Nebraska Senator Questions Donald Trump on Core Principles

Newly elected Senator Ben Sasse joined Glenn's radio program to discuss how the presidential election is shaping up from a Washington, DC perspective Tuesday morning.

Glenn asked about a Twitter campaign the Nebraska senator carried out over the weekend, in which he questioned how Donald Trump would govern, should he become president of the United States.

"I have lots of concerns," Sasse answered. "It's not at all clear what the core guiding principles are of Mr. Trump."

He continued.

"Trump is entertaining. He's a lot of fun. He calls it like it is about a bunch of things that are broken. Now, who is he really? And what would he do if were president?" Sasse said.

Below are some of the questions Sasse posted on Twitter.

Listen to the full interview or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: We have very few friends in Washington, as you might imagine. We don't like a lot of people, especially in the capitol or in the administration. But there is one senator that is a new senator that we really, really trust. And he had an interesting weekend on Twitter. And we're going to start there with some questions that he posed. He joins us from Washington, DC. Ben Sasse, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Welcome to the program. From Nebraska, Senator Ben Sasse. How are you, sir?

BEN: Doing well, Glenn. Good morning. Thanks for invite.

GLENN: How are things feeling in Washington, DC, with the way the presidential election is shaping up? It looks like Hillary Clinton is in trouble. And we may be looking at a Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side and possibly either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. How are people feeling in Washington? What are you hearing in the halls?

BEN: You know, I don't pay a ton of attention to my colleagues' chatter on that stuff. Just to be honest, it's amazing how much there's certainty in Washington, until there's not certainty. And there's another certainty two weeks later. I don't think Washington knows very much about all of life. But what's the old line? Often wrong, but never in doubt. So prognostications, predictions by politicians --

GLENN: But what I'm asking is, you know, the establishment has come out for Donald Trump now, and they're talking about deal-makings. And he's on the road talking about deal-makings with the establishment.

Are they concerned about a Trump or a Cruz presidency? Are they concerned about a -- a Clinton or a Bernie Sanders? I mean, I would imagine if you're the Democrats, you might be a little freaked of the idea of Bernie Sanders.

BEN: Yeah. I mean, Bernie is such a likable guy. But, you know, sometimes it feels like -- the ideas sound like we might have just gotten our finger stuck in a light socket for a moment, so I don't know how seriously many people are often taking that possibility. But I agree with you that Mrs. Clinton's legal predictions look very, very complicated.

But, you know, the whole deal-making aspect of it, you know that I'm new here. I've been here 13 months. I've never run for anything before in my life until I was elected to the Senate. And I still live in Nebraska, and I commute most weeks. I bring a kid back. We have three little kids, and I bring a kid back and forth with me every week. So my community or my neighbors are people at church and at the grocery store back home. And one of the great things to say amid all that is wrong in Washington, is most of America doesn't take this place very seriously. They're not addicted to politics. When I'm back home, very rarely do you find anybody in line at the grocery store saying, "If only there were only more insider deal-making in Washington, that would fix all of our problems."

(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. So why for the love of Pete, it's very dangerous and hazardous to your career and health to take on Donald Trump? This weekend, you went on -- you're not endorsing anybody. But you went on and you started doing a Twitter storm here on -- you said you've struck a cord with the American people, Mr. Trump, if I may quote. I think you've rightly diagnosed much of what's wrong in DC. You're very talented and on a roll. If I were betting, you're likely to be the next president of the United States, and congratulations.

But in our house, we've talked about your phenomenal campaign a lot. Good to see how people are talking directly about DC's big mess. But at the same time, we have questions of how you would govern. We'd like to ask some questions, if you're willing to take them.

BEN: Yeah, this is actually what we talk about in my house, with my family. But also with my dad and my brother and my sister-in-law and my grandpa. And there's a debate about, what does Trump actually believe in a whole bunch of issues? It's clear that he's tapped into a vein that most of what's happening in Washington right now is a mess and is broken and is not headed in the right direction. Okay. Good so far. Now, where do you want to take us?

I have lots of concerns that it's not at all clear what the core guiding principles are of Mr. Trump. And so, you know, if Cam Newton hadn't been so dominant the other night. If Arizona had had any defense, maybe none of this would have happened. But Sunday night, I'm watching the NFL game, and I was just back from New Hampshire. I spoke at the first in the nation presidential primary in New Hampshire, and I heard the same things in New Hampshire that I hear in my house, which is, Trump is entertaining. He's a lot of fun. He calls it like it is about a bunch of things that are broken. Now, who is he really? And what would he do if were president? So we threw a few of those questions.

GLENN: All right. So here are the questions. You want to go through them, one by one?

BEN: Sure. Let's do it.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

BEN: Well, first, he has advocated for single-payer health care before, which I think is term for it was government pays for everyone. The government will pay all the bills.

GLENN: So you know, he said that just last year. He said that in September of last year.

BEN: And so now he's campaigning as a conservative. And I don't know of anybody who holds the conservative principles that most of life should be lived outside of Washington that thinks the best thing you can do is insert government bureaucrats between doctors and nurses and sick people in America. That's not a conservative position. And if he doesn't believe in single-payer anymore, that's great. I would be glad. I -- there might be a legitimate conversion story there, but I'd like to hear it. And I think people in New Hampshire and Iowa and certainly in my state in Nebraska people would like to hear it. If you don't believe in single-payer health care anymore, when did it change, and why did it change? And what are you precisely for?

GLENN: Next question.

BEN: There's some video out there that I've seen on the internet. I'm a big defender of the Second Amendment. It is my right because God made me a dad and a husband, to defend my property and my wife and my kids. No government gives me the right to defend myself.

And so we're big Second Amendment people in our family. And I've got a brother who pretty much if you rank ordered 100 different issues on earth and then you gave him 100 marbles, he'd put all 100 of his marbles on the Second Amendment and nothing else matters to him. So he asked the other day, what does Trump think about guns? Because there's this video going around where he's on 60 Minutes or somewhere saying I hate the concept of guns. I believe he's advocated for different kinds of assault weapon bans and things in the past. And so if he doesn't hold that view anymore, if he actually affirms the Second Amendment, how does he understand the Second Amendment? When did his view change? Why did it change? You know, what are his fundamental positions on that?

GLENN: I was in Iowa this weekend, and this is kind of what I said. I said, "Look, I understand people changing their mind. I understand people changing their opinion. I believe in redemption and forgiveness. I believe people can make mistakes. I'm the king of redemption. I needed it more than most. So I understand that. But my problem is, I haven't heard when these things have changed for him." And like you said, there might be a really great reason, but because of this administration, is not -- you know, because, "Well, the country is not going in the right direction or because Obama is doing these things or because it's not working," is not enough of a pain to make you fundamentally transform on government health care and "I hate the concept of guns," I'm totally behind the Second Amendment.

BEN: Right. And let's be clear. I want to underscore your point about redemption. I'm a big believer in sin. It's at the core of my identity that I'm a sinner and Jesus is my savior because of the fact that I'm a sinner. So I believe that. I believe you can change views. But you have to be able to explain it. You have to be able to walk people through a process that is coherent, other than saying, "Hey, there's a big constituency out there, and it appears they have a different view than mine, so now I'm going to adopt their's." That's not leadership. That's running in front of a mob. And maybe it's genuine. But I'd just like to hear the story, and I have not heard it.

GLENN: This is one of the reasons, I think, he doesn't want to appear on this program. When we asked him was after months and months of questioning, and we started asking him in late August, early September if he would come on the show. We asked him three times. And the reason why we wanted him on the show was, maybe he has a good reason for all of these things. Let's hear the reason for all of these things. And that's when he didn't want to appear on the show and all the trouble started.

BEN: Thanks for clearing that up, Glenn, because I actually thought it was because you had no audience. I thought there were four people listening and you were going bankrupt. And I was just here as a social call frankly for you and your loneliness.

GLENN: Gosh. Darn it. You let the cat out of the bag.

We're talking to Ben Sasse of Nebraska. Senator from Nebraska. One of the good guys. Number three.

BEN: Where does he stand on taxes? What is his view -- goal of trying to shrink government? We have a government that is out of control. We have 18 trillion dollars of debt. We've got something like three times that much in unfunded obligations that that the government lies about and keeps off their books in our entitlement programs in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. And a few years ago, Mr. Trump had a proposal that he thought he could address a lot of this. By raising taxes $6 trillion. Trillion with a T. That's not even stuff that Bernie Sanders dreams of.

So I'm just curious as to what his view is on taxes in the future. And, frankly, does he agree with Vice President Biden who said, "Higher taxes equal more patriotism?" If you have a view that there's a way to solve our problems by just raising taxes exponentially, I think that would collapse the economy. But I'd love to understand your position because I think most the people that are supporting him don't know he advocated for a 6 trillion-dollar tax increase.

GLENN: Number four.

BEN: Number four. I'm going to read this precisely because we got hit a lot in the press for this. People saying we said things that were quite different than the actual point we were making.

GLENN: No.

BEN: Number four was, you brag about affairs with married women. The key verb here was "brag." Have you repented, not only to the harm to children, but to the spouses that you stole from? And do you think any of this matters?

GLENN: Hang on. I don't know of these stories where he's bragging about having affairs about married women.

BEN: So I read a piece by Lash over the last week that summarizes some pieces of different books he's written. And I guess along the way -- and then I went and looked up one of them. He says, "I've had all kinds of women." And he sort of lists out categories. But one of the categories are beautiful women, famous women, women you would know, pro athletes, or whatever. I don't have the quote in front of me. But along the way, he said single women, married women. There's a sort of bravado about this that lots of guys have done in locker rooms since we were 17 and 24. And men often say and act stupidly.

But there's something quite different than just a question of whether or not certain aspects of fidelity and infidelity are private or public matters. There are reasonable debates to be had about a lot of that. It's something different to brag about having married women. So I'm just curious as to whether or not he thinks relationships and oaths and vows mean anything. Because I'm setting up the next tweet, which is going to be about the Constitution. The commander-in-chief and the president of the United States takes an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. And I'm curious as to his view of both.

GLENN: Have you had any response?

BEN: You know, strangely there's this thing called Twitter. I don't know if you've heard of it. But it turns out, on Twitter, if you ask a question and some people don't like it, they're able to create these computer programs called bots. And you can create news by having gazillions of people retweeting that I maybe stole a car or I stole some land, I evicted an old lady. Maybe I was involved in physical violence or sexual violence.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Well, that's why we had you on, on this washed up show that only has four listeners. We thought you had evicted and abused a little old lady, which was my grandmother, I hear. That's not true?

BEN: I've never been in politics before. You know this. Let's be clear about that. I mean, I am anti-establishment. That's not enough. You have to be more than that. I'm not skeptical of nonpoliticians trying to serve the American people by defending the Constitution. I'm raising my hand here on radio to say, "I've never run for anything before in my life, until a year ago when I was elected to the US Senate. I was a college president for the last five and a half years and a business guy for, you know, a decade and a half before that. So I'm all for lay governments of America. I am against the permanent professional, political class. So that is not my gripe with Mr. Trump.

GLENN: Oh, is that what they're saying about you? You're part of the political class now?

BEN: Oh, I'm sort of -- I don't even know.

GLENN: It's funny. It's amazing. Michelle Malkin. I just talked to Michelle Malkin yesterday. Michelle Malkin is stupid. She's one of the smartest women I know. I'm a washed-up loser has-been, which actually is pretty darn close to being accurate, compared to all the other things he says. But I've sold out. I'm betraying the Constitution. I'm betraying the conservatives. I mean, it's amazing --

STU: You can't even vote in Texas' open primary.

GLENN: Yeah, I can't vote in a Texas open primary.

BEN: You're a Canadian, aren't you? Glenn, I'm trying to level with you.

GLENN: It's amazing how many people we now have to hate if we're on the Trump bandwagon.

BEN: Well, I don't want to go too far afield and get accused of being too much of a nerd here, but it really is worth going back to the Founders for just a second and remember that America is fundamentally about a certain kind of anthropology, a certain kind of belief about human dignity. We are frail, and we are fallen, and we are broken. But we believe in the potential of self-restraint, of growth and discipline and local community and human dignity. And the reason you want self-restraint is because I don't want the government restraining everything. There's so many things that can go wrong in the world, but I don't want more power to try to compel all of life. I want more persuasion. I want more conversion. I want more voluntary engagement. But when you look at Twitter, you realize what some of the Founding Fathers were a little bit worried about --

GLENN: There's no self-restraint. Ben Sasse, thank you very much for talking about us. We appreciate it. I know you have to do something, probably evict an old lady. But we certainly appreciate it. Have you selected a candidate yet, or are you going to?

BEN: No, I don't expect that I will. Who knows where it will end at the back end. But I don't think Nebraskans elected me because they need a lot of advice on who to vote for. But I do think it's a wonderful thing that the Republican Party has a whole bunch of candidates that believe in the Constitution. We already have one party in the country that's gone basically post constitutionalist. If the Republican Party does that, where will we reform from in the future?

GLENN: Good for you. Thank you very much, Ben Sasse. Senator from Nebraska. And really, truly one of the really good guys.

Featured Image: Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) (L) is ceremonially sworn in by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden with Sasse's wife Melissa Sasse, son Augustin Sasse and daughter Elizabeth Sasse in the Old Senate Chamber at the U.S. Capitol January 6, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

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.