National Review Online's Josh Jordan breaks down election day stats

November 06, 2012

Writer

On radio this morning, Glenn spoke with the National Review Online's Josh Jordan about the latest poll numbers. How did Hurricane Sandy affect the polls? And how is Romney doing with independents compared to Barack Obama?

Check out the transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: All right. We've talked to you about a lot of people who are saying, you know, like Dick Morris who is saying, "Hey, I think this is the way it's going to turn out." We can't get Stu to buy into any of these happy little tales. We can't get him to buy into any of them.

PAT: He's a little black rain crowd.

GLENN: No. No, no, no, let me tell you something. Yeah, but that whole...

PAT: Obama, Obama gets 281 electoral votes.

GLENN: Yeah. Until we came up with Josh Jordan, Josh Jordan apparently is somebody that Stu is like, "Oh, all hail Josh Jordan." So we wanted to get ‑‑

STU: He's my ray of sunshine.

GLENN: I know.

PAT: Our comments and our opinion, dirt.

GLENN: Dirt.

STU: Yeah, this he don't mean anything.

GLENN: Josh Jordan ‑‑

PAT: Refuse.

GLENN: Let's have Josh Jordan take a picture with a halo behind him.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: But Josh is from the National Review Online and he is actually one of the credible voices that knows what he's talking about on polls. So we thought we would get him on and make our little black rain cloud called Stu go away.

Josh, how are you, sir?

JOSH JORDAN: I'm doing good. How are you doing?

GLENN: I'm very good. Tell me what you see happening today.

JOSH JORDAN: Well, it looks like one of the things we saw last week was that the race obviously tightened. I think post‑Hurricane Sandy, Obama got a little bit of a boost, and we're seeing a little bit of that fading, which is good for Romney because what we're seeing most specifically is that independents are going right back to Romney's camp, which is where they were about a week and a half ago. So I think of all of the national polls, Romney's up about 8 points with independents and that is what Obama won by in 2008. That flip by itself takes Obama's 2008 win from 7% to about 2 1/2%. So even if 2008 turnout, if independents show up for Romney like the polls are showing, that would cut the lead to a point where Republicans basically just need the turnout to a level of any of the past, you know, five, six presidential elections outside of 2008 when Romney can win this.

GLENN: Okay. Josh, I've been talking to David Barton and Ralph Reed and they all tell me, and I sense it as well, that they have never seen in their lifetime, even with Reagan in the height of the Christian Coalition, they have never seen churches activate like they are right now. Is anyone taking those into consideration?

JOSH JORDAN: And that's the thing that I really don't understand about the polls this year, and we've seen it from, you know, the summer on, you know, all the way into now and I think that you can see the crowds, you can see the enthusiasm, you can see the grassroots from churches, from communities, and it's something that, you know, to a certain extent Obama saw in '08 when he had, you know, the youth vote and all that kind of coming together. And I just don't think that it's being picked up in the same way and I think it's one of the reasons you're going to have a lot of discussions about polling after this election because they are having a hard time kind of grasping, you know, the enthusiasm among Republicans which, you know, if you look at 2010, it translated the votes and it should translate this time as well.

GLENN: But can't we also look at the depression of the voter for Obama? I mean, do you see anywhere where it is in large numbers excited to go out and vote for the president?

JOSH JORDAN: I mean, no. You have enthusiasm among Obama supporters about you when you look at it compared to four years ago, it's way down. And so what you're going to see most likely is that among pretty much all groups, Obama is going to be down with turnout, especially with the youth, and then on the other hand you've got Romney who has built a lot of enthusiasm from ‑‑ obviously from where McCain was four years ago. So really, you know, if Republicans can turn out in numbers anywhere near what Gallup and what Rasmussen have been showing, Romney can have a huge night. And I think that will go into, again, showing that polls are just not able to pick up the enthusiasm in the turnout. It's just almost like a group think that they assume Obama can repeat the turnout he had four years ago.

GLENN: What are some of the signs that we should look for today and tonight?

JOSH JORDAN: Well, I mean, I think one of the early signs will be Florida just because from all accounts that has been a state where Romney has been able to get a little bit of space and I think that if that's called earlier, that's a great sign. That said, I think, you know, networks are going to be pretty cautious, the colony thing.

GLENN: Especially Florida.

JOSH JORDAN: Exactly.

GLENN: Yeah.

JOSH JORDAN: I think Virginia, Virginia's an obvious state to look for. Some would argue Virginia's a little bit tighter because of Sandy.

GLENN: Tell me about ‑‑ tell me about Minnesota. Do you think Minnesota could flip?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Minnesota's one of those states where if Romney has a huge night, it would flip. I think that, you know, you're looking probably at about a 3, 3% deficit for Romney, you know, in a race where it's really close. So I think if Romney were to come out and win, you know, by 3, 4%, it could flip. I think it's kind of one of those tiers of states with Michigan where, you know, if Romney has a huge night, he can flip Minnesota, he can flip Michigan.

GLENN: Wisconsin?

JOSH JORDAN: He can flip Nevada.

GLENN: Wisconsin?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Wisconsin looks good as it is. I think that one of the mistakes of the recall for Democrats was basically forcing Republicans to get a machine to get out the vote.

GLENN: I agree.

PAT: Massachusetts? How about Massachusetts? New York?

JOSH JORDAN: Yeah, Massachusetts is going to be a tall order.

PAT: Going to be tough.

JOSH JORDAN: For Romney.

GLENN: Is Indian squaw going to ‑‑ is she going to win?

STU: Oh, Elizabeth Warren?

GLENN: Elizabeth Warren, yeah.

JOSH JORDAN: You know, yeah, I mean, Scott Brown seems like he's closed the gap a little bit but I think Elizabeth Warren is going to activate her heritage to get out the vote herself.

PAT: Do you really? Do you think she will beat Scott Brown?

JOSH JORDAN: I think it's going to be really close.

PAT: Wow.

JOSH JORDAN: It looks like one of those races again where, you know, some of the polls are anticipating higher democratic turnout because of the presidential election but since it's not close, I tend to think Scott Brown actually gets an advantage there because the Republicans will turn out no matter what. And I think that's going to help them along with independents. So really I think that one's going to be really close.

GLENN: Pennsylvania?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Pennsylvania's got a shot. I mean, you know, you look at the polls tightening, you look at the enthusiasm. I don't think for a second that Romney went there as a head fake. That looks like something they calculated a while ago, kind of a last‑second barrage to try to catch Obama off guard, I think.

GLENN: And Ohio?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Ohio looks pretty close but, you know, I've said since September that I think that Romney's going to win it. I'm still holding strong on that. I think it's going to be close but I think he wins, you know, maybe by a point, point and a half, something like that.

GLENN: Nevada?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Nevada's a tall order. The early vote is the better for Republicans than it was four years ago but it's going to be a huge get out the vote. Which I think that Republicans are much more set up for this year than they were last election. But tough.

GLENN: Iowa?

JOSH JORDAN: Iowa I think goes Romney, very slightly goes Romney.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: And Colorado?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Colorado goes for Romney. I think it's a state that's tightened a little bit. Some of the more partisan polls have Obama with the lead but I think that, you know, overall we've seen a very steady and slight Romney lead. And I think their early voting numbers are way better than they were in '08 and I think that that's going to translate to a victory.

GLENN: How comp ‑‑ how confident in these predictions are you?

JOSH JORDAN: I'm confident. You know, I think the caveat's always, you know, do Republicans turn out the way we think they will but I mean ‑‑

GLENN: So if there's a pretty big turnout, we can come over to your house and kill you tomorrow if you're wrong?

JOSH JORDAN: I don't know if I'm going to go that far, but you guys can certainly ‑‑

GLENN: Put your money where your mouth is.

JOSH JORDAN: ‑‑ hang me for the embarrassment for everybody.

GLENN: Yeah. You know what, Josh, that's going to be really interesting is if you're right, if we're right, there's a few people who are out on the edge, and I'm farther ‑‑ what a surprise, farther out on the edge than you are. I'm saying that it's going to be over 300 in electoral votes, and I don't believe that it's going to be all that close. I think this is going to end a lot earlier than everybody thinks. The media is going to have a lot of explaining to do. I mean, one of us is going to be greatly discredited tomorrow, and it very well could be me but I mean, really? I mean, there's no ifs, ands, or buts on this one.

JOSH JORDAN: Yeah. And, you know, it's going to be one of those things that's going to be interesting because I think a lot of Republicans feel really strong about this and if you look back four years, people didn't feel strong. And there's a reason that a lot of conservatives feel strong about this one. I really think that, you know, to your point, there is an absolute chance that Romney gets over 300 because you've got party identification surveys showing Republicans outnumbering Democrats in local polls. If that happens tonight, Romney easily gets over 300. Even if Democrats outnumber Republicans by a few percent, Romney wins. So I think there's much more potential for a big Romney win than there is for a small Obama win.

STU: Josh, there's a lot of people, especially online, Democrats have hitched their wagon to Nate Silver from the New York Times who I think is a really smart guy. He was one of the first guys I remember predicting the taking of the House for the Republicans in 2010. So I mean, he's not crazy. But his model is now predicting a 91% chance of Obama winning tonight. And you've gone through and really looked at the model the way he weights polls and everything else. Do you think he has anything ‑‑ I mean, is he leaning this on purpose? Is it just too overly confident in the polling? What's the ‑‑ what's going on there?

JOSH JORDAN: Well, I mean, I think his particular model basically just takes all of the public polling, averages them out and then puts a little bit of kind of a ‑‑ I know people like to kind of make fun of it as being like a secret sauce. But he tweaks them. Personally I think that he puts more emphasis on the polls that tend to favor Obama like the NBC Marist polls get heavily weighted and those have been hugely skewed to Obama this year and, you know, it's kind of one of those things where anyone can look at, you know, the average of polls and make a prediction. I think, you know, the approach I took this year was to actually look inside the polls and say, okay, you know, this poll makes sense because, you know, the turnout looks like it could happen. And I think that's the difference between the way I look at it and the way he looks at it.

As far as the 91% goes, you know, he's kind of hedging that a little bit this morning by saying, "Well, 91%, but it's still going to be really close." I think, you know, it's going to be interesting. You know, if Romney comes out and wins big, I think it's going to kill this whole concept that you can just take every public poll, average it together, tweak it a little bit and then declare yourself ‑‑ declare it a model. I think that's going to change.

GLENN: Does this feel more like 2004, 2008, or 2010?

JOSH JORDAN: To me it feels kind of between, you know, a little bit of all three. I think '04, you know, you had more independents breaking to Kerry but Republicans got out to vote. In '08, you know, obviously it was a wave election for Democrats. And in 2010 you can make the argument it was almost a wave election for Republicans. I think this election you're going to see both parties get out to vote but I think Republicans are much more energized, much more enthusiastic. And then on top of that you have independents breaking to Romney, which is why I think, you know, you might not see that kind of washout that you saw in 2010, but I think you're going to see potentially a more decisive victory than you saw in 2004.

GLENN: I'm in love with you, Josh. I would like to buy you dinner and some drinks sometime and...

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Assuming you're right. Otherwise we come to your house and kill you tomorrow.

JOSH JORDAN: Well, I was just going to say, what are you going to buy me if I'm wrong tonight.

GLENN: Thanks a lot, Josh, I appreciate it.

JOSH JORDAN: Thank you. Have a good one.

GLENN: All right. Bye‑bye. We're going to ‑‑

STU: A ray of sunshine. I feel optimistic after that phone call.

GLENN: Black cloud, shhh.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.