What Made Marco Rubio Stumble in New Hampshire?

Now is the time to vote on principle.

The Context

Coming off a strong surge of support and a surprising third place finish in the Iowa caucuses last week, Marco Rubio was poised for another strong outing in New Hampshire. Not only did Rubio fall out of the top three, he tumbled all the way behind Donald Trump, John Kasich, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush to finish in fifth place, leaving Glenn scratching his head wondering what just happened.

“Rubio stumbled badly,” Glenn said Wednesday on the Glenn Beck Program. “I don't know what's going to happen. I mean, I don't understand the Rubio fall here. I don't think he's a strong candidate for some reason. I don't understand it.”

Glenn may have been confused but Stu was, well, stupefied.

“Well, the guy finished --- he almost beat Donald Trump in Iowa. And he was polling at, what, 14 percent? 13 percent? He got 22 percent. He outperformed his polls dramatically. He had all of the media momentum. Everyone was saying he was the guy,” Stu said.

‘Regretful’ in New Hampshire

Rubio’s inability to seize the momentum from Iowa was confusing to some, but for Melissa who called in from New Hampshire, she left the polling booth kicking herself for not sticking to her guns.

“My husband and I, you know, we've been supporters of Ted Cruz. We were going back and forth between Ted Cruz and Rubio just because I guess we just bought into listening to everybody say that Cruz is going to come in fifth or sixth. We wanted our votes to count, so we ended up literally walking in and voting for Rubio. And we were literally kicking ourselves last night because we could have put our votes to Ted Cruz,” Melissa said.

“And I just never thought that somebody like Ted Cruz would come in how he did, just based on the majority of people up here. I really didn't think that there was any point in voting for him. And we just really, really regret that now.”

Rubio’s stumble just might be the silver lining in this year’s election for Ted Cruz supporters. With Rubio being the "electable" one and finishing behind Cruz in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the voters just might turn the corner on Cruz’ electability issues and start voting their convictions.

Voting Your Conscience

Stu jumped in on the conversation to point something out Glenn has been calling on the audience to do for some time now, vote your conscience and convictions. The three then exchanged thoughts on how things may have gone differently in New Hampshire had more people followed that advice.

“This is a good lesson, I think, Melissa, if I may,” Stu said. “In that, you can't try to strategically vote and try to figure out how to manipulate the process with your one vote.”

“Exactly. You have to vote for your conviction. You really do,” Melissa agreed.

“How many people do you think felt that way?” Glenn asked.

“I think he would have come very close to Kasich, if not better, if people truly voted the way --- you know, to their convictions,” Melissa said.

It wouldn’t be a serious conversation on the Glenn Beck Program without a prediction, and Glenn did not disappoint.

“Now is the time now is the time to do that. And what we have at stake is --- please listen to me. The revolution that is coming. Bernie Sanders is a revolution of socialism. Donald Trump is a revolution of cronyism, I think personally fascism. But cronyism.”

Principled in the Desert

Matt calling from Nevada was one step ahead of Glenn in 2012 and voted third party rather than compromise his principles.

“But in 2012, we were so dedicated on principle that we just could not pull the lever for Romney,” Matt said. “We actually voted third party for Gary Johnson. And I did not want to see another four years of Obama, but I had to vote for principles.”

“Good for you,” Glenn said. "I will say this, I'm trying to be that man.”

The conversation turned toward Donald Trump when Scott in Utah called in to discuss how the “conservative” media has treated Cruz and embraced Trump.

“Rush loves Ted Cruz. For some reason, they've allowed this Donald Trump train to run off the rails. There is absolutely --- I would like all of these guys to say, if Ted Cruz is not your number one guy, Rush, Sean, conservatives on Fox News, give me the one reason you don't like Ted Cruz? Or they do like him. What's the one reason why you would rather have Donald than Ted?  Because I don't get it. And it's driving me crazy,” Scott said.

Scott’s honest questioning prompted a strong response from Glenn.

“I'm going to make a pretty bold statement. And I'll back it up from something I have in from the media here in a minute. If Donald Trump wins the nomination of the party, it will be in large thanks to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Because you're exactly right,” Glenn said.

Common Sense Bottom Line

Whether it was just a bad performance in the last debate or something deeper, Marco Rubio appears to be on the downslope of his wave. Now is the time for voters to stick to their principles and pull the lever for the candidate that best fits their values so they can lay down and night and not kick themselves for voting the lesser of two evils.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN:  Rubio stumbled badly.  I don't know what's going to happen.  I mean, I don't understand the Rubio fall here.  I don't think he's a strong candidate for some reason.  I don't understand it.

STU:  That's so weird though.  It was the exact opposite literally Friday.

PAT:  It is.

STU:  Friday was this -- here he is --

GLENN:  But how much of that was media hype?

STU:  Well, the guy finished -- he almost beat Donald Trump in Iowa.  And he was polling at, what, 14 percent?  13 percent?  He got 22 percent.  He outperformed his polls dramatically.  He had all of the media momentum.  Everyone was saying he was the guy.

PAT:  He was polling second or third in New Hampshire.

STU:  Yeah, he was.

PAT:  And I didn't think he was that bad at the -- at the debate.

GLENN:  Yeah, I didn't think so either.

PAT:  But everybody is making it out like Chris Christie crushed him.  I don't know that that's the case.  I mean, everybody has the memorized speech they use.  I mean, good golly.  

GLENN:  Yeah, we defended it yesterday.  

PAT:  Chris Christie himself with the federal prosecutor thing, that drives me out of my mind.  And as we've talked about, every single time he goes to, "See, that's what I'm talking.  These two senators over here.  They're senators.  They don't get anything done.  I'm a governor.  You don't want senators.  You want a governor."  Shut up.  It's the same thing every time.

STU:  Yeah.

PAT:  So why is that so bad with Rubio and not Christie and certainly not Trump?  I mean, Trump's repeat thing -- I think we played that yesterday.  It's outrageous how many times he talks about the big, beautiful wall.  In the same stupid way he talks about it every time.  And it's embarrassing to listen to, and yet he does it every step.

GLENN:  No.  I don't know what happened to Rubio.

PAT:  I don't either.

GLENN:  But I think there's a chance that Rubio -- that Rubio folds now.  That Rubio is over.

PAT:  Well, he'll wait until after South Carolina.

GLENN:  No, I'm not saying drop out.

PAT:  Yeah.

GLENN:  I'm saying this wave of Rubio.  That Rubio had his moment and it for some reason passed.

PAT:  Well, it does happen quickly in these things.

GLENN:  It does.

STU:  It's so frustrating in this election process that seemingly this happened to a lot of candidates.  And a lot of good candidates.  You know, Scott Walker this happened to.

GLENN:  But you can explain it.  Here me out for a second.  This doesn't explain New Hampshire.  But who is voting for Rubio?  Who I think is voting for Rubio are these people who say, "You know what, he was a Tea Party guy, and he's Hispanic.  And he can win.  And he's a good speaker.  And he's young."  But there's not a lot of depth there.  Okay.  I don't see anybody that is like, "He's the guy that can change the world."  He's the guy that can win; that's what they all say.  Rubio can win.  Not the guy that changes the world.

STU:  I think the argument for him and the caller earlier who voted for Rubio in New Hampshire and kind of regretted it because she really likes Cruz more, but thought Rubio could win kind of outlined the path for Rubio, which is a guy who is conservative enough, but can win.  Where people would say Ted Cruz, he's too conservative.  He can't win.

GLENN:  That's what they said about Ronald Reagan.

STU:  Right.  Of course.  Obviously I disagree with that analysis.  But, I mean, I can understand -- like I don't understand the electability argument with Donald Trump.  I do understand it with Marco Rubio.  He polls very well against the other side.  And he was doing everything that would go down this path until that debate.  And it seemed to completely turn around there, for some reason.

GLENN:  You know, when we come back, I want to talk a little bit -- we have a guy from Nevada that I want to talk to.  And then I want to share a little -- people are comparing Ted Cruz to the Ronald Reagan years.  I think that's a wrong comparison.  I think people should compare him to Calvin Coolidge.  And it's a more accurate description and even a more powerful win than what Reagan -- what Reagan did in the 1980s.  I'll explain, coming up.

(OUT AT 9:32AM)

GLENN:  This is a never a good thing when somebody on the staff says, I have an announcement to make.  But Jeffy has an announcement to make today.  And you're going to make that a little later on in the program?

JEFFY:  I do have an announcement to make.  And I'm excited for it.

STU:  A major announcement, would you say?

JEFFY:  Yes, it's a major announcement.  For this program, it's a major announcement.

GLENN:  So he'll be doing that coming up in a little while.

JEFFY:  I don't even want to tell you what it is yet.  You'll be excited.

GLENN:  Let me go to Matt in Nevada.  Hello, Matt, you're on the Glenn Beck Program.

CALLER:  Good morning, gentlemen.  Glenn, it's an honor.  Thank you for taking my call.  

GLENN:  Thank you. 

CALLER:  There was a time where you saved my life, man.  But I know time is limited.  I'll get right to it.

GLENN:  Well, now, you can't say that.  You saved my life.  I don't remember pulling you out of a burning truck.  What happened?

CALLER:  Pretty much, man.  In a spiritual sense, man.  You just could never know what you've done to change my life, man.  And I could never repay that.  And thank you enough.  And thank you.

GLENN:  You can start with a 100-dollar check.

(laughter)

CALLER:  So the reason why I'm calling this morning is because my wife and I, we're pretty Libertarian.  We've been involved on the ground game here in Nevada.  The last two elections, we were big Ron Paul people.  This time around, Rand cast his hat in the game, so we got involved to try and help Rand.  Now, from the beginning, there were really two candidates that I saw as constitutional, that I really believed I could get behind and support.  And obviously that's Rand, but also Ted Cruz.  Ted Cruz -- you've shown his record -- is just so solid on the Constitution.  

So when Rand announced that he was suspending his campaign, my wife and I -- and we were torn the whole way.  We weren't sure, you know, if we were going to go all-in on Rand.  But we knew when he suspended his campaign, that we were going to go for Cruz.  

So last night, we both got this random text message from an individual, claiming to be a part of the Rand Paul campaign, saying that Rand's name is still on the ballot for the caucus that we're going to have here in Nevada on the 23rd.  And this person was saying that, you know, Rand could still win.  And that they have us down as supporting Dr. Paul and we need to come and show up for him.

GLENN:  Don't do it.

CALLER:  So I responded to this person and said, "Hey, that's great.  But Rand is out of the game.  He doesn't have a chance at doing it anymore.  And with cults of personality like Donald Trump, I can't see voting for anybody at this point besides Ted Cruz."  And I won't tell you what this person texted me next.  But needless to say, my wife and I got pretty nasty text messages from this person.

GLENN:  I would like you to read it.  

STU:  Well...

GLENN:  Just delete the foul words.

CALLER:  Well, let me see -- she got it worse than I did.  But basically this person tried to disparage Ted.  Says, "If you and everyone else that supported him before was supposed to show up, then he can win Nevada.  If you need a paid campaign to sabotage him, then don't vote for him.  And don't vote on principle."  

I had to edit that up a little bit.  Basically, this person is saying I'm not principled.  Now, I beg to differ on that.  For example -- Pat is probably going to be mad at me on this one.  Sorry, brother.  

But in 2012, we were so dedicated on principle that we just could not pull the lever for Romney.  We actually voted third party for Gary Johnson.

GLENN:  Good for you.

CALLER:  And I did not want to see another four years of Obama, but I had to vote for principles.

GLENN:  Good for you.  I will say this, I'm trying to be that man.  Pat has already bailed on that man.

PAT:  No, I haven't.

GLENN:  Yes, you have.  You've already said you would vote for anybody.  You'd vote for anybody.

PAT:  I did not say I would vote for anybody.  When did I say that?

GLENN:  Well, okay -- oh, my God.

PAT:  Oh, you pull the tape, my friend.  You pull the sound.  I did not say, "I'll vote for anybody!"

GLENN:  Last week --

PAT:  What?

GLENN:  You didn't say anybody.  But you were like --

PAT:  What did I say?

GLENN:  You'd vote for Jeb.  You'd vote for any of the guys on our side.

PAT:  Over Hillary or Bernie?

GLENN:  Over Hillary and Bernie.  You will not pull third party.  I think you said you'd vote for Trump over Hillary --

PAT:  I think I felt that way, that one day.

GLENN:  Oh.  Okay.  All right.  

(laughter)

PAT:  I would not vote for Trump under any circumstances.

GLENN:  Okay.  I want that on tape.  Shh.

PAT:  I will not vote for Donald Trump under any circumstances.  

GLENN:  Okay.  All right.  

So, anyway, Matt, good for you.  We're trying to be that man of principle now.  

PAT:  Yeah.  

GLENN:  Anyway, go ahead.

CALLER:  Well, I'm going to pull the lever for Ted.  I don't see what pulling the lever for Rand would do at this point.  He's got a really tough --

PAT:  He left the race.  It would be a waste.  Is that even from his official people?  I doubt what you got was even from Rand's people because Rand is not running anymore.  Is he?

GLENN:  No.

CALLER:  Well, the response we gave to them was, if you're trying to convince me -- I mean, this person was very rude.  And I was like, "If you're trying to convince me, you're not doing a good job."  Like, I asked some questions.  What would be the point?  I mean, Rand does have a very strong ground game in Nevada.  A lot of it was built by his father.  So he had a lot of the same supporters come out.  I mean, we've been involved here on the ground.  We have a lot of great friends.  But, you know, I -- I think, Glenn, you've touched on this a few times.  This election is too important to throw away your vote.  I mean, we have a guy who is constitutional.  We have a guy that is rock solid on the Constitution.

GLENN:  So here's the reason that Rand would say this to you.  The reason why the Rand people would say this to you is because there is something about having delegates, that you can come to the convention and broker those delegates and get something that you want from one of the candidates.  You come up and you say, "Okay.  I've got X-number of delegates from Nevada.  Who is the highest bidder here?  Which of the candidates --

CALLER:  I'm not sure if you know or not, but they actually changed that rule at the convention in 2012.  And it was because Ron Paul, his strategy was to try and scoop up as many delegates as he could.  And there's actually a really scandalous video clip -- you can find it on YouTube -- where John Boehner comes out, and they passed it.  The yays and the nays, and it sounded pretty sketchy, man.  It sounded like the nays had it, but he still passed it anyway.  

GLENN:  I remember that.

CALLER:  And you can see cell phone footage of him reading from the prompter.

GLENN:  Remember that?

PAT:  Yeah.

GLENN:  I remember that now.  So there's no reason that I can come up with.

PAT:  There is none.

GLENN:  The only thing I can say -- I talk to both Rand -- I consider both of them friends.  I talked to both Rand and Ted, before, during, and after this race.  And as God is my witness, and the three of you guys know this too, that all the -- at the very beginning, I sat down with both of them, and I said, "Please, guys.  You're both constitutionalist.  Please don't kill each other."

CALLER:  Right.

GLENN:  Aim your guns at other people, but we need one of you guys to win.  And I don't know why -- I really don't know why -- and I can give you my guess, I think that Rand kind of feels like it was his turn and he was going to be the constitutionalist and he's kind of pissed at -- at Cruz because he feels like Ted kind of came out of nowhere and elbowed his way in when he had the real chance of winning.

CALLER:  Yep.

GLENN:  And that's just my feeling.

CALLER:  Oh, I think you're absolutely right.  And I have to give Ted credit because, you know, I watched the debates, and I can't tell you how bad my skin was crawling when I saw Rand going after him.  And the thing that impressed me most was Ted didn't fire back.  He -- he never once --

PAT:  He usually doesn't.

CALLER:  I haven't heard Ted say one thing negative about Rand Paul.  And I wish that Rand hadn't have done that.  I really hope that people who are in the Rand Paul camp like I have been -- I mean, we are ardent Libertarians.  Ron Paul supporters.  Rand Paul supporters.  But if you can't see the value of Ted Cruz at this point, I don't know what -- what you want because, I mean, Ted is it, man.  He's the guy.  And, you know, and we need Rand to keep his Senate seat.

GLENN:  If the roles were reversed, I would be saying the same thing that I'm saying about Ted Cruz that I'm saying about Rand Paul.

CALLER:  I know you would, Glenn.

GLENN:  I would be taking the same exact stance.  We have to restore the Constitution.  I mean this sincerely.  This is our last chance.  If we play party politics, if we play, gee, who can win?  Who can't win?  We play those games and we lose, we get either, I don't know, Kasich or a Jeb Bush or, God forbid, a Donald Trump.

CALLER:  Oh, good grief.

GLENN:  We're toast.  We're toast.

CALLER:  Yeah.

GLENN:  And if we can't band together on -- both those guys were great on the Constitution.  Both of them.  One of them is leading the pack.  It's time for everybody -- and this means not just Ron Paul people, but I think this means Carson people.  It is time to wake up and realize the sorry state of the situation and realize there is one guy that will stand for religious freedom, one guy who will stand for freedom of speech, one guy that will reduce the size of government in a dramatic way, one guy who will stop Common Core in its tracks, one guy who will stop the IRS in its tracks, one guy who will restore the Constitution.  The other guys don't have a chance of winning now.  This guy does.  And if we don't pull together, you're going have somebody slip right between and win and take it, and then we'll lose the republic.  This is the moment the republic decides whether they're going to -- whether they're going to live or die.  

This is the moment that Franklin talked about.  When he was walking down the street, "Mr. Franklin, what did you give us?"  

"A republic, if you can keep it."

This is the moment we decide if we can keep it.  And playing those games are infantile and futile.  

So thank you very much, Matt.  I appreciate it.  

By the way, I'm going to be in Nevada.  I'm going to be in South Carolina Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday.  And hope to see you there.  Just check my Facebook page or GlennBeck.com.  You can find out where.  

Let me go to Scott in Utah quickly.  Hello, Scott, you're on the Glenn Beck Program.

CALLER:  Well, unfortunately what I have to say is not quick.  But I do agree 100 percent with what you're saying.  If Rand Paul can't get behind Ted Cruz and allow Donald Trump to continue this march, (?) because Rand Paul's people could help, I lose a lot of respect for him, Glenn.  I don't care if he's your friend or not.  It's time to coalesce behind Ted Cruz.

GLENN:  I agree.

CALLER:  The reason why Donald Trump is where he is, it's very simple.  People don't think anymore for themselves.  People don't have time to watch all the debates.  So they watch the Fox News coverage after the debates.  I'm talking Republicans.  I'm talking smart people.  I'm talking passionate people.  And they parrot everything they hear on Fox News the next day.  It used to be (?) because he was at 5 percent in August.  Now since Thanksgiving in December or Christmas, it's Ted Cruz can't win because he's not likable.  I don't think he can pull the party together.  It's what they're hearing on Fox News negatively about Ted Cruz.  And now Fox News doesn't even criticize Donald Trump anymore.  You've got six hours of talk radio, between you and Mark Levin every day, that is a pom-pom waving (?) of Donald Trump.  And what is this Marco Rubio electability thing that Hannity says over and over -- when did we start doing that?  I think Marco -- what about electability?  I never thought Hannity would ever say that.  Rush's old line was conservatism wins every time it's tried.

GLENN:  Where are they?

CALLER:  Rush loves Ted Cruz.  (?) for some reason, they've allowed this Donald Trump train to run off the rails.  There is absolutely -- I would like all of these guys to say, if Ted Cruz is not your number one guy, Rush, Sean, conservatives on Fox News, why not is this give me the one reason you don't like Ted Cruz?  (?) or they do like him.  What's the one reason why you would rather have Donald than Ted?  Because I don't get it.  And it's driving me crazy.

PAT:  They'll all tell you they're not for Donald Trump.  They will all tell you --

GLENN:  They'll all tell you.  They are friends.  They go golfing with him.  (?) they're not for him.  They're just telling it like it is.  But I'm telling you --

CALLER:  Yeah, but you understand, the people that listen to them are the majority of Republican voters unfortunately.  They're my friends.  They're my friends from all over the country.  And they don't pay a whole lot of attention.  But when they hear Rush defending Donald Trump day in -- I mean, this is eight months, guys.  This is not a -- all day, every day for eight months.

GLENN:  I'm going to make a pretty bold statement.  And I'll back it up from something I have in from the media here in a minute.  (?) if Donald Trump wins the nomination of the party, it will be in large thanks to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.  Because you're exactly right.  And I'm going to back this up (?) with something I found in a media website today coming up in just a minute.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) talks with reporters on his charter flight from Manchester-Boston Regional Airport February 10, 2016 en route to Spartanburg, South Carolina. Rubio placed fifth in the New Hampshire primary, behind fellow GOP candidates Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Donald Trump, who swept away the competition with 35-percent of the vote. (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.