Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

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

November 06, 2012
Wilson

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.

        The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given
    

         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.