John Ziegler: If Trump Loses, We Must Control the Narrative With the Truth

John Ziegler, nationally syndicated conservative radio host and columnist for Mediaite, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday for a lively discussion about the GOP and conservative media outlets. A recent article from Business Insider featured Ziegler and co-host Stu Burguiere commenting on the so-called "conservative media industrial complex."

"This is an issue that I've been talking about for many years, that the conservative base is under a bit of a delusion when it comes to what the purpose of this conservative media industrial complex is," Ziegler said.

RELATED: Jill Stein: Trump Is Less Dangerous; Clinton Will Start Nuclear War With Russia

Fired up, Ziegler also shared two things he believes were ignored during the election process: Trump is not a true Republican and he can't possibly win.

"You should drink a cup of coffee or something before you come on the air, because you're laid-back," Glenn joked.

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

• Do Breitbart and Bannon know who they're in bed with?

• Why does Ziegler believe the nomination of Donald Trump effectively elected Hillary Clinton?

• Why does Ziegler believe Trump is a cancer that must be eradicated?

• Should Ziegler drink more coffee so he says what he really means?

• If Trump loses, why is it critical to truthfully control the narrative about why Republicans lost?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 1:22:10, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: The G.O.P. must do something about the conservative media industrial complex if it wants to survive.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Finally.

PAT: Finally somebody is saying it.

GLENN: Finally. You know what they're saying there is, you need to stop the conspiracy theorists. And we go there, next.

(music)

GLENN: Stu, you're going to give me an update on the Breitbart campaign -- or, the Breitbart news source before they had told anybody that they were in the bag -- when they were still denying that they were, you know, an arm of the Trump campaign?

STU: Right.

GLENN: That they were coordinating with the left. Occupy Wall Street guy and the Clinton campaign to destroy Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

STU: Yes. And, you know, it's a convoluted story and an amazing one to see. I mean, you would think that Breitbart, the last thing in the world they would be working with is Occupy Wall Street activists.

GLENN: No, they have a ton in common.

STU: Yeah, they do. Interesting though, because here they are, the brand Breitbart is going in and working with Occupy Wall Street activists. Here's a tweet from October 17th, 2011, from a man named Andrew Breitbart.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Breitbart. I'm not sure how to pronounce it.

GLENN: Go ahead.

STU: Talking and criticize journalists to -- remember the journalist emails?

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: Where they had that inner discussion working. Breitbart was big talking about that.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And he posted a story about how leaked emails reveal -- reveal that Occupy activists were collaborating with the media. This man who has passed and his name lives on doing the exact things he criticized. I mean, that is a sad freaking story. Whether you like Andrew Breitbart or not, that is a sad story. Because he's not here to defend himself for what they're doing to his name. And that's sad.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Let me go to a story from the Business Insider: The G.O.P. must do something about the conservative media industrial complex, if it wants to survive. And there are two people, among many, that are quoted in here.

One is John Ziegler, nationally syndicated conservative radio host and columnist for Mediaite. And he's on the phone. And the other one, with a picture and everything, is Stu Burguiere, who has been elevated to co-host of the Glenn Beck Program.

STU: Oh, there you go.

GLENN: I wasn't aware of that.

STU: Thank you for that. As always, I appreciate your support.

GLENN: John, welcome to let program. How are you, sir?

JOHN: Always good to talk to you, Glenn.

GLENN: So give me the thrust, you two, of this article.

JOHN: Well, to me, this is an issue that I've been talking about for many years, that the conservative base is under a bit of a delusion when it comes to what the purpose of this conservative media industrial complex is.

I think a lot of people, although they're starting to wake up to it now in the post-Trump era have always agreed that most of the conservative industrial media complex wanted to help conservative causes. And part of that was to get a Republican president elected. I would submit that that's not only the goal, that might actually be the opposite of the goal. The goal of the conservative media industrial complex is to get enough people jazzed up about what you do to consume your products. And that doesn't mean a large number of people. That means a very tiny sliver of an overall population. To get a person elected, you need 51 percent or thereabouts of a massive population to do one thing, and that is vote for that candidate.

Those two goals are in complete opposite of each other. And they're contradictory to each other. And what has happened in this particular election cycle, I believe, is that an entity, this conservative media industrial complex, which is all about ratings and revenue and creating customers, saw that Donald Trump was far, far better to that end goal than any other candidate. None of the other candidates moved the needle like Donald Trump. And they didn't care that Donald Trump was completely and totally contradictory to the other goal, which would be to elect a Republican president.

In fact, I believe that the nomination of Donald Trump effectively elected Hillary Clinton. And anyone who facilitated Donald Trump's nomination as the Republican nominee, I believe effectively elected Hillary Clinton, no matter what Sean Hannity says.

GLENN: John, help me out on this. Because this was a question that was asked of me yesterday. I was with the mainstream a lot yesterday. And -- and the one question that was asked in each place I spoke, does Breitbart and Bannon know who he's in bed with? Is this just about money, or is this really -- is he a believer in the philosophy?

My answer was, I think he is a believer in the philosophy of destruction. And so he'll unite with anyone who is a destructive force.

But he's all about his own power and his own fame and his own wealth.

JOHN: Glenn, I think that's an excellent analysis. I had this very same conversation with somebody who still works prominently at Breitbart. As you know, Andrew Breitbart and I were very close for a couple of year period, in the 2008, 2009, 2010 area. And I got to know him exceedingly well.

I agree with that. I think it's basically both. I think that Bannon is a true believer in whatever this bizarre alt-right philosophy is. But it is also about power and money. And I think that Bannon -- and I've met with Bannon. I did not find him to be an impressive person at all, in any way, shape, or form. And the idea that he's now CEO of the Trump campaign as well as de facto still head of Breitbart, and now we learn of this outrageous story of coordinating with leftists in order to try to harm Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz -- as you rightfully say, during a time period which they were still claiming to be objective here, that they were not totally completely in the tank, as they obviously now are, for Donald Trump. It's beyond outrageous. It's -- it's beyond outrageous. It requires expulsion from the conservative cause, Glenn. That's how horrendous this is. And if conservatives don't see it, they deserve what they get.

GLENN: And at the same time that was going on, they were also -- the campaign was accusing Ted Cruz of dirty tricks, and that's why they called him lying Ted.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Because he was involved in dirty tricks saying that, you know, Ben Carson --

PAT: To get rid of Ben Carson.

GLENN: Didn't make sense that Ben Carson was going home to get a shirt. Go buy one, you know, at Sears if you have to. Don't leave the campaign trail for a week.

And they said, "That was dirty tricks."

The same time they're making that into a big deal, the campaign and Breitbart are working with the Clinton campaign to destroy Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Unbelievable.

JOHN: It is. Except it's not that unbelievable. It's unbelievable in one sense. But it's very believable when you now look back with clear eyes at their coverage at the time. And their attacks on both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio went way beyond this shenanigans, which is just flatout silly. I mean, the whole notion of -- they brutalized Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz on so many different issues. And they never -- the number one thing, to me, with regard to Trump -- there were two things that were just completely ignored during this whole deal, and they're very important: One, he's not a Republican/conservative. And, two, he cannot possibly win.

Now, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? And those two things were completely ignored. And in order to facilitate this Trump fiasco, this con job, it didn't matter who stood in the way. It didn't matter if it was a real conservative like a Marco Rubio who could win or a Ted Cruz who I don't believe could win -- was at least a true conservative. And so it didn't matter. And so now that we know this, there must be punishment, Glenn. Because if there's not punishment, guess what's going to happen? It's going to happen again.

And if we allow -- this is the main point of that whole article you're referring with the conservative media industrial complex -- if we allow the same people to be in charge after this fiasco, who caused it, then we will get again exactly what we deserve.

STU: John, this is Stu, co-host of the Pat, Stu, and Jeffy show.

(chuckling)

You point out the -- you're right, obviously. If you want to talk about the conservative media industrial complex, ratings and revenue are a big part of that. It's a big part of our lives and careers, I think. And I don't -- I mean, we all realize we have to do this at that as part of this job. The point is, you don't cross certain lines that are inconsistent with your principles. I mean, if we all wanted to make as much money as possible, we could all start selling pornography. We don't necessarily do that because there are lines we don't necessarily want to cross, with the exception of Jeffy.

So the point is, how do you walk that line? I mean, because I think -- and my hope was in the article, that after this, it's a long-term play. People will look at who misled them. Who got them into this Trump bandwagon? Who told them things that were obviously false to get people to move these votes? Who told people that online polls were going to prove that Donald Trump was winning? Who told those people who then went on their Facebook pages and looked like idiots in front of their friends? Will those people be punished after all this is over?

GLENN: I don't think so.

JOHN: If this was the investment industry, yes. You know, this was a situation where -- you know, certain people were saying, "Hey, look, invest in this stock. Donald Trump." And it turned out the tank -- and there are a whole lot of other better investment options. Those people who did that would be punished, and they would not be heard from again. We're not living in that world. We're living in a bizarro world where because certain people in this whole deal -- and I'll mention Sean Hannity again.

GLENN: No. Let's not mention Sean Hannity or anybody else.

JOHN: Made a whole lot of people feel good about themselves. There might not be punishment. People -- it's very easy -- it's much easier to dupe people than to convince them they have been duped. And so I am pessimistic that people will understand what has actually happened to them.

And as far as your first question, where the line is. To me, and I wrote about this way, way back, and I know Glenn promoted this article quite a bit and I appreciate that, about how the conservative media sold its soul to facilitate the nomination of Donald Trump. I think the core of what happened here is the business model for most of the conservative media broke.

And when the business model broke, it forced even some of our titans, people who I would have never imagined would sell out to a Donald Trump, to be forced to do so to continue to temporarily make that business model work, in this particular year.

Now, I believe it's going to collapse on them next year, once the Trump audience disappears and their core audience no longer trusts them. That's my hope.

But that to me is what caused this: The breaking of the conservative media business model, to the point where you weren't able to just tell the truth and still make the same kind of ratings and the same kind of buck as you were before. Now you got to fake it. Now you got to fake it on a daily basis to get the same kind of ratings and revenue that you did before.

And unfortunately, to a lot of people, ratings, revenue, fame, keeping their gig is all that matters, and the truth doesn't mean a damn.

GLENN: I have to tell you, John -- first of all, you should drink a cup of coffee or something before you come on the air. Because you're laid-back.

The second thing is, is I don't buy that. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. If you are in this business of telling the truth as you understand it, the last thing you can be is a coward. And I don't believe that those people believe that they were making a choice of ratings or money.

I think they were -- maybe I'm being too kind. But I think they really believed that stuff.

JOHN: Well, can I address that?

GLENN: Yeah.

JOHN: Because, Glenn, I think it's both. I think it was -- I think they were on a drug. I think this was intoxicating. I think to -- you know, I think to a lot of people, they saw that the ratings they were getting with Donald Trump, and they believed -- they forced themselves to believe because it was in their self-interest to believe. And they thought, "Well, maybe if the ratings are great for us, that means that something really special is happening nationwide." There was nothing special happening nationwide regarding Donald Trump. There was never any chance he was going to win a general election against a mainstream Democratic candidate, even one as horrible and corrupt and as incompetent as Hillary Clinton. And we're going to see that in a couple of weeks.

But this was not -- I don't believe this was a conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies. And I agree with you, Glenn. I would like to believe that some of these people that we've trusted for many years, they basically duped themselves into believing this because it was in their own self-interest to do so. Do you see the difference there?

GLENN: Yeah, I do. I do. John, can you hang on just a second. I want to take a quick break. And I want to come back -- I want to ask -- I'd like to have a discussion here on -- forget about the election, what -- how do we come back together, and does it come back together?

How do we, without sticking fingers in people's faces -- because that's not going to work and nobody is going to listen to somebody who said, "I told you so." They're already saying it's, you know, our fault. And I think there's going to be a lot of people that will say, "While I was the only one that was standing against Hillary Clinton the whole time, you were pussy-footing around. And I knew that we had to stop her at all costs." And they're going to shift the focus to Hillary Clinton, which will, they believe, save their credibility, and destroy people like ours. And they might be right.

How can we -- how can we get to a place where reason is fixed in her seat again?

[break]

GLENN: Hey, John, before we get into any solutions -- we're talking to John Ziegler from Mediaite and conservative talk show radio host.

John, before we get into the solutions of where and how we try to solve this after the election, no matter who wins, you seem to be a little fired up. Are you still there? Yeah, are you still there?

JOHN: Yeah.

GLENN: You seem to be a little fired up.

JOHN: Everyone should be.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Yeah. We were wondering during the break, is this how you usually are, or is this a sign of you're getting a ton of crap and you're sick of it?

JOHN: Well, I don't -- I'm not normally like this with my wife and child, if that's what you're asking.

GLENN: Right. Right.

JOHN: But, no, this is a unique situation. And I have been taking a ton of crap for my stance over the last year. And, you know, I've been right. And it will be proven that I was right, along with some others. But it's not even about being right, this is for the rest of my daughter's life, Glenn. We're going to have judges that are appointed by Hillary Clinton and everything else that she's going to do for at least the next four years. And it was not necessary. And it happened because of friendly fire.

PAT: Right.

JOHN: That's -- if that doesn't piss you off, what can!

PAT: That's right.

GLENN: But, John, that is exactly the case --

PAT: So true.

GLENN: -- that so many who are supporting Donald Trump are making. I mean, word-for-word.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, these people --

PAT: Blaming us.

GLENN: -- it came from friendly fire. And it wasn't necessary. And now the result is Hillary Clinton. I want you to -- I want you to -- tell me how to navigate those waters in a way to come back together to stand against whomever is the president and wants to go in unconstitutional ways, when we come back.

[break]

GLENN: John Ziegler joins us from Mediaite. Conservative talk show host, and he was part of an article in the Business Insider that the conservative need to do something about the conservative media industrial complex, which I think is an interesting term because it's insinuating it's a conspiracy factory. And I think that's one of the problems we have is this -- I mean, the -- the -- couple days ago, or maybe it was yesterday, they were -- people in the media were actually holding up the National Enquirer as a credible source yet again.

And it -- I mean, we have got --

PAT: Talking about their very few triumphs and ignoring everything they've gotten wrong over the years.

GLENN: We have got to fix reason in her seat. With that being said, John, I just said to you, what you said to me that you are frustrated because you said, "My children are going to have to live with this election for the rest of their lives because Hillary Clinton is going to appoint members of the Supreme Court, and it wasn't necessary because of those who were taking shots and friendly fire." Well, that is exactly the things that others who are voting for Trump say about me, say about you, John.

JOHN: Very well said. And, by the way, the term media industrial complex -- "conservative media industrial complex," I believe you probably heard that the first time, the last time I was on your show. That's something I've been using for quite a while. I'm happy that Oliver Darcy decided to use that because I do think it's an apt description of what really caused this problem.

GLENN: I do too.

JOHN: And to more directly answer your question, which is an excellent one -- because you're right. That is what the other side is saying. And your analysis of the fight over narrative -- the fight over the election is pretty much over at this point. Hillary is going to win, unfortunately. We don't know by how much.

GLENN: I don't know if that's true.

JOHN: The fight over the narrative is now just beginning. And this is -- as almost as important a fight as the one over the election. And unfortunately, a lot of the same people, as I say in that article, who created the first false narrative that Donald Trump was a Republican who could somehow win, have a vested interest in another narrative, which is that it was Glenn Beck or the John Zieglers of the world who somehow caused this, which is just laughable on so many levels. The first is that Donald Trump himself said he doesn't need or want our support. So right there, end of discussion.

But here's -- to answer your question is to how all this is going to go down -- and I talked about this the last time I was on your show. This is why the margin of defeat is going to be so incredibly important.

If he loses by a margin worse than say John McCain in 2008, there is no possible --

GLENN: So that was eight points.

JOHN: -- there's no possible way -- no possible way for the people on the pro-Trump side of this argument that he could ever have possibly won or that it was the so-called Never Trump Republicans who caused this. That's the first battle here: We must be able to win the argument that this was a mistake that was made in the nominating process, not in the general election because Donald Trump could never win. And, oh, by the way, he was never a Republican either.

GLENN: Let's say it doesn't -- let's say it comes in at four points, three points.

JOHN: Then we're done. It's over. And that's why I've urged people strategically in certain states to vote against Donald Trump if you're a Republican. Because to me, he must be eradicated like cancer --

GLENN: So wait. You're saying that in states where it should be like Florida -- I mean, it should be like Texas. But Texas is close.

You're saying where -- where Hillary is so far ahead, it doesn't matter what your vote does.

JOHN: Look, here's the bottom line: If you're somebody who has accepted that Donald Trump is not going to win -- which means you're a sane, rational conservative who doesn't believe in massive conspiracies at this point -- if you've accepted that, then to me, you will be thinking November 9th. And what world do we want to live in, on November 9th?

Do we want Donald Trump to still be the lead spokesperson of our movement and our party, or do we want him eradicated like the cancer that he is?

And every vote he gets is a vote to keep him in the process. Every vote against him is a vote to get him out of the process. So to me, that's the way I look at this: You're either voting to keep a cancer or kill the cancer. And so -- because you cannot win.

Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court spot is gone, folks. It's over. Sorry. It's done. We've lost that. If it was so important to us, we should have elected or nominated someone who was going to win. But we didn't do that because it wasn't fun enough and it wasn't good enough for certain power players within our movement, for their ratings and their revenue.

So that's -- what's done is done. I think this is an incredibly important, but difficult problem, as you illustrate, Glenn. To me, the first answer here is, we've got to establish that Trump was the wrong nominee.

If we don't do that -- and if it is close, three or four points, then I don't see the path forward. I really don't. I'm sorry. I just don't see the path forward because he will disrupt any attempt to make any recovery. And he will ensure Hillary's reelection in 2020 because he's that much of a cancer.

GLENN: That is the bleakest and yet I believe most accurate case I have heard for what's coming.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because if it is close, it will be that. And he will go into Trump TV. And it will -- he will be able to whip enough people up into a frenzy.

If it is a ten-point spread, an eight-point spread, he won't be able to do that. But what are the odds that it's a ten-point spread, Stu?

STU: I mean, it's certainly possible. It's certainly at least as likely, if not more likely, than him actually winning. You know, the -- I think it was FiveThirtyEight that broke it out into scenarios, like blowout, the 2008-type election, 2012-type election, a squeaker, and a Trump win. There are five categories.

GLENN: It was a blowout in 2008. What was that? Eight points?

STU: Yeah, seven and a half, I think. Seven and a half or 7.6. Something like that.

GLENN: Correct. What's a blowout to you, John?

JOHN: I think to me, the important level here is 2008. If he does worse -- I'm more -- I think it's more important he does worse in the electoral college because people look at that math. And that number, I think is important.

But, secondarily, the popular vote is also important. If he does worse than John McCain in 2008 in both the electoral college and the popular vote, then I think we've won the argument. Because I don't think there's any rational way to claim that Donald Trump could ever win or that so-called Never Trump Republicans who are an incredibly small number of the population, trust me, I know --

GLENN: So do I.

JOHN: Right. Exactly. It's amazing how much influence we suddenly have, Glenn. Isn't it?

GLENN: I know. I know. We couldn't get Ted Cruz be the president, but somehow or another, we, without most of the audience, can sway this entire election.

JOHN: It's amazing.

GLENN: It is.

JOHN: It's absurd. It's a lie, is what it is. Let's call it what it is: It's a lie intended to cover the asses of people who got exposed as sellouts and frauds. That's what this is.

STU: Darn that math.

JOHN: Let's be very clear. And so to me, the 2008 marker is very important. And I think -- I think it's a 50/50 shot at this point. I think electoral college if I had to bet, I think Trump does worse than McCain did in 2008.

STU: Wow. That's amazing. That's where we are.

Are we arguing, John, against the market at all? Because it feels like to me, if we talk about it this way, is it not that people will be rewarded for making these bad choices? And this is what the left would say about every economic incentive. You know, people will get rewarded for making bad choices; therefore, we need to do something to control their choices.

JOHN: Yeah. I -- I address this in the Business Insider article to a degree. And that is the inherent problem, is that our media -- because the left controls so much of the mainstream media, our media is far, far more dictated by market forces. Now, there's good and bad to that.

The bad is that when you're only dealing with five to ten, maybe 20 percent, at most, of the population to begin with, you don't have influence over a general election for a president.

It's an incredibly minor portion of the voting population. And so these same market forces that are incredibly important for the conservative media are irrelevant in winning presidential elections.

So this is an inherent contradiction and a problem I don't have an answer for. What I'd like -- the only answer is, if our people are educated enough and open their eyes enough to realize they were duped here and to punish those who duped them. I doubt that will happen. But that's the only path to correcting this problem as I see it.

GLENN: John, yesterday, I sat with the New York Times editorial board, and I have absolutely no idea what they'll do, what they were thinking, or anything else. But I met with them. I met with 19 of them. Those meetings are usually between three and ten people.

JOHN: Wow.

GLENN: Nineteen people came to this meeting.

JOHN: Wow.

GLENN: They said that was highly unusual.

JOHN: Yeah.

GLENN: And I felt what they were looking for was, A, who is the -- who are the conservatives today? Where does it split? How does it split?

There are good guys -- they're not all -- they're not really with the Trump people, right? I mean, they're not -- the alt-right, correct?

And I -- and they were -- they were seeking answers. But the other thing -- and not just from them, but from many people in the press that I have met with recently.

I believe the love affair with Hillary Clinton is over.

JOHN: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: And right now, they're only pushing things away because they're so afraid of Donald Trump.

JOHN: Yes.

GLENN: But the minute Trump is out of the way. I think she's going to get the pounding of a lifetime.

JOHN: And, Glenn, that's why I'm so agitated and passionate about this issue of making sure Trump gets eradicated.

Let me -- you say I painted a bleak picture. Let me paint you a good picture here: Let's say Trump is crushed. All right? And let's say the cancer is mostly eradicated and he fades away, much like Sarah Palin ended up fading away. The reality here is in 2008, the Senate map is 100 percent in our favor. She will be powerless in the last two years of her presidency. And if we get our act together and nominate let's say Marco Rubio or Scott Walker or somebody like that, who is young and can make the argument that she's old news and she's as unpopular as we anticipate, with an economy that's going nowhere at best and we win the presidency in 2020 and Clarence Thomas and Kennedy hang on, we can still save this.

GLENN: I know.

JOHN: This doesn't have to be over, if we get our wits about us and stop the insanity.

But the first step in this is eradicating the cancer on November 8th and winning this narrative as to what really happened and why we lost this election. That's why it's so incredibly important.

GLENN: Great points. Thank you very much, John Ziegler. I appreciate your time on the program.

JOHN: Always good talking to you, Glenn.

GLENN: John Ziegler, from Mediaite.

Featured Image: Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See previous editions here.

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

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

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

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

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

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

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Who are you?

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

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

Other headlines:

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CANDIDATE PROFILE

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

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

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

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

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

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


Other headlines:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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