GINGRICH: And that's just a fundamental difference.

GLENN: All right. Well, and I think this is where we fundamentally differ is it seems to me ‑‑ and let me just play the audio here ‑‑ that you are for the individual mandate for healthcare and you have been for quite some time. Let's play the audio.

GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That's 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It's a variation on it.

GLENN: Here's about Paul Ryan trying to fix Medicare.

GINGRICH: I don't think rightwing social engineering is any more desirable than leftwing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.

VOICE: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting which is completely changing Medicare?

GINGRICH: I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon. I don't want ‑‑ I'm against ObamaCare which is imposing radical change and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.

GLENN: Okay. Yet you seem to always be ‑‑ this is long‑term individual mandate stuff. You seem to be very interested in the government finding the solution.

GINGRICH: Well, let's go back to what I just said. What I was asked was if a program is unpopular, should the Republicans impose it anyway. We can go back and we can listen to exactly what I was asked on that show and what I said I stand by, which is in a free society, you don't elect officials to impose on you things that you disagree with. We just went through this slide over ObamaCare.

Now, I also, ironically, I would implement the Medicare reforms that Paul Ryan wants, I would implement them next year as an optional choice and I would allow people to have the option to choose premium support and then have freedom to negotiate with their doctor or their hospital in a way that would increase their ability to manage costs without being involved, you know ‑‑ but I wouldn't impose it on everybody across the board. I think that's a very large scale experiment. But I think you could migrate people toward it. I'm proposing the same thing on Social Security. I think young people ought to have the right to choose a personal Social Security insurance savings account plan and the Social Security actuary estimates that 95% of young people would pick a personal Social Security savings account over the current system but they would do so voluntarily because we would empower them to make a choice. We wouldn't impose it on them. That's a question of how do you think you can get this country to move more rapidly toward reform, and I think you can get it to move toward reform faster.

GLENN: All right.

GINGRICH: By giving people the right to choose.

GLENN: Let me just ‑‑ I just want to get to a few things. You've supported the ‑‑ you voted for the Department of Education, you in 2007 said very cautious about changing Fannie and Freddie. On global warming, with sitting down on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, and I would agree with you that was the dumbest moment ‑‑ you know, it would have been the dumbest moment of my life. And I agree with that. But when you look at, it's not a moment of your life. In speech after speech, in your book Contract with the Earth, even with John Kerry in a debate, you said this.

GINGRICH: Evidence is sufficient, but we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon looting of the atmosphere.

VOICE: And do it urgently?

GINGRICH: And do it urgently, yes.

GLENN: Now, you have John Kerry in this debate sticking up for the private sector and you say the government should help pay.

GINGRICH: I think there has to be a, if you will, a green conservatism. There has to be a willingness to stand up and say, all right, here's the right way to solve these as seen by our values system. And now to have a dialogue about what's the most effective way to solve it. First of all, I think if you have the right level of tax credit, it isn't just exactly voluntary. My guess is there's a dollar number at which you would have every utility in the country agree they are all going to build private and sequestering power points. So I think this is a definable alternative.

KERRY: This is a huge transition. You actually want the government to do it. I want the private sector to do it.

GINGRICH: No, no, no. I want the government to pay for it.

KERRY: You want the governor to pay for it with a big tax credit.

GLENN: Help me out. This is a multiyear stance. It's not a moment in your life.

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, I fought in those (inaudible) and I believe in the environment in general and I think ‑‑

GLENN: So do I.

GINGRICH: Okay. Second, I think that there is evidence on both sides of the climate change argument, and the point I was making was in a situation where, for example, having a larger nuclear program reduces carbon in the atmosphere, it's a prudent thing to look at nuclear as one of the actions.

GLENN: But you ‑‑

GINGRICH: It's a prudent thing to develop a green coal plant that takes the carbon and puts it into carbon sequestration to use it to develop oil fields more deeply and can be actually economically done. We do it right now in West Texas.

GLENN: All right. So you believe that you can't, you can't really change fundamentally? You would have to vote for the prescription drug bill because you couldn't move, but you believe that you can get nuclear power plants built in a Gingrich administration?

GINGRICH: Oh, sure. I also think you can reshape Medicare but I think you have to do it in a way that people find it desirable and that people think ‑‑ and that people trust you. I helped reform Medicare in 1996 in a way that saved $200 billion and we had no major opposition to it. And people concluded that we had thought it through and we were doing the right thing and they were comfortable with it.

GLENN: Do you ‑‑ do you still believe in the, you know, the Inconvenient Truth as outlined by global climate change advocates?

GINGRICH: Well, I never believed in Al Gore's fantasies and, in fact, if you look at the record, the day that Al Gore testified at the Energy and Commerce Committee in favor of cap and trade, I was the next witness and I testified against cap and trade. And in the Senate, I worked through American solutions to help beat the cap and trade bill. Cap and trade was an effort by the left to use the environment as an excuse to get total control over the American economy, centralizing a Washington bureaucracy. In the end it had nothing to do with the environment. It had everything to do with their desire to control our lives.

GLENN: Newt, I have to tell you, I ‑‑ you know, because, you know, it's obvious it was very clear in advance and I hope my staff made this very clear that this isn't going to be an easy interview but I think you've ‑‑ you know, there was no gaffes here by any stretch of the imagination. I didn't expect any. But I appreciate the willingness to come on and answer the tough questions, and I wish you the best.

GINGRICH: Well, sir, you and I have always had a great relationship and I admire your courage and I admire the way in which you've always stood up and told the truth and I think you've had a huge impact as I go around the country with Tea Party folks in maximizing interest in American history and interest in the Founding Fathers and I think much of what you've done, you know, you and I don't have to agree on some things to have a great deal of mutual respect and I think you've been a very powerful force for good and I wish you well in your new ventures.

GLENN: Thank you very much. Newt Gingrich, thank you for being on the program. Back in just a second.

 

Glenn is back on TV! Watch Glenn's new two-hour show available live and on-demand Monday through Friday on GBTV.com! Start your two week free trail HERE!

Is Trump's prosecution NORMAL?  This COMPLETE list of ALL Western leaders who served jail time proves otherwise.

PhotoQuest / Contributor, The Washington Post / Contributor, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Mainstream media is on a crusade to normalize Donald Trump's indictments as if it's on par with the electoral course. Glenn asked his team to research every instance of a Western leader who was jailed during their political career over the past 200 years—except extreme political turmoil like the French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, Irish Revolution, etc.—and what we discovered was quite the opposite.

Imprisoning a leader or major political opponent is not normal, neither in the U.S. nor in the Western world. Within the last 200 years, there are only a handful of examples of leaders in the West serving jail time, and these men were not imprisoned under normal conditions. All of these men were jailed under extreme circumstances during times of great peril such as the Civil War, World War II, and the Cold War.

What does this mean for America? Are Trump's indictments evidence that we are re-entering times of great peril? Below is a list of Western leaders who were imprisoned within the last 200 years. Take a look and decide for yourself:

Late 1800s

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Jefferson Davis: The nearest occurrence to a U.S. President to serve jail time was in the case of Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederate States of America. Jefferson was captured in Georgia by Northern Soldiers in 1865 and locked up in Fort Monroe, Virginia for two years. He was offered a presidential pardon but refused out of his loyalty to the confederacy.

Early 1900s

PhotoQuest / Contributor | Getty Images

Eugene V. Debs: Debbs, a Midwestern socialist leader, became the first person to run for president in prison. He was locked up at a federal penitentiary in Atlanta having been convicted under the federal Sedition Act for giving an antiwar speech a few months before Armistice Day, the end of World War I. Many of his supporters believed his imprisonment to be unjust. Debs received 897,704 votes and was a distant third-part candidate behind Warren G. Harding, the Republican winner, and James M. Cox, the second-place Democrat. Harding ordered Debs’s release from prison toward the end of 1921.

Nazi sympathizers and collaborators: After the end of World War II in 1945, several European leaders who had "led" their countries during the Nazi occupation faced trial and imprisonment for treason. This list included Chief of the French State Philippe Pétain, French Prime Minister Pierre Laval, and Minister-President of Norway Vidkun Quisling. The latter two were also executed after their imprisonment. President of Finland Risto Ryti and Prime Minister of Finland Johan Wilhelm Rangell were also tried and jailed for collaborating with the Nazis against the Allied Powers.

Late 1900s

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The end of the Cold War: The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was one of the pivotal moments that brought the Cold War to a close and marked the end of Communist East Germany. With the fall of the wall and the collapse of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), the former leaders were brought to trial to answer for the crimes committed by the GDR. General Secretary Erich Honecker and General Secretary Egon Krenz were both put on trial for abuse of power and the deaths of those who were shot trying to flee into West Germany. Honecker was charged with jail time but was released from custody due to severe illness and lived out the rest of his life as an exile in Chile. Krenz served 4 years in jail before his release in 2001. He is one of the last surviving leaders of the Eastern Bloc.

Lyndon LaRouche: Larouche was a Trotsky evangelist, public antisemite, and founder of a nationwide Marxist political movement, became the second person in U.S. history to run for President in a prison cell. Granted, he ran in every election from 1976 to 2004 as a long-shot third-party candidate. When he tried to gain the Democratic presidential nomination, he received 5 percent of the total nationwide vote. Even though in 2000 he received enough primary votes to qualify for delegates in a few states, the Democratic National Committee refused to seat his delegates and barred LaRouche from attending the Democratic National Convention.

TOP 5 issues that have gotten WORSE since the last State of the Union

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

If you saw Biden's State of the Union last week, or Glenn's firey reaction to it, you know that Biden hardly spoke a word that wasn't a flat-out lie.

If you spent the last 12 months in a fallout shelter and Biden's speech was the only media interaction you had since the last State of the Union, you might be tempted to believe that the country has improved in some way over the past year. But the rest of us, who have been living above ground, going to the grocery store, and paying some attention to current events, had only to look around to see that Biden's speech was nothing but hot air.

Here are the TOP 5 issues that have gotten worse since the last State of the Union.

Economy

Biden spent a significant amount of time during the State of the Union boasting about the strength of his economy, but anyone who has checked their bank account lately was left wondering if he was holding his speech upside down. It's not just the cobwebs in your wallet; the numbers show the devastation wrought by "Bidenomics" too. In 2022, American grocery bills increased by 11.4 percent and restaurant bills by 7.7 percent. In 2023 prices only continued to rise, with an additional 1.2 percent increase in food-at-home prices and a 5.1 percent increase in away-from-home prices.

Debt crisis and inflation

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The national debt continues to grow, and Biden managed to add almost 3 trillion dollars in just one year. As of December 2022, the national debt was $31.42 trillion. As of January 2024, the national debt has risen to $34.19 trillion.

Inflation didn't fare much better. While the 2023 annual inflation rate did drop from the horror of 2022, from 6.5 to 3.4 percent, that is still significantly higher than anything we saw before 2021. You also have to remember that it CARRIES year to year, as Glenn explained in his response to Biden's State of the Union: "Yes, it's not as bad as it was, but it's still what it was PLUS what it is now."

Border

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Biden's mismanagement of the southern border has inflamed the border crisis to all-time highs. In 2022 there were a staggering 2.2 million illegal border crossings, but that wasn't enough for Biden apparently, as an additional 2.5 million illegally crossed in 2023. An estimated 10 million illegal immigrants have crossed the southern border since Biden took office, and the effects are being felt. There has been a surge in crime across the country that is impacting millions of Americans, including the tragic murder of Laken Riley.

Fentanyl

The fentanyl crisis has only continued to worsen as more and more synthetic opioids flood our streets. Between the fiscal year 2021 and 2022, there was a shocking 54 percent increase in fentanyl trafficking offenses as more and more of the narcotic is smuggled across the southern border. We also saw an increase in fentanyl overdose deaths. In 2022 there were approximately 73,654 deaths, which is a significant increase from 70,601 in 2021.

Education and mental health

While the pandemic is long over, the lingering effects of the lockdowns are still being felt. Unsurprisingly, missing years of school has a major impact on the educational development of children. Kids across America are STILL struggling from pandemic-related setbacks, reading scores are still falling, and parents are reporting that their kids are struggling in their studies. The mental health crisis, another symptom of the COVID lockdowns, has also continued to worsen. Tragically, suicides increased by 2.6 percent between 2021 and 2022, marking the continued decline of mental health in America.

TOP FIVE takeaways from Super Tuesday

Anna Moneymaker / Staff, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

The 2024 Presidential Election is taking shape.

Yesterday was Super Tuesday, the single biggest day in the presidential primary season. More than one-third of all delegates needed for a candidate to become the Presidential nominee of their party was up for grabs along with a plethora of state and local elections. In short, yesterday's results will shape the rest of the election season. It was a big deal.

Here are the top 5 takeaways from yesterday's elections:

Haley drops out

Nikki Haley drops out of the 2024 Presidential election.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After the mass exodus of Republican candidates in January, most commentators agreed that it was only a matter of time before Haley stepped out as well. Haley put up a valiant effort and held out almost two months longer than the other Republican candidates, but after a disappointing turnout on Super Tuesday, she made the call to step back from the race. There was a small victory for Haley fans, however, in that she won Vermont, her first state primary victory following her win in Washington, D.C.

Trump sweeps the board

Trump wins over 1,000 delegates during Super Tuesday.

Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

While Haley had a disappointing day yesterday, Trump and his team celebrated a huge win. Aside from Vermont, Trump won every state that had a primary. At the time this was written, Trump had picked up a whopping 731 delegates, bringing his total to 1,004, out of the required 1,215 to win the presidential nomination.

Democrats are not committed to Biden

Biden wins big on Super Tuesday, but he is struggling to maintain his Democrat base.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

On paper, Biden had an excellent Super Tuesday, winning every state primary except American Samoa. However, a closer look reveals cracks in his supporter base. Yesterday, a shocking 19 percent of Minnesota Democrats voted for "uncommitted" instead of Biden. While that wasn't enough to change the outcome of the primary, it shows that Biden is walking on shaky ground, even among Democrats.

This phenomenon wasn't limited to Minnesota either. Eight percent of Colorado and Tennessee Democrats voted "uncommitted," and 10 percent of Massachusetts Democrats and 10 percent of North Carolina Democrats voted "no preference." Is this more evidence of a third-quarter bait-and-switch that Glenn has hypothesized?

The search to replace Feinstein continues

Adam Schiff and Steve Harvey compete for Diane Feinstein's Senate seat.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff, Barry King / Contributor | Getty Images

California is having two Senate elections to replace the late Senator Dianne Feinstein. There is a special election to fill out the remainder of her term and a regular election to fill her seat for the next six years. The results of the Tuesday primaries put Republican and former Los Angeles Dodgers player Steve Garvey and Democrat Adam Schiff as the front runners, and the two of them will be going head-to-head in November. Surprisingly, even in deep blue California, Garvey won more votes than Schiff in the special primary. Does Garvey have a chance?

Ted Cruz is back up for election in Texas

Ted Cruz is up for re-election in 2024

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

The Texas senate primaries were also on Tuesday, and Ted Cruz is back up for election in November. Cruz comfortably won the Republican Primaries with 88 percent of Texas Republicans backing him. Rep. Colin Allred, a Dallas-area congressman won the Democratic primary with a narrower margin of 58 percent. While it's easy for Texans to take their state's red status for granted, it is vital Texans stay vigilant and cast their vote this November.

This is YOUR CHANCE to make a difference!

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, arguably the most consequential election day leading up to the 2024 election. However, every election leading up to November is critical for determining the trajectory of our country. This may be the most important election season in recent memory, so it is imperative that we do our part and head to the polls, even for smaller elections.

Listeners of Glenn's show are already aware of the multitudes of serious problems that face our nation. From the crisis on the southern border that's letting criminals flood our streets to the never-ending flow of American tax dollars funding a proxy war in Ukraine, it's clear that the people currently in charge are not cutout for the job.

We need to put responsible people back in office and we cannot let any more left-wing activists take power. YOU need to go out and vote and make your voice heard. Check out our COMPLETE list of all the upcoming elections in the 2024 election season. Mark your calendars, plan ahead, and STAND UP!

Alabama

State Primary- March 5th

State Primary Runoff- April 2nd

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Alaska

State Primary- August 20th

Republican Presidential Caucus- March 5th

Democratic Presidential Caucus-April 6th

Click here for more information

Arizona

State Primary- July 30th

Presidential Primary- March 19th

Click here for more information

Arkansas

State Primary- March 5th

State Primary Runoff- April 2nd

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

California

State Primary- March 5th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Colorado

State Primary- June 25th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Connecticut

State Primary- August 13th

Presidential Primary- April 2nd

Click here for more information

Delaware

State Primary- September 3rd

Presidential Primary- April 2nd

Click here for more information

Florida

State Primary- August 20th

Presidential Primary- March 19th

Click here for more information

Georgia

State Primary- May 21st

Presidential Primary- March 12th

Click here for more information

Hawaii

State Primary- August 10th

Republican Presidential Caucus- March 12th

Democratic Presidential Caucus- April 6th

Click here for more information

Idaho

State Primary- May 21st

Republican Presidential Caucus- March 2nd

Democratic Presidential Caucus- May 23rd

Click here for more information

Illinois

State Primary- March 19th

Presidential Primary- March 19th

Click here for more information

Indiana

State Primary- May 7th

Presidential Primary- May 7th

Click here for more information

Iowa

State Primary- June 4th

Republican Presidential Caucus- January 15th

Democratic Presidential Caucus- January 15th

Click here for more information

Kansas

State Primary- August 6th

Presidential Primary- March 19th

Click here for more information

Kentucky

State Primary- May 21st

Presidential Primary- May 21st

Click here for more information

Louisiana

State Primary- March 23rd

State Primary Runoff- April 12th - April 17th

Presidential Primary- March 23rd

Click here for more information

Maine

State Primary- June 11th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Maryland

State Primary- May 14th

Presidential Primary- May 14th

Click here for more information

Massachusetts

State Primary- September 17th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Michigan

State Primary- August 6th

Presidential Primary- February 27th

Click here for more information

Minnesota

State Primary- August 13th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Mississippi

State Primary- March 12th

State Primary Runoff- April 2nd

Presidential Primary- March 12th

Click here for more information

Missouri

State Primary- August 6th

Republican Presidential Caucus- March 2nd

Democratic Presidential Caucus- March 23rd

Click here for more information

Montana

State Primary- June 4th

Presidential Primary- June 4t

Click here for more information

Nebraska

State Primary- May 14th

Presidential Primary- May 14th

Click here for more information

Nevada

State Primary-​ June 11th

Presidential Primary-​ February 6th

Click here for more information

New Hampshire

State Primary- September 10th

Presidential Primary- March 12th

Click here for more information

New Jersey

State Primary- June 4th

Presidential Primary- June 4th

Click here for more information

New Mexico

State Primary- June 4th

Presidential Primary- June 4th

Click here for more information

New York

State Primary- June 25th

Presidential Primary- April 2nd

Click here for more information

North Carolina

State Primary- March 5th

State Primary Runoff- TBD

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

North Dakota

State Primary-June 11th

Republican Presidential Caucus- March 4th

Democratic Presidential Caucus- April 6th

Click here for more information

Ohio

State Primary- March 19th

Presidential Primary- March 19th

Click here for more information

Oklahoma

State Primary- June 18th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Oregon

State Primary- March 19th

Presidential Primary- March 19th

Click here for more information

Pennsylvania

State Primary- April 23rd

Presidential Primary- April 23rd

Click here for more information

Rhode Island

State Primary- September 10th

Presidential Primary- April 2nd

Click here for more information

South Carolina

State Primary- June 11th

State Primary Runoff- June 25th

Republican Presidential Caucus- February 24th

Democratic Presidential Caucus- February 3rd

Click here for more information

South Dakota

State Primary- June 4th

State Primary Runoff- August 13th

Presidential Primary- June 4th

Click here for more information

Tennessee

State Primary- August 1st

State Primary Runoff- August 31st

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Texas

State Primary- March 5th

State Primary Runoff- May 28th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Utah

State Primary- June 25th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Vermont

State Primary-August 13th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Virginia

State Primary- June 18th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Washington

State Primary- August 6th

Presidential Primary- March 12th

Click here for more information

West Virginia

State Primary-May 14th

Presidential Primary- March 5th

Click here for more information

Wisconsin

State Primary- August 13th

Presidential Primary- April 2nd

Click here for more information

Wyoming

State Primary- August 20th

Republican Presidential Caucus- TBD

Democratic Presidential Caucus- April 13th

Click here for more information