Which Alternate Universe Does Newt Gingrich Live In?

If Newt Gingrich's alternate universe includes a pipe dream in which he outmaneuvers Fox News star Megyn Kelly, he might want to consider changing realities.

In a bizarre encounter with the host of The Kelly File, the former Speaker of the House and Trump devotee got into a sparring match that left him looking petty, angry and unhinged. Kelly, on the other hand, came off as calm, cool and collected.

RELATED: Newt Gingrich and Megyn Kelly Get Into Bizarre Exchange on Live TV

"I'm listening to this, and I'm thinking, Her poor husband and children ever trying to pick a fight with mom or the wife? You're dead. You're dead. Listen, you know she's angry, yet she is completely emotionless," Glenn said on radio Wednesday.

Co-host Pat Gray agreed.

"She's completely under control, and he's out of control," he said.

Gingrich's universe also includes the state of Pennsylvania magically allowing early voting.

"They're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That's unprecedented. ...All I can report to you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting, which is also true in Florida," Gingrich claimed.

However, co-host Stu Burguiere made a very salient point.

"We're talking about two alternative universes, and we need to find those universes. One is the universe where Donald Trump is winning in an unprecedented way: The early vote in Pennsylvania. The other universe is the one we live in, in which Pennsylvania does not allow early voting. That's the other universe," he said.

"Holy cow," Glenn replied.

Alternate universe, indeed.

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

• Which candidate is consistently polling ahead in Pennsylvania?

• Do facts matter if you're a Trump supporter?

• Does Gingrich consider Fox News part of the MSM?

• Which three states has Fox News moved to the left as a likely win for Hillary?

• Is it acceptable for a gentleman to publicly accuse a woman of being obsessed with sex?

• Has Trump's crassness rubbed off on Gingrich?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Last night, it was Megyn Kelly versus Newt Gingrich on the facts. It was -- it was quite an amazing thing. And I think Newt Gingrich said everything right towards the beginning when he said, "We are dealing with two alternative universes." And he's right. I think there is the universe that Newt Gingrich is living in and the universe that everyone else is living in. But maybe it's just me.

I want you to listen to this. And we could take clips, but as I was watching it this morning, I thought to myself, "Man, I could stop it at three different points and say, that was incredible. That was incredible to watch."

But wait, there's more. I think you need to hear the whole thing in context. Listen to this.

NEWT: Good to be back.

MEGYN: I mean, with Cook and many other non-partisan, independent pollsters now saying that the Senate is likely lost to the Republicans, what does that say? I mean, if Donald Trump loses this White House race and the Republicans lose the Senate, does that suggest that the Republicans nominated the wrong candidate at the top of their ticket?

NEWT: Well, the next two weeks are a contest of two parallel universes. I just listened to that report.

First of all, I used to hang with Charlie Cook when he would explain that Donald Trump was hopeless and would not get the nomination. I like Charlie. That doesn't mean he's infallible.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second.

I want to just say something here. There's something that I want to get to later. Michael Moore says Donald Trump is going to win. And when you hear his explanation of why he believes he's going to win, I think he has a good point. I think he may be right. And it was what I was talking about yesterday and what I was saying to the people up in New York, who are in the mainstream media. Who say, Donald -- Hillary Clinton is going to win. I'm not so sure of it.

STU: Typical Glenn. Glenn Beck is dumb!

GLENN: You should turn your mic on.

STU: It is on.

GLENN: Oh, it's just not working today? Good. Thank you, guys. Thank you for finally getting it done. Stu's mic is not working.

GLENN: But you need to listen to that. We'll get to that in a second. But I want to point out here that when you're watching this -- Newt Gingrich throws up his hands and shrugs his shoulders when he says -- when Megyn says, "If they lose the Senate, does that mean they nominated the wrong person?" He just shrugs it off as, "Eh, I don't know. We're in two parallel universes." If we lose the Senate or the House, that's a really bad thing. Can we all agree that we're in that universe, that that's a bad thing? Now.

NEWT: Report we just got. Republicans are actually outvoting Democrats in Florida. They're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That's unprecedented. They've cut the Democratic lead --

MEGYN: You predict a win in Pennsylvania?

NEWT: I think they might.

MEGYN: Really? You think Trump's going to win Pennsylvania.

NEWT: Look, all I can report to you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting, which is also true in Florida, which is unprecedented.

MEGYN: But all the polls in Pennsylvania had her winning.

NEWT: What?

MEGYN: All of the polls in Pennsylvania have her head.

NEWT: I know. I just told you, we have two alternative universes right now.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. So there's one universe where the facts say one thing and another universe where the facts say something else. Stu, can you help me out with the early voting that Democrats are behind and that Republicans are outvoting them?

STU: You know, it's a -- it's an interesting point he's making there. There has been some -- I think Donald Trump's early voting looks pretty good in Iowa, I would say. I would say --

GLENN: In Florida? He's saying that they're --

PAT: Florida and Pennsylvania.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Because he said, again, we're talking about two alternative universes.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And we need to find those universes. One is the universe where Donald Trump is winning in an unprecedented way: The early vote in Pennsylvania.

The other universe is the one we live in, which Pennsylvania does not allow early voting. That's the other universe. So --

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: It's going to be -- it would be unprecedented if he was winning the early vote in Pennsylvania.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: Are you kidding?

STU: They don't do it there.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: They don't have early voting in Pennsylvania?

STU: No, that's not a thing.

PAT: What the hell is he talking about?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, he's just --

PAT: You don't need a single fact if you're a Trump supporter. You don't need fact one.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

JEFFY: That's amazing.

STU: That is amazing.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead. So go ahead.

NEWT: I will -- for example, the Democrats are 50,000 votes behind, where they were with Barack Obama in turnout. The governor is very confident we're going to carry Iowa, which Obama carried last time.

GLENN: Do you agree with that?

STU: I actually --

PAT: Wait. 50,000 behind where they were with Obama doesn't mean they're losing to Trump.

GLENN: I know. And it depends also on '12 or on '08. '08 was unprecedented. So being behind in '08 is not necessarily saying --

STU: And those are good things to consider. I actually do think he's going to win Iowa. I could be wrong on it, and it could change. But his numbers are good in Iowa in the early voting. And his polling has been strong in Iowa throughout, as opposed to other states -- comparing it to other states that are similar or ones --

PAT: Isn't that interesting since Ted Cruz won Iowa in the primary? That's interesting.

STU: Yeah. Iowa has been a strong state for Trump polling against --

PAT: Because they haven't been that strong for Republicans lately.

STU: Right.

PAT: And now --

GLENN: They're still not.

PAT: And they're still not.

GLENN: They're still not. They're still not.

NEWT: -- case like this. In Minnesota, we're almost certainly going to win the congressional seat up around Duluth, which is a very Democratic area. But it deeply dislikes Hillary Clinton. And represent --

MEGYN: But let me just ask you -- let me just ask you, because you say it's two alternative universes. I mean --

NEWT: Yeah.

PAT: Why not North Dakota too? There's a guy running for alderman, who may win, and he doesn't like Hillary either.

GLENN: All right. All right.

PAT: Stupid.

MEGYN: These are sort of small examples of how he might be ahead in early voting and so on. But I'm telling you that the Fox News decision desk just moved Iowa that you just mentioned, Indiana, second congressional district in Maine -- all of them moved left, moved more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. And, in fact, all of the moves that have been on this map over the past three weeks, by Larry Sabato, by Cook, by the Fox News decision desks -- these are nonpartisan outlets that are just trying to call the electoral --

NEWT: What? They're not nonpartisan outlets. Every outlet you describe is part of the establishment.

MEGYN: Fox News. Really? Are we? I don't think so.

NEWT: Oh, come on.

MEGYN: Every state they've moved, they've moved it to the left, towards the left, towards Hillary. And you tell me whether that's all made up.

PAT: So he's attacking Fox News who has been in the bag for Trump the entire election.

GLENN: I think he's only attacking --

PAT: He may be only attacking Megyn Kelly.

STU: And the Fox News polls.

PAT: Yeah, and the polls.

STU: He's trying is what he's doing. He's doing his best.

GLENN: He's muddying the waters.

PAT: He's grasping at straws.

NEWT: No, I think they're two alternative universes. You have a poll which suggests that she's going to get a Barack Obama turnout among African-Americans. I don't think that's going to happen. You have a Washington Post/ABC News poll when where they took out eight percent of the vote because they didn't like the way it voted.

Look, I've been around long enough. I remember when the Detroit liberal newspaper, on the Sunday before the election, said John (inaudible) would lose by 14 points. He won the governorship that year. I don't take polls as seriously as people who have never run for office.

MEGYN: But your candidate -- your candidate loves them and has touted them from the beginning. And he's been behind in virtually every one of them, out of the last 40 polls that we've seen over the past month. That's the reality.

STU: The important point to remember here -- because I think a lot of Trump people realize this, but in case you're on the Newt Gingrich bandwagon, the issue with the problem with the primary was not saying the polls were wrong and Donald Trump was losing and then he wound up winning. It was that he was winning the whole time. And people, like myself, for example, gave you reasons why the polls probably were not going to work out in Donald Trump's favor. And they did. He wound up winning. But he was winning the whole time. So now the same people that were questioning the polls and saying -- or, questioning the polls now that they were saying they were right then. The point here seems to be that the polls are right. The polls have done a pretty good job in predicting these things.

GLENN: Well, the polls showed him winning at the time against his candidates. But they showed him losing against Hillary.

STU: The same polls.

GLENN: The same polls.

STU: The same methodology. The same organizations.

GLENN: Right. It's why we were saying during the primary, stop looking at those polls. He's telling you he's winning in everything. He's losing in all of the critical polls which show the head-to-head against Hillary. He was the only one that was losing every single time to Hillary Clinton.

Now, those were the same polls that showed him winning against Marco Rubio, against Ted Cruz. But losing at the same time to Hillary Clinton.

STU: The margin increased, not decreased, but increased as Trump won the primary.

GLENN: Yes. Increased. Yes. Yes.

PAT: Which is a point we tried to make a million times here.

GLENN: Yes. It was going the wrong direction.

STU: The wrong direction. And it's like, to believe that, you have to believe that part of the poll done by the same organization was biased. But the other part of the same poll done by the same organization is not biased. These are not -- these are not, you know, intellectually consistent arguments.

GLENN: No. Because they were done at the same time. It's not like these polls -- it's not like the polls showed him winning against Clinton during the primary. Those same polls showed him losing against --

PAT: I don't think he won a single one during the primary.

GLENN: I don't -- not that I remember. Stu, you'd be better at that.

PAT: Did he win a single poll, head-to-head, during the primary, against Hillary?

STU: I can get you the numbers on that, but I think he did win a couple. All of those that he -- I think he won a couple by one or two points.

GLENN: It was like 51 polls or something --

STU: I think it was over 100.

PAT: It was more than that. Yeah, he had lost 118 out of 120, or something like that.

STU: I can find it.

NEWT: Do you want to assume the election is over? Skip the next two weeks and we can talk about the future.

GLENN: Now, listen to this.

MEGYN: I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you whether you believe your candidate is behind based on these numbers and what it says about the down-ballot races.

NEWT: I believe the odds are at least one in three and maybe better than that. But the difference in intensity and the difference in determination and the degree to which Hillary Clinton is clearly the most corrupt, dishonest person ever nominated by a party, all mean that the odds are pretty good she's not going to win.

Now, I actually believe that. This is not just because I'm for Donald Trump. I actually believe the American people are sickened by this.

MEGYN: So let me ask you --

NEWT: Sure.

MEGYN: Let's assume she is corrupt. Right? She was just as corrupt three weeks ago and three months ago. And she would have been corrupt and collapsing physically on September 11th of this year and her poll numbers tanked. But then you know what happened: He had a rough first debate. He took the bait on Alicia Machado. He stayed in that trap for a week. The Access Hollywood tape came out, which was not produced by Hillary Clinton. That was Trump, on camera talking about grabbing women --

NEWT: That was -- Megyn, I just heard -- look, I just heard you go through this with Governor Pence. I get it. I know where you're coming from. Let me point out something to you.

MEGYN: Sure.

NEWT: The three major networks spent 23 minutes --

GLENN: That no one watches.

NEWT: Attacking Donald Trump that night and 57 seconds on Hillary Clinton's secret speeches. You don't think this is a scale of bias worth of Pravda and Izvestia. I mean, you want to know why Donald Trump has had a rough time --

MEGYN: If Trump is a sexual predator, that is --

NEWT: He's not a sexual predator. You can't say that. You could not defend that statement.

MEGYN: Okay. That's your opinion. I'm not taking a position on it. I am not taking a position on it.

NEWT: I am sick and tired of people like you, using language --

GLENN: Like you.

NEWT: -- that's inflammatory that's not true.

MEGYN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. You have no idea whether it's true or not. What we know is that there are at least --

NEWT: Neither do you.

MEGYN: That's right. And I'm not taking a position on it, unlike you.

NEWT: Oh, yes, you are. When you use the words, you took a position. And I think it's very unfair of you to do that, Megyn. I think that is exactly the bias people are upset by.

MEGYN: So what I said -- incorrect.

PAT: Wow.

MEGYN: I think that your defensiveness on this may speak volumes, sir.

What I said -- no, no, let me make my point, and then I'll give you the floor.

What I said is, "If Trump is a sexual predator, then it's a big story." And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will. That's what we saw. Then we saw 10 women come forward after he denied actually doing it at a debate to say, "That was untrue. He did it to me. He did it to me." We saw reporters. We saw people who had worked with him. People from Apprentice and so on and so forth. He denies it all, which is his right. We don't know what the truth is.

PAT: Newt knows -- Newt knows her. He should know better than this. You don't take Megyn Kelly head-to-head like this.

GLENN: All I can think of this whole time --

PAT: What are you doing?

GLENN: All I can think of -- I'm listening to this, and I'm thinking, "Her poor husband and children ever trying to pick a fight with mom or the wife. You're dead."

PAT: Bad idea. Bad idea.

GLENN: You're dead. Listen, you know she's angry, yet she is completely emotionless.

PAT: She's completely under control, and he's out of control.

GLENN: And he's out of control, and he's about to really lose control.

MEGYN: To you, as a media story, we don't get to say the ten women are lying. We have to cover that story, sir.

NEWT: Well, sure. Okay. So it's worth 23 minutes of the three networks to cover that story, and Hillary Clinton in a secret speech in Brazil to a bank that pays her 225,000 saying her dream is an open border where 600 million could come to America, that's not worth covering?

MEGYN: That is worth covering. And we did.

NEWT: You want to go back to the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated about sex, and you don't care about public policy.

MEGYN: Me? Really?

NEWT: That's what I get out of watching you tonight.

PAT: Wow.

MEGYN: You know what, Mr. Speaker, I'm not fascinated by sex. But I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we're getting in the Oval Office. And I think the American voters would like --

NEWT: Okay. So we're going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing because, after all, you are worried about sexual predators.

MEGYN: Yeah. Listen, it's not about me. It's about the women and men in America. And the poll numbers show us that the women in America, in particular, are very concerned about these allegations. And in large part believe that they are a real issue. And don't dismiss the --

NEWT: You want to comment -- do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

MEGYN: We, on the Kelly File, have covered that story as well, sir. I will tell you the polls --

NEWT: No, I just want to hear you use the words. I want to hear the words "Bill Clinton, sexual predator." I dare you. Say "Bill Clinton, sexual predator."

GLENN: Out of control.

MEGYN: Mr. Speaker, we've covered -- excuse me, sir.

NEWT: Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. $850,000 penalty.

MEGYN: Excuse me, sir. We, on the Kelly File, have covered the Clinton matter as well. We have hosted Kathleen Willey.

NEWT: Try saying it.

MEGYN: We've covered the examples of him being accused as well, but he's not on the ticket. And the polls also show that the American people is less interested in the deeds of Hillary Clinton's husband than they are in the deeds of the man who asks us to make him president, Donald Trump.

We're going to have to leave it at that, and you can take your anger issues and spend time working on them, Mr. Speaker.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Kelly File

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.