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

October 30, 2012

Writer

With every news channel dedicated to Hurricane Sandy, attention next week's Presidential election has faded to the background. Even worse, the Benghazi crisis risks fading into the background of the news cycle. How are the battleground states shaping up? And what role will independents play in the election?

Stu explained that one of the most interesting polls came from NPR, which previously had Romney down seven points nationwide.

"The poll today came out with NPR and had Romney up one. So an 8‑point swing from the last poll," Stu said. "The key to this poll is they have Romney only leading by one. With independents Romney is winning by 12. If Romney wins 51‑39 on independents, there's no way he's only winning by 1."

"And I think this is where they are screwing it up. This is where what I'm talking about happens. Because it's independents that are the ones that aren't being counted right. It's the TEA Party vote that says I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent. And if he's up by 12 points, there's no way he wins by 1," Glenn said.

"You just have to do everything that you're supposed to do and get out and vote and grab a neighbor and bring them as well."

Transcription of the segment is below:

GLENN: Let's take a look at some of the state polls and where things stand now. Stu it up on the, if you're watching on TheBlaze TV, he's on the set for the election night coverage which isn't finished yet but we're putting the numbers up on the board, a gigantic board. It's actually, we took an old picture from the, I think 1960 race with Jack Kennedy from CBS and this is what ‑‑ I mean, we modeled our studio after that. It's a giant chalkboard in the back and it has all of the 50 states and where the, you know, where the poll numbers are. Will take me through the interesting places here, Stu.

STU: Well, all right. Let's go to what we have kind of a toss‑up races as we've been talking about. Colorado is one that's pretty close. Latest Rasmussen poll has Romney up 4 there, 50‑46. It's a pretty important state and one that I don't think Romney necessarily counted on at the beginning but he's polled well there. I t's kind of gone back to a toss‑up in some of the polling averages. Real Clear Politics has it right now at an exact tie.

GLENN: So Colorado is drifting back towards Obama?

STU: Yeah, the last few polls have showed that, but the Rasmussen poll ‑‑ I know you like Rasmussen most and he's been shown to be one of the most ‑‑

GLENN: Accurate.

STU: ‑‑ accurate pollsters around. So we used that generally where we could.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: So that's a big state for Romney.

GLENN: Colorado, you know, anybody who is in Colorado, you like your guns. Let me make a prediction: If Barack Obama wins on Tuesday, Wednesday you will not be able to ‑‑ the waiting list for guns because you won't be able to buy one not because of the government but because they will be selling at such high volume. It will be staggering. Wednesday will be the biggest gun sales day and next week will be the biggest gun sale week in the history of the world if Barack Obama wins next Tuesday.

STU: That happened last time he was elected, too.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, it will be ‑‑ it will dwarf that. It will dwarf that.

STU: Wow. Ohio is obviously the big state the it's got the fancy light on it and that's how you know it. But the fancy State of Ohio is still the biggest one. The latest poll from Rasmussen has Romney actually winning Ohio 50‑48. If that happens, he's got a really clear path to winning 270 electoral votes.

GLENN: I'm just so afraid of ‑‑ I'm so afraid of corruption. It really comes down to Cincinnati. Have we made the decision yet if we're going to be up in Cincinnati or Columbus this Friday? We had plans for three days of rallies up there and then the hurricane hit and we can't get our people out of New York and from all over. So we can't do it. We're supposed to do something possibly this weekend in Chicago and Ohio and Wisconsin and I don't know if we made that decision yet. Do we know?

STU: My last, what I last heard was Columbus on Friday.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: But I don't know if that's done yet.

GLENN: I've heard ‑‑ here's the problem. If you look at the numbers of registered voters in Cleveland, this is why they're hitting Cleveland so hard, Cleveland is way out of balance. It's almost all Democrat and they are trying to get Cleveland to vote in overwhelming numbers. That's why you have to get out to vote if you're not in the Cleveland area, you've got to get out and vote and overwhelm the rest of the state. Don't think that you're in a sleepy little town that doesn't matter because it does. You've got to get in there and vote and tear it up.

STU: Some of the other swing states, Glenn, Iowa we're showing a tie at 48‑48.

PAT: Wow.

STU: Another big state. Michigan is actually closer than a lot of people projected, especially because of the way Obama has tried to use this auto bailout as one of his big issues. Right now Obama only up 4 in Michigan. This really could go either way although still Obama would be favored there. Wisconsin is another one. Paul Ryan brings that one a little bit closer than was expected as well. Right now that one's tied in the latest poll, 49‑49.

GLENN: That's amazing.

PAT: Wow. That's huge.

GLENN: It really all depends on turnout. It really depends on turnout.

PAT: Kind of the way we have this right now so far is with ‑‑ if we give Romney the states that he's ahead in including Ohio, it looks like it's about 281‑257 Romney.

STU: A few other states, Pat. I don't know how you have them. Virginia. You probably have that for Romney.

PAT: For Romney.

STU: Right now the latest poll's 50‑48 Romney.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Wait, wait. Are you going to give Michigan to Romney? Because we're doing this on the polls, too.

PAT: No. So far I got that for Obama.

GLENN: Michigan for Obama?

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Pennsylvania you would have I would assume towards Obama.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Still leaning that way, although it's tightened recently. 51‑46 is the latest poll we have.

GLENN: Wow. That is within ‑‑ that is within striking distance.

STU: Yeah, it's not impossible.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: I mean, this could wind up being a sweep of the electoral college. It could be a sweep.

STU: Meaning ‑‑

GLENN: Either way.

PAT: Well, I mean ‑‑

STU: 540‑0?

GLENN: No, no.

STU: 538‑0?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: I mean a real landslide.

PAT: Yeah, it could.

GLENN: I mean, this could end up being a ‑‑

PAT: It could. I don't know if that's the most likely scenario but it could happen.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Well, with all of these states being so close, I mean, look, what was the ‑‑ give me the number of the day before. Somebody look up for me the number of ‑‑ the polling number for the Wisconsin recall the week before, three days before and the day before if we have it. What were the polls saying? Because didn't that win by six points or eight points? And I don't believe that poll was accurate.

STU: No, you're testing me and I don't know off the top of my head, Glenn. We can look it up to are sure.

GLENN: But don't you remember it being that way? Towards the end it looked like that thing wasn't going to pass.

STU: The Scott Brown one is a good example of that, Scott Brown in Massachusetts where he, a few weeks, just a couple of weeks before that election was trailing by 20 points and wound up coming all the way back and actually winning and becoming the senator and now he's running for a very tight reelection.

GLENN: Right. I think this happened in Texas as well where it's like six or eight points different than what the last polls say right before election time. I mean, if that holds true, all of these numbers are ridiculous. Anything close goes to Romney. And that's Ronald Reagan.

STU: Yeah. You know, it seems unlikely at this point that all of these would go that way.

GLENN: No, it does. I mean, I know it seems unlikely but ‑‑

STU: It's possible.

GLENN: It is possible because of the TEA Party and the 9/12 vote.

PAT: Well, let's give them the two states that are closest. Let's give them Michigan and Wisconsin. And if you did that, it's 307‑231. That's huge.

GLENN: That's huge.

PAT: That's a landslide.

STU: Yeah, it's not even going to be remotely close.

GLENN: Give him Florida.

PAT: He's got that.

GLENN: Did you give him Virginia? What is Virginia at right now?

STU: Virginia right now I think is two points lead for Mitt Romney, 50‑48 is what we have it at.

GLENN: Okay. What is left up on the board?

STU: A couple of swing states. New Hampshire. Did we talk about that yet?

GLENN: No.

STU: New Hampshire is 50‑48 Obama right now.

GLENN: Give it to Obama.

PAT: I did.

STU: Nevada is another one that's close, Obama 50‑48 as well, Obama.

GLENN: Give it to Obama.

STU: Florida has been trending towards Romney for a little while. The latest poll has him up two in Florida. And North Carolina is, I don't even know if you can count that as a swing state anymore. It looks like Romney's going to take that one, 52‑46 Romney right now.

GLENN: What about Iowa?

STU: We did hit Iowa here but it was ‑‑ let's see.

PAT: It was tied, wasn't it?

STU: 48‑48, an exact tie.

PAT: Tied.

STU: Give that one to Obama maybe.

GLENN: Yeah, give it to Obama. And Colorado give to Romney.

PAT: Yeah, okay.

GLENN: 301‑237.

PAT: I got 275‑263.

STU: And that's ultra tight, one state makes the difference there. And that's what's interesting.

GLENN: I wonder which state we gave on the bubble chart.

STU: There's one poll, Glenn, that came out today was from NPR and the last poll had Romney down 7 nationwide. The poll today came out with NPR and had Romney up one. So an 8‑point swing from the last poll.

GLENN: But here's the key to this poll.

STU: The key to this poll is they have Romney only leading by one. With independents Romney is winning by 12. If Romney wins 51‑39 on independents, there's no way he's only winning by 1.

GLENN: And I think this is where they are screwing it up. This is where what I'm talking about happens. Because it's independents that are the ones that aren't being counted right. It's the TEA Party vote that says I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent. And if he's up by 12 points, there's no way he wins by 1. You just have to do everything that you're supposed to do and get out and vote and grab a neighbor and bring them as well.

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

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

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

A revolutionary wedge

Negotiating with radicals

What we really celebrated