Stu Reviews the Latest Polls for South Carolina and Nevada

February 17, 2016

Writer

According to Stu, there are two ways to look at polls --- one is if you like America and the other is if you don't. Unfortunately, the latest poll numbers will make the latter group happier.

Going into South Carolina, the polls show Trump at 35, Cruz at 17.5, Marco Rubio at 15.8, Bush at 15 and Kasich at 14. Ben Carson isn't really a factor in South Carolina.

The first real poll from Nevada also came out which has Trump at 45, Rubio at 19 and Cruz at 17. Jeb Bush has spent $100 million in Nevada, and he's at 1 percent.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

STU: So polls are out and such.

JEFFY: Oh, boy.

STU: And, well, it depends on what you -- like there's different ways to look at them.

PAT: I look at them with my eyes. How do you look at them?

STU: You're about to look at them with your ears because I'm going to read them.

PAT: Okay.

STU: But I will say there are a couple of ways to look at them. One is actually if you like America and the other is if you dislike it.

PAT: I like it.

STU: If you dislike it, these polls look great. They're fantastic. If you like it, yeah, this is not going to be as good for you.

JEFFY: You probably shouldn't look with your ears.

STU: No. You don't want to look with your ears on those.

So basically as we're leading to South Carolina right now, we're looking at about -- polls are very consistent. Donald Trump with a 17- to 18-point advantage. So, again, this would be a monumental all-time political choke if he were to lose this or, really, if it was anywhere close.

JEFFY: Wouldn't that be something?

STU: The question really is kind of coming more between second place. Right now, in the average poll, it's Trump at 35, Cruz at 17.5, Marco Rubio at 15.8. So those two are pretty tight.

Beyond that, really, there's not much going on. Bush has had a couple good polls. He did have one poll where he hit 15 in South Carolina. And, you know, Kasich has one poll where he hit 14. Ben Carson is really not a factor here at all.

But they also released the first real poll of what's going on in Nevada. It goes South Carolina, then Nevada for Republicans. It's the reverse of that for Democrats. Nevada is first.

For Republicans, Trump 45, Rubio 19, Cruz 17. I want to read the rest of them because of the last one. Cruz 7 percent, Kasich 5 percent, Jeb Bush 1 percent. Jeb Bush has spent $100 million, and he's at 1 percent in Nevada

PAT: Jebmentum.

STU: Jebmentum is coming.

JEFFY: Don't start making fun of Gilmentum. Okay. Jeb can't latch on to the strength of Jim Gilmore, I'll tell you that.

PAT: No, you're right. You're right.

STU: Jim Gilmore did get 0 percent in this particular poll.

JEFFY: Well, he decided not to run anymore.

STU: Why, Jeffy?

JEFFY: Move on, Stu. Move on.

STU: I want to give you this, this is a great one. I want to see if you can guess at this. This is a poll from PPP, which is a Democratic polling outfit.

PAT: I don't know it's necessary for you to use that kind of language on this show. I really don't.

JEFFY: We're listening with our ears.

STU: So PPP is known for --

PAT: Oh, my gosh, he did it again.

STU: -- slipping in questions that occasionally might make certain voters look bad. They're a Democratic polling outfit.

PAT: So you're saying the PPP people is a bunch of pee-pee?

STU: Well, it's a legitimate polling outfit, but they'll slip in questions like --

PAT: Like what?

STU: I don't know if they've ever done this particular one, but something like, "Do you believe Obama is a Muslim?" You know what I mean? To see if they can get that, "Well, 20 percent of Republicans have called Obama a Muslim."

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You know, they look for those results. So they decided to do this in South Carolina. The question was, "Are whites a superior race?"

PAT: Oh, I like this one. And, of course, those damnable racists, ignorant southern Republicans.

JEFFY: Ninety --

PAT: 98 percent said yes?

JEFFY: Ninety-eight. If it's not --

PAT: Almost 100 percent.

STU: They broke it down by ideology. So are whites a superior race? 7 percent of very conservative voters said yes. That's embarrassing.

PAT: That's embarrassing.

STU: That number is approximately 7 percent too high. 7 percent of very conservative voters said whites were a superior race. Now, somewhat conservative voters, 12 percent said whites are superior race. How about moderate voters? These are the people who are in the middle. They're just looking at the field, and they're saying, "You know what, I don't have a strong opinion on anything."

PAT: So these might be independents?

STU: Centrists, you know. 11 percent of centrists and moderates said whites are a superior race. Now, we get into somewhat liberal. These people obviously are going to be -- it's going to be way lower than the conservative number.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Because these people are enlightened.

PAT: It's got to be under 7 percent. Right?

STU: It's got to be under 7 percent for sure.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Actually 12 percent of somewhat liberal voters said that whites are a superior race. But then you get to very liberal. And this is where it really --

PAT: Well, they are diverse. They're inclusive.

JEFFY: Minus. Negative.

STU: If 7 percent of very conservative voters said that whites are a superior race, that number is going to be way lower for --

PAT: It will be zero. I'm guessing 0 percent.

STU: Again, 7 percent of very conservative voters said whites are a superior race. 33 percent of very liberal voters said whites are a superior race.

JEFFY: My gosh.

PAT: You got to be -- it's 33 percent?

STU: That's amazing. 33 percent. Now, the sample sizes they would say are not big enough.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

STU: But 33 percent --

PAT: That's great.

STU: That is amazing. So next time someone on Facebook or something tells you that you're a racist because you like lower taxes, remind them that 33 percent of very liberal voters think whites are a superior race. There you go. Crazy.

PAT: That is absolutely amazing.

JEFFY: It sure is.

PAT: So what was the overall breakdown? Did they give that number? Overall, how many people thought whites were a superior --

STU: I think it was 10 percent overall.

PAT: Ten. That's pretty small.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Pretty small.

STU: It's still 10 percent too high.

PAT: It is.

STU: Very small. You'll always have somebody -- we've talked about before --

PAT: Liberals.

STU: Around -- anything under 11 percent of voters, you almost can't even count in polls like this. Because 11 percent of voters will believe anything: You know, no one has ever landed on the moon. That Paul McCartney was killed in 1967. That, you know, Elvis is alive today.

You can get 10 percent on almost anything.

PAT: Right.

STU: So there you go.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep