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)

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

   USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

   Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

 

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.