Working the Polls

GLENN: You look at the polls that have come out. One of the huge stories coming out of New Hampshire is what happened to the polls. They let us down at almost every single possible term but this time everyone was sure it was right. You should have picked up a copy of An Inconvenient Book before the elections. No, you should have because then you'd know, don't trust any of them. Reporters are desperately trying to figure out how it's possible that every single poll was so incredibly wrong, ranging from 5 to 13 points off, predicting an Obama landslide. How is that possible? We spent a whole chapter on this. This is something Stu's been on for, how long have you been on the poll thing, Stu? This drives you crazy.


 


STU: Yeah. I just hate how much influence they have on us. A while, yeah.


 


 GLENN: And Stu's been looking into it when we were discussing all the different chapters in the book. He was like, please, polls, polls, polls, polls, polls. The problem with the polls that the news never mentions is the amount of problems with the polls. But also how little the people answering them actually know about any of the subjects, how much power their answers actually hold. One theory being thrown in is the spiral of silence. Try this one on for size. It's something that usually affects conservatives. It's one of the reasons that people believe that John Kerry, you know, showed in the exit polls that he was winning. We put the results in the book in case, you know, you wanted to see them in detail. But here are the exit polls. In Iowa Kerry by one. The actual result, Bush by 1/10th. Nevada, Kerry by 1.4. The actual, Bush by 2.6. New Mexico, 4.2. Actual, Bush by .8. Ohio, Kerry by 6.5. Actual, 2.1. Minnesota, Kerry by 14.3. Kerry by 3.5. I mean, it just goes on and on and on. What happens is the media reports how fantastic the Democrat is. Oh, my gosh, the Democrat is so fantastic and how the hate mongering conservative is doing nothing but hate, nothing but hate mongering. So when a pollster calls and asks who are you going to vote for, you don't want to look like a hate monger. So you say the Democrat. But when it comes down to it, when you're in that polling booth all by yourself, you wind up pulling the lever for the person that you really support. Spiral of silence. People just don't want to say their opinions. I know this is true with conservatives. I don't know about liberals, but conservatives feel this way. You just -- how many times have you sat and just shut your mouth and not said anything because you know the whole room will attack you if you do? There's no way for you to win. So you just go along with it.


 


 I had dinner with an Oscar winner, a guy who you wouldn't believe is afraid to speak out. I had dinner with him, what, about a month ago, month and a half ago? He said, "Every time I go to work, every time I'm sitting in a makeup trailer, he said, I sit there and I listen to this garbage." Most people don't know that he's a conservative. He said, "I sit there in that trailer and I just shake my head and I just don't, I don't know what to say." He said, "There are days that I just, I snap." And I said, that is not the truth. The rest of the time I just smile and nod. I know I do it. I sit at CNN and I listen to people talking back and forth and if I'm alone in the room, everybody's talking, I just shut my mouth. Once in a while I'll just have to say, it's not the way it is. Spiral of silence. A lot of conservatives do it. You know it. You're a conservative. I mean, sometimes you don't even bother telling your friends the truth.


 


 You are also going to hear about the Bradley effect. It's named after Tom Bradley who is the former mayor of Los Angeles, ran for governor in California back in 1982. Well, here's a black guy running against a white guy. The pre-election polls had him way out in front. The exit polls had him way out in front as well. So much that the media called the election in his favor. Of course, if you know exit polls, you know the end of the story. The exit polls were wrong and the win went with the white guy. This is what one of the pollsters told me last night, one of the guys who studies polls. He told me that this is what happened with Obama. It was racism. People said they would vote for the black guy but when they get in there, they are just, they just don't want to -- you know, may I just -- ADD moment here. May I just say that I think maybe there's a possibility that it may have been just that they were embarrassed to say they backed a Republican? I mean, it was California. I mean, it's more embarrassing so say you would vote for a Republican than you wouldn't vote for a black guy in California, isn't it? What? Yeah, yeah, you are a racist and everything, but you're a Republican? Pollsters believe white people will say they support a black candidate even when they really don't because it's so politically correct. Do you know a single person like that? I'm going to ask a honest question. Do you know a single person like that, that would say, oh, yeah, I'd vote for Obama but wouldn't only based on their race? Do you know 3% of the population that would do that? I mean, I think if you're only going to -- if you are not going to vote for a guy based solely on his race, you are probably in that 3% that was like, yeah, we've got to kill them all. I mean, I think you're in a totally different category. Am I wrong, Stu? Do you know anybody that would say I'd vote for Barack Obama but then close the curtain and then say, no, I can't do it, he's black?


 


 STU: Not because of race. I mean, you know, obviously -- yeah.


 


 GLENN: Because this is what I said -- I mean, we were just talking to Mary Matalin last hour and that's exactly what I said to her. I believe that you could get in there and say I vote for change, I don't want Hillary Clinton, I want this guy, he's exciting, it's kind of the vote against Hillary Clinton and then when you get in there you're like, no, man, the guy doesn't have any experience whatsoever, I don't know where he really stands on the issues, I've got my doubts on this and that, I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton. I can see that happening.


 


 STU: That stuff's much more likely but I mean, you know, it's like Mary Matalin said. It's like that stuff, you know, the Bradley effect and all that stuff, you know, you're talking 25 years ago now. I mean, this is not something, I don't think at this point in time, is going on where people are, "I won't put a black man in office. "


 


 GLENN: I don't know those people. You know, I don't know the people who say they won't vote for a woman, either. I'd vote for Condoleezza Rice. She is a woman and black. Do you know many conservatives that wouldn't vote for Condoleezza Rice? I mean, based on what you know about her right now. Do you? I don't.


 


 One of the other excuses being volunteered, USA Today explains how it had Obama up by double digits in its last poll with entire column of guesses, one of which is people just change their mind at the last minute. Well, clearly, you know. How is that possible, though, when you really think about it? I mean, how can the people in New Hampshire who have been bombarded nonstop with commercials and politicians coming to their houses, eating waffles with them, flipping pancakes, how could you possibly make up your mind the day of the vote? I mean, they clearly did but how does that happen? People doing research on the polls have found that 88% of the people have absolutely no semblance of rational set of opinions on where they stood politically. 88% have no idea. As a talk radio listener, somebody who actually cares about what happens in the world, doesn't it kind of make you feel like an elitist? Doesn't it make you feel good? 88% of the people have no idea where they actually stand when push comes to shove. In fact, in the book I tell the story about an experiment of a poll where half of the people registered opinions on whether they approve or disapproved of a law that didn't even exist and it was just based on how that word -- how the wording of the poll was to make it look like the Republicans were for it or against it on how you spoke out about it. Almost everybody spoke out. There was only -- what was the percentage that said no opinion on it, Stu?


 


 STU: Of the fake law thing? I'm sorry. Just, we're having computer problems here. So I just tuned out for a second. I think it's something like 50, 57%, something like that? So it was the majority of the people but still almost half of them were --


 


 GLENN: Would still go on.


 


 STU: Would still go on.


 


 GLENN: And they would strongly, they would dig their heels in.


 


 STU: Oh, yeah.


 


 GLENN: Half of people! If this doesn't make you lose your faith in humanity, try listening to this paragraph from ABC News. This is Professor Jon Krosnick, Stanford University. He has another argument, that the order of names on the New Hampshire ballot, by the way, which was decided by random draw. Clinton was towards the top. Obama was down at the bottom and that netted her about 3 percentage points more than she would have gotten otherwise. Because she was at the top of the list, she got 3 percentage point more.


 


 Now, I can see this if you're -- have you ever been in one of the those polls, and I see this with myself all the time. When somebody is on a random phone call and I haven't taken a poll in I don't know how long but somebody will call me up and say, hey, we want your opinion on something. And then they start listing stuff. Well, then you start hearing how big the list is. You might have judged something harshly up at the top but then you're like, oh, well, it's compared to this. Yeah, I guess this is a priority. But if you are looking at the whole list to vote, do you really just stop at the first one and go, I don't need to read much more than this? Could the order of the names really have moved the polls by 3 full percent? I mean, that's frightening. You know, in the book we talk about the polling experiment, and it is amazing. People were given a list of nine different options including healthcare, the budget deficit, family values, taxes, among other things. Here are the results. When healthcare was the first option, it was chosen as the most important voting issue by 24%. When it was at the bottom of the list, it dropped to 15%. When family values was moved to the top of the list, it increased from 10% to 20%. Only issues listed in the middle stayed about the same. For example, the environment was last both times but that's because it was in the middle. The order moved people by 10 percentage points in polling.


 


 Now, I can see this in polling. I can't see this if you -- I mean, if you're really moved, if you are like, well, her name was first; I can't read the rest of this ballot, I mean, you're just too -- we should take your license away. Worst part about all of this is there are probably 10 other major issues with with polls in the book and almost all of them are being used as excuses on why New Hampshire polls were missed or missed the mark by so much. And the amazing thing is they are all legitimate problems that can happen on any poll you can see on television. The frightening thing is the only thing that stops these people is paying attention, people paying attention. If you want to stop these pollsters, if you want to know what's really going on, you want to make sure that the polls are accurate, then you've got to start paying attention. Unless everybody turns magically from listening to Fergie to news and talk radio, the phenomena of polls being wrong, not going anywhere.

On the radio program Friday, Glenn Beck discussed the recent news that a primary source for the Steele Dossier — the document on which much of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation was based — had been investigated by the FBI for contacts with suspected Russian spies. Glenn also shared several previously unpublished texts and emails from FBI agents have recently been released.

According to a letter sent by Attorney General William Barr to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday, the FBI knew early on that the research compiled by ex-British intelligence agent Christopher Steele relied on a "Primary Sub-source" that had been "the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his or her contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers" — but still used it to obtain warrants to spy on former Trump campaign-aide Carter Page.

But, it gets even worse. Now, new leaked texts and communications from FBI agents within the department at the time of the entire Russian collusion effort were disclosed in federal court filings on Thursday. According to the court documents, FBI agents purchased "professional liability insurance" to protect themselves in January 2017, just weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated president, because they were concerned about the agency's potentially illegal activity during the Russia collusion investigation.

"Trump was right," one FBI employee wrote in response to then-President-elect Trump's Jan 3, 2017 tweet which read: "The 'Intelligence' briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!"

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Chief researcher Jason Buttrill joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to discuss an "explosive" new report released Wednesday by Senate Republicans on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Among other serious allegations, the 87-page report claims that "Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow," and the richest woman in Russia.

"The transactions discussed [in the report] are designed to illustrate the depth and extent of some questionable financial transactions. Moreover, the financial transactions illustrate serious counterintelligence and extortion concerns relating to Hunter Biden and his family," the report stated.

Jason suggested the Senate's findings provide additional evidence to back allegations of a money-laundering scheme, which Glenn detailed in a four-part series about Biden's shady connections to Ukraine. Learn more on this here.

"Laundered money is very hard to track to its finality," Jason explained. "I'm sure the Biden camp is really hoping that it just looks suspicious, but [investigators] don't ever find the eventual end point. But, if they do – and it's possible they already have – this is going to be explosive, very explosive."

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Revolutions rarely happen overnight. The Left started laying the groundwork for November 3, 2020, the moment Hillary Clinton had to concede the 2016 election to Donald Trump. It was always solely about getting rid of President Trump — and there's a playbook for that.

Last week, Glenn Beck showed you the "Seven Pillars of Color Revolution" written by a former U.S. diplomat, which are the conditions that must be in place for a successful Eastern European-style "Color Revolution." The left seems to be pushing for a Color Revolution this election because they are using the exact same playbook.

In part two of this series, Glenn peels back the layers on the first four of these Color Revolution pillars to show you how they work and what the end goal is. And he reveals one of the architects of the playbook – a Color Revolution specialist, former ambassador, and former Obama administration official who is one of the key masterminds of this revolution.

Joining Glenn is political campaign veteran and BlazeTV host Steve Deace who says the polls that claim Biden is leading the race "are trash." We're being set up to believe that if Trump wins in spite of the polls, it must be an invalid election.

Watch the full video below:


WATCH all of Glenn's Specials on BlazeTV:

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Save $10 with promo code GLENN.

Sen. Ted Cruz: NOBODY should be afraid of Trump's Supreme Court justice pick

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to weigh in on President Donald Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees and talk about his timely new book, "One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History."

Sen. Cruz argued that, while Congressional Democrats are outraged over President Trump's chance at a third court appointment, no one on either side should be afraid of a Supreme Court justice being appointed if it's done according to the founding documents. That's why it's crucial that the GOP fills the vacant seat with a true constitutionalist.

Watch the video below to hear the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.