EXCLUSIVE: Cruz Leaves the Door Open to Unsuspending His Campaign

May 10, 2016

Writer

So you're sayin' there's a chance!

Ted Cruz called in to the The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday, giving Glenn and the crew a much-needed sliver of optimism for election coverage this evening. Co-host Pat Gray couldn't help but toss out a Hail Mary to the former presidential candidate.

"Ted, are you leaving the door open to . . . if Nebraska were to somehow, miraculously choose you tonight, is there . . . I mean, if that happened, would you consider getting back in the race?" Pat asked.

Cruz's response even caught both Pat and Glenn by surprise.

"Well, I am not holding my breath," Cruz said. "My assumption is that that will not happen. But, listen, let's be very clear: If there is a path to victory . . . we launched this campaign intending to win. The reason we suspended the race last week, it was Indiana's loss. I didn't see a viable path to victory. If that changes, we will certainly respond accordingly."

Pat's joy couldn't be contained as he gave Cruz supporters a call to action.

"Right. I don't know about you, Nebraska, but I take that as a, 'Yes!' Get to the polls and vote for Ted Cruz," Pat exclaimed.

"Yes! I take that as a big 'Yes,'" Glenn said. "That's interesting, Ted. That's interesting. That's very interesting."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Ted Cruz is on with us now. Hello, Ted, how are you? Are you there, Ted?

TED: I am. It's great to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Good to be with you. How are you feeling?

TED: You know, I am feeling great. Obviously, the election results were not what we had hoped for.

GLENN: Yeah.

TED: But I'll tell you, Heidi and I feel incredibly privileged to have had the chance to make this run, to be part of what was just an incredible grassroots movement.

And, you know, not a day goes by that we are not thankful for the men and women all across this country that we had the opportunity to meet, and they're just patriots fighting for this country. And that was inspirational. We came up short in this election. I would have preferred it otherwise.

PAT: Me too.

TED: But the movement still continues. And that's what gives me encouragement.

GLENN: Let's talk about that in two ways: First of all, can a conservative win happen with the media the way it is today? Facebook -- we just found out a couple days ago, Facebook -- like, for instance, dropped my speech from CPAC, dropped your speech from CPAC. They were manipulating what was trending if you were a conservative, especially one that was for Ted Cruz.

TED: Sure.

GLENN: You know how Fox behaved. How can someone like you win when the media is the way it is? Can you?

TED: Well, you can. Now, this election will be studied for the role of the media, and in particular, network executives, that they made in terms of promoting the candidate that they had chosen they wanted to win. You know, it's now -- you know, for example, Trump has received now over $3 billion in free airtime.

GLENN: Yeah.

TED: Strikingly, over the last 30 days, he had $500 billion in free airtime, 90 percent of which was positive. To put that in perspective, in the entire 13 months of the campaign, the aggregate coverage of my campaign was about 500 billion dollars' worth.

GLENN: You mean million.

TED: He got that in 30 days, and 90 percent of his was positive.

And that has a dramatic impact on the polls, when every network becomes effectively the super PAC for the candidate they want to win the nomination. And we're about to see that same ferocious fury now turn against Donald in an effort to elect Hillary. And there's no doubt we need to think hard about, what is the role of a handful of executives in manipulating and trying to deceive the voters? Because I think it's a very dangerous dynamic that we have right now.

GLENN: So, Ted, we have only about eight minutes. I know you're on a tight schedule, and we're on the network schedule. So I want to get some pretty important questions out.

There are people now -- we are getting hammered by two -- by two fronts. One, people saying, "You've got to convince Ted to run third party." And I keep saying, "I don't think he would do that." The other is, "You've got to support Donald Trump." And we can't do that.

What do the people that were for you, what do you think that we should do? What is your recommendation? And can you support Donald Trump?

TED: Well, listen, this is a choice every voter is going to have to make. And I would note, it's not a choice that we as the voters have to make today. The Republican convention isn't for another two and a half months. The election isn't for another six months.

You and I both want to support a conservative. We want to support someone who will get the burden of Washington off of small businesses and bring back jobs and economic growth. We want to support someone who will defend the Constitution, defend the Bill of Rights, religious liberty, the Second Amendment. We want to defend someone who will stand by our friends and allies, including especially the nation of Israel, and we want to defend someone who will be a strong, serious commander-in-chief.

More broadly than that, Glenn, you and I both want a president we can trust, a president we can trust with power, who demonstrates a temperament not to abuse that power. That's what elections are about.

The voters in the primary have seemed to have made a choice. And we'll see what happens as the months go forward. But I think we need to watch and see what the candidates say and do.

PAT: Now, you say we need to watch and see. Ted, are you leaving the door open to -- if Nebraska were to somehow --

GLENN: It's not going to happen.

PAT: -- miraculously choose you tonight.

GLENN: Pat's going for the hail Mary.

PAT: Is there -- I mean, if that happened, would you consider getting back in the race?

(chuckling)

TED: Well, I am not holding my breath. My assumption is that that will not happen.

But, listen, let's be very clear: If there is a path to victory -- we launched this campaign intending to win. The reason we suspended the race last week, it was Indiana's loss. I didn't see a viable path to victory. If that changes, we will certainly respond accordingly.

PAT: Right. I don't know about you, Nebraska, but I take that as a yes!

GLENN: Yes! I take that as a big yes.

PAT: Get to the polls and vote for Ted Cruz.

GLENN: Now, I want you to know, the minute you would unsuspend your campaign, John Kasich would do the exact same thing.

PAT: I bet he would. I bet he would.

JEFFY: I bet he would too.

GLENN: I bet he would.

That's interesting, Ted. That's interesting. That's very interesting.

(laughter)

PAT: That's very, very interesting.

GLENN: Yeah, very interesting.

PAT: I like that.

GLENN: Can I ask you --

TED: You know, I will say, Glenn, a lot of folks in the media are trying to spin this election results as the death of the conservative movement. And that's a media narrative that the media loves. But also, a lot of the Washington establishment loves.

GLENN: Yeah.

TED: And I got to tell you, I think it's complete nonsense. I think the conservative movement remains strong and vibrant. I think the conservative movement unfortunately was divided. That doesn't mean it is -- it lacks its potency, but it is true that when conservatives are divided, we are far less effective. And there are a lot of reasons for that.

GLENN: So that brings us to what the G.O.P. is saying.

Two weeks ago, Ted, Reince Priebus had -- wanted to spend the day with us. And spend the day, do television, do radio, and then have some conversations off air because he was courting our listeners. Since you dropped out, the guy won't even return our phone calls. This is the week it was supposed to happen. He was going to do Hannity, us, and Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday was Hannity. Now he's saying, "We never planned on coming down." I mean, it's incredible what happened.

And so how do we get behind a group of people who don't have any interest in asking conservatives for their vote?

TED: Well, I -- I hope that proves not the case. And, you know, from my perspective, this fight was about a lot more than one campaign or one candidate. This fight is about principles that are eternal, the free market principles that built America that allowed millions of small businesses to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty and into prosperity. Those principles are as true today as they were every day of our country's history. The constitutional liberties and the Bill of Rights that protect our God-given rights from being violated by the federal government, those rights are true and as valid today as they have been throughout history.

And so the movement continues -- what my energy is directed at, what my focus is directed at is to continue to strengthen and speak for that movement, to all of the grassroots activists, the over 7 million people across the country who voted for me, allowing us to win 12 states across the country. This fight will continue because the country is worth it.

And, you know, whether those in Washington will listen in the short-term, that will be their choice. But I think the answer, the only force strong enough to change the path we're on is the grassroots. And so my energy and focus is going to remain where it always has been, working to listen to the people and to fight for the people, each and every day.

STU: Ted, looking back at Barack Obama in 2008, he comes along. He has this big victory. Everyone predicts the end of the Republican Party, the end of the conservative movement. It's just going to be a regional party from now on.

Two years later, you have the Tea Party wave election. So that's proved wrong. And it wasn't that Americans seemingly turned towards progressivism, they just really seemed to like Barack Obama. He was this guy who hit -- who hit the right tones at the right time somehow. I didn't see it. But obviously America did at some level. Do you see that the same way with Donald Trump, in that it's not necessarily that the Republican Party is turning away from conservatism. They just see this guy as the right personality for this time.

TED: Well, listen, there's no doubt about the power of celebrity. And by any measure, Donald Trump is a phenomenon. And it has been a phenomenon heavily fueled by media executives who have run him 24/7.

GLENN: So --

TED: And that's -- that is one of a kind.

GLENN: So wait, wait, wait, Ted. Is it? Or has the Democratic Party that has the whole stable of celebrities looked at that and said, "Well then, why don't we go for a Will Smith/Angelina Jolie ticket?"

TED: Look, there is -- that is entirely possible. You know, one of the disturbing things about this election -- and there are many -- is that it opens the door potentially for what comes next. And what comes next is not likely to be sound, stable leaders with good judgment and the understanding of the problems facing this country, our economy, and the challenges and threats facing us across the world.

You know, that's -- you know, I'm still a little bit old-fashioned in that I think we ought to be able to look up to our president. We ought to be able to be proud if our kids want to be like the president. And that's -- that's a test that, you know, many presidents from JFK to FDR to Ronald Reagan, there were millions of kids who wanted to be like those presidents. And their presidents were proud that that was the model that they were emulating. I sure hope that we don't move away from that to a system where you would be less than proud if your kids said they wanted to be like the president.

GLENN: So, Ted, I only have two minutes left. When Marco Rubio left, he said he had a regret.

A, do you have any regret? And, B, where are you going next?

TED: Well, look, my biggest regret is that we weren't able to accomplish the task and that we let down the millions of grassroots activists across the country who fought so hard.

Heidi and I and the girls, we poured everything into it we've got. But we weren't able to get it done. And, you know, I wish we hadn't disappointed so many incredible people across the country. But, you know, where do I go next? I'm actually driving to the airport right now, flying to Washington to go back to the Senate and the very same principles that I was fighting for to execute from the White House: Jobs, freedom, security.

PAT: They're going to be happy to see you.

GLENN: Yeah, they're going to love to see you.

TED: Those are my priorities in the Senate.

GLENN: Is there a possibility of a third party in the future of people that think like you?

TED: You know, I don't think that's very likely, but it's always talked about. I don't know that it's something that's likely to happen.

What I do think is imperative is that we actually get the job done: And the job is getting the burden of Washington off of small businesses so that we have wages going up again, we have jobs coming back to America, we have people having a chance again at the American dream. I mean, we are trapped in a stagnation, and people are hurting.

And, you know, I'm very dismayed that the odds are increasing that we simply keep going down the same road, we don't fix those problems, and people end up hurting even more.

And that's where my focus is going to be, is fighting for small businesses, fighting for the American worker, to get Washington off your back. And I believe we're going to accomplish that. But it just may take more time.

GLENN: Ted, great to talk to you. We'll talk to you again, I'm sure, when you're in Washington. And what you're saying is, if Nebraska goes the right way, there's still a chance.

STU: There's a chance!

GLENN: He's just saying there's a chance.

All right. Thanks a lot, Ted. I appreciate it.

TED: Thank you, gentlemen.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during a campaign rally at the Indiana State Fairgrounds on May 2, 2016 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Cruz continues to campaign leading up to the state of Indiana's primary day on Tuesday. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

EXCLUSIVE: Cruz Leaves the Door Open to Unsuspending His Campaign

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?