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.

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?

Who will be Kamala Harris' VP pick?

JIM WATSON / Contributor, Chris duMond / Stringer, Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Over the weekend, President Joe Biden officially dropped out of the 2024 presidential election and put forward his endorsement behind his Vice President Kamala Harris.

Glenn recently predicted that Biden would step down due to the mountain of pressure within his party to do so. But now that we are here we are faced with an all-new line of questions, like, who will be the candidate on the Democratic ticket? Who will be their pick for vice president?

As of now, the answer to the first question seems to be Kamala Harris, who received the support of the president and several prominent democrats. It's still too early to call for certain, and Glenn doesn't think it's likely, but assuming Kamala becomes the Democrat nominee, who will her VP pick be? There are endless possible options, but there are a 5 big names that could prove beneficial to Harris' campaign:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom

Bill Pugliano / Stringer | Getty Images

Governor Newsom has spiked in popularity within his party since his taking office in 2019 due to his scathing criticisms of President Trump and other Republicans. Newsom has been a popular contender as a possible Biden replacement, and a future presidential bid seems likely.

His widespread recognition may be a boon to Kamala's ticket, but the California governor comes with a dark side. Newsom was famously nearly recalled as Governor in 2021, hanging on to his office by a narrow margin. He also faced criticism for his hypocrisy during the COVID lockdowns, attending large gatherings while the rest of his state was locked inside. There's also the issue that both Newsom and Kamala are from California, meaning that if they were to appear on the same ticket, that ticket would lack geographical balance and would potentially lead to a Constitutional issue that would force the duo to forfeit all 54 of the states' Electoral College votes.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Another prominent Democrat Governor, Josh Shapiro has also been floated as a potential VP pick. Governor Shapiro has become a viable pick due to his well-received performance as Pennslyvania's Governor. The governor has good support within the swing state due to his handling of the I-95 bridge collapse, the train derailment in East Palestine, which had effects on his state, and the assassination attempt on the former president last week. Shapiro would bring much-needed support from the swing state if he was put on the ticket.

That being said, Shapiro has little time to build nationwide name recognition before the DNC in August and the November election. This would be Shapiro's debut on the national stage, and he would find himself in the most unforgiving situation possible.

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg

FREDERIC J. BROWN / Contributor | Getty Images

Former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and opponent of Biden during the 2020 Democratic primaries, "Mayor Pete's" name recognition might be what Kamala needs on her presidential ticket. Buttigieg rose to popularity during the 2020 election due to his youth and status as "openly gay." Buttigieg has served as the Secretary of Transportation during the Biden administration for the past four years and has formally endorsed Harris.

Nevertheless, Buttigieg has some dark spots on his resume. The East Palestine train derailment disaster has besmirched his reputation as Secretary of Transportation. And while his youth may work in his favor when compared to the other elderly members of our federal government, it also means Buttigieg lacks the experience and prestige that other politicians enjoy.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer

Noam Galai / Stringer | Getty Images

Yet another governor of a crucial swing state, Whitmer was elected in 2018, two years after President Trump was elected, helping secure the state for the Democrats. Whitmer is known for her strong opposition to Trump, both during his presidency and his reelection campaign. Whitmer serves as co-chair for the Biden-Harris campaign and as vice chairperson of the DNC, which gives her influence over the Democratic party, something that would come in handy as a Vice President. Gov. Whitmer also established the Fight Like Hell PAC, which is dedicated to helping Democrats get elected and to stopping Trump by any means.

On the other hand, in a statement following Biden's resignation from the election, Governor Whitmer stated that her role “will remain the same.” It is also worth noting that if she were to be chosen as Kamala's VP, that would make their ticket all-female, which may foster some "woke points," but is politically risky.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear

Lexington Herald-Leader / Contributor | Getty Images

Andy Bashear has seemingly beaten the odds twice, having been elected and reelected as the Governor of Kentucky, despite the deep-red nature of the state. Beshear, who has moderate tendencies, would be a boon to the Harris campaign as he has a track record of reaching rural, typically conservative regions where Democrats tend to struggle. He is also known for his propensity to talk about his Christian faith and willingness to work with Republicans, which are traits that might help win over moderates.

But, like Gov. Shapiro, Bashear has very little time to whip up national support and recognition. He also is unlikely to be very much help for the Harris campaign in winning over important swing states.

Five times Glenn had J.D. Vance on his show and where he stands on key issues

CHANDAN KHANNAMANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

We finally have an answer to the long-awaited question of who Trump will pick for his running mate, and it's none other than Ohio Senator and friend of the show, J.D. Vance. At the RNC in Milwaukee, Trump officially accepted the party's nomination as the Republican candidate and announced J.D. Vance as his running mate.

Glenn has had Senator Vance on the show several times to discuss everything from DEI to the Southern Border. If you are looking to familiarize yourself with the next potential Vice President, look no further, here are five conversations Glenn had with Trump's VP pick:

Glenn's Show Prep