Senate Campaigns Were Never Intended to Be National Elections

November 16, 2017

WRITER

After reports about his alleged predilection for teenagers, Roy Moore’s Alabama campaign is becoming a national issue. But ultimately, his Senate race is about persuading voters in his own state.

“It doesn’t matter what we think,” Glenn said on today’s show. “It only matters what the people of Alabama think.”

Some Things Are More Important Than Winning

Glenn and Stu also talked about the basic principles of conservatism that Republicans are leaving behind because they simply want to “win.” When it comes to governing, Republicans have so far failed to keep their promises to repeal Obamacare, pass tax reform and fight for the average American. Where is their credibility now?

“I want to win elections … but I’m not going to pay any price to win elections,” Stu said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: You know, Stu just said to me, you know he's going to end up winning. I think he's going to.

STU: He probably will.

GLENN: I think he will. I think the people of -- of Alabama -- I mean, think of this, this is the reason why -- one of the reasons why our Founders made sure in the Constitution that all of the senators were -- were picked by the people in their state. And each senator was picked by the --

STU: The state legislature.

GLENN: Yeah. The state legislature. So we reversed that. With progressives, we reversed that. Why? To make every Senate campaign a national election.

Well, that's not what it was for. They were to make sure that they defend the state. It's changed everything. But also, it has involved all of us in something that we have nothing to do with it. We have -- we can sit here -- I can sit here in Texas. You can sit in Utah or California or New York, and we can all talk about this all day long. It doesn't matter what we think. It only matters what the people of Alabama think.

And I think the people -- I just have this feeling that -- remember how the Democrats dumped all of that money into the Georgia election?

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. And they dumped it all and said, "This is going to be a big deal and everything." And what happened? The local people were like, you know what, screw all you people. Don't come into our town and tell us what to do.

I think that might happen in Alabama.

STU: Yeah. Sean Trende is an elections analysis, and we've had him on before. Really smart guy. Over at RealClearPolitics. He said this -- tell me this isn't exactly what's happening, not only now, but in past elections as well. And I think it's a really understandable response.

He says: I don't think you can underestimate the degree to which many conservatives have this attitude. A, we fought a battle over whether character counts, and we got our asses handed to us. And, B, liberal leaders always circle the wagons around their guys, and ours always cave.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: Both of those things I think individually are true. But to me, it adds up to something that we should try to resist.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

STU: An instinct we should try to fight against.

GLENN: We don't want to be -- we don't want to be them. Otherwise, you have no -- otherwise, you have no credibility. They don't have any credibility with us. They can't ever make any inroads with us because they have no credibility. You can't talk to me about, oh, how much you care about women, Hollywood, when you're -- when you're defending all of these monsters and hiding them. You can't do it. You can't preach to me about ethics and how women are, you know -- have powerful males over them. And even if it's consensual, it's not really consensual, and then defend Bill Clinton. You can't do it. But they do.

I don't want to be that person. I don't want to be that. I don't want to defend people who are doing things that, you know, are slimy. I don't want to -- I don't want to be that person.

STU: And I think the battle there is, people will say, well, look at what that gets you. It means you lose.

If that's what it gets me, that's what it gets me. I want to win elections. I want to -- sure, yes. That's all true. But I'm not going to pay any price to win elections.

GLENN: Let me ask you this: That's what it gets you. Okay. If we don't stand by our principles, if we don't stand by and say, "No, I don't care if this guy can win, he's got to have principles," where does that get you? First of all, we have no credibility. We now as Republicans -- and I'm not a Republican, thank God. But now the Republicans -- and I'm afraid too many churchgoers and too many religious people and just blanket conservatives, now have lost all credibility to be able to stand up and say, "Hey, this is wrong. Morally, this is wrong. What are we teaching our children?" You can't say that anymore.

You not only have lost that. But you also have -- well, let's talk about Texas. We're for small government, right? Did we get that? Are we getting a giant tax cut?

No. Because the guy -- the guy who we elected doesn't really believe in that stuff. He's not a champion of that stuff. He just wins.

Well, he'll take a win. But it's not really a win. Not for conservatives. Not for small government. Not for low tax people. That's not a win.

How about -- give me the audio of the guy from the Pentagon? This is the new guy representing the DOD.

STU: Oh, yeah. Yeah. This is the Trump nominee for the DOD.

GLENN: Okay. So here's a guy that Trump is putting in, at the DOD -- now, he's talking about guns. This is our champion. Listen.

VOICE: I'd also like to -- and I may get in trouble with other members of the committee, to say, you know, how insane it is that the United States of America, a civilian can go out and buy a fully semiautomatic assault rifle, like an AR-15, which apparently was the weapon that was used. I think that's an issue, not so much for this committee, but elsewhere.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: Huh. Wait. What?

GLENN: This is the guy that Trump is appointing? What? That's not good.

And if you don't think that we are not entering a time where there is massacre after massacre, and instead of going after, one, the laws that have loopholes and closing all of those loopholes, two, making sure that the law is actually enforced every time, three, we go and examine the message health in this country, and four, we look at domestic violence. That's what's happening in our country.

Now, we're doing the same thing with guns that we are doing now with radicalized Islam. We are looking for any other reason, other than their religious belief. We're looking for, what did we do? What can we do? Maybe we should have grandma go through an anal cavity search at the airport. Instead of saying, no, it is the religious belief of these crazy people, that believe they have a right to enslave people that don't agree with them and kill people that they deem infidels. That's the problem.

But we're looking at every other place. And we're going to do the same thing with guns. A battle is coming -- and I'm telling you, if Donald Trump can appoint that guy in the Department of Defense, he thinks that's okay to have a guy who says, "Semiautomatics, I mean, how can you possibly have a semiautomatic?"

STU: It's insane that a regular person could go buy -- how could we let regulars go into stores and buy things like that?

GLENN: What is that? What is that? So did you really win? Because you've lost all credibility. All credibility. You can no longer say, we have the high moral ground. We're America in the Middle East. That's what -- that's what conservatives are now. We're America in the Middle East. We talk a good game. But we don't actually stand for anything.

We get in, our guys, we'll just accept everything.

STU: And, look, there are costs to some of these things. Sometimes standing on these values does have costs. You could lose elections. You know, there's -- a very defensible with Roy Moore is if you don't believe these people. If you go through this and say, I don't believe any of them, and here's my reasons why, that's a defensible position. If you believe them, but eh, I just want to win, that's not a defensible position to me. But, I mean, you make your own decisions. I think if you look at it though -- we talked to Johnnie Moore yesterday, you brought up the Middle East. We talked to Johnnie Moore yesterday. Look at what people will sacrifice for their principles around the world. He told the story about a family who had a letter sent to him by a terrorist, that basically threatened their lives.

GLENN: Didn't basically. Said, we will behead you, unless you convert.

STU: And they wrote back --

GLENN: I'm sorry. Crucify you.

STU: Wrote back to the terrorist -- now, I can't imagine wanting to respond to that mail. And said, you know what, we're never going to convert. And actually, you can come kill us, but please don't kill us through crucifixion, because we're not worthy of that punishment, because that's really about Jesus and it's a little bit above us. So please don't kill us that way. But kill us any way you need to. Come on over whenever you need to. Because they were so dedicated to their faith. They were willing to give up that cost. And were like, eh. I don't know. An Alabama Senate seat. I can't -- it's too much. It's too much.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep