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

Brokered Convention: Everything You Need to Know

March 16, 2016
Jon Boldt

Writer

Sean Trende joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday to explain just how a brokered or contested convention might work and broke down how he sees the rest of the GOP primary playing out.

Trende is the senior elections analyst at Real Clear Politics and knows his stuff better than just about anybody.

Listen to the segment from radio or read the transcript below.

The Math is the Math

GLENN: Okay. And, Sean, you're not a political guy. You're just here to tell us how this system works, right?

SEAN: Yeah, that's right. I can't lie and say I don't have strong feelings about some of these candidates. But at the end of the day, I try to be a data guy. The math is the math. And the way we think this thing is going to pan out, you know, it's just driven by the rules and the math.

GLENN: Can anybody actually get to the convention with enough delegates to actually win it outright? Can they?

SEAN: They can. And the fact that John Kasich is going to stay in the Republican race going forward does help Donald Trump do that. But it's by no means a guaranteed thing that this is going to happen. I'd say there's probably a 50/50 shot that no one gets the delegates they need to avoid a contested convention.

GLENN: If Kasich was out, would Cruz have an equal shot at getting the delegates, do you think?

SEAN: Yeah. I think if Kasich had said, you know what, I did what I needed to do in Ohio, but there's no path to the nomination, you know, I'm going to use my 66 delegates to try to be the vice presidential nominee.

If you look at the exit polls, they ask head-to-head questions. In Michigan, Cruz came out ahead of Trump in a two-person race. He almost certainly would have won North Carolina and Missouri. So, yeah, without Kasich, Cruz's path looks much better.

Understanding the Rules

GLENN: Okay. So tell me, what are the rules, can they actually bring somebody in from the outside like this and expect us not to rebel?

SEAN: Yes, they can bring someone in from the outside after the first ballot. But, no, I think especially someone like Jeb Bush who was soundly rejected by the Republican electorate, it would be suicide to have him come in and, surprise! I'm the nominee.

GLENN: Kasich actually thinks he's going to be the president of the United States. He's not not even close. He's not even close. How are they thinking that they're going to manipulate these numbers to be able to get a winner that we could all coalesce around?

SEAN: Yeah. I don't know what Kasich is thinking. I live in Ohio. And it's not surprising to me. But he's -- he's wrong, if he thinks he's going to be the nominee.

Look, I think the idea of Ryan or somebody like that -- look, if we can get to Cleveland and this thing goes five or six ballots and nobody can pull together a majority, in the past, that's where dark horse candidates have emerged. But there's not going to be a scenario where we have the first ballot and then Paul Ryan pops out on the second ballot. Something like that only happens if there's just no way to come to terms with -- between the two candidates who have a reasonable number of delegates.

The Power of Delegating: Explaining the Voting Process

STU: Sean, can you explain the process here? Like, Rubio has 180 delegates, let's say. So they get to the convention. Does he still control those delegates? What happens to those? How does the bargaining process go when it comes to that -- when we get to the actual contested convention?

SEAN: So all this stuff is determined by the states. You know, some states don't have bound delegates at all. From the very first day, they can vote for whoever they want. And some states -- so the primary is just kind of what we call a beauty contest so that people can get a sense of where their state stands up.

Some states bind their delegates for more than one ballot, so on the second and third ballot, they still have to vote for the person. So Rubio can endorse someone. There are some states where he can instruct his delegates to vote for someone else.

STU: So after that first ballot, essentially these delegates in most cases get to do what they want to do. But the thought is that they probably would follow the lead of a Rubio or a Kasich?

SEAN: That's right. And, again, we get into the real nitty-gritty, some states these delegates have been hand-selected by the candidates. So in Ohio, the delegates are Kasich regulars. So they're more likely to listen to him.

In some states, they're just kind of like party officials. You know, the state committee chairman and the large counties. They don't have any loyalty to any candidate outside of what the rules say they have to do on the first ballot. So there it's free agents.

A Close Second Can Come in First

GLENN: So can I ask -- this is a really stupid question. Let's say it's -- I don't know, 1100 for Trump and, you know, 950 for Cruz. And we get to the second ballot or whatever.

How does Cruz not win that when it comes to, we've got a guy who is really close to Donald Trump? How does he not get those extra delegates, just 200 delegates just to push him over the top, especially if Marco Rubio is saying, I strongly urge you, you know? Or, I'm the vice president on that ticket, vote for Cruz.

SEAN: Right.

GLENN: How does he not win that?

SEAN: There are no stupid questions. And that's actually a very smart question.

GLENN: Oh, that's usually what people say when there's a stupid question.

SEAN: No, that is a very smart question. It is the question. Like, there is a point -- like, Donald Trump, if he walks in with 1236 delegates, is still going to be the nominee. But there is a point where, you're right. Like, especially since these delegates are by and large party regulars who have not been favorably inclined towards Donald Trump. You know, I think if Trump is at 1100 delegates, I think you sketched it out exactly right. There will be the first ballot. And then on the second ballot, they will break towards Cruz. But he has to be a substantial amount behind 1237 for that to occur.

GLENN: And what is that number, do you think? 1100?

GLENN: Because we got him unfortunately at 1139 in just doing a back of the paper. Today, we got him at 1139. So you think that's close enough that they'll just say, "He gets it?"

SEAN: You know, so 1139 would be almost exactly 100. You know, now my personal feelings come into it, and I'll say no.

But, you know, like there isn't a bright line, right? But I think 100 is where you start to say, you know, it's probably not going to be Trump being -- but conventions are just funny things. And they have been historically, whenever -- that's why we have these binding rules to keep them from being funny things. It's going to be weird, and it's going to be great for page views and listenership.

Who Runs the Show in a Brokered Convention?

GLENN: Okay. So tell me this: Who puts the convention together? Going into it, usually the nominee is helping pick the speakers and help build the platform and everything else. What happens here?

SEAN: That's another very good question. As you say, historically, you have a presumptive nominee, and the RNC just kind of turns the keys over and gives a bank account to the winning candidacy. But this time, the RNC is going to have to run it. They're going to have to plan it out. And they're going to have to try to plan it out the way it's at least perceived as fair. And that's a really tall task.

GLENN: We look at John Kasich and say, "He just doesn't get it. What delusional world is he living in?" But can I ask the same question -- and I'd love to hear your opinion, if you have one. What delusional world does the G.O.P. come from right now, where Mitch McConnell came out and said, "Hey, you know, maybe we'll throw our support behind Ted Cruz if he apologizes to me?" It was -- it was so clear last night that between Cruz and Trump, the establishment is rejected by the vast majority of people.

Where are they? Where are their heads? What's it going to take for them to start saying, "Hey, maybe I should start listening to the people?"

SEAN: You know, that's a very good question. I mean, this is to a certain degree the G.O.P. establishment's fault. Both in some of the ways they've behaved over the past six years, some major -- ten years really. Some major miscalculations on their part with legislation they've signed on to. I don't know what it's going to take for them to get it. Because it's pretty obvious that, like, your choice is Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. You don't demand that Ted Cruz apologize right now.

The Rubio Effect

STU: We were using this sort of this back-of-the-envelope math, where it's about four to one; they go to Cruz over Trump. Is that what you've seen in exit polls? And you think that that's something that goes forward in the same sort of way?

SEAN: Yeah, it's like I said, these exit polls have asked follow-up questions. So if it were just Cruz and Trump, who would you vote for? And we find that Trump gets almost no increase. No improvement in his showings in those questions.

So, yeah, if Rubio had dropped out two weeks ago or even a week ago, you know, he still would have lost Florida because of all the early voting. But last night would have looked very different.

GLENN: What about Kasich? If he would get out, who do his people break for?

SEAN: Again, his voters are disproportionately post graduate education, live in suburbs, you know, make over $200,000 a year. I don't know that -- I think a lot of them just stay home, quite frankly. But to the extent that they break, I think they break disproportionately for Cruz. They're the antithesis of Trump voters.

Featured Image: Caption:The West side of the US Capitol Building is seen in this May 1, 2012 photo in Washington, DC. AFP PHOTO / Karen BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

Civics isn’t optional—America's survival depends on it

JEFF KOWALSKY / Contributor | Getty Images

Every vote, jury duty, and act of engagement is civics in action, not theory. The republic survives only when citizens embrace responsibility.

I slept through high school civics class. I memorized the three branches of government, promptly forgot them, and never thought of that word again. Civics seemed abstract, disconnected from real life. And yet, it is critical to maintaining our republic.

Civics is not a class. It is a responsibility. A set of habits, disciplines, and values that make a country possible. Without it, no country survives.

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Civics happens every time you speak freely, worship openly, question your government, serve on a jury, or cast a ballot. It’s not a theory or just another entry in a textbook. It’s action — the acts we perform every day to be a positive force in society.

Many of us recoil at “civic responsibility.” “I pay my taxes. I follow the law. I do my civic duty.” That’s not civics. That’s a scam, in my opinion.

Taking up the torch

The founders knew a republic could never run on autopilot. And yet, that’s exactly what we do now. We assume it will work, then complain when it doesn’t. Meanwhile, the people steering the country are driving it straight into a mountain — and they know it.

Our founders gave us tools: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, elections. But they also warned us: It won’t work unless we are educated, engaged, and moral.

Are we educated, engaged, and moral? Most Americans cannot even define a republic, never mind “keep one,” as Benjamin Franklin urged us to do after the Constitutional Convention.

We fought and died for the republic. Gaining it was the easy part. Keeping it is hard. And keeping it is done through civics.

Start small and local

In our homes, civics means teaching our children the Constitution, our history, and that liberty is not license — it is the space to do what is right. In our communities, civics means volunteering, showing up, knowing your sheriff, attending school board meetings, and understanding the laws you live under. When necessary, it means challenging them.

How involved are you in your local community? Most people would admit: not really.

Civics is learned in practice. And it starts small. Be honest in your business dealings. Speak respectfully in disagreement. Vote in every election, not just the presidential ones. Model citizenship for your children. Liberty is passed down by teaching and example.

Samuel Corum / Stringer | Getty Images

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Start with yourself. Study the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and state laws. Study, act, serve, question, and teach. Only then can we hope to save the republic. The next election will not fix us. The nation will rise or fall based on how each of us lives civics every day.

Civics isn’t a class. It’s the way we protect freedom, empower our communities, and pass down liberty to the next generation.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

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.