RUSH: Now, to illustrate for you that nobody knows what’s gonna happen here… And look, don’t misunderstand me, folks. When I say nobody knows, I’m not trying to be anything other than realistic. This is the time of year where professional political people try to establish reputations.
So you have people who are considered gurus of polling analysis, you have people who are considered gurus of political analysis, making their predictions one way or the other. They know full well that most people are going to forget what all the predictions were. So some people will even predict both sides. “Oh, yeah, I can see right now the Democrats think they’re gonna win the House, but I don’t think I, I, I think it’s gonna be real close. Republicans might, might maintain control.”
The same guy on a different day will come out and talk about how the Democrats are looking at me like if they could actually pull this out there will be a blue wave. He’s on record of having said both, and whatever the result is just has to hearken back to whichever statement is accurate. This is a well-known tactic that many self-styled gurus utilize. But in truth nobody knows. There are too many variables. If somebody knew, there wouldn’t be any reason to vote. If somebody literally knew.
Now, there are exceptions to this. In 1964, everybody knew Barry Goldwater was gonna lose. I mean, the evidence was just everywhere. You had a Democrat president, Lyndon Johnson, having been sworn in after JFK been assassinated. Conservatism was new as a formal political message. Everybody knew it was just “a conversation starter,” just exactly like what Trump is doing with suggesting that we need to end birthright citizenship, claiming the 14th Amendment does not say that. Yet everybody in the world out there is disagreeing with him.
But the purpose of it is to start the conversation. Trump has done that. That’s what conservatism was as a formal movement back in 1964. And there are those examples where you know that somebody’s gonna lose, either in a local race or a presidential race. But in midterm elections, I can show you countless examples. In 2010, when the Republicans picked up 63 seats, nobody forecast that.
The closest I remember to anybody forecasting a massive Republican takeover was none other than the Prince of Darkness himself, Robert Novak, back in 1994 predicted I think to within two seats the Republican takeover of the House in those elections. I think we won 54 seats, 40 some odd, and he predicted… He was off by two. But nobody predicted the Republicans are gonna pick up 63 seats in 2010.
I mean, the media didn’t want to think anything was even possible because of so much love, and devotion, respect for Obama. And then when it happened, you should have seen, if you remember, the bottom fell out. The wind just totally came out of their sails. In 2002, everybody thought, everybody, the Democrats were gonna walk away with the House of Representatives ’cause everybody hated Bush. Bush was not duly elected.
Bush stole the election in the Florida recount with the help of a twisted Supreme Court. The Democrats did the Wellstone memorial. And that was gonna galvanize Democrats all over the country to show up and vote, and there was no way. And what happened, Republicans gained seats. The left was stunned. The Drive-By Media couldn’t believe it. So there are examples, even when people are damn certain what’s gonna happen, they end up being surprised.
The brightest minds, the greatest gurus, the most heralded analysts. And it’s all about presenting an image, of making it look like you know what you’re talking about more than anybody else does. I have here a piece from Real Clear Politics by one of the renowned poll analysts and data analysts there is, Sean Trende. I’m not gonna read the whole thing. It prints out to four pages.
But the headline here: “Uncertainties Loom as Midterms Enter Final Stretch.” Now, I’m gonna tell you what this long piece says. I can do this long piece in three words: We. Know. Nothing. “Uncertainties Loom as Midterms Enter Final Stretch — The 2018 midterms are working their way toward a conclusion. In a week, we should finally know who will control the House (although if the outcome is close, it could take weeks to finish counting ballots in California).
“The consensus view is that Democrats are favored to take the lower chamber. Analysts disagree on just how large a majority they are likely to win, and how likely that majority is. If you split the RealClearPolitics tossups in half, it results in Democrats gaining about 25 seats, for a narrow 220-215 majority. I tend to think,” says Mr. Trende, “that the tossups will break disproportionately toward Democrats, and see something more on the order of a 225-210 Democratic majority, but this is hair-splitting to a certain degree.”
Okay. So here he says in the second paragraph, it’s over and it’s the Democrats with 225 seats, the Republicans with 210. Next paragraph: “At the same time, this isn’t the only way to read the data. The Democratic pickups could be larger, but they could also be substantially smaller. Here are some things that should bother any sober-minded elections analyst in the final week of the election…” Why? We’ve just concluded here that the Democrats are gonna end up with 225 seats is and the Republicans 210.
So why do we analyze any further? Because the truth is we don’t know. Those are my words, not Mr. Trende’s. His words resume here: “Will there be a late break? As we learned in 2016, and in a less dramatic fashion in 2014, a late break in the races can alter the landscape substantially. This year, there are a lot of undecided voters remaining. Look at the most recent House polling from the New York Times/Siena: In some races,” the gibberish of numbers.
“This adds up to a situation where a slight break in the undecideds toward one party or the other could be the difference between a healthy Democratic majority and a slim Republican one.” But wait! He’s already predicted 225-210. I’m not harping on Mr. Trende here. We don’t know! He’s given you his best guess, but now he’s giving you every reason in the world why he could think of where it might not turn out that way.
“Given the closeness of many races, and the president’s improving overall job approval, it is also unclear how to evaluate this in the current cycle.” Well, then how did you get the 225 to 210, if it’s really unclear how to evaluate all this? But that’s just me, you know, being a smart-aleck. “In New York’s 22nd Congressional District, Siena College places the president’s job approval at 53 percent, so Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney is possibly in better shape than her polling numbers suggest.
“But what about the 19th District, where Rep. John Faso is up by a point, but the president’s job approval is at a 46/49 split? That suggests a very close race, and there are likely a lot of districts with splits like this one.” So Trump’s on the ballot or he isn’t? Is it gonna matter what Trump’s approval number is in some of these House races or is it not? Anybody who thinks Trump’s not on the ballot here needs to reexamine things, and then the next paragraph:
“How many votes are Democrats wasting? One of the biggest news stories this cycle has been the massive influx of cash into Democratic campaigns. This initially showed up in marquee races, such as Beto O’Rourke’s challenge to Ted Cruz, but it has since filtered down into more marginal” races, like “Indiana’s 9th District … California’s 1st,” or Outer Mongolia’s 7th, and all of “[t]his is relevant because Democrats right now have roughly a 7.5-point lead on the generic ballot, which asks which party people would prefer to have control Congress.
“Normally this would be enough to flip the majority. But if Democrats run up the score in districts that they are unlikely to win, suddenly that seven-point margin translates into a closer-than-expected seat share.” But then there’s another consideration, and that is, “How correlated are the errors?” Meaning: How reliable are the mistakes? And then the next paragraph: “Are we relying too much on one pollster? This is a pretty straightforward concern,” and then the next paragraph:
“What is early voting telling us? The pat response is ‘nothing,’ but that is too simple. Early voting returns usually tell us something, but unfortunately they can only be deciphered in retrospect.” Meaning: We don’t know what the early voting is ’til it’s over! We’re not counting votes yet; so all we know is party turnout! But we don’t know how these people have voted. Nobody does. The only way you can determine early voting is after the election is over. But yet we’re still gonna talk about it.
So the final paragraph:
“What else is lurking out there? This is probably the biggest concern,” and the “what else is lurking,” what’s yet to happen that hasn’t happened that could swing a bunch of votes? Which renders every poll prior to this day largely irrelevant, which is why I continue to rail against polls about congressional midterm races in November the year before or in August of the summer before, ’cause the stuff that’s gonna determine way people vote hadn’t even happened. So what good are the polls?
But here at the end of this four-page story: “What else is lurking out there? This is probably the biggest concern. We’ve gotten good polling on the canonical competitive districts. But take argument two, and then realize that in some of these districts, Republicans might be caught napping. We’ve seen some examples of this, such as the open seat in FL-15 … or the incumbent, Rob Woodall, in Georgia’s 7th District.
“We don’t, however, know how big of a problem this is right now (or if it is a problem at all). I suspect we’ll have a surprise or two on Election Night, but what if there are 10 surprises? Regardless of whether that happens, we are well set up for such an eventuality.” Bottom line: I haven’t the slightest idea what’s gonna happen, but my job is to tell you how it all looks to me. And this guy is one of the best. And do not anybody misunderstand what I’m doing here.
This guy is one of the best, recognized as one of the best, one of the most respected, Real Clear Politics. No idea. No idea. But dressing it up with as much intelligence and analysis you can muster with what you do know going in. Now, from the Guardian, the U.S. version of the U.K. Guardian. Headline: “Wisconsin: Trump’s Base Fired Up By His Bombast But Will That Be Enough? — The party faithful in Kenosha believe Trump is delivering, but in an evenly matched state, the question is how many non-believers they can take with them”?
Want to hear some pull quotes here? “I didn’t expect him to win. I just didn’t want to just let Hillary Clinton to win without my vote going the other way. But I’m shocked that this man has accomplished so many conservative things. I didn’t think the tariffs were going to work. I didn’t think backing out of NAFTA was going to work. But they are working.” Another quote: “Erin Decker described herself as ‘a conservative before [she’s] a Republican.’
“The chair of the Kenosha County party backed Walker, Rubio and then Ted Cruz in the primaries: ‘I didn’t know if Trump was really going to push the conservative agenda. But since he was elected he’s really watched out for people and has proved he’s a conservative. He’s pushing for smaller government, less regulation, he supports American workers. He wants to make America great again. He really has surprised me.'”
This is woman that did not support Trump in the primary. The Drive-Bys are out there looking for people who voted for Trump who are fading, and they can’t find ’em. The Drive-Bys are out there looking for people who didn’t support Trump and who don’t support him now, and they can’t find them! The people that didn’t support Trump in the primaries now do, and the Drive-Bys are frustrated.
I’ve got two or three of these stories here that serve to illustrate that there isn’t a whole lot of confidence in what people think. “MSNBC Reporter Interviews Latino Texans Who Are Skeptical of the Migrant Caravan and Is Voting Republican.” How did that even make it to their air? “In Arizona, the Democrat candidate, Kyrsten Sinema, has been caught by Project Veritas Action Fund videos admitting that she can’t be talking about banning guns or she’ll never win.” She wants to ban guns, but she can’t talk about that.
James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas “has released undercover video from current congresswoman and U.S. Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema’s campaign exposing the campaign’s belief that to win in Arizona, Sinema must appear more moderate than she really is. She must hide her progressive views. This is the sixth undercover video project Project Veritas has released in a series of revealing secrets and lies from political campaigns in 2018.” The campaign staffer shown mocking Sinema’s platform.
“‘She’s going to stand up and protect Arizona’s values, whatever the (expletive) that means.'” She’s not… They know that she’s lying. Her own staff admits they know she’s lying. Her own staff admits they know she’s lying because she has to. She can’t be honest. It’s the same old thing we say about all leftists. And Google. “Google Is Trying To Censor Marsha Blackburn Campaign Ads,” in the Tennessee Senate race, “Says Videos of Protestors Interrupting Her Moment of Silence Are ‘Shocking Content.'”
So protesters are considered shocking content. Google is banning Marsha Blackburn campaign ads.
RUSH: Okay. Here is real election meddling. This is the Marsha Blackburn ad that Google has prevented from being run. Google is not allowing this, and this is the ad. It’s 14 seconds. Listen.
MARSHA BLACKBURN: (echo) A moment of silence. (music starts)
SCREAMING PROTESTER #1: Marsha Blackburn is a white supremacist!
SCREAMING PROTESTER #2: (unintelligible hate) WHY?!?
SCREAMING PROTESTER #1: F(bleep) you! F(bleep) you!
RUSH: And the tag line there is, “Stop the mob. Vote Republican,” and this ad has been the subject of censorship from Google under the guise that… What do they say it is? I don’t know. I forget the term they use. But the reason is it’s effective. It’s effective against the left, and so Google is banning it. This is the kind of thing that people are up against — and you know, there’s a journalist, David Harsanyi, who writes at…
I’ve quoted his work here a bunch of times and he’s out saying something that I have mentioned on this program countless times, of course, that the Democrat Party is the Drive-By Media and vice-versa. The Drive-By Media is the Democrat Party. They are the… In fact, I think the Drive-By Media is actually the organizing power behind the Democrat Party. Mr. Harsanyi is saying this but he’s saying that in his opinion, a growing number of the American people are aware of it now.
(interruption) The Federalist. That’s right. That’s right. He was with Mollie Hemingway and that gang, and his opinion is that more and more Americans are succinctly aware of the unfairness, the imbalance, and… It’s way beyond bias. If that’s true, if a number of these things are true, then there could very well be a major surprise and shock in store for the media and the Democrats on Election Day, Tuesday, ’cause it’s apparent now: They think they’ve got this in the bag.
RUSH: I have some breaking news here. The Libertarian candidate in the Montana Senate race has dropped out to endorse the Republican. No Democrat predicted this race would be close. This is gonna make a big difference. It’s not gonna split the Republican vote against Jon Tester, the Democrat.