Gilmore Girls Revival: Last Four Words Were About the Writer, Not the Fans

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Glenn Beck does not watch the Gilmore Girls.

"I don't know a thing about the Gilmore Girls, other than my girls are huge fans and watched every episode, and it became a ritual in the Beck household," Glenn said Monday on his radio program.

The premise of the show surrounds a mother and daughter relationship. The mother --- Lorelai --- had her daughter Rory at 16 years of age. The original show celebrates the success of her teen pregnancy. The much-anticipated Netflix revival ended with four words the show's creator, Amy Sherman-Palladino, planned years ago: Mom? Yeah? I'm pregnant.

But it's Sherman-Palladino's comments in recent interviews that have fans scratching their heads. Sherman-Palladino said that abortion could be an option for Rory. That news made Glenn's daughters go ballistic: Rory would never do that!

"If it comes full circle by aborting the baby, you're invalidating your mother's choice," Glenn noted. "And you won't be able to pass that lesson on to your children because you would have killed them. I just want to point that out."

Glenn's daughter Hannah also nailed the problem with the ending.

"I thought this was so good. She said, The entire four episodes were about the fans. The four words were about the writer, Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Okay. I don't know a thing about The Gilmore Girls, other than that my girls are huge fans and watched every episode, and it became a ritual in the Beck household. As they were growing up, they would watch The Gilmore Girls with their mother every Tuesday night, and they would go over to their aunt's house -- and even on reruns, every Tuesday night, they would watch The Gilmore Girls. And so it was a big deal around my house when The Gilmore Girls decided to reunite and do, what? Four episodes on Netflix. I am proud to say that I have never watched an episode of The Gilmore Girls.

PAT: Yeah, me too. By the way, weren't they paid the most of any actors on television to do those four episodes?

JEFFY: Yeah, like 750,000 for each in an episode.

PAT: Per episode. Yeah. The highest --

GLENN: Were any of them working? I don't even know the cast.

PAT: I don't know. But it was a lot.

GLENN: Were any of them like, "Yeah, I used to be on The Gilmore Girls, but now I'm working at T.J. Maxx." Or are they actors?

STU: I have legitimately no clue.

JEFFY: I have no clue.

GLENN: I have no idea either. So obviously this is not going to be a conversation about The Gilmore Girls, but rather culture and the left. Listen to this. So I'm not going to give you a spoiler alert, because I doubt there's anyone in this audience that is waiting to see The Gilmore Girls.

STU: But if you happen to be that person, this is the time to turn it off.

GLENN: That one. Turn it off for a second. Apparently -- and I don't know the story line at all, except, do you know what the premise is?

PAT: No.

STU: Two girls. That's about where I would go with it.

JEFFY: Two girls.

PAT: The mom and the daughter.

GLENN: The mom and the daughter. Okay. Rory, I think is the daughter -- oh, no, the mom's name --

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: I thought they were sisters.

GLENN: Mom was -- no, they're like sisters.

PAT: Gertrude is the mother. Gertrude.

GLENN: They're like sisters because mom had Rory when she was 16 years old.

PAT: Oh, my.

GLENN: And so --

PAT: So they're good friends. They're just good friends.

GLENN: They're good friends. Stop mocking for a second. Let me get through it. Then you can do all the mocking you want. And I'm not going to stop you on the mocking. It's just to get through it.

So the idea is that this girl's life was so tough because she made the mistake of having sex, she had a baby, they've made it through, and that's what the whole thing is.

STU: She was punished with a baby.

GLENN: No. No. Yes, that's what you could -- stop with the mocking for a second.

STU: That wasn't mocking.

PAT: This is on the new --

GLENN: No, this is the whole premise of the --

PAT: Oh, the whole thing -- of the whole -- oh.

GLENN: -- is they were able to make it. They were alone in the world, and they were able to make it. She was 16. She decided to keep the baby. She was, you know, strong all the way through.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: She raised Rory to be a good girl.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And they're really close. Okay? It's a success story of a teen pregnancy. That's what this is.

Everybody understand that? That's the only premise you need to know.

PAT: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: Success story of teen pregnancy.

Two stories now: One, the reason why people who were big fans of the show were unsatisfied with it -- they liked the four episodes. They didn't like the last four words of the final episode.

Now, apparently -- and I know nothing about this. I don't know why I've just lost my audio. But apparently, the thing that they didn't like is the last four words because the last four words were written a decade ago. And the writer did not -- the original writer and the original person that started the show did not write the last like three seasons back when it was on television. I don't know why. But she was jettisoned.

And she always said she wanted the episode to end -- or, the series to end when Rory was like 21 or 23 years old. And she was going to say the last four words, "Mom, I'm pregnant."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Okay? And that would have been a big deal because she was --

PAT: You used the contraction. That was only three words.

JEFFY: Yeah, but it would have been --

PAT: Still...

STU: I am pregnant?

GLENN: Mom, I am pregnant.

STU: Okay. Got it.

GLENN: Mom, I am pregnant.

PAT: I'm just making sure because we'll hear nothing but that, and then they'll lose the point of the story.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you, Pat.

PAT: Glenn Beck said, "Mom, I'm pregnant" is four words. That's all we'll hear.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you, Pat. I appreciate that.

Mom, I am pregnant.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: And that would have been appropriate when she was 23 years old and young and unmarried and she's just getting out of college and she's got her whole world in front of her. Okay? Because it's not 16. But in our society, that's still young to be pregnant and unmarried. Okay?

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Well, now, she's not 23. She's 33.

PAT: Rory is?

GLENN: Rory.

PAT: Thirty-three now?

GLENN: Yeah. Because she was -- yeah.

PAT: Wow, has it been that long? Jeez.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. So it's ten years later. When she was 23, they ended it. She's 33 now.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: And so now, she's had her life. She's -- you know, she's still unmarried. She's started her career. Et cetera. Et cetera. And 33 is not young to have a baby. Right?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But it changes apparently -- and I don't know, and I'm not going to get into it. It changes the entire story line. It would have been a great ending ten years ago. Everybody is upset because it's like, "That's a bad ending now. That's not -- it changes -- now, that's a setup for a new season. It's not a cap." Okay?

Now -- now, that you understand that, that's the controversy.

But here's the real controversy: I read something -- because Gilmore Girls' fans generally are not listening to programs like this, they may not be getting the political news.

So there was a story on -- that I read -- I don't remember, New York Times or someplace, about the writer and what she said after, on those four words.

She said, "Well, Rory is smart enough to at least consider an abortion."

(chuckling)

GLENN: So I tell my daughters this. My daughters are -- they go -- they go ballistic. They go ballistic. And they start in, like, "Rory's a real person. Rory would never do that!"

(laughter)

STU: That's their complaint?

GLENN: Right. All right.

JEFFY: It's not the character. It's not the life.

GLENN: But, listen, here's how out of touch this writer is. Okay? What is the story?

JEFFY: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: The story is, at 16, a girl made a decision, and it's been the best decision of her life, and she's produced Rory.

PAT: It seems to be a pro-life show, in that eventuality.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Show. If she would have had an abortion, Rory wouldn't exist.

STU: Yeah, real dull series.

PAT: Right. It would just be Gilmore Girl, and it wouldn't be the same.

GLENN: And she wouldn't exist. So it makes the entire story line meaningless.

STU: Right. The premise, as you describe it, these circumstances that are sometimes difficult create these wonderful things.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Right? Like that is exactly --

GLENN: So now imagine being someone who at 16 -- your mom was 16. She gave birth to you. And you two made it. And now you're 33 with all these great memories, and you're pregnant and capable and wealthy enough to be able to have a baby, even by yourself. "I don't know, Mom. I'm thinking about cutting this one out."

JEFFY: Yeah, no way.

PAT: Crazy.

GLENN: Crazy.

PAT: Crazy.

It shows their agenda supersedes all.

GLENN: Everything.

PAT: Absolutely everything.

GLENN: My daughter Hannah said -- and I thought this was so good.

She said, "The four words -- she said, "The entire four episodes were about the fans." And she said, "The four words were about the writer. She had her thing she wanted to do, and it didn't matter if it wrecked it for all of the fans, she was going to be self-centered enough to do those four words because that's what she had planned." And she said, "She announced it ten years ago, those were the four words."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Everybody knew.

PAT: It doesn't even work.

GLENN: And it doesn't even work. So she said, "It became an ego project." And then on top of it, the abortion --

JEFFY: The abortion.

GLENN: I'm going to get my political message in here, which goes against everything in the show.

PAT: It sucks.

You know, J.K. Rowling kind of did the same thing, didn't she? After the fact of Harry Potter, she started throwing in all her little agenda items.

Oh, by the way --

GLENN: What? I don't know this.

PAT: -- Dumbledore was really gay. Oh, by the way --

GLENN: You've got to be kidding me.

PAT: -- Hermione was supposed to be black. Oh, by the way -- what? Well, then why didn't you do it that way, if that's what it was supposed to be. What are you talking about? Yeah --

GLENN: Where is the tip-off that Dumbledore was gay?

PAT: I don't -- if you go back and look at the movies -- I don't buy into it. I just think it's political correctness on her part now. I just think she didn't have a diverse enough cast and diverse enough story, and so now she's trying to make it diverse. It's pathetic. It's pathetic.

GLENN: I can't take it. I can't take it. I can't take -- look, I know, you know, people who make different lifestyle choices exist. I got it. I got it.

PAT: Yes. And I think we all know that.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: And I don't have a problem. Fine. Whatever.

PAT: I know.

GLENN: Don't force me to marry people in my church, and I won't force you to not marry. Can we just have some perspective and get along and live together?

PAT: It would be great, but no.

GLENN: It would be great. But television is non-stop gay relationships. I mean, it's like -- it just -- it seems like 90 percent of the population is gay and 10 percent are straight and getting married.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Well, this is why the Gaines situation stood out to so many people. Because I guess they didn't -- I don't watch the show.

GLENN: Oh, I do.

STU: I guess they don't have a lot of gay couples on or something.

PAT: Wouldn't that be sort of the balance to the rest of HGTV, which does feature them prominently.

STU: All the time. Just fine.

JEFFY: And they're in Waco, Texas.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: And they're in Waco.

GLENN: And Waco, Texas. Yeah. It's not like we're in San Francisco. We're in Waco, Texas.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And the shows they have in California can feature a lot of gay couples.

JEFFY: And they do. They do.

PAT: They do.

GLENN: Did you hear how Chip Gaines responded?

STU: Gracefully.

GLENN: Really -- I'll give it to you here in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: I -- I know I'm getting yelled at. I can feel the anger from my two daughters as they're yelling at me from home, if they happen to be listening to the show. The mother's name is Lorelai.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Long-term listeners of the show know the importance of that because it is my granddaughter's name.

(laughter)

PAT: Not coincidentally, by the way.

GLENN: Not coincidentally. Not coincidentally.

PAT: They are definitely connected.

PAT: Huge Gilmore Girl fans. Huge Gilmore Girl fans.

I'm going to get to Chip Gaines here in a second. Let me go to Ashley in Georgia. Hello, Ashley.

CALLER: Hey, Glenn. I need to correct you real quick.

GLENN: All right. Yeah.

CALLER: Okay? The last four words actually are, Rory says, "Mom." Lorelai says, "Yeah." And then Rory says, "I'm pregnant." Fade to black. Yeah.

GLENN: Ah. Got it. How did you feel about the ending?

CALLER: I hated it.

GLENN: Okay. And for the same reasons that I described?

CALLER: Yeah, I mean, it wasn't right. Yeah, it wasn't right. Yeah. So, yeah -- I --

GLENN: Did you know -- did you know about what the creator and the writer said about Rory and abortion?

CALLER: I read the article. Yes.

GLENN: You read the article.

Well, you listen to this show, and you're a fan of The Gilmore Girls.

CALLER: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: How did that make you feel?

CALLER: It pissed me off. You know, but then I got ticked off. And then I was like, you know what, I'm not surprised because these are -- it's a liberal -- if you watch it and follow it, it's -- you know, it's (inaudible) for crying out loud. I mean, it's a liberal show. They live in Connecticut. So, I mean, I wasn't surprised. But I was ticked. And then I was kind of disappointed. That that -- she kind of alluded to, like, if the show had gone on, Rory probably would have an abortion because that would be like the smart thing to do for her.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

CALLER: I don't know. It just was like, are you kidding me?

GLENN: I mean, have you missed the entire point of everything that you've written?

CALLER: Right. And that's my whole thing. I'm like -- and they talk about, "It comes full circle." And I'm like --

GLENN: If you -- if you -- if it comes full circle by aborting the baby, you're invalidating your mother's choice.

CALLER: Exactly.

STU: Doesn't it also break the circle? I mean, that's the whole point. The circle is over.

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it's crazy. Ashley, thank you so much. And you won't be able to pass that lesson on to your children because you would have killed them. I just want to point that out.

Featured Image: The WB Television Network

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.