Time to Pass the Baton to the Next Hero Generation: The Millennials

October 18, 2016

Writer

It's time to take the plastic off the furniture and turn off the TV set. Millennials are the next hero generation queued up to save the republic. They're depending on older generations to show them the way. They don't care about political parties, they don't care about Ronald Reagan. They care about making a difference. So let's show them how to do it --- the American way.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these questions:

• Do millennials watch television?

• What unrealistic expectations did parents set for millennials?

• Do millennials think older generations are like old grumpy neighbors?

• Why don't more millennials know about Mao Tse-tung?

• Do millennials want your house?

• Does Glenn surf the Kondratiev wave?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: So if -- imagine that you are a -- imagine that you're a millennial, and you're 20-something years old, and you're seeing the world as it is today. And you're watching people on television -- on television, which is no longer a part of your world. You go over to your mom and dad's house, and they're sitting on their couch, watching television, which you don't do. You don't do it. You don't sit and watch an hour of commercials in a television program. And so it's already kind of cute and quaint. It's kind of like going over to your grandparents when they had the plastic on the furniture. You're like, "They're just old. Don't -- you know, just go along with it." Okay?

PAT: I don't know if it's quite that bad.

GLENN: It's pretty close. It's pretty close. Millennials do not watch television.

JEFFY: No. No, they do not.

PAT: I mean, they watch it less. But they do watch it.

GLENN: Not cable news. Not cable news.

PAT: Nobody watches cable news anymore.

JEFFY: No cable.

GLENN: Yes, they do.

So the ones who are connected to politics, they're watching cable news. So they come over from their world into yours, and you're watching cable news. And you're seeing usually two old white guys and a young person, a millennial, a girl, a hot girl, who isn't talking at all like any of your millennial friends. Is like old people speak.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And you're rolling your eyes at her. Because you're like, "Total sellout." And the other one -- because you're like, "This is so obvious. They're saying the same basic thing. They're arguing over things that -- oh, my gosh, I don't know why my dad does this." Okay?

That's the world they're coming from. Then they go to their world where they're listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and everybody else saying that jobs are good. Hey, we're on the road to recovery. They're massively in debt. They have -- they are -- they've gone to college. All their friends have gone to college. Their friends aren't getting jobs.

JEFFY: If they are, they're underemployed.

GLENN: Yes, they're underemployed. They can't pay for their --

PAT: And let's not forget, they've been told that which drives me out of my mind. That their debt is not their fault, they believe. Which pisses me off.

GLENN: Well, hang on just a second, they have now -- they see this crushing debt that they have --

PAT: That they accrued.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: That the old world, as they see it --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- has been encouraged since they were little, "You got to go to college. When are going to go to college? Where are you going to go to college? Got to go to college. Got to go to college. Everybody goes to college. Got to go to college. Got to get into a good college."

Everyone in their life who they're now seeing represented on dad's/grandpa's TV set yelling at each other about a solution that they know won't work, and they think to themselves, "I -- I mean, this doesn't work, and I'm screwed with this debt."

Meanwhile, while everybody has been saying, "Got to go to college, got to go to college, got to go to college," they went to college. And where everybody -- where mom and dad said, "This is the best college. This is a great college." Those people that mom and dad endorsed taught them that you didn't really incur this debt and this whole system doesn't work. And so maybe I do know a little bit more than mom and dad.

Even if they don't go that far, they know this system doesn't work, and they don't want to become like mom and dad, who are now in debt. Dad is still having to work. Maybe their retirement isn't coming through the way it was. They haven't really been happy. Mom or dad have just been kind of tolerating each other for a while, maybe till the kids -- they've drifted apart. Or maybe they're really happy, but they're -- they are under such pressure with debt because of the house and the lifestyle, that the millennial looks at and says, "Why not just buy a smaller house? Why -- we didn't need all this stuff, mom and dad. Why did you do that?"

STU: It would be great if that's the way they were -- that's the way they were thinking about these things. It doesn't seem like that's the way they're thinking about it.

JEFFY: No, it is not.

STU: Good example of your generational thing.

GLENN: Some. Some. I'm telling you --

STU: Of course, some --

GLENN: -- they're being indoctrinated to think the other way.

STU: Right. But let's think about --

PAT: Some believe they're entitled to the house that mom and dad are living in.

JEFFY: Exactly right.

GLENN: I agree with you.

PAT: Move out of that house.

GLENN: I agree with you.

STU: Why would you bring that up? That's a weird thing to bring up.

PAT: I don't have any examples, no.

(laughter)

STU: Okay.

PAT: I just know that exists.

GLENN: You have five examples. You have five examples.

(chuckling)

STU: The generational thing you've talked about many times -- and this is an interesting -- potentially an interesting example of it, the situation -- the old system is faulty. Right? We spend all of this money. We get in lots of debt to get college. And they agree that that's faulty. You know what, I agree also that that's faulty. My, let's call it, generation would look at that issue and say, "Let's execute a cost-benefit analysis. Is it wise for us to enter into this agreement that everyone is telling me I have to do and acquire all this debt? Should I consider being educated in a way that is less expensive? Should I chase a different way of approaching this problem?"

PAT: Should I have gotten a job in high school and earned money?

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on.

STU: Hold on. Let me just finish the point.

They seem to be looking at this as, it's not the idea that college should be required, that's the problem. The issue is, I just shouldn't have to pay for it. I completely accept without questioning --

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: -- the idea that I must go to college and must do all these things, despite the fact that I'm going to spend 80 percent of my time now doing schoolwork, as has been shown in study after study. That, I shouldn't question at all. I should only question the cost I acquire for it. And that's why we continually complain about them -- millennials looking at socialist solutions.

A real -- a real questioning the status quo, really, is to say, do I need this? Do I need to do it in a different way? Do I do it in a way that maybe doesn't --

PAT: Can I go to trade school? Can I go to a community college?

Can I go to a State University where it's going to be cheaper than Harvard?

JEFFY: Not without getting a job though.

PAT: You know. Right.

STU: I stopped talking already. Glenn is giving me that look of how dare you. How dare you.

GLENN: No, no. No, no, no.

I agree with your point -- I agree with your point of view. I absolutely agree with your point of view. Here's where we differ, I think.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you know how hard it is to cut your own way anyway? Everybody likes to think, I'm different. I'm special. I'm cutting my own way.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Well, first of all, that wasn't true for most of us when it was cool to think that you were different, but this generation, it's not cool to necessarily think differently. It's to think collectively because of their generation. Okay? To make things better collectively.

So they're coming to it from a different place than we are. It's why -- it's why grandparents usually understand -- have such a great bond with the grandchild. I've always thought that it's because, "I don't have the responsibility. So it's kind of fun." No, it's because it's an 80-year cycle. Your experiences are closer than the experiences of your children. It skips a generation because it's an 80-year we/me cycle. Okay?

So the grandchildren are looking at things much differently. Our children are looking at things much differently than we are. We were more independent-minded.

Also, at the time -- at our time, there were more people like Ronald Reagan, who were living this and saying, "Be this. Do this." All of society was, "You -- you can do it." All of society now is, "No, you can't do it, nor should you want to do it. No man is an island. You all have to work together for the common good." Everything is teaching them the opposite. And on top of it, who the hell do we have on our side that they can -- that they even relate to?

Because everybody that is on our side looks like me, sounds like me, does talk radio, or a stupid talk show on television, that come at that only their dads are watching. And they think their dad doesn't understand them.

There's nobody positioning themselves on our side that's speaking their language or even doing anything, but, "These crazy kids. Get off my lawn." That's who we're turning into, to them.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Where their professors are all --

PAT: Well, I don't want them on my lawn.

GLENN: All the professors are really super cool and telling them all the super cool things they can do collectively.

JEFFY: That's right.

GLENN: We're not. We're not.

We are never going to make an impact trying to speak the language of Ronald Reagan to a group of people who don't -- nor do they care. And in most cases, have been taught he's a bad guy. Nobody is going to listen to, "We got to be more like Ronald Reagan. We need another Ronald Reagan." They don't even know who the hell that is.

STU: I mean, I think that's the point I was making. In that, that's the generational gap. Right? That's the difference.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And it's not just even bringing up Ronald Reagan. They don't even know who freaking Ronald Reagan is.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: I mean, you know, we talked about them not knowing who killed more people, Mao or Bush. Forty-two percent of people were unfamiliar with Mao. Almost half of them have never even heard of the guy. So I'm not -- you're right on language, I think. What I was trying to define is more of like what their approach is. And I think you've tried to do this with guest after guest after guest, and Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after pendulum -- all of those things are pointing to the same general conclusion, that these -- that younger voters think completely differently about this stuff. And, you know, I find it to be problematic. I think -- I think you're looking at it as, well, how do we win them over, which I think is appropriate and is necessary. But, I mean, I do think it's problematic.

GLENN: But there's no -- the question I keep asking -- Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave -- and I go back and do my history and look -- you do not beat -- it's like standing in front of the ocean expecting to change the tide. You're not.

Now, how can you get into the water and work with that tide and that force and perhaps change the direction? Because that happens every time. It's why we have the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Very different things, all the same piece: We, the people. We, the people.

That's really important to understand, just that one thing. That was a generation that understood -- that looked at things as a collective.

Now, you can push back and say, "Yeah, well, we had the Bill of Rights. That was all about individual liberties."

Yes, because they know that the eternal truth was that no one is over you. But that's why they started it with, "We, the people." Not, I, the individual: We, the people. We'll establish this to protect these things, to protect the individual. We're going to get together as a collective.

Now, unless you have somebody who is teaching, "Hey, as a collective, we have to protect the individual." Because that's all they want to do. "We want to help the downtrodden. We want to help." Great. Well, there's ways to do that. And the two times before this wave was the Founders' wave.

And they said, "We, the people, need to protect the individual and what the individual -- because that is supreme." Where all of the other generational we thinkers at that time went Robespierre and said, "We are the collective, and we'll crush the individual that stands in our way." And that's already happening.

You disagree with global warming, they will crush you. You disagree with Donald Trump, and they will crush you.

We are in that scenario, that always leads to witch hunts and to blacklists, unless somebody on our side is appealing to the youth and knows who they can be. They've just not had anybody on our side actually reaching out to them and saying, "I know who you are. You're not who everybody says who you are. I know who you are. You are the hero generation. And people are going to try to misguide you. We, collectively -- you can change the world and chart the course, away from the death you never learned about."

When somebody teaches you something and you realize that somebody intentionally has kept a very important detail away from you, you don't run into their arms and say, "Hey, thank you for that." You look at them and say, "What the hell were you thinking? You didn't tell me about this part? You didn't tell me about Mao and 100 million people that he killed. You let me believe that George W. Bush was a bigger killer. I can't trust you at all." We have a massive win. But it's slipping through our fingers every time we betray our values by living something differently than what we say is important.

Featured Image: USA's Gil Roberts (L) grabs the baton from USA's Tony McQuay as they compete in the Men's 4x400m Relay Final during the athletics event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium in Rio de Janeiro on August 20, 2016. / AFP / PEDRO UGARTE (Photo credit should read PEDRO UGARTE/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

Time to Pass the Baton to the Next Hero Generation: The Millennials

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?