Walker Wildmon: Welcome to At the Core here on American Family Radio. Glad to have you with us on this edition. I'm Walker Wildmon, and it's good to be back live with you on the show. I've been doing some vacationing and then working, a little bit of both.

Host: Walker took his family on a trip.

Walker Wildmon: My wife and I have been married going on 11 years in December, and we've never gone with just our immediate family, meaning my wife and I and our kids, on a trip or vacation. We're always with extended family, which is great.

Host: Not a lot of families are able to do that.

Walker Wildmon: You're right.

Host: Otherwise, you might kill each other.

Walker Wildmon: Exactly. We get along well. My wife and I took our kids to the beach, and it was very enjoyable. We did Destin, Florida, two days after the hurricane.

Host: Destin actually fared pretty well.

Walker Wildmon: Pensacola got hit pretty hard.

Host: Pensacola had some pretty serious wind damage there.

Walker Wildmon: All in all, post-hurricane, the Panhandle fared pretty well. It wasn't as bad as it could have been. I did that last week, which was fall break here in Mississippi for most school districts. Earlier this week, I was in Charlotte visiting with supporters of American Family Radio and American Family Association, talking about some exciting projects on that front.

Now we have the midterms just around the corner, so we're going to pack in as much content as possible and get people as motivated as we can.

Host: We just got this in. Breaking news. I believe it's somebody's birthday today.

Walker Wildmon: I was wondering who was going to bring that up.

Host: Happy 33rd, brother.

Walker Wildmon: Thank you, man. Thank you. I'm 33 years old, born October 21, 1993. They call me a young buck, but I don't know how much longer that'll last because, as the years go by, you're not quite as young as you once were.

Host: Amen, brother.

Walker Wildmon: My wife and I were on the phone earlier, and she asked, “Are you going to tell people on the radio that it's your birthday?”

I said, “Somebody will.”

Host: Probably not.

Walker Wildmon: I wish myself a happy birthday, right?

Host: That would be awkward.

Walker Wildmon: Thank you. I appreciate you doing the hours.

Host: Pleasure.

Walker Wildmon: I always love the sound effects. Let's turn our attention to Scripture and not waste any more time taking away from our content.

Acts chapter 23 is where we are now, looking at verse 11. You think you know all of Scripture, but if you say you know all of Scripture, you're being quite haughty. None of us truly know all of Scripture. Theoretically, you could know Scripture from a high level, but none of us can quote the entire Bible verbatim.

Acts chapter 23, verse 11, says, “But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, ‘Be of good cheer, Paul, for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.’”

That's Acts chapter 23, verse 11.

When I say you learn something new the more you read Scripture, I had known of the Lord Jesus clearly interceding with Paul on the road to Damascus, which was the blinding experience and the transformative intervention that Jesus had with Paul as he was on his way to persecute the early church as a Jew.

I knew of that. That's the most well-known interaction between the Lord and Paul. But little did I know that the Lord continued His direct communication with Paul. You can say the Holy Spirit led Paul through his writings, which were inspired by God Himself and gave us Holy Scripture. But as far as the Lord verbally speaking to Paul Himself, and that being recorded in Scripture, I'm learning as I continue to read Scripture how often, or how much, the Lord verbally communicated with Paul.

Of course, it made it into Scripture and was transcribed there. Here you have one of the few instances after the resurrection of Jesus where the Lord is verbally communicating with the early church and with the apostles, really giving Paul a boost of encouragement as he is somewhat down and out, facing severe persecution from the Jewish religious leaders and others who were against him and what he was doing as he helped build the early church throughout his missionary journeys.

In Acts 23, verse 11, the Lord verbally encourages Paul. We can receive, maybe not direct revelation through verbal means today, although theoretically it's possible, but we can receive the same type, or at least a similar type, of encouragement from the Lord by reading Scripture.

This is one thing I don't particularly like, or at least think is a fault, about Christians who persistently claim, “The Lord spoke to me.”

Maybe He did. Maybe He didn't. I don't know. I don't have full knowledge of the human heart. I'm not God, so I can't tell you definitively whether or not the Lord spoke to you. Let's not chase a rabbit about something I can't prove or disprove.

But I become skeptical of people who don't occasionally, but persistently, use that type of terminology to set up the point they're trying to make. The Lord has given us His divine revelation through the Word of God, which is as direct as it can get, my friends.

My warning is that, as Christians, we ought not to feel the need to regularly or persistently rely on extra-biblical means of communication with the Lord when we have the Lord's inspired Word right before our eyes.

God's Word is profitable for all things the Christian needs. It addresses all of our needs and provides all the instruction and training we need for godliness. It isn't as if God's Word is insufficient or lacking and we have to go somewhere else to get full nutrition, so to speak.

We have God's Word. He has given us the Holy Spirit to equip us to combat sin and pursue righteousness and holiness. We ought to be continually and persistently seeking out the Word of God and using the Holy Bible as our reference point, as our compass, when it comes to daily living, rather than consistently relying on what we think is the Lord verbally communicating with us or sending a signal through other means.

We have God's Word. We should rely on that. That's my note and message for today. Acts 23, verse 11, is our Scripture. I'm thankful that the Lord did clearly verbally communicate with Paul and help encourage him through his missionary journey, which brought us not only much of the New Testament, but also the church that we have today. We wouldn't have the church that we have today without the Lord using the apostle Paul.

Acts 23, verse 11.

Let's jump into a little bit of politics. We have the midterms in about two weeks, a little less than two weeks from now. There's a narrative out there that the Democrats pretty much have this thing locked up. The Democrats have it in the bag. This is going to be a blue wave. Nobody likes President Trump. Republicans are historically unpopular. Congress hasn't been able to do anything. Gas prices are high, the world's going to end, and we've got to have the Democrat socialists.

If you combine all of the mainstream media conglomerates, all the Democrat talking points, and even some in the so-called conservative media realm, that's the narrative you're getting. It's a pretty depressing narrative, if you want to be honest.

What I'm hopeful to provide to you over the next two segments after this one is a true picture of where we are. The true picture is going to be pretty rational. It's not going to be that Republicans are going to keep the House and keep the Senate and that the whole blue wave is built on lies, although I think some of it is.

Once again, I could be wrong, and if I'm wrong after November 3, I'll let you know.

Host: You'll let me know, too.

Walker Wildmon: Trust me, we'll get the emails. But this polling and this data that they are pumping out, showing Democrats winning states like Texas, Kansas, and Iowa, are you absolutely kidding me?

I put on Facebook earlier this week, “This is loony stuff.” Claiming that Democrats have a shot at winning statewide office in Iowa, Kansas, and Texas is mental-facility stuff. Are you kidding me?

We've got the receipts. This data and these polling formulas that they've been using for the last two decades are very faulty. There is a historic level of mistrust with the media, news outlets, journalists, and polling firms. Nobody, no conservative with their head on right, is going to talk to a pollster about who they're going to vote for on Election Day.

I don't take their calls. Everyone I talk to doesn't take pollster calls. I don't respond to their text messages. No one I talk to responds to their text messages. So who are the pollsters talking to?

Frank Luntz has some insight on that. We'll play that clip in a little while.

The fact of the matter is they're probably talking to voters, or possible voters, who may not even vote. They could be polling people who aren't even registered to vote. But you wouldn't know that. Why? Because they don't ask that question.

Another question is another barrier. You might lose someone, then you don't get the poll, and you can't pump it out. The New York Times can't run it, Nate Silver can't run it, and it can't go into the RealClearPolitics polling average, which everybody looks at as gospel.

If you're listening, folks, you need to stick around for the next two segments. If you can't, subscribe to the podcast and download it, because I've got clips, data, and information that are going to make these polls look like an absolute joke.

The thing is, we can't say we just haven't been here before. This is uncharted territory, they always say. No, it's not. We've totally been here before. I've got data going back to 2014 showing these pollsters getting it completely wrong, and not just getting it wrong within the margin of error, two to three percentage points. They're getting it wrong by 10 to 15 percent.

The election comes and goes, the polls are wrong by 10 to 15 percentage points, which in most instances is hundreds of thousands of votes. Everybody moves on, and nobody investigates or questions the polling firms that put out these absolute junk polls.

Absolute junk polls is what they are.

The word of encouragement I can tell you right now before we go to our break is that I don't think Democrats have a snowball's chance of winning Kansas, Texas, or Iowa. We'll be back in a few.

Walker Wildmon: Welcome back to the program. We are talking about the predictions for the midterms on Tuesday, November 3. In about two weeks, we'll know what the results are and whether the predictions are right or wrong.

Let me make a disclaimer, as I did on Facebook. I could be completely wrong. I reserve the right to be completely wrong. There may be a massive blue wave, and I may be shocked. If so, welcome to life and getting things wrong. That happens every day.

I may or may not apologize, but I'll at least acknowledge that I got it wrong. I think apologies require someone to be offended or injured, and I'm not sure that talking about projections and politics meets that threshold. Nonetheless, if I do offend you, you're probably a little too sensitive.

Let's talk about this completely fake poll, or multiple fake polls, that have been outed. This was called Wedgewood Polling, or Wedgewood Polls. What happened is that an outfit created a fake polling firm called Wedgewood Polling. Unbeknownst to anyone, at least publicly and in the media, they were completely fabricating polls.

I think out of dozens, they actually ran one true poll. The rest were literally made up from thin air. These were polls addressing and projecting races in Ohio, Michigan, Texas, South Carolina, Florida, and multiple other states, regarding congressional seats, House races, and so forth.

This polling firm and its alleged polls, which were completely fake, were circulated and cited by none other than the New York Times. These fake polls were also cited by Nate Silver, who is supposedly the prophet of polling. Whatever Nate Silver says, we should trust.

Both the New York Times and Nate Silver were occasionally citing Wedgewood polling results, which were completely fabricated. They've since been outed and admitted that they did this to prove that left-wing media outlets and talking heads will cite anything and everything that fits their Democrat narrative.

Guest: A firm called Wedgewood Polls is admitting to posting fake data. It was picked up by a number of outlets, including The New York Times. Wedgewood writes this on X: “Our fabricated numbers were given instant credibility across national media platforms, including being cited on air and in reporting. Wedgewood Polling was never intended to sway an election or permanently mislead the public. It was designed as a wake-up call.”

Walker Wildmon: Wow. How embarrassing. You don't request the raw data. You're citing a poll without requesting the raw data. You don't look at the sample size. You don't ask who was subcontracted to run the data or where the likely voters came from.

You can get this data anonymously, meaning you can get the raw data without identifying personal information such as home addresses, first and last names, and so forth. You can get files that protect the participants' personal information and at least verify that this is legitimate.

You can verify that the subcontractor carrying this out and making the phone calls is a legitimate shop and that this is what they do. But none of that vetting had taken place. They were literally making up polls in real time, and they were being picked up by the New York Times and cited by local journalists.

Absolute embarrassment. This just broke within the last 24 hours.

This is what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the critical polling questions. Are we even talking to likely voters? Are the people filling out these surveys and answering these polling questions even voters? Are they registered? We don't know.

Frank Luntz, who got it wrong in 2016, as my co-host reminded me this morning, has lost some credibility with at least the conservative movement over the years. He was on CNN, and I think he's trying to regain his voice in conservative media when it comes to predictions. In this two-minute clip, he reveals the critical questions that a lot of these pollsters don't even ask respondents.

Guest: What do you think the polls may be missing? Do you think they're under-sampling the kind of voter that Trump usually brings out, that sort of non-engaged voter who may not respond to a phone call from a pollster?

We know they don't respond to phone calls. We know that in the exit polling back in 2016. I say this publicly because I want people to hear it. I teach at West Point. I cannot lie, cheat, or steal, because that's what I teach. I got 2016 wrong. I believed in the exit polls.

Trump voters walked away and refused to participate because they thought the polls were biased against them. That's what Republicans are being told right now: Don't believe the polls. They're not accurate.

They may be. We're about to find out, but I'm still skeptical. In the end, Republicans are less likely to participate. They're less likely to believe the polls are happening. But I'm most interested in turnout.

There are ways to measure turnout, and I'm not convinced that they're doing it. They're polling how the electorate overall feels and not polling the people who are actually going to participate.

Host: How do you get around that?

Guest: That's why you have to do focus groups. That's why you have to do one-on-one interviews. I can tell by looking at you whether you're going to participate or not. These are people who are counted in the polls, but I know they're not going to vote.

They sit like this, with their hands folded, and they don't really care. They're looking down and looking around because they're not engaged or involved.

Turnout determines everything. I ask viewers to pay attention to how they're asking questions about turnout. It's not whether you say you're going to vote, because people lie. How interested are you in the election, number one? Number two, how often do you collect election news or political news? Number three, how often do you talk politics with your friends and neighbors?

Those are three essential questions in determining turnout. I hate to say this, but a lot of polls don't ask them.

Walker Wildmon: That's Frank Luntz.

The clips and information I've gathered are from multiple sources, personalities, talking heads, and individuals. I've got another CNN clip and then a Fox clip.

The disclaimer on this polling and its faulty methods is that this information is starting to compound. This is becoming a dominant narrative: This polling may completely have it wrong, and they're doing this to cover themselves.

They're doing this to protect themselves from being completely discredited. They're still going to pump out the faulty data. They're still going to pump out polls that, in some instances, are literally made up from thin air. But then they're going to come behind it, like Frank Luntz is doing, and say, “Maybe they're not as thorough as they could be. Maybe we don't ask the right questions.”

The problem I have with this is, why not do it right?

There's tremendous damage being done when these so-called pollsters keep pumping out faulty information. I'd like to laugh about this, but I'm actually infuriated by it, because these fake pollsters are shaping media narratives. They've got people in Iowa and Kansas, people I've talked to, saying, “Democrats are going to take over. We're going to have a Democrat governor.”

What on earth is going on? I'm not saying we don't need to be on guard, alert, and diligent. Those are all biblical characteristics. But how many people are fretting, losing sleep, and worrying about the Democrat socialists taking over Kansas and Iowa based on completely fake information and faulty polling?

We're building up narratives. The Republican National Committee is now pulling its polling money from certain states because the Democrats supposedly have everything locked up. They're going to pull the polling money during the final two weeks of the home stretch.

That doesn't even address what has happened in Texas, where Ken Paxton and John Cornyn were involved and the Senate Republican Committee withheld funding from Ken Paxton against James Talarico.

That's a shame. We're running against Talarico, who thinks God is nonbinary and wants to pack the Supreme Court. I've got a clip where he says his favorite thing is trans children.

The Republicans were so hurt that Ken Paxton beat John Cornyn in the primary that they weren't going to support Ken Paxton. By the way, who has been a better state attorney general than Ken Paxton in my lifetime? No one can find a better attorney general than Ken Paxton.

I'm 33 years old, and I'm going to give a three-minute defense of Ken Paxton. Then we'll get back into this polling problem.

I'm so fed up with dragging Ken Paxton through the mud and giving disclaimers about him. I'm over all the negativity about Attorney General Ken Paxton. Here's why.

How many times do we have to disclaim that none of us are perfect? Do we have to grovel over this every single day? “Ken Paxton's personal life. Ken Paxton allegedly had an affair. Ken Paxton got a divorce.” Give me a break.

Ken Paxton has acknowledged this. His wife, Angela, who is also a state lawmaker, has acknowledged this. Everybody knows what's going on. She filed for divorce, and they've gotten a divorce.

There are rumors about Ken Paxton. I don't know Ken Paxton, and I don't know anything about his personal background. These are all just rumors. All we know is what has been publicly acknowledged by him and his ex-wife, which is that they got a divorce. You can read her public statements.

But when it comes to Ken Paxton's professional record as attorney general, which is important here, Ken Paxton isn't running to be my deacon or my pastor. Ken Paxton is running to be the United States senator from the state of Texas.

When you look at Ken Paxton's professional career and the actions he takes as an elected official, it is as good as it gets. You don't find anybody better. You can't find anybody better.

What about Ron DeSantis? Ken Paxton is as good as Ron DeSantis, any day of the week. Professionally, from a conservative constitutional perspective, Ken Paxton is as good as or better than Ron DeSantis. Every day of the week, you can't find anybody else in the conservative Republican movement who is better than Ken Paxton when it comes to the issues we care about.

When it comes to the United States Senate seat in Texas, Ken Paxton is far better than lousy John Cornyn. That's why he beat him in a landslide in the primary, despite John Cornyn having tens of millions of dollars more than Ken Paxton.

They talk about Ken Paxton not being a good campaigner. Neither was John Cornyn. John Cornyn got clobbered by 25 points. He's a multi-term incumbent with tens of millions of dollars behind him, and he couldn't even hang with Ken Paxton.

My point is that we have all these narratives. Everybody wants to grovel over Ken Paxton's personal life. But the fact of the matter is that Ken Paxton's record serving professionally as an elected representative is as good as it gets.

That's what should dominate the narrative when we're electing someone for public office to be the spokesperson for the people of Texas in the United States Senate and carry Texas's values to the Senate.

Ken Paxton is a no-brainer. If you're a conservative, if you're a Christian, and if you care about constitutional issues, Ken Paxton checks all the boxes.

I'm not endorsing Ken Paxton. I don't endorse candidates. I'm just telling you that, based on the available data and information, Ken Paxton is by far the most conservative and best candidate if you want conservative constitutional values carried out in Washington, D.C.

That's my three-minute spiel in defense of Ken Paxton.

Back to the polling. Coming out of the break, we've got a clip from CNN pulling data from 1998 that talks about the average margin of error, which is about 3.75 percent on these congressional and Senate races, and how many of these supposedly hotly contested races around the country fall within that margin.

I think four or five of these United States Senate races fall within that historic margin of error. Then we have races going back to 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and even 2024 in Alaska and other places where they said, “The Democrat is going to win by 15 points,” and the Democrat lost by five. That's a 20-point differential.

All in all, folks, we need to be very hesitant about this narrative of a blue wave coming on November 3. We've got more of this content. Stick around after the break.

Walker Wildmon: Welcome back to At the Core here on American Family Radio, where we often provide contrary viewpoints that hopefully provoke thought and critical thinking skills, which we all should exercise occasionally.

Let's jump back into our midterm edition of the program as we look forward to the November 3 election. Vote, vote, vote, and take as many people as you can with you, because it's our civic responsibility as part of being good stewards of what God has entrusted to us.

This is a CNN clip looking at data going back to 1998, when I was five years old, regarding the margin of error and how most of these United States Senate races fall within that margin.

Guest: What does the polling show right now? That is the question I would like you to answer. On average, when you look at these polls, what's the error? What happens?

Let's take a look at the final polling averages. These are the polls conducted over the final 21 days in each state, compiled into an average, and let's see how they do historically. Keep these numbers in mind.

Final Senate poll aggregates in close races, meaning races within five points. The average error rate is 3.7 percentage points.

Polls are a tool. Poll aggregates are a tool. When you have all these close races, you have to keep this in mind. Most of those races are well within that average error rate. That is why the Senate is too close to call if these poll averages hold and they go to Election Day with many races well within three points.

Host: What does this look like if the error goes to the Republican side?

Guest: When you look at this average and then go back, there's only one that is above that average.

This is the big siren warning sign for Democrats, because I know you feel like it's Lucy with the football. You've seen yourselves ahead before, then Election Day comes, the votes are cast and counted, and Republicans come out ahead.

Let's say we get this average error rate and Republicans outperform their polls yet again. This is what we're talking about. The 2026 Senate map, if Republicans outperform the averages by 3.75 points, would give Republicans 52 seats and Democrats 48. Republicans would easily maintain control of the United States House. They'd win in Maine, Michigan, Texas, Kansas, and Iowa.

Walker Wildmon: He meant to say United States Senate at the end there. The point is that he was looking at previous elections, the margin of error, and how much pollsters got it wrong.

When you put all the information together, the margin of error, which usually should hover around one to two percent, maybe three on the high end, is actually averaging closer to four percent, 3.75 to be exact, based on data going back to 1998.

When you factor that in, most of these races could go either way. Assuming you address the polls, they're all within that margin of error, or at least within striking distance of it.

I've got to play this Fox clip first, and then I'm going to do a real-time breakdown of these United States Senate races, what I think it's going to come down to, and try to dispel some of the doom-and-gloom blue-wave narrative coming from the media.

This is Bret Baier on Fox, telling you how wrong the polls and the RealClearPolitics average have been in the past. It's quite embarrassing. Democrats shouldn't be measuring the drapes yet.

Guest: As we've seen in elections past, polls are just a snapshot in time, and they don't always tell us how Election Day will turn out.

For example, in Alaska in 2020, Dan Sullivan led in two separate polls by five and eight points going into Election Day. On Election Day, he won by nearly 13 points.

Maine, 2020, was a big outlier. Susan Collins trailed in the polls for months. In October, polls had her opponent, Sarah Gideon, winning by six or seven points. Collins won by almost nine points.

In Iowa, Joni Ernst led in the polling average by 1.4 points. She won by more than six.

In Ohio in 2024, Bernie Moreno won by 3.6 points, outperforming the final RealClearPolitics average by about two points.

Ted Cruz did the same thing in Texas, winning by more than eight points and outperforming that final average by more than four points.

Finally, in Michigan, Democrat Elissa Slotkin's final polling average was just over two points. She won by less than half a point.

What does that tell us? Republicans have tended to outperform the polls in some of these past Senate races and in some of these different states. Keep in mind, it is a different election cycle, with different issues, different candidates, and a different environment.

Let's just say that, if that pattern holds, the Republican path to keeping the Senate becomes much clearer.

Walker Wildmon: There you have it. That's a brief history lesson about how many times they've gotten it wrong. Those were some doozies if you were paying attention. One person was projected to lose by six, and they won by nine. That's crazy.

Let's do this real-time Senate breakdown.

If you looked at the polls, you would think that the United States Senate seats in Texas, Kansas, and Iowa are up for grabs. They could go Democrat or Republican. I think that's crazy talk.

Once again, I could be completely wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll let you know. But I'm not sure those seats are even up for grabs.

With that being said, let's assume that Iowa and Kansas go red. Iowa and Kansas Senate seats go Republican.

Maine is Susan Collins. The gentleman running against her is someone no one knows. Ask your neighbor, “Who's running against Susan Collins in Maine?” Nobody knows who he is. I had to look him up today, and I don't even know his name off the top of my head.

Susan Collins has Maine locked up. The guy isn't even going to come close to Susan Collins. Susan Collins is going to win Maine.

That leaves Ohio and Texas on the table. Right now, I'm showing 49 United States Senate seats in Republican hands, with Ohio and Texas still up for grabs. I'm not even addressing Michigan yet.

We only have to have one of these three fall into Republican hands for Republicans to get 50 seats in the United States Senate: Texas, Ohio, or Michigan.

Based on my previous commentary, Talarico has no chance in Texas. I'm not saying it is going to be close. Maybe it will be within a couple of percentage points. I don't know what I'm going to do if I'm wrong, because this is going to be quite humbling, but I don't think Talarico has a chance in Texas.

He thinks God is nonbinary. He said the people he loves most are trans children. He wants to pack the Supreme Court. There is no way Texas chooses Talarico. If they do, that will be quite a humbling experience for me.

By the way, they're saying Alaska is up for grabs. Dan Sullivan is going to win Alaska. Dan Sullivan wins Alaska. Now we're at 50 Republican votes.

Back down to Texas. I think Paxton has Texas. Paxton has won statewide office in Texas on multiple occasions. President Trump and the Republicans are now fully behind Paxton with the money. I think Paxton wins Texas.

Talarico is too far left for Texas. That's my personal opinion.

That puts the Republican Senate at 51 seats. We still have Michigan and Ohio up for grabs. Those are both within the margin of error. They could go either way.

Conservatively speaking, Republicans are pretty much at a 51-vote majority, with Ohio and Michigan still up for grabs. If either one of those goes to Republicans, then they have 52.

Republicans, in the midst of an alleged blue wave, go from a 53-seat majority to a 52-seat majority. That's not much of a blue wave to me.

That's the way I'm seeing the United States Senate map today. Once again, only time will tell.

I want to play a clip of James Talarico to give our listeners some context. The media wants to talk about Ken Paxton's negatives, but when Texas voters are educated on James Talarico, it's just not going to bode well.

Based on the kind of people who live in Texas and the conservative bent in Texas, James Talarico is not going to sit well with Texas voters. It's just not going to happen.

When you listen to James Talarico, the last thing you think of is cowboys in Texas. It's just not the vibe you're getting.

This is James Talarico, clip five, talking about who or what he loves most outside of his family and friends.

Guest: Something that you love that's not family or friends?

James Talarico: I love, and I'll just say this because it's on my mind, the trans children who showed up yesterday at the state Capitol to advocate for their humanity. They shouldn't have to, but it was an inspiration to watch.

Walker Wildmon: There you have it. You play that clip among the dozens of others to Texas voters, and that's just not going to sit well.

When it comes to Texas, we've been here before. People try to say, “This time is different.” No, it's not. There are a lot of similarities here.

The media and pollsters kept telling us Ted Cruz was in a dead heat with Colin Allred and Beto O'Rourke, two separate cycles within a six-year window. They said the Texas Senate races were up for grabs and Democrats were going to get Texas.

They didn't even stand a chance. They never stood a chance. Beto O'Rourke and Colin Allred got clobbered. It wasn't even close. It was hundreds of thousands of votes. One of them, I think the Allred race, was more than a million votes.

The Democrats are vying for Texas. They're competing for Texas. It's up for grabs. Are you kidding me? A million-vote differential? No, thank you.

Host: Walker, if I may, this morning in the meeting we were talking about these point values. For example, in Texas, for our listeners' edification, what does one point look like in terms of votes?

Walker Wildmon: In most of these states, Bobby, to answer your question, a state the size of Texas, with more than 20 million people, has a vote differential of between 500,000 and a million people.

Host: That's a whole lot of people for one percent.

Walker Wildmon: At one percent, it's going to be 100,000 to 200,000 or more. I'm roughing out these numbers on the fly, but when you get to a three to five percentage-point differential, you're talking about hundreds of thousands of votes, even closer to 800,000 to a million.

Specifically, looking at the United States Senate race with Colin Allred, that was 2024, not 2025. Ted Cruz beat Colin Allred by about nine percentage points, which is roughly 900,000 votes.

Host: So you were there?

Walker Wildmon: Yes.

Host: One hundred thousand to 200,000, somewhere in that vicinity.

Walker Wildmon: That's right.

I'm not saying Texas isn't going to be close. It may be a couple of percentage points. It may be uncomfortably close. Conservatives may start saying, “All right, now we're going to have to step it up if we're going to keep Texas.” That could happen.

But based on historical data, it's not likely to happen.

All in all, I want to leave you with two things. I know this is a lot of information, a lot of clips, and a lot of content.

The first thing is that, as Christians, we need to mute out and ignore the noise. There's a lot of noise out there, a lot of narratives, a lot of special interests, and a lot of people who want you to think a certain way.

We have to ignore the noise. Whatever the noise is, whether it fits our narrative or works against it, it doesn't matter. We ought to be focused on doing the right thing. In this instance, that means being registered to vote and voting our values, regardless of what the noise is.

Secondly, we need to shed off and completely disregard the pessimistic people in our lives who say, “It's all over. I'm not going to vote.” That doom and gloom is unbiblical and unwise.

As long as Christians have the right and ability to choose our civic leaders in America, we should fully take advantage of that opportunity every chance we get. To not do so is a dereliction of duty.