The Brexit Argument Doesn't Hold Water for Trump's Campaign

October 26, 2016

Writer

What can we learn from the Brexit vote? Some believe it was a come-from-behind victory, and provides a sign post for a Trump win in November. But is that flawed thinking?

"Leading up to the Brexit vote, there were 34 polls taken. In those polls, three of them were tied. "Remain" --- stay in the European Union --- won 14 of the polls. And "leave," the one that actually wound up winning, won 17 polls. So actually, it was a very tight toss-up election with a slight advantage to leave, okay? It was not some crazy last minute victory for leaving the European Union," Co-host Stu Burguiere said.

While some polls say Clinton is ahead, many say Trump has the advantage --- and the sources have everything to do with the perspective. Additionally, with voters on both sides having serious doubts about their candidate, the outcome is anything but certain.

"If that's true on both sides, then they'll probably cancel each other out," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these alternate questions:

• Why do Breitbart and Drudge Report point to the Brexit vote as an optimistic sign for a Trump win?

• Did the betting markets believe that "remain" or "leave" would win in Europe?

• Should you take time before the election to figure out which alternate universe provides your sources?

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

GLENN: Right now, I want to talk a little bit about Brexit. I asked Stu a couple days ago to look at the truth behind Brexit. Because everybody said that was a surprise. And I don't remember that being a surprise.

STU: Right. And this kind of goes back to what we talked about earlier with the Newt Gingrich/Megyn Kelly thing. I mean, it can go back and forth. And they were yelling -- Newt was yelling at her about how she's fascinated with sex. And, you know, there's controversy on both sides of that. But the most important part of that entire interview to me was Gingrich saying something completely true, which is, there are currently two alternate universes when it comes to these campaigns.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: I mean, if you go -- if you live and bounce back and forth between Drudge and Breitbart and other sites and shows, you're going to see a situation which is laid out for you, that this is a -- I mean, Trump is winning. The polls are showing he's winning. You know, it's surprising to see anything that would favor Clinton.

I mean, I think Drudge today is featuring three polls, two of which have Clinton winning. The third one is the LA Times poll, I think. But he's only showing you the three polls where it's very close.

There are -- this month, there have been 24 polls -- 25 polls taken of the race between Clinton and Trump. And Hillary Clinton is winning 24 of those polls. Twenty-four of 25. The only one that Trump was winning was one day on the Rasmussen reports poll which he was winning by two. And he's currently losing that poll.

PAT: If you were to look at the Drudge Report, it looks like he's winning by a lot. Because it says, Trump pops Florida, which I don't know what that means. Up four in Ohio. Pulls to within three in Pennsylvania.

And then you scroll down to the poll watch. IDD: Clinton plus only one. LA Times: Trump plus one. Rasmussen: Clinton plus one. So the only ones to ever highlight are the ones that look good for Trump.

GLENN: It is two parallel universes.

STU: Alternate universes.

PAT: It is. It is.

STU: So you should take time before the election and figure out what universe your sources are from.

GLENN: You are living.

STU: Because I think there are two alternate universes. There are some that say Clinton is ahead. There are some that say that Trump is ahead. Which universe are you listening to, and which one is going to be right? I mean, you'll have to look at that yourself. We could have a huge swing in the election or whatever.

But one of the big arguments is, which is a strange argument, is the Brexit argument. Because Drudge will say Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. Trump will say Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. Breitbart will say Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. And the idea you're supposed to get is this idea that Brexit and the leave vote -- leaving the European Union was way behind and the polls were all wrong and it wound up the other way around, that leave one and they pulled out.

First of all, if you're on these sites and they're only showing you polls where Trump is winning or within one point, it would be a surprise at all if Trump won. So you wouldn't need the Brexit argument. It makes no sense whatsoever.

But the Brexit argument in and of itself is flawed. As I said, there's been 25 polls in the month leading up to this election that have been taken. Twenty-four of the 25 have been Clinton favorites.

That is not the case at all with Brexit. Leading up in the last month, leading up to the Brexit vote, there were 34 polls taken. Thirty-four polls. In those polls, there were three of them that were tied. Remain the -- stay in the European Union. Won 14 of the polls. And leave, the one that actually wound up winning, won 17 polls. So actually, it was a very tight toss-up election with a slight advantage to leave, okay? It was not some crazy last minute victory for leaving the European Union. It was a surprise to a lot of people. And I think what a lot of people are complaining here are the betting markets. The betting markets believed that in the end remain would win, that they would stay in the European Union.

GLENN: Because they thought it was corrupt.

STU: And I think the betting markets thought in the end, people are talking trash, but in the end, they're going to wind up coming back home. Okay?

GLENN: See, if I were betting, I would bet the exact opposite right now. That people are saying, nah, just -- you know, but in the end, they're going to look at their life, and they're going to say, I can't take anymore of this. I want somebody to blow it up.

STU: And that may be the case. There are two arguments to that. There are a lot of people who make the argument Trump is entertaining. Trump is fun. But do I really want him running my country? And I'm not even talking about Republicans. I'm talking about moderates and people who wouldn't typically agree with building walls and such. They might like Trump and his attitude, but in reality --

GLENN: And if that's true on both sides, then they'll probably cancel each other out.

Featured Image: In this photo illustration, the words 'IN' and 'OUT' are depicted on mugs on March 17, 2016 in London, United Kingdom. The United Kingdom will hold a referendum on June 23, 2016 to decide whether or not to remain a member of the European Union (EU), an economic and political partnership involving 28 European countries which allows members to trade together in a single market and free movement across its borders for citizens. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep