PART 1: Glenn Talks With Independent Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin

Evan McMullin, a former CIA agent, officially entered the presidential race on Wednesday as an Independent candidate, hoping to offer Americans an alternative to what he believes are two terrible choices. He joined The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday to talk about why he's qualified to be president, the three major issues he believes America faces and why he's far better suited for the presidency than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Following the interview, Glenn asked his co-host what they thought about McMullin.

RELATED: PART 2: Glenn Talks With Independent Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin

"Generally liked him. He's better than some of the other choices," Stu said.

"Liked him," Pat said.

While McMullin appears to be a serious, worthwhile candidate, Glenn identified his biggest challenge:

"Is there enough time for people to listen to him and get comfortable with him? You know, let's see him in a debate. Somebody like that has got to be tested some way or another," Glenn said.

Listen to Part 1 of Glenn's interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We have Evan McMullin on. And want to get right to him. He is a guy who is running for president of the United States. He has just joined, and his background is quite extensive, but he's a name that nobody has really ever heard of. And we go to him now.

Evan, how are you, sir?

EVAN: I'm doing great, Glenn. How are you? Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: Very good. Let's get a quick look at your background first. Why are you qualified to be president of the United States?

EVAN: Well, I spent over ten years in the Central Intelligence Agency as an undercover operations officer serving overseas after 9/11 where I carried out covert operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as other countries who are hostile to liberty, as I like to say. Then after that, I spent some time in the private sector in working with companies in a range of industries to help them compete globally and create jobs in the United States.

And then most recently, I've been on the Hill as a senior national security adviser, as well as the chief policy director for the house of Republicans, where I've learned a lot about what kind of reforms this government needs in order to be more accountable to the people, which is a huge issue for me.

So these are three major issues that the country faces: security, jobs, and government reform. And I think I'm very well suited, certainly far better suited than the two major candidates to deliver that.

GLENN: Tell me your thoughts about the Third Amendment to the Constitution.

EVAN: Yeah, well, let me say where I'm mostly focused on the Constitution: I'm a big Tenth Amendment guy. I do believe that power needs to be returned to the states. I think that we've got way too much power in Washington. This is where I'm focused: way too much power in Washington.

And what that means is that, if you're sitting in, say, Wyoming, if you're a voter in Wyoming, you're one of 440,000 people only who is voting in state elections. If you're in Wyoming and then, you know, like any American voting in a national election, you're one of 240 million, which means that your voice in Cheyenne is far more powerful than it is in Washington.

So, you know, I'm most interested in returning power to the states, returning power closer to the people. There are a lot of other things that need to be done to return power to the people, but that is really what I'm mostly focused on.

PAT: So quartering soldiers is not one of your biggest issues right now?

EVAN: No.

GLENN: That was kind of a trick question. I wanted to see if you knew what the Third Amendment was. But you definitely know what the Tenth Amendment is.

EVAN: Yeah.

GLENN: Tell me about the balance of power. How as a president of the United States -- what would you do to restore that?

EVAN: Well, the first thing is -- well, first of all, let me just say that it's a huge problem right now. I mean, over the last several decades -- and there are a number of reasons for this: Some laws that were passed and then some Supreme Court decisions that basically shifted a lot of Congress' power to the executive branch. And so now you have the executive branch, and I'm sure your listeners are aware of this. But, you know, the executive branch passes dozens and dozens of major rules and regulations every year that have major rules -- that those are rules that have an economic impact of over $100 million. And these have the force of law. And then the executive branch has the power to adjudicate complaints about them and then also to issue fines.

So, you know, they're behaving -- first of all, they're acting -- they're acting like Congress. They're taking Congress' power. They're also acting as though they're the judicial branch. There's -- there's no balance of power in that system, and so that needs to be changed.

We can't have the executive branch basically legislating on its own. So one of the things we need to do, there's a great bill out there called the REINS Act, which we've passed through -- went through the House, that would basically say, that if the executive branch issues a rule or regulation that is going to have an economic impact of $100 million and more -- and, you know, that's sort of -- there are other ways to sort of draw the threshold, but that's the way it's drawn in the bill -- that it has to get the approval of Congress. It can't just -- the executive branch can't just move forward with it without Congress' approval. I'm 100 percent supportive of this. I would sign it as soon as possible as president, and that would be a first step.

GLENN: The -- you've called Donald Trump inhuman.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: You want to elaborate on that or explain that?

EVAN: I would love to. I would sure love to.

Look, Donald Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself. I think that's been very, very clear through this campaign. I mean, this is a guy who attacks people with disabilities. I mean, what kind of person does that? This is a person who, you know, kicks babies out of his rallies. Who does that?

(laughter)

EVAN: He attacked -- actually he tends to attack the world's most vulnerable people, whether, you know, they're refugees or babies or, you know -- or people with disabilities. I mean, this is who this guy is. But it doesn't end there. He attacks -- he attacks our men and women who have served valiantly, who have given their lives for this country and their mothers. I mean, I just -- I just think -- I served for ten years in the CIA, put my life on the line countless times, and luckily walked away, you know, still alive. But others haven't. And I just think anybody who would pursue the Oval Office to be our commander-in-chief and who would disrespect our heroes and their families that way is somebody who is indeed inhuman.

GLENN: So let's just go through a couple things, if we could just do some rapid-fire.

EVAN: Sure. Let's do it.

GLENN: Where do you stand on guns?

EVAN: I'm a gun owner and strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

GLENN: Any restrictions on those? Any kind of common sense --

EVAN: Well, I do believe -- there's a system of background checks. And I support that. I think we need to have that, but, you know -- go ahead.

GLENN: Do we have enough laws, or do we need other new laws?

EVAN: Listen, this is -- this is the way I look at it: I'm concerned -- I do not trust the federal government -- I do not trust the federal government to be an honest broker in -- in a larger capacity. So I guess what I'm saying is that some people want certain checks to be done on certain purchases, and they want a national -- you know, a national system for that. I would rather -- if there's going to be something like that, I'd rather it be seen at the state level. I just think there's a real trust issue right now with the federal government, especially on the Second Amendment. So, you know, I'm open to discussions of certain ideas, but it's with the -- through the prism of not trusting the federal government over -- at least under this administration, over its desires to limit Second Amendment freedoms.

GLENN: Okay. All right. I've got about ten of these. I want to go as fast as I can. Taxes and the IRS.

EVAN: Well, I mean, what the IRS has done over the last several years has just been targeting people -- targeting groups based on ideologies. Absolutely terrible. I mean, in terms of taxes, I think we need a simplified tax code. I think we need lower taxes. The House of Representatives has a lot of great ideas that they've have put out recently under Paul Ryan's leadership. I support those. So that's in a nutshell -- if we're doing rapid-fire, I'll try to limit it.

GLENN: Universal health care.

EVAN: Not a supporter. I think we need a free market solution.

GLENN: Federalism.

EVAN: I could not be a bigger supporter.

GLENN: Von Mises.

EVAN: You got me there, Glenn.

GLENN: Von Mouses.

STU: Mises and Mouses.

EVAN: You got me. You got me.

GLENN: The government's role in education and Common Core.

EVAN: I don't think -- I don't think the federal government should be dictating to the states. I think this is a state and local issue, and that's my view.

GLENN: Eminent domain.

EVAN: I mean, there's a role for it to play, you know. There is a role. But I think it needs to be extremely limited. And Donald Trump's idea of it, you know, where he just wants to build hotels and parking lots and push people out of their homes, I think it's tyrannical, frankly.

GLENN: Abortion.

EVAN: Abortion, pro-life.

GLENN: Immigration.

EVAN: I believe we need to secure the border first and foremost. You know, it's the basic part of being a country. We've got to enforce our laws. Again, we're a country of laws. Rule of law is so critical to commerce and security and all of these things. We've got to do it. I do not -- I'll say, I think it's -- the idea that we're going to deport 11 million people, I think is unrealistic. So I'm not a supporter of that. But I do agree with Donald that we need to secure the border. But Donald has this idea that it has to be done with the wall across the whole thing. I talk to experts who tell me that in some places we need a wall, in other places we need a double wall, and in other places, a wall wouldn't help. So however it's done, I'm a little more agnostic, just as long as it gets the job done. We have to secure the border.

GLENN: ISIS. How to defeat them.

EVAN: Well, two things, and I think President Obama is failing miserably. And Hillary Clinton, you know, she's -- you know, she presided over our foreign policy at a time when al-Qaeda in Iraq was reconstituting itself and then becoming ISIS. So how she's capable to fight ISIS as our commander-in-chief, or qualified, is a mystery to me. And, of course, Donald Trump, I don't think is -- he's even less qualified.

But what I would say is two broad things: Number one, we have to be better about taking the fight to ISIS out there. We're just not serious right now. I mean, you know, President Obama is doing a few airstrikes here and there, but we need to step that up. We need to do a range of things to take the fight to them.

Yeah.

GLENN: How many of these isolated incidents and things like Fort Hood or the shootings that we have -- that have been isolated, we'll never know their motive, or it was just a lone gunman, not related to ISIS. For instance, the shooting at Fort Hood or the latest shooting in Orlando, do you buy that we'll never know their motive?

EVAN: No. I think it's clear. I mean, these are people who are unstable and then manipulated -- manipulated by Islamist radicals. I mean, that's what happens. And I think, Glenn, it's an interesting question. A lot of people want to say, okay. There's a terrorist attack. And they say, "All right. We've got to -- let's see if there was command and control from Pakistan or from Syria. And if there was command and control there. And if they were trained over there, and then they flew in here to do it, okay. Well, then that's a terrorist attack."

We have to get past that. We need to be -- we need to realize the enemy has moved on. The enemy has adapted to our successes in counterterrorism. And they've decided -- and this was a decision that Zawahiri made and that ISIS has made: They've decided -- excuse me -- to respond to our strengthening of our -- our -- our borders and what not, in some respects, and our intelligence service operations. They've responded to that by saying, "Okay. Well, we're just going to inspire crazies and those who are radical on -- you know, radical Islamists in the United States to carry out these things, and we're going to train them remotely and all of it." My point, Glenn, is that these kinds of attacks are just as much terrorist attacks as 9/11 itself. And we've got to finally get ourself to the point that we understand that. The enemy has adapted. We also must adapt.

GLENN: Okay. We're talking to Evan McMullin who is running for president. Evan McMullin.com. Evan, can we hold you for a few more minutes, or do you have to run?

EVAN: No, no. I've got time, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. I'd like to take a break. We'll come back and maybe push you past the bottom of the hour as well because I want to hear your strategy. I want to hear why you're running. What your motivation is. What made you decide to do it and what your strategy is to win and not just be a spoiler. Evan McMullin.com.

(Break)

GLENN: He's running for president of the United States. And, Evan, I want to go into in-depth on this, but I think we have two minutes here.

EVAN: Okay.

GLENN: Tell me why you want to run for president of the United States.

EVAN: Well, let me just say that, like many Americans, millions of Americans, I was hoping -- I've been hoping against hope that someone else would step into this race because I think our two options are just terrible. I think Americans are very frustrated, and so was I. And not just frustrated, but very concerned about what these two candidates mean for our country. So I waited and hoped that somebody else would come forward. And no one did, and I realized no one was going to a couple of weeks ago. Had some conversations with people who were eager to launch an independent candidacy. And so ultimately, I decided to do it because other people weren't, candidly.

GLENN: Do you -- do you think you could win?

EVAN: Yeah, I do. I do think that there's a way we can win. And there are multiple paths towards it. I mean, we are going to be on ballots across the country through a variety of means. There are a number of ways that we can succeed. You know, 270 is -- reaching 270 is going to be difficult, but there are -- there are other means that we can prevail.

GLENN: What does that mean? What does that mean?

EVAN: Well, if we're able to move it into the House, we can prevail potentially there.

But let me say this, you mentioned something before the break about my being a spoiler. I want to make this very clear: I just entered the race a few days ago. When I entered the race, Donald Trump was losing to Hillary by ten percentage points. And at the same time, he continues to put his foot in his mouth, and I just -- Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate. We should be -- we should be doing very, very well against her.

GLENN: Yes.

EVAN: Conservatives should. And Donald Trump just isn't getting the job done. And he is ensuring that Hillary takes the White House. I'm concerned about that too. So he's already losing to her, and he is going to lose to her because he's an even weaker candidate than she is. I think with conservatives, we need somebody who can actually compete with Hillary head-on, and I know that I can do that. So that's where I am on this. And I'm trying to give people a better option here, something that they can be proud of, you know, somebody with a positive vision for the future of the country.

STU: If it does go to the House, what's your relationship with people in the House? I know obviously you came from that background recently, right?

EVAN: Yeah, I did. And I think the key here is that I understand what -- you know, certainly House Republicans are looking for. And I am in lockstep with them on, for example, balance of powers, the separation of powers, the REINS Act, things like that. And on policy. On -- you know, on their agenda. I'm with them. I was there as that was developed.

So, you know, Donald Trump is not there. Donald Trump, despite his campaign promises, this is not a guy who is going to be willing to send executive power that belongs to the legislative branch back to the legislative branch. I mean, Donald Trump is going to try to amass and consolidate power, given that he's an authoritarian.

GLENN: Okay. So hold on. I want to come back to you. We're going to have to break for a couple minutes. I want to come back to you and talk to you about the things that you think are the biggest problems that we're going to face, and then I want to ask you about some solutions. When we come back.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin announces his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/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.