Why did Glenn call the GOP the amazing tower of Jell-O?

The GOP promised action on 12 issues in the first 12 weeks in Congress. They have acted, unfortunately they’ve acted extremely cowardly so far. From folding on immigration and Obamacare they have completely caved to progressive pressures. The latest failure was backing down on a slam-dunk bill outlawing abortions past the point where the baby can feel pain.

Below is a transcript of this story from radio

GLENN: It looks like the Republicans are abandoning the immigration campaign promises as they have abandoned the abortion promises too. So...

PAT: No. Because we were promised that they were going to hit hard. The 12 items in 12 weeks thing.

GLENN: But they are. They're hitting it hard. And the Keystone oil pipeline hasn't gone through either.

PAT: Except for those three things.

GLENN: But other than that...

PAT: So the first three weeks of the 12 weeks are a total wash. But after that, we'll buckle right down and get these taken care of. So nine items in nine weeks.

GLENN: But don't worry, it's only immigration. So they're folding on the small ones. Abortion, immigration --

PAT: It doesn't get any bigger than those.

GLENN: No.

PAT: It really doesn't.

GLENN: And you could even say, okay, abortion --

PAT: Let's keep killing babies. Let's just keep killing babies at the rate we have been. It's only 45 million now since 1972. Why not do another 45 million?

GLENN: Yeah. So let's just wait the next time.

PAT: Don't even worry about it. Why bother. Then the flood of illegals across the border, I wouldn't worry about that at all.

GLENN: You could say, why? But here's the deal, this is what scared them off of this, the president's approval rating is back to 50 percent.

PAT: Well, in Gallup, but it was 40 percent in some other poll last week.

GLENN: You don't understand, it's 50 percent in Gallup now. So they should panic. They should abandon their principles.

PAT: Because his approval rating is back up.

GLENN: His approval rating is back up. So the people must be with of him. It's insanity.

PAT: He has free health care going. Free Obama phones. Free food to the masses. Doing the free community college. Free child care. He's offering freebies to everybody not paying anything into the system. Of course, 50 percent are with him because 50 percent aren't paying any of the freight. Of course, they're always going to be with him. How is it they can't figure this out? How is it?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know.

PAT: I don't understand it. It's really not rocket science.

GLENN: I was thinking this morning. I was listening to something Rand Paul said. And he was on stage with -- Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were on stage together. They were both talking and they both made a lot of sense. I thought to myself, how is it that Romney and Jeb Bush can get together, and they can -- they can work together to take people out, but we can't get Rand Paul and Ted Cruz together and say, look, you guys -- and maybe Scott Walker. You guys, work together. Bobby Jindal, work together. And take out the -- the progressive Republicans and take out the Jeb Bush and the Mitt Romneys, and then we'll decide between you guys. Why can't you guys all stand together? That's what they're doing. What the hell is wrong with you guys.

[break]

So I get up this morning, and I think to myself, why can't we get -- if we can get Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney to get together and meet and say, hey, I don't know -- you know, why don't we all meet and take out all those nasty Tea Party guys, why can't the Ted Cruz -- and what's his name? Rand Paul. Why can't they get together and maybe even -- I don't know. We need to talk -- let's get Walker on. Let's see if we can get him on.

PAT: I'd like to talk to Scott Walker. He seems great.

GLENN: Yeah, I think I'd like him. I think he's a candidate worth considering. And even Marco Rubio. Even Marco Rubio, why can't these guys get together and say, we're all for small government. So let's go against the progressives. When we get into the debates, all of us, we just focus on the progressive policies of these two.

If they all got together and said, look, we're just going to work together. We're nonprogressives. They're progressives. If you want progressive, then go vote for the Democrat. We don't believe in the progressive principles. So we'll all stand together. And when the debate questions are asked, we won't attack each other. We'll turn our guys to these guys and say, look, a few of us on stage, here's the big choice, America. The first choice you have to make is, are we going to believe in big government has the solution or that government is the problem?

If government is the problem and the people are the solution, then you should consider one of us four. If you believe that the government solves all the problem and needs to babysit everyone, then it should be Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee. You take those guys. We believe in small limited government, and that's the first choice Republicans have to make. Which direction?

I don't know why they can't get together and do that. Because that's exactly what the progressive Republicans are doing. They're getting together and saying, let's take out Rand Paul and let's take out Ted Cruz. What are they thinking?

PAT: Mitt and Jeb already met in Utah. Right?

GLENN: Yeah, it's already happened. And Jeb Bush called the Clintons to say, hey, just want you to know, we're going to be running. They're all on it together.

PAT: The Clintons and the Bushes are incredibly close.

GLENN: What is wrong with our guys?

STU: I guess the argument is they would align themselves and have a situation where all four of them are splitting that vote. And then whoever from the establishment side pokes their head out, and they will work together, then, you know, you will have four Ted Cruz-type guys splitting votes and none of them win. I mean, the only way to work together --

GLENN: Here's what will happen. All the Jeb Bushes and the Mitt Romneys will work together, and they will take them out. They'll target them one after another. So what you do is you target all four of those guys. Target Jeb Bush. Number one target, Jeb Bush. And in the debates, you just target the policies of Jeb Bush. Look, I think it's important -- no matter what they ask you. I think it's important to understand, that Common Core is wrong. And I'm against Common Core and all the guys here are against Common Core. We don't believe that they should at that we should repeal and augment or replace -- we believe we should repeal Obamacare and then let the free market system work it out.

He likes big government health care. And so does Mitt Romney. And when you have people pointing that out, then they'll be forced to make a choice. I don't understand. That's exactly what they'll do. They can say the same thing. Well, one of us is going to lose.

STU: But they did. And they met together.

GLENN: Right. Because they're willing. Because they actually believe in something. They're willing to lose. Mitt Romney has even said this. Jeb, if it's not me, it should be you. Can I get Ted Cruz to say that about Rand Paul and Rand Paul say that about Ted Cruz? Hey, if it's not me, it shouldn't be Ted Cruz. If it's not me, it should be Rand Paul. No. I don't think they will.

GLENN: I don't think they will. And you already have Mitt Romney saying that about Jeb Bush.

STU: He's not outwardly saying that.

GLENN: Yes, he did. He said, if Jeb Bush runs, I don't think I will run because there will at least be someone there that will carry on what I believe needs to be done.

STU: And that was before he decided to run.

GLENN: Right. So now he won't say that. But he was saying that -- but in their meeting, they're bringing this up. Instead, we have all these progressive Republicans playing the game of, oh, we're going to be tough. Boy, are we going to be tough. Give me the 12 in 12. The idea -- and we need to have Chris Stewart on again.

STU: Yeah, he's not available today.

GLENN: Maybe tomorrow?

STU: Either later this week or next week. Do you have an update on that, Jeffy?

JEFFY: I do not.

GLENN: So he'll come on.

PAT: He will.

GLENN: He said, you know, I'll come on once a week and tell you about the 12 in 12. And the idea was, I voted for Boehner and a lot of us did because we have an agreement that Boehner will get really tough on these things. And we'll pass these 12 things in Congress. You'll see, Glenn.

Okay. Good, I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong.

And I like Chris. And I know Chris. And I disagree with his point of view here, but I know he's trying to do the right thing.

PAT: And if these 12 things worked out, it would be great.

GLENN: It would be great.

PAT: But so far, I haven't seen any of the 12 actually come to fruition.

GLENN: Okay. Well, here's what happened. I got up this morning, and I'm reading the news and I'm looking at how the Republicans seem to be folding on immigration. They just folded on abortion.

PAT: Right. That's two of the things.

GLENN: They're now talking about how Barack Obama's poll numbers are up. And so, well, if his poll numbers are up, we're worried about that, because maybe we should be more like Jeb Bush.

Oh, my gosh. Towers of Jell-O.

PAT: So the Keystone Pipeline was one of the issues.

GLENN: Let's go through the 12. Let's see where everything stands. Who has the list of 12?

PAT: I do.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead.

JEFFY: I do.

PAT: So does Jeffy. Keystone Pipeline. Border security.

STU: Keystone Pipeline is --

GLENN: Was passed in the House. And it is now being dragged down by the Democrats in the Senate. So it's being blocked by the Democrats in the Senate.

PAT: Okay. Border security, which they've apparently folded on already. Right?

GLENN: Yes. What they're doing is, they're saying they're going to do the immigration reform, but not the border security.

PAT: This, to me, if it's not the most important, it's certainly top two.

GLENN: Can I tell you something, you know what pisses me off? Have you guys seen the fence that Saudi Arabia is building?

STU: Yeah, 600 miles.

GLENN: Yeah, of fence.

When Israel builds a fence --

STU: It is hateful.

GLENN: It is hateful, and it's the Holocaust. When Saudi Arabia builds a 600-mile fence, it's not apartheid, no, it's common sense.

STU: It's to keep ISIS out, by the way. Because they're implementing that policy because we couldn't handle ISIS in the country that we were supposed to be handling them in. We've let that happen.

So instead, now, Saudi Arabia has to build a fence, which is the supposed response we were going to have to another problem in America that we couldn't handle and never built the fence. It's just a cacophony of failure.

PAT: So you have Keystone.

GLENN: Keystone is bogged down in the Senate.

PAT: Border.

GLENN: Border looks like they're done -- no, they'll do the immigration reform. They'll make people citizens, but they won't secure the border.

PAT: Yes. That's what will happen.

The REINS Act, which is to pull back the regulatory agencies who have become the most powerful in Washington --

GLENN: Don't know anything about that.

STU: Very good. It's Mike Lee. Mike Lee priority. It actually would make a huge difference to the country.

PAT: It would be great.

STU: It's not sexy at all. Basically all the regulation that goes in there, Congress would have an opportunity to say, no, not on that part. No.

GLENN: You want to know one of the most non-sexy issues of FDR's reign, was the commerce laws. Nobody paid attention to that. I'm trying to remember. What was the name of that court case that went to the Supreme Court?

STU: Yeah, I know what you're talking about.

GLENN: So, anyway, it was a non-sexy thing. That changed everything in America.

STU: It's the justification of every single government action today.

GLENN: Because they said it's state lines. Crossing state lines. So anything crossing state lines now can be regulated by the federal government. So that one court case changed -- if you just reversed that one thing, it will roll back progressivism 100 years. One hundred years. Make huge difference in everyone's life. Make an impact you would actually feel. When Mike Lee says it's not sexy, the REINS Act, nobody is paying attention to it. Nobody even understands that court case. I can't even remember the name of that court case. Do you have it?

STU: There's been multiple ones. There's the one with the wheat. I'm trying to think of the one that is well-known. I can't find the stupid name of it.

Wickard versus Filburn.

GLENN: And the one with the wheat is really important too. That was the guy he was going to make bread with wheat on his own property, and he wasn't allowed to.

STU: That's Gibbons versus Ogden. Yeah, that was the one where he wanted to make it on his own property. In theory, that would affect the entire wheat market.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So they can regulate what he does on his own property because someone in Idaho might have the price of wheat affected by what he's doing in his backyard.

GLENN: So everything changed. When he says the REINS Act is not sexy. Fine. Little changes like that, that nobody is paying attention to, make all the difference in the world.

STU: This is essentially an anti-Cass Sunstein law. Which would make it so that people like Cass Sunstein, who aren't elected, who go in there and write thousands of pages of regulations after we pass a law --

GLENN: It's the health care bill.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The health care bill, it just said page after page after page, the regulations shall be determined by the Secretary. And so there were no -- there were no -- the law was just empowering people to come up with all the laws.

STU: Yeah, exactly.

GLENN: And that's not the way it's supposed to be. Congress is supposed to pass the laws of the regulations.

STU: Congress can say, wait a minute. We don't agree with that regulation. It's not in the spirit of the law. They can vote on that. There has to be approval on this. It's not sexy at all, but it would be very important.

GLENN: Huge. Any idea where a that stands?

STU: I have not heard a word about it yet.

PAT: I don't think they're doing anything on it.

JEFFY: Not yet.

STU: They have 12 weeks. They could get to some of the stuff before the 12. The progress so far, not so great.

PAT: Tax reform, the only one talking about it, that I've heard, so far is the president.

GLENN: Well, and Ted Cruz. He's talking about repeal the IRS. Shut down the IRS.

PAT: Yeah, but the one who is really driving this bus right now is the president, on raising taxes.

GLENN: Did you guys see the show last night? Did you get a chance to watch the TV show?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Tonight I have him on again. It is -- here's the biggest thing. David Buckner is an adjunct professor at Columbia. He's also a consultant for some of the biggest corporations around the world. He spends time all around the world. Mainly in Europe and in Russia and in China.

And we talked about tax policy and hyperinflation last night. And because he said, two years ago, that the United States government is going to start raising interest rates. And when they start raising interest rates, unless they put us in the poppy field and make us feel like everything is okay, that's when everything starts to fall apart. He explained this last night in a way that I have not understood. He's on again tonight. He'll go into it a little bit more.

The reason why we can't now lower our tax rates, think of this. What's happened to all of the money? The president prints all this money. And who gets all this money? We printed all the money. Who gets the money? Who is he giving the money to?

STU: You mean, like the fed?

GLENN: Yeah, the fed prints all the money, and where does it go?

STU: The banks. So they can have more capital.

GLENN: Correct. So we've all heard. The banks aren't giving out any loans.

STU: They're sitting on it.

GLENN: They're sitting on that money. They're not sitting on that money here. They're investing over in places like Europe because the interest rates are higher over there. Here it's 0 percent. So they're borrowing money. They're lending money overseas because they can make money overseas. If we start to raise our -- our -- or lower our income tax, that means that money is going to start coming back here. If we raise our interest rates, it means, okay, we can invest here, because you'll put the money back on shore, and that money will make money.

If you lower the rates, all that money that's off shore making money someplace else again will come back here. And when you do that, what happens? All of that inflated money comes rushing back into the United States, and now you have hyperinflation. He's like, we're just -- we're just screwed.

STU: Thanks, David.

[laughter]

JEFFY: Not if we make it through the list of 12.

[laughter]

GLENN: Watch last night's episode and watch tonight's episode with David Buckner. Really fascinating conversation. Understood things about the economy I just didn't understand. Really fascinating.

All right. What else is on the 12?

PAT: Appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS.

GLENN: Not going to happen.

PAT: Continue to work to repeal Obamacare and have a replacement for it.

GLENN: A replacement!

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They're already folding on that.

PAT: The Unborn Child Act, which prohibits abortion for those unborn children who actually can feel pain. Twenty weeks and above.

GLENN: And they just folded on that.

STU: They say they'll revisit that one.

PAT: Audit the fed. They haven't done that.

GLENN: No. That's not going to happen.

PAT: Reform the EPA.

And the Antiquities Act, which deals with federal land in the west, and the president's ability to use a law that has nothing to do with that in order to claim that federal land, which I believe is exactly what he's doing with Alaska right now.

STU: So far so good is what you're saying?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: G.O.P. tower of Jell-O!

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.