Election by Numbers: Stu's Final Count

November 08, 2016

Writer

Most polls and pundits are predicting a Hillary win tonight. What about Stu Burguiere, co-host of The Glenn Beck Program and poll aficionado?

"Stu's final board for the electoral college is being put together right now," Glenn said Tuesday on his radio program.

Making a few last-minute calculations, Stu revealed his final predictions for the Electoral College vote count.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these nail-biting questions:

• Which state is Stu hedging on?

• Did Hillary make it into the Douche Hall of Fame?

• Does Glenn predict a blowout or razor-thin win?

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

GLENN: Stu, you want to give us one more look at the -- I know they're making all new maps for us tonight and everything. We have our coverage beginning at 7 o'clock Eastern. We are going to be looking at some of it as we go on. We'll be looking at some of the -- the -- the funnier or the crazier moments of this election. Because this election has been crazy from the beginning. And so we're looking for you on the feed. I know Jeffy is asking people on the feed. You probably tweet them to Stu show. Is that right? Stu show?

STU: Oh. @worldofStu.

GLENN: @worldofStu. And you can tweet @worldofStu for the craziest moments that you would like us to cover tonight and play clips from, as we watch this thing unfold.

I'm going to be on with NBC tonight and Tom Brokaw at -- on NBC, not MSNBC, but NBC, tonight at 10:00 something or other. I begin with them. But I'm also going to be covering it here on TheBlaze. And it's going to be radically different coverage here. But Stu is going to be looking at all of the exit polling and everything else, as he does for us every year. And he was very, very right last year. He was the only one in this -- on this show. We called him the little black rain cloud. He was the only one on this show that got it right. We wanted so desperately to believe.

STU: You know, it's a weird situation. And there's some -- if you are a Trump fan, you can look at some positives, as opposed to what happened to Romney. Because Romney was very close. Closer to Trump in the national polls. But the idea that Hillary could actually lose with -- in a close election is possible still.

If you go through -- someone went through and put the -- all the RealClearPolitics Averages into an electoral map, and it was like one state away, 272-266 or something, with Hillary.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: So it could be that close. There are states that Trump is winning by .2 percent that he's getting credit for in there. Of course, that's the way the system works. So he would get credit for those.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But they're just very unsure.

GLENN: It depends on who shows up today.

STU: It really does. You know, there's a -- there's a -- one of the arguments for Trump is, basically we've seen the story of two different groups: Hispanic voters, very activated, going out to vote in record numbers. Black voters, not as excited about this one. They were excited about Barack Obama, not as excited here. So their vote has fallen off a little bit.

The issue with that is Hispanic voters are very -- about half of Hispanic voters are located in two states. And neither of those two states are swing states, at least usually, California and Texas.

So the fact that they're very active may not do anything for either of them. And that's half of the population, roughly. So that's a big deal. However, a couple of states, something like Nevada could really easily be swung. We talked about some of the early voting data there. And it's not promising if you are a Trump supporter in -- in Nevada.

GLENN: Could I give you first what I heard today from internal polling? Put it up on the board and show me.

Let's give North Carolina -- they say it's too close to call in internal polling. Let's give North Carolina to Trump

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Let's give Maine to Trump.

STU: Okay. That's Maine, by the way, just the one district.

GLENN: Yeah, one district. Let's give Florida to Clinton.

STU: Florida, Clinton.

GLENN: Ohio to Trump.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Nevada, I don't have any information on, so I'm going to give it to Clinton. And let's give Michigan to Trump, out of the Clinton pile.

STU: Wow. That's an interesting map.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Well, let's see. You would have -- the only thing we really changed here --

GLENN: Michigan and Florida.

STU: Yeah. I mean, problem is -- so you're gaining 29 for Hillary. You're pulling out 16 and you're pulling -- you're only losing 17 -- that would be worse for --

GLENN: Let me give New Hampshire too, to Trump.

STU: Again, I don't think that gets you there because new Hampshire is only four electoral votes. So you're pulling over 200 --

GLENN: Okay. That's being as generous -- okay. Now give Florida.

STU: Yeah, if he gets Florida with this, he definitely wins.

GLENN: He definitely wins.

STU: The issue is, he cannot lose Florida. To me -- realistically, he can't lose Florida or North Carolina. Either one of those states, he loses. It's over. Because --

GLENN: How about Ohio?

STU: Ohio, he -- I'm kind of counting that for him. While it's still pretty much

technically a swing state --

GLENN: Okay. They're counting.

STU: -- you can't get anywhere Trump winning without Ohio. And he's actually winning the polls there. So I expect him to win Ohio tonight, which is usually the biggest swing state. Ohio and Florida bounces back and forth.

North Carolina is not usually the biggest swing state. But it does seem to be this time. And North Carolina, I think the early voting actually looks fairly good for him. You can't predict states by early voting.

GLENN: Yeah. Today -- today, as of this morning, the Republicans are counting on North Carolina. They're counting on a win for the Senate. That will be the last Senate seat that will put them in charge of the Senate. They are not counting on Florida. They are counting on Michigan.

When I say counting, I should say, they think that it's in play and they could win it.

Maine. Ohio, they are counting on. Michigan, they believe they could win today. New Hampshire, they believe they're going to win. So it's only Florida that they think they're not going to win. And Nevada looks horrible, doesn't it?

STU: Nevada looks really bad. I mean, to give you a sense on Nevada, the early vote, the Democrats led by a large margin. Going into Election Day, all the assumptions that are pretty rational and probably pretty favorable for Trump -- if you take favorable assumptions, he needs to win today by about ten points.

Now, that is -- you know, Romney lost on Election Day in Nevada last time. Trump does not have the ground game that Hillary has. This is -- we've talked about this yesterday in that, in a way, Nevada has turned into one of the -- sort of like the new Michigan, in that like it's all -- it's all unions there now. The Reid machine in Nevada is still very powerful, and they think that they've been able to put that one away.

If you do that, it gets very difficult. Because then you're looking at picking off -- you know, probably the easiest map for him to get there was to win Nevada and then also win New Hampshire out of our leaning Democrat column because New Hampshire he actually had some really good polls. New Hampshire is difficult to poll. It's not a -- it's a very crazy sort of state with polling.

And, you know, maybe he's -- he would be able to pull that one out. There's a good Senate race there. So you would think a lot of Republicans would be activated to get out for that as well, even if they're not maybe huge Trump fans. So if he could pull that out and then get Maine's second district, he can get right to 270. But without Nevada, that's not possible. You know, assuming he doesn't pick off some other more unlikely state.

So right now, he's in a position where it is -- there is no room for error. And he needs to really go beyond that.

GLENN: What are the states -- what are the absolute firewall states that we're going to be seeing first tonight? That if he loses -- like, we won't know Florida until at least 9 o'clock.

STU: Right. It's going to take a long time -- they called it -- it took four days for them to call it last time.

GLENN: God help --

STU: So that's -- it's going to -- you're not going to get any Florida calls, really. I mean, that takes a long time.

GLENN: Really?

STU: But that's the thing, if you get a call of one of those two states early, it will basically be over. They will not make the mistake of 2000 and call that thing super early without knowing for sure.

GLENN: Right.

STU: At least you would expect they wouldn't.

GLENN: But if it's called early for Trump, that's good.

STU: Oh, yeah. If it's called early for Trump, he's in it. But it's not enough for him.

GLENN: No, I know that. But if it's called early, it might mean that he has such a groundswell that, you know, the people are showing up and -- I mean, right now, he is, in internal polling, behind in Florida by two. And so if they call it early, it means that there was a real groundswell, that that thing might have been four or five points off.

STU: And right when we get on with Blaze coverage tonight, we will go into this. Because what you're getting out of early closings on the east coast is not how the election -- you're not going to get a sense of, "It's over." You get a sense of what the environment is. The environment tends to set up basically the same way around the country. If Donald Trump is going to win this, he's going to be activating a lot of voters that aren't showing up in polling for some reason.

GLENN: Right.

STU: If that happens, you'll see it right away in these states.

GLENN: What should we look for in exit polls today, early? Because, remember, by 4 o'clock in last -- in 2012 -- now, we didn't say this, but by 4 o'clock in the afternoon in 2012, we know -- we knew who was going to win. Pretty sure.

We didn't want to believe it. But we were pretty sure because of the exit polling.

STU: Exit polls -- some exit polls leaked. However, exit polls leaked for Kerry in 2004, which showed him winning. So, I mean --

GLENN: No, it wasn't the leaked stuff that we saw. It was, we saw internal stuff. Remember? We were -- we were tipped off.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And we were like, "What?" But we didn't believe it.

STU: Right. Right. Right.

But, you know, what I'm saying, those exit polls that were leaked were legitimate, just wrong. Exit polling is difficult to do. You're polling before polls are even closed. There's a lot of, you know, messiness when it comes to that stuff. Of course, I'm going to sit here and obsess about it all day, obviously. I can sit here and stare at every one of them, but you have to take all of that with a big grain of salt.

So I think if you see early on indications that Trump is doing a good job, bringing out white voters from -- from outside of the normal sort of Republican base, voters who are, you know, blue color Democrats.

GLENN: I think you'll see that in Ohio.

STU: In Michigan, there's one county where everyone points to, which is the Reagan Democrat county: Macomb, I guess I think it is. And they always say that's the Reagan Democrat -- every analyst says the same thing: That's the Reagan Democrat county.

If you see that coming out and that swinging towards Trump heavily, you'll get an indication that he's actually activating those voters.

And if he does that, he has a chance to win. Again, this early voting data just says, if there are Republicans or Democrats that have come out, not if they're winning the vote. If every Democrat came out and voted for Trump, it would look the same way.

So they're assuming that all the Democrats are coming out and voting for Clinton. Maybe they won't.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. I have Blake in Missouri who just voted. He wants to tell us his vote. Go ahead, Blake.

CALLER: Yeah, Glenn. I know you guys are focusing on the election between Clinton and Trump. And that's all important, I guess. But I think we really need to talk about what happened yesterday on the Pat & Stu show, when I had the honorable pleasure of partaking in the vote to put Hillary Clinton in the Douche Hall of Fame.

PAT: Thank you. That's incredibly important.

STU: Wow.

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: So you did vote for Hillary Clinton. I want all your friends to know that.

CALLER: I absolutely did vote for Hillary Clinton.

PAT: Yeah. And she made it. She made it into the Douche Hall of Fame. To her credit, she got a surprisingly low 98 percent.

GLENN: Wow.

PAT: Surprising.

STU: Yeah.

CALLER: Yeah, I was -- I was disappointed. I was hoping for that 100 percent, but it just didn't happen.

STU: Our models all showed 99.2 percent, and it just didn't happen.

PAT: It just didn't happen.

[break]

GLENN: Stu's final board for the electoral college is being put together right now.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And it is final, 308 for Hillary Clinton and for Donald Trump --

STU: 230.

PAT: Why do you want Hillary to win!

JEFFY: Why?

PAT: Why do you want Hillary to win! Why! I knew it. I knew it. I knew you wanted Hillary to win! Why?

GLENN: 230?

PAT: Hillary! Win! Why!

STU: Florida, I'm really hedging on, but it doesn't make a difference in the outcome. I -- I had Florida on one column. I just moved it over right before we came back.

PAT: It's just a matter of, is it a bigger win?

STU: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: 230-278.

STU: Right. It wouldn't make a difference for Hillary.

GLENN: For Hillary, it won't make a difference.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: We'll see you tonight.

STU: I wouldn't be --

GLENN: I wouldn't be surprised if it was a blowout or if it was razor thin sharp.

PAT: Either way, get out and vote.

Featured Image:

'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