![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/APP-103118-Rush-Show-FLAG.jpg\")
<\/p>\nRUSH: Now, to illustrate for you that nobody knows what\u2019s gonna happen here… And look, don\u2019t misunderstand me, folks. When I say nobody knows, I\u2019m not trying to be anything other than realistic. This is the time of year where professional political people try to establish reputations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
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\u2019re gonna win the House, but I don\u2019t think I, I, I think it\u2019s gonna be real close. Republicans might, might maintain control.”<\/p>\n
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\u2019s 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\u2019t be any reason to vote. If somebody literally knew.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
But the purpose of it is to start the conversation. Trump has done that. That\u2019s what conservatism was as a formal movement back in 1964. And there are those examples where you know that somebody\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
I mean, the media didn\u2019t 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 \u2019cause everybody hated Bush. Bush was not duly elected.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/ZZ-APP-Rush-Capitol-BBB-009.jpg\")
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\u2019t believe it. So there are examples, even when people are damn certain what\u2019s gonna happen, they end up being surprised.<\/p>\n
The brightest minds, the greatest gurus, the most heralded analysts. And it\u2019s all about presenting an image, of making it look like you know what you\u2019re 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\u2019m not gonna read the whole thing. It prints out to four pages.<\/p>\n
But the headline here: “Uncertainties Loom as Midterms Enter Final Stretch<\/a>.” Now, I\u2019m 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).<\/p>\n “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.”<\/p>\n Okay. So here he says in the second paragraph, it\u2019s over and it\u2019s the Democrats with 225 seats, the Republicans with 210. Next paragraph: “At the same time, this isn\u2019t 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\u2019ve just concluded here that the Democrats are gonna end up with 225 seats is and the Republicans 210.<\/p>\n So why do we analyze any further? Because the truth is we don\u2019t know. Those are my words, not Mr. Trende\u2019s. 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.<\/p>\n “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\u2019s already predicted 225-210. I\u2019m not harping on Mr. Trende here. We don\u2019t know! He\u2019s given you his best guess, but now he\u2019s giving you every reason in the world why he could think of where it might not turn out that way.<\/p>\n “Given the closeness of many races, and the president\u2019s 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\u2019s really unclear how to evaluate all this? But that\u2019s just me, you know, being a smart-aleck. “In New York\u2019s 22nd Congressional District, Siena College places the president\u2019s job approval at 53 percent, so Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney is possibly in better shape than her polling numbers suggest.<\/p>\n “But what about the 19th District, where Rep. John Faso is up by a point, but the president\u2019s 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\u2019s on the ballot or he isn\u2019t? Is it gonna matter what Trump\u2019s approval number is in some of these House races or is it not? Anybody who thinks Trump\u2019s not on the ballot here needs to reexamine things, and then the next paragraph:<\/p>\n “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\u2019s 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:<\/p>\n “What is early voting telling us? The pat response is ‘nothing,\u2019 but that is too simple. Early voting returns usually tell us something, but unfortunately they can only be deciphered in retrospect.” Meaning: We don\u2019t know what the early voting is \u2019til it\u2019s over! We\u2019re not counting votes yet; so all we know is party turnout! But we don\u2019t 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\u2019re still gonna talk about it.<\/p>\n So the final paragraph:<\/p>\n “What else is lurking out there? This is probably the biggest concern,” and the “what else is lurking,” what\u2019s yet to happen that hasn\u2019t 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, \u2019cause the stuff that\u2019s gonna determine way people vote hadn\u2019t even happened. So what good are the polls?<\/p>\n But here at the end of this four-page story: “What else is lurking out there? This is probably the biggest concern. We\u2019ve 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\u2019ve seen some examples of this, such as the open seat in FL-15 … or the incumbent, Rob Woodall, in Georgia\u2019s 7th District.<\/p>\n “We don\u2019t, however, know how big of a problem this is right now (or if it is a problem at all). I suspect we\u2019ll 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\u2019t the slightest idea what\u2019s 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\u2019m doing here.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s Base Fired Up By His Bombast But Will That Be Enough?<\/a> — 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”?<\/p>\n Want to hear some pull quotes here? “I didn\u2019t expect him to win. I just didn\u2019t want to just let Hillary Clinton to win without my vote going the other way. But I\u2019m shocked that this man has accomplished so many conservative things. I didn\u2019t think the tariffs were going to work. I didn\u2019t think backing out of NAFTA was going to work. But they are working.” Another quote: “Erin Decker described herself as ‘a conservative before [she\u2019s] a Republican.\u2019<\/p>\n “The chair of the Kenosha County party backed Walker, Rubio and then Ted Cruz in the primaries: ‘I didn\u2019t know if Trump was really going to push the conservative agenda. But since he was elected he\u2019s really watched out for people and has proved he\u2019s a conservative. He\u2019s pushing for smaller government, less regulation, he supports American workers. He wants to make America great again. He really has surprised me.'”<\/p>\n 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\u2019t find \u2019em. The Drive-Bys are out there looking for people who didn\u2019t support Trump and who don\u2019t support him now, and they can\u2019t find them! The people that didn\u2019t support Trump in the primaries now do, and the Drive-Bys are frustrated.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/RushLiberalismLIES-1.jpg\")
“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\u2019Rourke\u2019s challenge to Ted Cruz, but it has since filtered down into more marginal” races, like “Indiana\u2019s 9th District … California\u2019s 1st,” or Outer Mongolia\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n