Why Is Sean Hannity Mad at Glenn?

August 31, 2016

Writer

On his radio program Tuesday, Sean Hannity expressed his frustration with conservatives who have not boarded the so-called Trump train, specifically accusing Glenn of "attacking" him "every day."

Business Insider reported Hannity saying the following:

"Well, let me just say to all of you. And that includes the commentator class. That includes the Jonah Goldberg class, that includes radio talk show hosts. Glenn Beck is like on a — it's a holy war for him at this point. I mean, he's off the rails attacking me every day. Blaming me for Trump. Well, no. I was fair to everybody, Glenn. Whether you want to admit it or not. I know I was fair. My conscience is clear. And I, frankly, I'm proud to pull the lever for Donald Trump with a clear conscience.

We checked the radio transcripts and compiled every reference Glenn made to Hannity during the month of August. What we found didn't sound like "attacking" and it certainly wasn't "every day," but we'll let you decide. Here's what Glenn had to say about Hannity all five times his name came up this month:

THURSDAY, AUGUST 11TH

GLENN: All right. I want to go over a little bit of what Sean Hannity said. And I'm actually going to agree with Sean Hannity on a lot of what he said. And he took people on from the G.O.P. that are standing against Donald Trump or at least not supporting Donald Trump. And there are some things that I don't agree, but a lot that I do agree. And I think I have a way where we can all come together, something where both the people who agree with Sean and the people who agree with me can actually come together and protect our country. And it's probably where we should begin to focus. And we'll get into that here in just a second. I don't want to do it an injustice by trying to cram it in here.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

GLENN: Let me go to Sean Hannity and what he said last night, because I actually agree with him on some things. Listen to this monologue.

SEAN: Is it time now for Republicans who refuse to endorse Donald Trump -- are they now sabotaging his campaign? Because if they continue to do what they're doing and Hillary Clinton wins, will they be responsible for supporting Hillary Clinton's radical left-wing agenda?

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Flawed thinking here.

PAT: And it's almost progressive thinking. That's exactly what Obama does: He sets up a straw man argument, and then he sets it on fire. Well, that's...

GLENN: Yeah. I'm not responsible for Hillary Clinton.

PAT: No.

GLENN: We warned --

PAT: We said it all along.

GLENN: We had to beat Hillary Clinton. And we warned -- if we weren't powerful enough to get Ted Cruz to be the nominee, we're certainly not powerful enough to have Donald Trump trailing by 13 points.

PAT: No.

GLENN: I mean, if we had the power of 13 points, Ted Cruz would be the nominee.

STU: You and your math.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. So it's not us. We agree, Sean, with you that Hillary Clinton is a disaster. And the idea that Donald Trump said was, I don't need those constitutionalists. I don't need them. And those are his words.

PAT: He should be talking to Donald. Not us. Not only does he not need them; he said he didn't want them.

GLENN: Right. And that's totally fine. His plan was, I'm going to reach across the aisle, and I'm going to get a lot of Democrats and I'm going to get Bernie Sanders supporters. Well, that's not happening. And one-fifth of the Republican Party doesn't want anything to do with Donald Trump. One-fifth. You cannot win with one-fifth of the Republican Party not saying that they won't vote for you. But his plan, as we said, won't work. His plan from the beginning is, I'm going to win New York. I'm going to win Pennsylvania. I'm going to win a lot of Democrats. Well, that's not happening. Okay. So go ahead.

SEAN: Time to name names. Bill Kristol. Former Governor Mitt Romney. Susan Collins. Jeb Bush. Ted Cruz. Ben Sasse. Lindsey Graham. Meg Whitman. And many, many others. Now, if they keep up their stubborn, their stupid game and continue to lick their wounds, well, this is what they will be responsible for.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. I'm not letting you two talk. (Laughter.) Not letting you two talk.

PAT: Well, again, it's just that, that's not the issue. The issue is not our wounds. The issue is not our feelings. And he knows that.

GLENN: Right. It's our principles.

PAT: And he knows that.

GLENN: And to Sean, I believe our principles are very much the same. He's just going towards those principles in a route that we disagree with. And we're going towards those principles in a route that he disagrees with. And there's nothing wrong with that. We have different ways of getting to our principles. And he -- you know, he knows Donald Trump. I don't. He knows him. He trusts him. I don't think that Sean Hannity is evil or anything else.

He knows him, and he's talked to me several times, and he's like, "Glenn, you're wrong about Donald Trump." And it's not any kind of game he's playing. He's not getting money or anything. He believes Donald Trump. He knows him. I don't. I don't trust him.

But that's just the difference between us. And it's not that we're licking our wounds. It's not. It has nothing to do with that.

SEAN: Give a few examples. Of course that would be the continuation of President Obama's disastrous economic policies. And did any of them happen to listen to Trump's speech?

GLENN: This is where we totally agree.

SEAN: We have the lowest labor participation rate since the '70s. Lowest home ownership rate in 41 years. The worst recovery since the 1940s.

GLENN: He's right.

SEAN: Clinton will simply continue that failed economic agenda of Obama. Enforces Obamacare.

GLENN: Absolutely right.

SEAN: Now, Donald Trump told me last night he will repeal or replace it and have competition. Clinton will keep it.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

PAT: Donald Trump also told 60 Minutes, he wants -- and he doesn't care if it costs him votes.

STU: And he also said he knows it's not Republican.

PAT: Right.

STU: I want the government to pay for it.

GLENN: So the question is -- and this is, again, where Sean knows Donald and believes him that he's going to repeal and replace with free market. I tend to take a man at his word on 60 Minutes that he's going to repeal and replace with something that is 100 percent socialism.

PAT: He was adamant about it. In September.

GLENN: He was adamant about it. And that is his record of belief throughout his life.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Sean may be right. But I don't know Donald Trump. And a lot of people don't know Donald Trump. And the Donald Trump we do know changes his viewpoint to wherever he happens to be standing. And so that's the difference between us. I don't believe him on this.

SEAN: Open borders. Trump promises a wall. Clinton wants open borders. So which is better for national security and the American worker? Now, the refusal to use the term "radical Islam." Donald Trump will mention it. Liberal Supreme Court justices versus the originalists that Donald Trump has said that he will support. He wants people like Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the bench. On this one issue alone, this will impact this one for generations to come.

GLENN: Absolutely true.

SEAN: Hillary, of course, wants a 550 percent increase in unvetted refugees. Trump promises to vet them all, or else not let them in. Top-down Common Core education. That's failing. Hillary would continue that. We have a dilapidated military. Trump will improve the military and rebuild it. And the list goes on.

PAT: When did our military -- when -- wow, that's --

GLENN: No, we are in trouble. No, we are in trouble with our military.

PAT: Are they dilapidated?

GLENN: No, we are in big trouble. We are in big trouble. He's right on that.

PAT: I would not call our military dilapidated.

GLENN: I will put you in touch with somebody who will tell you exactly what's happened over -- we are in big trouble with our military. So Hannity is absolutely right on those problems. He's absolutely right. I want you to understand clearly, for the record, we've been saying this for over a year -- actually we've been saying this for four years because we knew she was going to be it. But as this went on, this is why we fought so hard -- this is why I endorsed somebody for the very first time. I endorsed the Constitution, not Ted Cruz. I started almost every speech, "I'm not here to endorse Ted Cruz. I am here to endorse the Constitution of the United States." I am telling you now, Hillary Clinton is an absolute unmitigated disaster for the country. Disaster. I happen to believe that Donald Trump, A, cannot nor will he win. I also think he is a very dangerous man that could end up being a bigger disaster for the United States.

So how do we solve this problem? We can either sit here and go back and forth. Sean said that -- he went on in his monologue calling people crybabies, et cetera, et cetera. And I was very offended by that. But I immediately thought, "You know what, I've said things like that about the other side." I have said things and disparaged people on the other side. And I regret it. Shouldn't have done it. So how am I going to point the finger at Sean Hannity and say, "Hey -- no. I did it too. We should stop that. And start to understand that there is one thing that we can come together -- there is one thing I can stand with Sean Hannity on and will stand with Sean Hannity on. And it won't be who to vote for. Although, I have never said, "Do not vote for Donald Trump."

STU: Well, at least not since the end of primary. I mean, certainly --

GLENN: Yeah, during the primary. I have said since the end of the primary, I cannot, but I understand those who do. I really do. I understand why. Because Hillary Clinton is so bad. So I understand that. And I'll never say Sean is not a patriot for doing that. He's doing what he believes is right because we are facing two horrible, horrible options. However, here's where we can unite, the under ticket. If Hillary Clinton is president, the only thing that will have a chance of being a speed bump, not a stop, but a speed bump, will be a Republican Congress. And we know the Republican Congress will unite against Hillary Clinton. We know the press will throw in for her. You need a speed bump. It's not going to solve all of the problems of what she's going to bring, but it will at least slow her down and stop some of them.

So let's unite on the bottom of the ticket. You must go out and vote. Who you vote for at the top of the ticket is your business. Who I vote for is my business. Who Sean does --- his business.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17TH

GLENN: We have now lost Fox News. We -- Roger Ailes is out. By his own doing, but Roger Ailes is out. And Roger Ailes is now tying his wagon to Donald Trump. Sean Hannity, completely Donald Trump. Drudge Report, completely Donald Trump. Breitbart, completely Donald Trump. Much of talk radio, completely talk Donald Trump. In fact, one big radio network, which will not be named, is telling their hosts throughout the entire country, "You are not to say anything bad about Donald Trump, period." There is an edict. No more. Many of our talk radio programmers are telling their hosts and choking back up on the chain, and they're doing it, I think, because of ratings. But most of them are doing it because they're such strong believers of Donald Trump. There's no diversity. You do not talk ill about Donald Trump. And the Tea Party. Now, not all of the Tea Party. But some of the Tea Party. And if it's some of the Tea Party, all of the Tea Party now has been discredited.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 19TH

GLENN: So let me give you a prediction. If Trump wins, you're going to see Bannon as the chief of staff or the media arm and Breitbart and Breitbart web and radio, I think, will become his official media. He'll just -- you know how the White House now does all of their media and they're not letting the reporters in. They're just doing the media themselves, and you can get the pool feed? But they're producing all of these clips. And the press pushed back on Obama, but not too much because it was Obama. I think he's going to take it a step forward. Roger Ailes, I think, will be, you know, a consultant of some sort. And I think air talent like Sean Hannity, I think Sean will become press secretary. And I mean this sincerely. I think if he wins. Now --

STU: I mean, first of all, Sean would be great at that.

GLENN: No, he would be great.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24TH

GLENN: Sean Hannity. Let's play what we can of that one. Sean Hannity last night had Donald Trump on, and I want to take your phone calls. 877-727-BECK. And I want to hear from Donald Trump supporters, from people who are voting for Donald Trump, and tell me what you think about . . . he's softening his language on immigration and softening his policy and reversing some of his policy. Here's a little bit of what happened on Hannity last night.

SEAN: And this is where you seem to in the last week be revisiting the issue of sending everybody back that is here illegally. Tell us where you stand on that.

DONALD: We want to follow the laws. You know, we have very strong laws. We have very strong laws in this country. (Laughter.) And I don't know if you know, but Bush and even Obama sends people back. Now, we can be more aggressive in that, but we want to follow the laws. If you start going around trying to make new laws in this country, it's a process that's brutal. We want to follow the laws of the country. And if we follow the laws, we can do what we have to do. (Applause.)

GLENN: Stop. That's incredible.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25TH

GLENN: Now, here's the interesting place -- I want to play these three phone calls for you this hour and show you where I'm really confused with the Trump support right now. And we have to play some audio from -- that was cut out by Fox from Sean Hannity that shows, I think, how volatile this situation is. And the -- you can hear the volatility in this caller, where we start talking to him about, is Donald Trump betraying you? And he says no.

Featured Image: Fox News Host Sean Hannity speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2016 at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, outside Washington, March 4, 2016. (Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/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

Why Is Sean Hannity Mad at Glenn?

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?