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)

'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.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep