Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH:  Back in 2004, October 11th, the first instance we can find — it probably predates this — but 2004, still 12 years ago, ladies and gentlemen, and this is what I said back then.

RUSH ARCHIVE:  I think the objective of certain people who engage in polling is all about an attempt to shape people’s minds, is an attempt to make up their minds.  Polls have not become just a snapshot.  You’ve got these polls being used to influence the media, which has admitted its chosen choice, or its chosen candidate, which is Kerry, tries to position the polls and the reporting of the polls.  I couldn’t begin to tell you what’s gonna happen because of the polls.  It seems like there’s a new one every day.  Well, there is a new one every day ’cause these are tracking polls, they get updated.  And I know people live and die by ’em on both sides.  I can’t tell you how this is gonna turn out.  Really can’t.  The country’s clearly chosen sides.  We got media advocating its own candidate and then the New Media, us, advocating ours.  It’s a new ball game out there, and it’s just too many variables to be able to rely on any single source of information.

RUSH:  Twelve years ago.  It’s the same thing we’re discussing here.  Bush ended up winning that election although I don’t think it ever had Kerry up 10 or 11. But the polls did have John Kerry winning the election in 2004, and the exit polls indicated Kerry had won the election.  None of it turned out to be true.  And there’s a new email, a John Podesta email exposing the Democrat playbook for rigging polls through oversamples. 

Many people have written about this.  I have one here from ZeroHedge.com.  For all of you out there who still are not convinced the polls are rigged, we present to you the following Podesta email leaked earlier today — this is over the weekend — that conveniently spells out in startling detail exactly how to rig the polls. 

“The email starts out with a request for recommendations on ‘oversamples for polling’ in order to ‘maximize what we get out of our media polling.’ … ‘I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.'”


RUSH: This is a Reuters story on Friday.  “Trump Gains On Clinton, Poll Shows ‘Rigged’ Message Resonates — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gained on his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton among American voters this week,” meaning last week “cutting her lead nearly in half, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling released on Friday. The polling data showed Trump’s argument that the Nov. 8 election is ‘rigged’ against him has resonated with members of his party.”

They go on to talk about 70% of Republicans believe that the system is rigged and that elections can be rigged.  Reuters extrapolates from that to mean that it’s working, that Trump’s message is causing the polls to tighten.  Okay, so we have that, that’s from Friday.  There hasn’t been anything over the weekend change arguably other than an ABC poll that’s out, and it’s over the top double-digit lead for Hillary Clinton, and it’s based on phenomenal disapproval of Trump. 

So just hang on before we get to that.  I just wanted to get this Reuters confusion wrapped up.  The mistake I made when I got this right before the program, I thought it happened just now.  I thought it was news today.  It was news from Friday, wasn’t clearly marked.  So I apologize for the confusion, but now we’ve got it straightened out. 

Now, back to the Podesta emails that have been discovered, written about here by Zero Hedge.  This guy Tyler Durden, it’s a pseudonym, I don’t know who he really is, but the website is Zero Hedge, and he writes, “Now, for all of you out there who still aren’t convinced that the polls are ‘adjusted’, we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today,” and this is yesterday.  The story’s from Sunday.  “The Podesta email leaked earlier today that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to ‘manufacture’ the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on ‘oversamples for polling’ in order to ‘maximize what we get out of our media polling.'”

So here’s verbatim from the Podesta email.  This is going to Clinton campaign staffers and others who are associated with the Hillary-for-president effort.  “I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.”

Now, I infer from this that we’re not talking about their internal polls.  They are attempting here to set out guidelines that they want the media to follow in order to procure and produce certain sets of data.  The email includes, this Podesta email “includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations.  

In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended: Research, microtargeting & polling projects

–  Over-sample Hispanics

–  Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)

–  Over-sample the Native American population

“For Florida, the report recommends ‘consistently monitoring’ samples to makes sure they’re ‘not too old’ and ‘has enough African American and Hispanic voters.’  Meanwhile, ‘independent’ voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.”

This whole email, if I’m understanding this, is actually a manual for pollsters on how to produce the results Podesta wants.  Now, I have to tell you, folks.  Even if I were to believe that the polls are rigged — and like I’m telling you, I don’t know, folks.  I wish I could tell you.  I don’t know!  People, like I say, come up to me everywhere, “Rush, how can this be?  I mean, Hillary doesn’t draw crowds.  Obama’s crowds are not that big, and wherever Trump goes, it’s phenomenal. And the energy between the two sets of supporters is not even comparable.”

I don’t know.  The conventional wisdom is that you cannot infer from crowds votes.  You cannot assume they’re all gonna vote.  You can’t assume they’re all gonna vote for Trump.  You can’t assume that they’re all there because they want to vote for Trump.  You can’t assume anything.  There’s nothing scientific about looking at a big crowd at any event. 

The analogy I’ve given, look at the crowd at a football game.  Let’s say you got 75,000 people in a stadium.  You don’t know what they think about what they’re watching.  Yeah, but is that a good analogy?  You got two teams playing at the same time in that venue.  Trump and Hillary are not on the same stage at these rallies.  These are Trump supporters obviously showing up and they are filled with energy. 

And even with these guidelines and suggestions from Podesta on how to rig the polls, what we have to believe is that all of the people that run these polls, ABC/Washington Post, NBC/Wall Street Journal, CBS/New York Times, Monmouth College, you name it, every one of these polls waits for guidelines on who to sample from the Hillary Clinton campaign. 

And I understand many of you think, “What’s so strange about that, Rush?  We’re learning that reporters go to dinner with Podesta and we’re learning that reporters clear their stories with Podesta,” all of which is true. 

And, by the way, nothing in this WikiLeaks dump has ever been denied, folks.  The only thing the Democrats say is you can’t trust it because the Russians produced it and that it’s illegal.  And, by the way, there’s conflicting data now that the Russians have nothing to do with this.  Julian Assange apparently has told somebody that knows him well that the Russians have nothing to do with the data that he is releasing and how he got it.  The Russians have nothing to do with it. 

And people have asked, “How come there isn’t stuff on Trump?  Why isn’t WikiLeaks releasing stuff on Trump and the Republicans.”  And Assange’s answer, ’cause nobody sent us any.  WikiLeaks is a publisher.  They sit there and they mind their own business and they wait for people to send them dirt, is what happens. 

Now, in some cases I imagine Assange will get on the phone and try to cajole and make deals with people he knows have information that’s whistleblower and leak oriented, but for the most part WikiLeaks is just sitting there waiting for somebody to send them something.  They’re waiting for somebody to hack something and then send them the results.  And if they don’t have anything on Trump and the Republicans it’s because nobody has gone through the trouble to hack ’em and send whatever they’ve got over to Assange. 

Now, you would think the Democrats would be trying to hack Trump and the Republicans, and you would think that the Democrats would want to get it out there. But do the Democrats need WikiLeaks?  They don’t.  They’ve got their own Drive-By Media.  If Podesta and the gang hacked, say, Trump computers or Republican National Committee computers, they don’t need to go to WikiLeaks.  They just need to call the New York Times.  They just need to call ABC News, the Washington Post, you name it. 

Anyway, we are being led here to believe, and this guy at Zero Hedge obviously thinks that really what it comes down to is oversampling Democrats.  You just vastly oversample Democrats on the basis that Democrat turnout is gonna dwarf Republican turnout.  I mean, that’s the reason why you would do it if you’re a scientific pollster.

So if you get a sample 37% Democrat, 27% Republican, 31% Independent, well, what’s that gonna produce?  Obviously it’s gonna produce results largely unfavorable to Trump. If only 27% of your sample is Republican, and the other 70 some odd is Democrat and independent?  What do you think you’re gonna get?  And this is the point that people who believe this story are making here. 

If you look at the polls that we’re talking about, voila, they are all magically oversampled with Democrats, I mean, unrealistically sampled with Democrats.  But they carry with them the imprimatur of science.  These polls have the respectability and the credibility of being scientific and they’ve enjoyed this up to now so that whatever they say is unquestioned much like the consensus of scientists on climate change. 

Here we have a consensus of scientists on polling data, but if it’s garbage in, then you’re gonna get garbage out.  I wish that I could sit here and tell you that I, without question, think the polls are rigged.  I have thought so in previous elections.  In 2000 I remember was I being interviewed on Fox News by Paula Zahn, and it was a week or two before the presidential election, and the polling data at the time had Algore up three or four points.  And I remember telling Paula Zahn, I don’t believe it. It just doesn’t compute.  It doesn’t makes sense. 

I didn’t think there was that much love associated with the Clinton administration, that Gore was kind of, you know, dryball.  Bush had raced through the Republican primaries, he had raced through fundraising, come out of nowhere and shocked everybody, if you recall, much like Trump has.  In fact, there’s a guy we’ll get to here later in the Stack, there’s a guy who has predicted the last five presidential election winners, and he’s predicting Trump will win, and his reason is not what’s happening now. 

His formula relies totally on what happened during primaries, and this guy essentially says that Trump just steamrollered everybody in the primaries. He would have steamrollered Hillary in the primaries. He would have steamrollered Crazy Bernie.  And on that basis he thinks not enough has significantly changed that Trump’s gonna win this, and he’s got the last five right.  I don’t know, folks, like I say. 

Anyway, it turned out in 2000, to close that loop, that Bush finally did change those polls.  They tightened as we got closer to the election.  I was on that show two weeks out, and then over the weekend we got the Bush DUI story that was released, and it almost lost Bush the election, so they told us.  Bush was cruising in the polling data to a two- or three-point win, and the DUI story was released, and it rocked the Bush campaign.  Apparently it was true and Bush had never talked about it so they were scrambling. I think it was the weekend prior.  Might have been five or six days prior.  I’m not sure which.  Anyway, Bush ended up winning.  It was close as a gnat’s eyelash and the Florida recount aftermath. 

And then in 2012, honest to God, folks, I thought Romney was gonna win by five or six.  There weren’t any polls that said that.  I thought they were all using an incorrect turnout sample.  The way I was looking at it was the 2010 midterms in which the Republicans won landslides.  It was the Tea Party.  The Democrats lost 700 seats all told nationwide in the 2010 midterms.  And I said, “You know what?  They’re not using that turnout in the 2012 presidential polls.”  Turns out they never do. 

They always use turnout from the previous presidential election, which was 2008, and then they base the 2012 turnout on that and whether it’ll be replicated by Obama or not. And it turned on I was wrong.  When I thought the polls were wrong and that Romney was gonna win by five or six Obama won by 3.8.  So I’m not comfortable here assuring you one way or the other, but there’s clear evidence here that the Democrats have seen to it that the polls in this presidential cycle are oversampling Democrats, and there’s clear evidence the pollsters have done that as well.


RUSH: So we’ve got the polling data, we’ve got the Podesta emails, we have Podesta emails advocating oversampling Democrats and Hispanics and Latinos and Native Americans, polling units doing this. In fact, we have here an ABC poll.  This is an ABC News/Washington Post poll.

“Hillary Clinton has vaulted to a double-digit advantage in the inaugural ABC News 2016 election tracking poll,” This is gonna be their daily poll. “Their inaugural ABC News 2016 election tracking poll boosted by broad disapproval of Donald Trump on two controversial issues: His treatment of women and his reluctance to endorse the election’s legitimacy.

“Likely voters by a vast 69-24 percent disapprove of Trump’s response to questions about his treatment of women. … All told, Clinton leads Trump by 12 percentage points among likely voters, 50 to 38 percent, in the national survey, her highest support and his lowest to date in ABC News and ABC News/Washington Post polls. Gary Johnson has 5 percent support, Jill Stein 2 percent.”

Let’s go to Pat Caddell talking about this.  This is last night on Fox News, Harris Faulkner speaking with Pat Caddell.  She says, “You are an expert in polling, so tell me about them.”

CADDELL:  The polls are everywhere.  The Washington Post poll last week was four points.  If you believe that the race changed eight more points in her direction this last week, then I don’t know what event you’re looking at. You have three tracking polls, not only the daily tracking polls, not only Investors Daily, which was the best for several cycles, you also have Rasmussen and the LA Times, all of those show the race Trump ahead by a point or even.  The runoff polling may have problems.  The Washington Post poll, for example, had a nine-point Democratic Party edge.  Any poll with a nine-point party edge for the Democrats ought to be thrown out.  I’ve never seen the polls in such contradictory numbers.

RUSH:  Right.  Nine point edge.  That’s the oversampling he’s talking about.  He’s never seen it like this, thinks the poll needs to be thrown out.  Pat Caddell worked for Jimmy Carter.  Couldn’t take it anymore, Carter, couldn’t take what was happening in the Democrat Party years ago. He’s a polling expert, that’s what he did for Carter. 

Now, on this poll of Reuters which says that Trump is gaining on Clinton, polls show “rigged” message resonates, I often wondered, when here came these reports about Trump and the women, like the Access Hollywood tape, when that first happened my instinct was that at some point the American people are gonna grow wise to all this and they’re gonna start resenting this obvious October Surprise type procedure every four years designed to do nothing but manipulate them.

And I wonder at what point will people grow wise and stop being affected by it. I don’t know if we’re seeing that here in the Reuters poll where “rigged” message is resonating with people.  We’ll just have to play it out.


RUSH:  Okay, now, the Investor’s Business Daily poll is out today.  Trump’s up two.  That is the poll that got it exactly right in 2012.  Their sample is interesting.  The ABC sample is just completely out of whack.  

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This