Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
More
AboutBooksCharityEventsReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2019 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Professor With Freakishly Accurate Track Record Predicts a Trump Victory

October 24, 2016
 Lori Hanes

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)

Democrat candidate power rankings by Stu: April 29th edition

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

What the mainstream media won't tell you about the new Netflix love-letter to socialism

Wikimedia Commons

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Digital book burning: History is happening now, document it before it's lost forever

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Why are Democrats afraid to call the Sri Lanka tragedy Christian persecution?

Wikimedia Commons

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.