RUSH: Here is Melissa in Woodbridge, Virginia. Great to have you.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. I have a question for you —
RUSH: By the way, did you hear that Trump is on the verge of grabbing Hillary’s Virginia —
RUSH: — vote?
CALLER: No, I don’t think so.
RUSH: Just kidding. I think it zoomed by you. I’m sorry. What was it you called about?
CALLER: That’s okay. I’m wondering if you think there’s a silent group of women who are going to vote for Trump because they feel more comfortable with a man at the helm.
RUSH: Well, you would be better to answer that than I would be.
CALLER: No. (giggles) Not necessarily.
RUSH: (laughs) Yes, but you’ve conceived the question. The fact you’ve conceived this question means that you are wondering if there are women scattered around America who actually like strong, decisive, confident men — and who are afraid to say so to certain people like pollsters because of what reaction they’d ahve — who are ready and able and willing to vote for Trump, and whether they’ll surprise people by doing so. You’ve been wondering that question, right?
CALLER: I have. Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: Well, you are a woman. What do you think? The fact you’ve conceived the question means you think it’s possible.
CALLER: I think it is possible. I think there are a lot of people out there who are being shamed into thinking that they should be voting for Hillary because she’s a woman.
RUSH: Oh yeah. Oh-ho yeah. In fact, you know how they’re doing it? Let me tell you something. Melissa, what I heard yesterday — I had the sound bite; I didn’t get to it. I don’t need it today. Ron Brownstein of CNN analyzed that this election is really coming down to voters who went to college and voters who didn’t, and the voters who went to college are obviously all in for Hillary, and the people that didn’t go to college (i.e., uneducated) are going all in for Trump. That’s how Ronald Brownstein at CNN analyzed it yet. So how discriminatory do you think that is?
CALLER: (laughs) I have two graduate degrees and I’m not voting for Hillary.
RUSH: Exactly. What are your degrees in, by the way?
CALLER: I have an MBA and a Masters of Science in organizational leadership.
RUSH: Holy smokes! That’s impressive. You have an MBA. Where is it from?
CALLER: Columbia Southern University.
CALLER: Thank you.
RUSH: That is not easy. An MBA, folks? That’s dramatically difficult to achieve. So you’re all in for Trump. I think that’s bogus, too. I think that is the elitist way… That’s how these people who can’t understand Trump supporters tell themselves what it is. “Oh, yeah, it’s idiots! It’s uneducated people. The rubes of our society is who support Trump.” That’s essentially prejudicial and biased, discriminatory and everything else. But to answer your question, are there a lot of women who are going to defy the attempt at shaming them into voting for Hillary and pop up and support Trump?
I don’t know. But that’s one of the things that I would love to see in the exit polling data after the election. I would love for so much of this conventional wisdom to be stood upside down and on its head after this election is over. I just would really, really love seeing that. But whether it exists? That’s like asking, “Are there people — both sexes — who haven’t voted in a long time because they don’t think their vote matters and because they think it’s insignificant?”
That the powers that be are going to do what they’re going to do no matter what, that the whole political and governmental system is arranged by the people who run it, so they just don’t vote. They don’t participate. I know that one of the fears on the Hillary side is that there’s a whole slew of those people who are going to vote this time for Trump, that finally somebody’s come along that actually represents them and they think their vote may matter this time. And I happen to know that the Hillary campaign is very worried that it’s the sizable number of people.
Now, they’ve been trying to poll it but you can’t, because those people, some of them are registered; some of them are not registered. The ones who are not registered, it may be tough to find them. So this is one of the fears that they have, one of the many reasons I think it’s very difficult to predict this because it’s such a different election. When one of the candidates doesn’t have any political experience or resume at all, it just, I think, makes it really, really tough to call.
And it would be the same way trying to answer your question. There’s no way of knowing until it happens. But common sense would tell you that, yes, it is going to happen, because the mainstream media is wrong about a whole lot of things. Why wouldn’t they be wrong about this, too? How many women do you know that fit the category that you’ve just described who are going to vote Trump?
CALLER: I think there’s a lot out there. I’m not going to name names (giggles), but —
RUSH: No, I wouldn’t want you to name names.
CALLER: And men, too — men being shamed into thinking they have to be “progressive,” and they have to vote for this first female president. There’s a silent group of those as well.
RUSH: What kind of shaming is that? I must tell you, I do not know… I’m not claiming to know a heck of a lot of people or even a cross-section. I don’t know a single guy voting for Hillary. I don’t know a single guy who has been shamed into voting for her. Now, I may know somebody who is voting for Hillary that I don’t know is doing so, but I don’t think so. I don’t know a single guy voting for Hillary, and I don’t know one of them who has been pressured to or shamed into it. That’s new to me. What kind of guy gets shamed into voting Hillary because she’s the first female?
CALLER: I think ones who don’t do their homework, ones who don’t pay attention.
RUSH: All right. Well, look, Melissa, interesting questions out there. I’m sure there are men like that. I’m just telling you I don’t know any. But obviously there are all kinds out there. I mean, there were people who voted for Obama simply because he was the first African-American. But there was substance for that. We had a lot of people that would not have voted for Obama but who did because they really hoped that the nation, making the statement electing an African-American president, would prove once and for all that this is not a racist nation.
I believe that there were all kinds of people that voted for Obama with that hope. That was the reason. Everything else was irrelevant to them. Whether he was liberal, whether he wasn’t liberal, what he was going to do with health care, taxes, didn’t matter. They were just so sick and tired of the racial divide that they could think of no better statement than a black man being elected president, because if that happens you can’t possibly have a racist country.
I think that was the thinking. (interruption) Well, the northeast metrosexual guys, you’re talking about Vanity Fair, GQ and these guys who go both ways anyway. I know there’s a lot of the northeast metrosexual crowd that will go for Hillary because she doesn’t threaten them, like other kind of women threaten them. It’s like women are not threatened by gay guys. They love hanging around them. They have no fear whatsoever. And gay guys have all kinds of knowledge about fashion, lipstick and that kind of stuff, so it’s made to order. And it works in reverse with the metrosexual you’re talking about supporting Hillary.
But how many people do you think are devoted or voting for Hillary for this historical reason, first female president, like they did first black president? How much of that’s going on? I don’t think very much at all. And I’ll tell you something else about the people who voted for Obama, thinking he’s going to end racism. I wish they would have listened to me, as I told them it’s going to get worse. It is not going to make anything better racially. Racial relations are only going to worsen. It was easy to predict. It didn’t take a brain at all. It didn’t take any extra work. It didn’t take any extra thinking. It was axiomatic.
If the first African-American is going to be from the civil rights movement and a died-in-the-wool liberal, it’s only going to make racial relations worse. Now, if you’re new to the program, hearing this for the first time, you might be saying, “How’s that?” I ask you to look back on the last eight years. Was any criticism of Obama permitted? It was not. We can’t criticize the president of the United States. Why? Because he’s African-American. And any criticism is said to be racist. And so everybody — we have more racists in America today than we’ve ever had by definition of criticizing the president.
One of the reasons they wanted to elect an African-American was to insulate him from any criticism. It’s easy to charge the accusers, the critics, with racism. It shuts them down. Look at the Republicans in Congress. They made no serious effort to stop Obama or disagree with him. They got scared to death of being called racist. Look at Ferguson, take a look at Baltimore, and look at any city in this country — Chicago, Detroit — you tell me where racial relations have improved instead of worsened.
It’s the exact opposite of what people hoped would happen. “Mr. Limbaugh, are you saying that because Obama’s African-American –” no, no, good question. I’m not saying strictly because he’s African-American. But this is what liberalism does, folks. Liberalism isn’t interested in solving these problems, although they make you think they are. They make you think they are devoted to compassionate solutions. Not at all. They thrive on this chaos. Chaos allows them to set themselves up as the solution to whatever problem is causing the chaos. And you’ll note the problems never get fixed when they are in charge, do they?
RUSH: One of the things we’ve been doing, folks, in the Rush Morning Updates (our commentaries that run on our local stations in the morning) the last couple of days, is we are focusing on something that I raised about Hillary Clinton earlier on in this campaign.
Hillary trumpets the fact that she’s got 30 years of experience and that’s why she should be elected. She’s got 30 years in Washington, DC, of working for women and children and so forth. So I finally asked the question: What has she done? If you listen to Hillary 30 years ago and Hillary today, she’s still complaining about the same things. She’s still promising to fix the same things. She’s still suggesting we need to address the same things. It tells me that in 30 years, she has not solved anything.
In 30 years, she hasn’t fixed anything. In 30 years, she hasn’t made anything better. So what has she done in these 30 years? I’ve been very gratified to see that the Trumpster has picked this theme up, and it’s hitting home because Hillary is addressing it in her appearances now. She’s very defensive about it and what she does, is she lists off titles. (screeching “Well, I — I was First Lady, and I’m sick and tired of being told that that doesn’t count!
“And I was Secretary of State…” She lists all the titles she was. Children’s Defense Fund. She doesn’t list any achievements, just lists titles. She doesn’t list a single achievement, because she can’t. There aren’t any! She has had 30 years of doing nothing. Listen to how she addressed it on the campaign trail. This was this afternoon in Pittsburgh. It’s audio sound bite No. 22, and it comes out of nowhere. She just brings it up.
CLINTON: You know, he — he said so many things in those debates.
CLINTON: Y’know, when you debate in front of, y’know, 60, 70, 80 million-plus people, you’ve got to have a sense of preparation, readiness, calmness, composure. And I’ll tell you, some of what I heard comin’ from my opponent, it was really hard not to go, “Whuuuut did you say?”
CLINTON: Y’know, he kept — he kept saying things like, “Well, what have you done for 30 years?” (chortling) And, well, we know what he’s done for 30 years.
RUSH: That’s it? That’s how she answered? What has she done? What has she done for the children in 30 years? If you happen to be a child in the womb you are at great risk if Hillary Clinton is around. What has she done for children? What has she done for women in 30 years? Women are still complaining about the same feminist stuff that she was complaining about 30 years ago. Health care? Is this it? She started out 30 years ago and this is what we get? What has she done? I’m serious. Folks, she doesn’t have a resume of achievement. She doesn’t have a resum of accomplishment.
If her last name wasn’t Clinton, she wouldn’t even be considered to be president. She wouldn’t be even doing anything even relevant to running for president. What has she done? And this is her answer. (screeching) “Well, y’know, and y’know and y’know…” She says “y’know” a lot, which is the sign of a vacant mind in vain search for a cogent thought, if you ask me. Constantly saying, “Y’know… Y’know.” She says, “[W]ell, we know what he’s been doing for 30 years.” What has he been doing for 30 years? He built a company, hired a bunch of people. What do you mean what he’s been doing for 30 years?
She cannot tell us what she’s done.
It’s plain as day.