Professor With Freakishly Accurate Track Record Predicts a Trump Victory

October 24, 2016

Writer

Professor Helmut Norpoth of Stony Brook University in New York has a remarkable track record of correctly predicting presidential election outcomes. This year, he predicts Republican Donald Trump the winner. His website, PrimaryModel.com, boasts an 87 to 99 percent certainty of this outcome. But, one might wonder if Professor Norpoth's winning model takes into account a very important factor: This ain't your momma's presidential election.

"The model cannot account for historically bad candidates. That's not what it does. It assumes you're nominating an average Republican, and that's not what we did here," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Norpoth's model takes into account primary election results and how the candidates performed. He's been tracking primaries for about 100 years, since 1912.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these rigged questions:

• What two state primaries did Norpoth use for his prediction?

• Is Norpoth alone among academics predicting a Trump win?

• Who do prediction markets say will win and by what margin?

• Are Pat and Stu more excited about Halloween or the election being over?

• Has Trump led or trailed in the last 13 polls?

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

PAT: And he should be thinking about this in a positive way. Professor Helmut Norpoth, who has predicted -- now, you probably don't know the name, necessarily. It might not jump out at you exactly.

JEFFY: Professor Helmut Norpoth?

PAT: Helmut Norpoth.

STU: Hang on. Helmut Norpoth

PAT: The -- the Helmut Norpoth, who has predicted, by the way, the last five elections correctly --

JEFFY: You don't have to tell us.

PAT: I know. I didn't mean to talk down to you. I apologize.

STU: Last five. So the two Bushes president two Obamas -- and going.

PAT: And then the Clinton.

STU: The Clinton. So there's really only two close calls there: Bush/Gore, which, by the way, Gore, of course, won the popular vote. Obviously, the electoral vote is the one that counts --

PAT: Okay. Maybe it's the last 50. Last 50 elections.

STU: Last 50 elections? How old is this guy?

PAT: He says there's an 87 percent chance of a Trump win.

STU: Interesting.

PAT: 87 percent chance that Trump wins this thing. He was about the only one. He was on TV over the weekend. And here's what he had to say.

VOICE: Despite what recent polls say and what everyone in Washington and on television is saying, this RealClearPolitics poll -- clean this one -- this man is sticked by his prediction of a Trump victory. Here to explain is Stony Brook University Professor Helmut Norpoth.

PAT: Now, see, you're mocking him. He's from Stony Brook. Now mock him.

STU: No one is mocking Helmut.

PAT: You can't.

STU: This is -- if it was some imposter, that would be one thing. But this is the Helmut Norpoth.

PAT: Okay. Right. This is the Helmut Norpoth from Stony Brook University.

VOICE: Professor, it's great to see you.

VOICE: Thank you very much for having me.

VOICE: So you are almost alone among academics predicting a Trump win. Not because you're coming out for Trump, but because you have a model that you believe leads to the conclusion he's going to win. Tell us about this model. How have you arrived to this conclusion?

VOICE: Well, there are two things. Okay? The model is called the primary model. So I take into account primary elections, real elections. How the candidates are performing. And I can track primaries for about 100 years, since 1912. So it's quite a set of elections.

VOICE: Yes.

VOICE: And it usually turns out that the candidate who does better in his party's primaries or her party's primary beats the other guy who does less well. And so in this election, the primaries that I'm relying on is only New Hampshire and North Carolina.

VOICE: Yes.

VOICE: Donald Trump came out on top. Better than Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race.

VOICE: That seems like a fair measure.

And what's the other one?

PAT: It seems like --

STU: Wait. Hold on.

JEFFY: Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Okay?

STU: Wait. It seems like a fair measure to figure out the election results based on the two states -- including the one that he lost. We'll just pick the two states he won? What?

PAT: I knew you might take exception to that.

JEFFY: I mean, we're talking about professor --

PAT: We're talking about Helmut --

STU: Wait. So we're going -- you know, we obviously don't count the first primary election. But the second and third? I mean, he did really well. Well, yes, he did do very well in the second and third.

PAT: He won them.

STU: And then he went on to lose other states.

PAT: Right.

STU: You know, I mean, this was a competitive primary. This was a primary that lasted much longer. I mean, every candidate in recent memory, going back -- I can't even remember how long.

PAT: I know. I thought that was a bizarre --

JEFFY: Well, the professor went back 100 years.

STU: No, he didn't. You know, in a Republican primary, when was the last time we had one that went on that long? I mean, you're going way back, probably Reagan, right?

PAT: Probably.

STU: I mean, you're back to Reagan, since that has happened. I mean, this was not a blowout primary.

PAT: I think it went all the way to the convention. So it must have been that, yeah.

PAT: But I thought that was a pretty specious --

STU: That's a weird standard.

PAT: -- standard to base your findings on. Not the first one, where he lost. We're not looking at that. But the next two he did really well and he did even better than Clinton did in those two states. So?

STU: Remember too --

PAT: And?

STU: -- Clinton's opponent was in a neighboring state of New Hampshire.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: So, you know, Sanders did well there in comparison. That is a -- that's an interesting one.

PAT: It is interesting. But there's more.

VOICE: The tendency after let's say two terms of a White House party being in office, there is a change.

PAT: This, I think, is legitimate. Once a party has had two terms in office, people are usually sick of them, unless they've been really good and there's demonstrable difference that's positive change in the country.

STU: Reagan is the last one for that too.

PAT: Yeah, and there certainly hasn't been that.

VOICE: And I can actually track that for a longer period of time, for almost 200 years. And that also gives a prediction that Republicans are favored this year.

VOICE: So a lot of us in the TV business make predictions. And we say it. And we say we believe it. But do we really believe it? Do we believe it enough to bet on it? Do you believe your prediction enough to put your money in a legal way in a betting market behind your prediction?

VOICE: Yes, I have. I've gone all-in in the Iowa market, which is sort of the oldest prediction market where it's legal to do that. And I bought shares of the Republican candidate, way, way long time ago. And I'm sticking with it.

PAT: All right. Turn you around?

STU: I mean, look, amazing stories are built on people who band against the odds, right?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: We always forget these people when they lose. This guy does not get a follow-up interview about how his election was wrong if Donald Trump loses, right? This is it.

PAT: Yes, yes.

STU: But, I mean, if you want to look at the prediction markets, which I think is interesting -- I mean, the point being made there is, do you believe it? You put your money where your mouth is. Currently, prediction markets say Hillary Clinton is going to win with a 90 percent certainty. It's 90 to ten.

PAT: That's amazing.

STU: And that's prediction markets.

PAT: Ten.

STU: And I mean this honestly, if you are sitting there at home, and you're like, "You know what, these online polls have convinced me that Donald Trump is going to win," you can get five to one on your money right now. Five to one!

PAT: And that's not a bad bet, really. I mean, would it shock you to wake up on November 9th and realize that Donald Trump is the next president? It wouldn't blow me away. I would be a little surprised, but, you know, we've been surprised by him so many times.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: That's for sure.

PAT: It wouldn't be mind-blowing. That's for sure.

STU: The one thing that would be interesting --

PAT: It's more than a 90 to ten chance, I think.

STU: I think you're right. But that's not where the money is, for what that's worth.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I think -- you're right, I think he has a better chance than 10 percent. But, you know, we sat here and looked at this thing. And we keep saying, "Oh, he's surprised us so many times." He's surprised us in the primary process, absolutely. I mean, I outwardly have said that I was completely wrong on predicting that. But the reason I was wrong was because I wasn't listening to the scientific polls. I was giving you answers on why the scientific polls wouldn't give up, as they haven't held up for previous candidates like Herman Cain. And name -- we went down that list 10 million times.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: You know, a lot of people flared up and were big for a while and then fell away. Donald Trump didn't do that.

PAT: We saw it over and over and over again.

STU: So he did that. But, again, Trump was leading in the polls the whole time.

PAT: Yeah, that's true.

STU: This is the opposite. For example, the last 13 polls, Trump has trailed in North Carolina. He -- he has no chance of winning the election if he can't win North Carolina. Now, he has to win North Carolina and like ten other states that would be considered swing states. Because North Carolina, to Mitt Romney was barely even a swing state. He's lost 13 straight polls in that state. At what point -- I mean, these are not swing states anymore.

PAT: The polls are rigged, Stu. You know that. The polls are rigged.

STU: Maybe. But when it gets to that point, where your argument -- you're in Helmut land.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Well, I noticed that the elections where Trump did well, he did well. Okay. Well, that -- I mean, maybe that will work then. I don't know. Again, he might be right. You never know with this stuff. But I doubt --

PAT: Yeah.

(laughter)

STU: I'm going to be a little bit of a skeptic on that.

[break]

PAT: It's just, we are a week for Halloween, and we are -- we are two weeks and a day away from the election. Two weeks and one day. And then this thing is finally over.

STU: I can't wait. I mean, I cannot wait.

PAT: Then we can stop talking about it.

STU: By the way, can we just quickly before we move on address an oddity of Helmut's analysis in the last break?

PAT: Yes. Okay.

STU: His point was the first two primaries, Donald Trump won. Which, of course, if you exclude the first caucus. So if you get rid of Iowa for some reason and only count New Hampshire and South Carolina --

PAT: And really, the only reason to get rid of it is because it's a caucus and you're not counting those.

JEFFY: Correct.

STU: Or you're just looking for a justification for why it would be good for Donald Trump.

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: The professor said primaries.

STU: Okay. Fine. So, okay. Primaries, there you go.

But his point was that he did better than Hillary did in those states.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Here are the results from South Carolina's primary. Donald Trump did win. 33-23. Okay? Over Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is 22. Hillary Clinton won 74-26.

PAT: Wow.

STU: That's not -- my recollection of South Carolina was that Hillary Clinton did really well there. And the other state is the neighboring state -- he's from Vermont. So Bernie Sanders, of course, did better there.

PAT: Yeah. He won Vermont?

STU: I'm trying to --

PAT: Sanders? I mean, my guess would be yes.

STU: I think so.

PAT: Probably by a lot.

STU: New Hampshire you mean?

PAT: Yeah. New Hampshire.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Wow.

STU: But that's just a weird -- a weird point.

PAT: It's strange criteria.

STU: Yes. I would say that I'm just -- the easiest way to think about this -- and, yes, he did win that: 60-38. Trump won it 35-16.

JEFFY: I'm sure the professor took into account that Donald Trump had two people against him, where Hillary only had one. So Trump believes out on top on that.

STU: Yeah, okay. Thank you, Jeffy. It was --

PAT: I think that's deeper than the professor actually went.

(laughter)

That was good, Jeffy. That was some thinking.

JEFFY: Thank you.

STU: We should do a -- because he's betting on the markets, the prediction markets. We should do a prediction of whether Helmut gets an interview if Trump loses. If Trump loses, we just never hear Helmut's name again. Right?

JEFFY: No.

STU: Until he comes up with a new model that's been right for 250 years.

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: Four years from now.

STU: Right. Four years from now, he'll be back in the media saying, "Look, I have a model that was correct."

PAT: There was another professor though. Maybe not a professor. Some sort of analyst, elections analyst who similarly -- but he has 14 different pieces of criteria that he uses. And he has predicted every election correctly since 1970 or something. I mean, it's -- it was dating back a long time. It was 12 elections in a row or something to that effect. And he's been right every time. And he also said Trump.

STU: Yeah, there was -- I think I know what point you're talking about.

PAT: It was a different guy than this one.

STU: Wow.

PAT: And his seemed to be much more substantial.

STU: Right. And a lot of these models -- every year, every election there's a model that comes out like this, that's been right for a million -- I mean, wasn't the Washington Redskins' win a week before the election --

PAT: Oh, yeah.

STU: There's always some weird, quirky thing --

PAT: And it was wrong.

STU: And, of course, they're eventually wrong. The last one that came out like this though was an economic model. And it really has a lot of basis. But in their write-up of this election was Trump should win. However, the model cannot account for historically bad candidates. That's not what it does. It assumes your average -- you're nominating an average Republican. And that's not what we did here.

PAT: He's not your average -- like him or don't, he's not your average Republican.

STU: Right.

PAT: I think we can all agree on that.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the Collier County Fairgrounds on October 23, 2016 in Naples, Florida. Early voting in Florida in the presidential election begins October 24. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

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

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven'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."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

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."

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

Professor With Freakishly Accurate Track Record Predicts a Trump Victory

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

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

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?