![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaSantaLatinos.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\nRUSH: Folks, I have to ask for your forgiveness in advance here because I can\u2019t stop laughing, and I know there\u2019s nothing to laugh about. I mean, this is not funny. But I can\u2019t stop it. Maybe it\u2019s the post-stress release where you just get uncontrollably giggly or whatever, but I\u2019m going through my sound bite roster today, I\u2019m watching stuff on television, and I\u2019m hearing what people say.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m reading stuff here in the show prep and I just can\u2019t stop laughing at the futility of it all! Anyway, I\u2019ll walk you all through it. Great to have you here, the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Do you know, for example, folks, that I slandered Obama voters yesterday? (laughing) Yeah, right here on ABC! I slandered them. In fact, I was all over the news last night.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
They\u2019re asking Haley Barbour, “Rush Limbaugh says you gotta change your ideology on abortion. What are you gonna do?” I got some other Republicans. “Rush Limbaugh said yesterday that you gotta do this. What are you gonna do? Rush Limbaugh says over here you got… What are you gonna do? Rush Limbaugh…” Jennifer Granholm accused me of accusing the Democrats of stealing the election, which I didn\u2019t do. I slandered Obama voters by calling them “moochers.” (laughing)<\/p>\n
I said they voted for Santa Claus, so that\u2019s slandering them.<\/a> I\u2019m watching Arthur Laffer <\/a>today, he the big tax cut guru. He\u2019s on Fox with Martha MacCallum, and he said, “Martha, I\u2019ve never been more enthused in my life. I\u2019ve never been more optimistic in my life!” (laughing) “I\u2019ve never been more excited!” Her eyes were bugging out of her head. “What do you mean?” He said, “Well, look at what\u2019s going to happen! We\u2019ve got a really great guy as president, but he\u2019s a horrible president. He\u2019s rotten. So we\u2019re gonna get massive tax increases. We\u2019re gonna get economic depression. We\u2019re going to get all kinds of slowdowns. Martha, this is going to set us up for 2014 like you cannot believe, and then when 2016 comes around we\u2019re gong to clean up! I\u2019ve never been more optimistic!” (laughing) Well, if it\u2019s going to enable us to clean up in 2014 and 2016, why didn\u2019t we clean up this week? And about that, ladies and gentlemen…<\/p>\n Oh, there\u2019s another thing happening, and you knew this. You instinctively knew this. I talked about it yesterday<\/a>. Let me review just a bit in setting up this whole Santa Claus thing. By the way, did that take off or did that take off? A little throwaway line and it becomes a central discussion point. All afternoon yesterday, on cable news, and I wasn\u2019t even aware of it \u2019til I got home last night. Anyway, so we\u2019re hearing in the election aftermath that of course the demography did the Republicans in. The Republicans, all they want to do is win votes with white people. They just want to win votes with old white guys. And of course those days are over, and the old white guys are dwindling in number, and this is a country now, you gotta get the gay vote, you gotta get the black vote, the Latino vote, get the single women vote, the demography, and the demography is killing the Republicans. <\/p>\n So I said, “Let me ask you a question. Let\u2019s go back to Republican convention.” I point out we\u2019ve got more elected Hispanics, the Republican Party does, than the Democrats in elective office, federal, state, local, all over the country, far more elected Hispanics than the Democrats have. At the Democrat convention, Condoleezza Rice, one of the most achieved, accomplished people in our country, happens to be female African-American. Suzanne Martinez, the Hispanic Latino governor of New Mexico, achieved, successful. Marco Rubio, Hispanic, Republican, Senate. And the list goes on. <\/p>\n There are quite a few minority participants at the Republican convention. I said, “What did they all have in common?” They all had an up from nothing story, their families or themselves came from nothing. Their families sacrificed for them, and they engaged in hard work, and they overcame all kinds of obstacles to reach the pinnacle of their profession, and then I said, “Why doesn\u2019t that count?” Well, there\u2019s an answer to why that doesn\u2019t count. The hard work story doesn\u2019t resonate, folks. I hate to tell you, but it\u2019s not resonating with Obama voters. We don\u2019t have a demography problem, but the Republican Party today is convinced that they do, and so there are discussions ongoing right now, I raised the question yesterday<\/a>, “Are we supposed to now be for amnesty and illegal immigration<\/a>? Are we supposed to come out and be pro-life to get those voters? Are we supposed to support gay marriage, legalize pot, is that what we\u2019re supposed to do?” <\/p>\n That\u2019s where it\u2019s headed. What\u2019s the answer to that, seriously. Then let me give you a startling bit of news. And, you know, I mentioned this at the top of yesterday\u2019s program and I apologize to you because it didn\u2019t register to me what I was saying at the moment I was saying it. It\u2019s crucially important and I glossed over it. It shoulda stopped me dead in my tracks. It may have stopped many of you dead in your tracks when you heard me say it. Two-point-eight million votes is the number of votes Romney lost in the popular vote to Obama. But get this. Mitt Romney got three million fewer Republican votes than McCain. Do you realize what that means? Did anybody think that Romney would underperform McCain in Republican turnout? Nobody did. <\/p>\n Now, let\u2019s go back to the polls, the preelection polls, and they all were showing Democrat samples of plus six, plus seven, and plus 11, and we pooh-poohed it. Let\u2019s go back and remember how these samples happened. The pollsters do not go out — let\u2019s say the CNN, 49-49 tie, this is the day before the election with a Democrat plus 11 sample. They don\u2019t go out and find a sample that\u2019s a thousand people. They don\u2019t purposely find a sample with 11% more Democrats or a sample of plus 11 more Democrats. It\u2019s just the way it happened. They called their sample of a thousand people, and of the thousand people, when they finished, that sample had a Democrat plus 11 advantage. It turned out to be dead right. Well, not plus 11, it was Democrat plus six or plus seven. Dead right. There was a significant — there were enough Republican votes that sat home. <\/p>\n If the Republicans who didn\u2019t vote had voted, Mitt Romney would have won the popular vote by 180,000. I don\u2019t know yet what it might have been in the Electoral College, and no, I\u2019m not crying over spilt milk. This is crucial to understand in terms of what the Republican Party\u2019s doing and how they\u2019re analyzing why they lost. They did not lose because of demographics. Three million of their voters stayed home.<\/a> Now, who are they? We don\u2019t know yet. But let\u2019s play. Let\u2019s say three million white voters didn\u2019t vote. Let\u2019s say that of the three million who didn\u2019t vote, half of them are evangelicals. Let\u2019s say some of them are the wrong poll group. Let\u2019s say some of them are just fed up with Republicans nominating moderates. Who knows. We don\u2019t know yet. But it is significant, and it is a mistake — the Republican Party didn\u2019t turn out its base, is what happened. <\/p>\n The Republican Party did not turn out their voters. We did not get beat primarily because of demography. I don\u2019t want anybody to misunderstand. I\u2019m not sweeping the demographic characteristics of the electorate off the table in terms of it being important. I\u2019m not doing that at all. That\u2019s not the point here. My point is that there is a whole bunch of erroneous analysis taking place by the Republican Party with the aid and comfort of the Democrats and the media who would love for the Republican Party to give up on its ideologically principled positions, and the Republican Party, depending on how you hear these sound bites and of course the panicked aftermath of every election, like Boehner. Boehner, he\u2019s a great guy, he\u2019s a good man, and Art Laffer was saying, “He\u2019s a good man, these two guys,” I mean Art Laffer is saying that Boehner\u2019s a great family man, like Obama\u2019s a great family man. “Wonderful guys, but I\u2019ve never been more optimistic, Martha.” <\/p>\n Yeah, right, okay. The night of the election, what was Boehner saying? We are the firewall. We are the last stand. There will be no tax increases. That\u2019s out the window now. Yesterday, the Speaker of the House said, “Mr. President, we\u2019re willing to be led, we want to be led, we\u2019re willing to put new revenue on the table,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So this happens. After the 2002 midterms, the Democrats learned via the exit polls that they got beat by values voters and so for the next two weeks all the Democrats did was pander to value voters. It happens. You can\u2019t say that what the Republicans are saying and doing today is gonna define what they\u2019re gonna be doing next year after Obama\u2019s immaculated the second time. But they\u2019re making an error, a huge error if they think that demography did \u2019em in. They didn\u2019t get their base out. Three million Republicans sat home. This is not insignificant. Obama got ten million fewer voters than he got in 2008. <\/p>\n There was not… Folks, this election was not the way… The outcome is not the way it\u2019s being spun and portrayed for you everywhere in the media. I don\u2019t care where you look, everywhere it\u2019s being spun that Republicans lost because of the Hispanic vote and the single women vote. And the Republicans wouldn\u2019t have lost if they got their base out. This is a stunning number, and it\u2019s a number that nobody factored.<\/p>\n Everybody figured that every Republican alive would be voting in this election, did we not? Or am I alone in that? I\u2019m looking at people across the glass here and nobody looks surprised. I had this number at the top of the hour yesterday, and I mentioned it. You can go back and look at the transcript, and I just zoomed past it. It didn\u2019t register until last night when I got some corresponding numbers to put it in some sort of perspective.<\/p>\n There\u2019s also, ladies and gentlemen, a piece by Heather Mac Donald. Heather Mac Donald is a demographic researcher. She is a conservative libertarian, I think. She\u2019s at the Manhattan Institute. She is highly reputed, highly respected throughout the conservative academy, the genuine conservative academy. And she had a piece yesterday that just blew me away. And then the Wall Street Journal today has an editorial and it couldn\u2019t be further apart.<\/p>\n Now, the Wall Street Journal says what most every conservative says: People immigrate to this country for a better life. They come here and they want to find the American dream. They come here and they want to get a job and they want to work and they want to find their way in our culture and climb the ladder and so forth. Heather Mac Donald\u2019s piece yesterday said that\u2019s not true. Let me read to you what she said.<\/p>\n “If Republicans want to change their stance on immigration, they should do so on the merits, not out of a belief that only immigration policy stands between them and a Republican Hispanic majority. It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic [P]arty…” Yeah, see, now look at it that way and why do the Hispanics gravitate to the Democrats?<\/p>\n The Republicans look at that question, and they come up with an answer and then they think they need a competing pitch to get them. But why? Why do…? What is the bond, the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democrat Party? Well, what\u2019s the Democrat Party known for? Folks, are you ready for some honesty here? I\u2019m sure I\u2019m gonna be called, what, slandering Obama voters.<\/p>\n I just read to you what Heather Mac Donald says here: “It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond…” In other words, Hispanic voters are not voting for Democrats because they\u2019re for amnesty. Hispanic voters are not voting for Democrats because they\u2019re for open borders. That\u2019s not why Hispanics vote for Democrats, according to her research. The reason they vote for Democrats is the reason anybody else votes for Democrats.<\/p>\n Santa Claus!<\/p>\n My term, not hers, but I\u2019ll just read what she says here. “It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic [P]arty, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation. Hispanics will prove to be even more decisive in the victory of Governor Jerry Brown\u00c2\u2019s Proposition 30, which raised upper-income taxes and the sales tax, than in the Obama election.”<\/p>\n And, lo and behold, we did our Morning Update<\/a> on this. With Prop 30 in California, the California citizenry voted to raise taxes on itself. Now, they\u2019re gonna get screwed because they were promised there wouldn\u2019t be any new spending if they voted for these tax increases. We\u2019ve been there, done that. That isn\u2019t gonna happen, but they bought it. Ms. Mac Donald\u2019s point is that when they break this all down, they\u2019re gonna find that a decent, large number of Hispanics voted for raising taxes on the rich in California.<\/p>\n Enough to put Moonbeam over the top on his beloved Prop 30. So, okay, two competing visions here in the Wall Street Journal. They come for a better life. They come to work hard, the traditional American dream route. Heather Mac Donald says they come here and vote Democrat, but that\u2019s not why they come. It\u2019s why do they support Democrats. That\u2019s the key. We want them to support Republicans, theoretically, right?<\/p>\n Okay. These simply say that we better be honest here. They\u2019re voting Democrat not \u2019cause of immigration policy. They\u2019re not voting Democrat \u2019cause of open border. The border\u2019s already open. They\u2019re voting Democrat \u2019cause the Democrats are the party of free stuff and raising taxes — “progressive taxation” — on the rich to pay for it. Now, you put that together with the fact that three million Republicans didn\u2019t vote, and then you add to the mix that the Republicans think they lost because they are not for amnesty.<\/p>\n I\u2019m telling you, I don\u2019t know what you can do but laugh at the futility of it all. It\u2019s not funny. I don\u2019t want you misunderstand. But in the panic of defeat, in the aftermath here — and, by the way, all the smartest thinking on our side is agreeing. “We\u2019ve gotta do something. We gotta moderate our amnesty position.” That\u2019s not at all why the Democrats enjoy a majority of the Hispanic vote.<\/p>\n BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n RUSH: Where\u2019d I get these numbers? I first got the election numbers yesterday from a Wall Street buddy and then last night Jeff Lord at the American Spectator sent me a blurb and a guy named Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics has analyzed this. These numbers are pretty consistent no matter where you go to find them, the turnout numbers and so forth. I don\u2019t know that anybody is disputing them.<\/p>\n But, folks, that\u2019s a separate issue from the point here that the Republicans think they\u2019ve now gotta somehow moderate their position on amnesty in order to get the Hispanic vote. Heather Mac Donald has been at this a long time, and she\u2019s not in the business of being wrong, either. She\u2019s an academic. She\u2019s making it very clear: Look, it\u2019s not immigration policy that makes the Democrat Party attractive to Hispanic immigrants. It\u2019s not. It\u2019s Democrat ideology.<\/p>\n Not because they\u2019re open borders. The Republicans fall for this. La Raza has their meetings and their protests and demand the borders be opened, and the Republicans believe what is said about them, that they\u2019re hated and disliked because they\u2019re exclusive and they don\u2019t want amnesty. So the Republicans say, “Okay, we gotta be more inclusive.”<\/p>\n You can\u2019t look at the Republican convention this past summer and say the Republicans are not inclusive. The only way you can say the Republicans are not inclusive is because the Republicans are not willing to ignore the law. But it is a feint. It is a head fake. It\u2019s a trick. Just like, “Don\u2019t criticize the president! That\u2019ll really tick off the independents.<\/p>\n “Don\u2019t… Don\u2019t do it. You be critical of the president and you\u2019re gonna make the independents mad.” Well, Romney came through double digits in independents, by the way, and it didn\u2019t matter, did it? So many things are being turned upside down, theories are being turned upside down as we examine the election results. <\/p>\n BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n RUSH: Look, some of you may be bothered by my little joke about if immigration was about work, the Democrats would be down there building the fence to stop it, but I mean, we are in the middle of some fundamental shifts in this country. And we are, if not outnumbered, we\u2019re on the way, folks. I wasn\u2019t just trying to use scare tactics yesterday.<\/a> It used to be — in fact, you go back to Reagan, Reagan voted amnesty in 1986, Simpson-Mazzoli was the name of the bill. Three million illegals were given amnesty, three million. That was said to be the end of it. We\u2019re gonna get really tough on it. Of course, that didn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n Hispanics that were beneficiaries of amnesty back then, still hate Republicans. Even though it was the Republican Party that gave \u2019em the amnesty back in 1986. Why doesn\u2019t that last? It used to be that immigration was about jobs, and the concern was jobs lost. Even the Democrat Party, because of the unions, was concerned about illegal immigration because of what it meant for jobs. What happened to that? Why all of a sudden do the unions no longer care about that? No, no, folks, gotta face these questions. There are answers to these questions. Why now does the number one support group of the Democrat Party support amnesty, support illegal immigration? Why are they not worried about a massive inflow of people across the border? <\/p>\n Could it be that the unions have realized it\u2019s not taking jobs. Could it be they\u2019ve realized they\u2019re not taking that many jobs. Could it be that Heather Mac Donald\u2019s right, that the reason the Hispanic vote lines up with the Democrat vote is because they believe in the expansion of government and what government does, and they believe in raising taxes on the rich? See, where the Republicans are making their mistake here is they think that Hispanics, even legals, they think that the Hispanic vote supports the Democrats because of immigration policy, and that\u2019s not it. Why does the Democrat Party get votes from anybody? From academia and Hollywood \u2019cause it\u2019s cool and hip, everybody else it\u2019s Santa Claus. What does inclusive mean? Republicans aren\u2019t inclusive. <\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/RushGOPRNC.jpg\"\/)
<\/a><\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/RushElectionMap2012.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/Rubio083012.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/RushNatReview.jpg\"\/)
<\/a>They\u2019re talking about immigrants.<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/00-24_7Self585.jpg\"\/)
<\/a><\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaHopeChangeStrip.jpg\"\/)
![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/RushFlagEIB585.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n