Accomplishment Builds Self-esteem, Not Participation Trophies

So you got a medal for coming in last? No wonder you feel bad about yourself. It turns out accomplishment builds self-esteem, not participation trophies.

In an interview that's gone viral, author and motivational speaker Simon Sinek nails the four main reasons for Millennial unhappiness: poor parenting, social media, impatience and environment.

"Who was it that was standing against the awards for last place?" Glenn asked on his radio program Monday.

Why conservatives, thank you very much.

Working hard to overcome challenges makes you feel capable and smart. The other failed strategies, combined with the overwhelming presence of social media, make you feel entitled, unhappy and disconnected.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Welcome to the program. So glad that you're here. Let's go with Simon Sinek in an interview that he did about millennials, in front of a crowd about, what is -- what is really happening with millennials? And how do we reach out to millennials? What do we need to do to get them truly engaged? Because there is a sense of entitlement there. Listen.

SIMON: The generation that we call the millennials, too many of them grew up subject to -- not my words -- failed parenting strategies. You know, where, for example, they were told that they were especially all the time. They were told that they could have anything they want in life, just because they want it, right?

They were told -- some of them got into honors classes, not because they deserved it, but because their parents complained. And some of them got A's, not because they earned them, but because the teachers didn't want to deal with the parents.

GLENN: Can we stop for a second?

Who's -- where did that failed parenting strategy come from? Let me reverse that: Who was it that was standing against the awards for last place?

PAT: Oh, conservatives.

STU: Right.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Conservatives were all saying --

PAT: Yeah, we begged you not to.

GLENN: "This is not going to work. This is not going to work."

PAT: My gosh, at the top of our lungs, we were screaming that.

GLENN: Right. Right.

So I think the first thing, we just need to put on the chalkboard, just point number one: Not all of America was behind this --

PAT: In no way would Simon recognize that. But it's a fact.

GLENN: I think he would. I think he would.

PAT: I don't think he would, but we should ask him.

STU: And to back Simon with the stats on that, in 1940, 14.9 percent of college grades were A's. 14.9 percent. Today it's 45.3 percent.

PAT: Yeah, it's even worse in the Ivy League schools. Even worse.

GLENN: They're that much smarter.

STU: They're that much smarter, right.

Think about that, when he talks about people achieving these things without achieving them, I mean, there's no way -- if it's true that they're that much smarter, then the classes should be harder. You shouldn't be giving half the grades an entire -- not just one school or one class, all of college, half of them are A's.

PAT: And we should have the greatest school system in the world year in and year out.

GLENN: In the world. And it doesn't happen that way.

Anyway, he goes on to diagnose the problem.

SIMON: Participation medals. You got a medal for coming in last, right? Which the science we know is pretty clear, which it devalues the medal and the reward for those who actually work hard. And that actually makes the person who comes in last feel embarrassed because they know they don't deserve it. So it actually makes them feel worse. Right?

GLENN: Hello.

SIMON: So you take this group of people. And they graduate school, and they get a job. And they're thrust into the real world.

And in an instant, they find out they're not special. Their moms can't get them a promotion. That you get nothing for coming in last.

And, by the way, you can't just have it because you want it. Right?

And in an instant, their entire self-image is shattered. And so you have an entire generation that's growing up with lower self-esteem than previous generation. The other problem, to compound it is we're growing up in a Facebook, Instagram world. In other words, we're good at putting filters on things. We're good at showing people that life is amazing, even though I'm depressed. Right?

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. Notice that the first problem -- he wrapped all of that -- failed parenting strategies. He wrapped that up with the diagnosis of what? What does he say that all led to? This is such a huge, huge problem. What does he say?

PAT: Social media.

GLENN: No. Uh-uh. That's point number two.

PAT: Looking for --

STU: Self-esteem.

PAT: Self-esteem.

GLENN: He said the lowest self-esteem on record.

STU: Which is crazy. Because it seems every strategy today is to make them have higher self-esteem. But it fails.

GLENN: But it fails. Because you're not having to actually accomplish anything.

PAT: Because it's artificial. It's artificial. You can't tell somebody they're great if they're not.

GLENN: They know it.

STU: That's why we can't handle Jeffy.

JEFFY: Good to have you back, boy.

GLENN: When they're on the team and they know that nobody is really listening to me. I'm not -- I'm just on this team for whatever reason. I've got pictures of the boss.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: People know, "I'm not making a difference. Nothing I do is really helping anything." When you have that, low self-esteem kicks in. They want -- I hear this from employee after employee after employee. I just want to do something that makes a difference.

So when they're saying low self-esteem and when millennials say, "I want to make a difference," what they're saying is, "I have low self-esteem. I have to do something that means something." This is what is propelling them, I believe, in their boots on the ground kind of activities, where they say, I don't want to just talk about it. I want to go out and do it.

They've heard the talk about how special they are their whole life. They know they're not. They know that's a lie. And because of that, they have low self-esteem.

So now they're really motivated to stop talking about it and go actually do it, but getting there is the hard part.

SIMON: Everybody sounds tough, and everybody sounds like they got it all figured out. And the reality is, there's very little toughness, and most people don't have it figured out.

And so when the more senior people say, "Well, what should we do?" They sound like, "This is what you got to do." And they have no clue.

(laughter)

Right?

So you have an entire generation growing up lower self-esteem than previous generations, right? Through no fault of their own. Through no fault of their own. They were dealt a bad hand, right?

Now, let's add in technology. We know that engagement with social media and our cell phone phones releases a chemical called dopamine. That's why when you get a text: It feels good. Right?

So we've all had it where you're feeling a little bit down or feeling a bit lonely. And so you send out ten texts to ten friends. You know, hi, hi, hi, hi. Because it feels good when you get a response, right? Right?

It's why we count the likes. It's why we go back ten times -- and if it's going -- if my Instagram is growing slower, did I do something wrong? Do they not like me anymore?

The trauma for young kids to be unfriended. Right? Because we know when you get it, you get a hit of dopamine, which feels good. It's why we like it. It's why we keep going back to it.

Dopamine is the exact same chemical that makes us feel good when we smoke, when we drink, and when we gamble.

In other words, it's highly, highly addictive. Right?

We have age restrictions on smoking, gambling, and alcohol. And we have no age restrictions on social media and cell phones, which is the equivalent of opening up the liquor cabinet and saying to our teenagers, "Hey, by the way, this adolescence thing, if it gets you down..."

But that's basically what's happening. That's basically what's happening. Right? That's basically what happened. You have an entire generation that has access to an addictive, numbing chemical called dopamine, through social media and cell phones as they're going through the high stress of adolescence. Why is this important?

Almost every alcoholic discovered alcohol when they were teenagers. When we were very, very young, the only approval we need is the approval of our parents. And as we go through adolescence, we make this transition where we now need the approval of our peers.

Very frustrating for our parents, very important for us. It allows us to acculturate outside of our immediate families into the border tribe. Right?

It's a highly, highly stressful and anxious period of our life, and we're supposed to learn to rely on our friends.

Some people, quite by accident, discover alcohol and numbing effects of dopamine to help them copy with the stresses and anxieties of adolescence. Unfortunately, that becomes hard-wired in their brains. And for the rest of their lives, when they suffer significant stress, they will turn to a person. They will turn to the bottle: Social stress, financial stress, career stress. That's pretty much the primary reasons why an alcoholic drinks, right?

What's happening is, because we're allowing unfettered access to these dopamine-producing devices and media, basically it's becoming hardwired.

And what we're seeing is, as they grow older, they -- too many kids don't know how to form deep, meaningful relationships. Their words, not mine.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Jeffy say it. Where am I taking that?

JEFFY: Go ahead, Glenn. It's all you.

GLENN: That is exactly -- this -- this adds fuel to the fire of my concern about gaming the way it's being done with virtual reality and what is coming. It is -- it is giving you a full -- soon, a full sensory gratification. You will get what you -- what you want.

JEFFY: No need for any other human.

GLENN: No need for human interaction.

PAT: Yeah. As soon as the --

GLENN: And they won't know how to do it.

PAT: As soon as the VR thing is perfected, it will be the artificial thing they're looking for. But it's just that, it's artificial.

GLENN: So what do -- how do we not become Japan? Seriously, Japan, they can't get people to breed. They cannot get people to have sex with one another.

Now, I don't know what weird stuff is happening in Japan that stops that, but it's not happening in Japan. And they're -- there won't be any Japanese people left, you know, in 100 years.

PAT: Yeah, their replacement rate, is it negative now?

GLENN: It can't be negative.

PAT: It's almost zero. But it certainly -- it's at an unhealthy level for sure.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It's at an extinction rate.

GLENN: Yeah, it's past the point of no return.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So when we -- now we're encouraging people not to have relationships.

Now, Saturday, I heard my son -- he was in the kitchen. I was in the kitchen. And he was playing, I don't know, Minecraft or something. And he was playing it with two friends together, and they each had boxes up on the -- you know, up on the screen.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: They were two girls that he was playing them with. Who were his friends.

And I saw normal interaction. I was listening to them while I was working in the kitchen and listening to them. And it sounded like absolute normal interaction. So what's the problem with that?

I'm trying to diffuse myself from being so phobic about that. He seems to have normal interaction. It's just different. It's just not --

PAT: Third person.

GLENN: But he's still looking at them.

PAT: Yeah. Uh-huh.

STU: I think just, what is normal interaction, changes. It's something we talked about with going to a concert. You go to a concert and all you see are phones. And every person like me or older says the same thing: Why don't you experience the freaking show you paid for instead of filming it?

JEFFY: That is it.

STU: But that is how they experience the show. They don't experience the show by looking at the show. They experience the show by holding up their phone and recording it so they can post it later. That is their experience at a concert.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: And some artists are starting to push back against that. Right? Was it Adele?

JEFFY: Yeah. She's hollered at her audience before.

PAT: "Would you put the phone down and just watch the show -- enjoy the show. Experience the show."

JEFFY: I would say: You cash the check, I'll watch it any way I want. Sing.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: I will tell you though that it happens all the time. When I meet people, we'll go out places -- there's one person, if we're in a group, there's one person who I never actually interact with -- usually a parent standing there with a phone, and they're only talking to me through the phone or talking to their child through the phone stop we never make eye contact. And I always feel bad because I feel like they were ripped off.

PAT: Yeah, they missed it. They missed it.

GLENN: They never had that personal connection. They did through the phone.

PAT: But we'll get to experience it later, Glenn.

GLENN: I know. It's weird. It's weird.

PAT: That is weird.

GLENN: Now, this.

Last week, we talked about the coastal buffers and how they weaken hurricanes at landfall. Now scientists are calling this a lucky phenomena. Scientists are discovering how incredibly prepared Mother Nature is for dealing with natural disasters.

By the way, do you remember -- we have to play this. The -- what's her name from -- in Congress from California that said the Sierra Nevada is soon -- like seven years or ten years -- she said this about ten years ago. Won't have snow.

PAT: Is that Boxer?

GLENN: Yeah, it was Barbara Boxer. We have to find that. Because they're about to have 20 feet of snow from the last week and a half. I think they had 3 feet drop on them yesterday alone.

Anyway, Mother Nature is prepared for disasters. If you're caught in a natural disaster like a hurricane or some other emergency, are you prepared to feed your family? My Patriot Supply is there right now with a 72-hour emergency food kit.

Now, this is something that the Department of Homeland Security -- everybody who is reasonable would say, "You should have three days of food." Because we are such a society that runs to the store -- I love that -- we talked about it yesterday when it snowed here in Dallas. It was just flurries yesterday morning here in Dallas. And I see -- I see the flurries. And my kids immediately repeat that viral video from that comedian up in New Jersey. Got to get the milk. Got to get the milk. Got to get the milk.

You see a snowflake, and you realize, "Got to get the milk." Because I've got nothing in my house. 72-hour emergency food kit right now. Ten dollars per family member for three days. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And all the snacks and the drinks and everything else. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner for three days, $10. 800-200-9031. 800-200-9031. Save over 60 percent right now. Ten dollars. Family of four, for 40 bucks. PreparewithGlenn.com. That's preparewithGlenn.com.

(OUT AT 8:23AM)

GLENN: So we've been listening to Simon Sinek talk about the problem that the millennials face. And really, not by their fault. They were raised with bad parenting strategies that many of us have fought against for a long time, and now we realize, "Oh, gee, everybody gets a trophy isn't healthy for society." And so now, how do we get out of this? You want to go to his solution?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. Here's his solution.

SIMON: Which leads me to the fourth point, which is environment. Which is, we're taking this amazing group of young, fantastic kids who were just dealt a bad hand. It's no fault of their own. And we put them in corporate environments that care more about the numbers than they do about the kids.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second.

PAT: I'm sorry. It's not a corporation's responsibility to raise children when they're 32 years old.

JEFFY: When all they care about is making money.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

PAT: Come on.

GLENN: We may be speaking different languages. So let me go there first.

PAT: I'm speaking English. You are speaking?

GLENN: I'm learning to speak progressive.

(laughter)

GLENN: I'm learning to speak the language that is being spoken all around us.

PAT: Yes, you are. Yes. So how do you put this in a progressive way?

GLENN: So what he's saying here is, I think you're hearing this in a progressive way. I think if I would rephrase --

PAT: Especially knowing him, yeah --

GLENN: I agree. I agree. So let me now say it this way.

First of all, do we generally agree it is their responsibility to fit in the world? The world doesn't -- the world doesn't shapeshift for you.

PAT: Right. The millennials have to fit in.

GLENN: You have to find your way in.

PAT: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: So when he says, at no fault of their own, you can say, yes -- society raised them. Their parents raised them in a certain way. And they were used as guinea pigs to experiment on, something that we took all eternal principles and threw them out the window and said, "Hey, being first is just as good at being last," right?

So through that part, no fault of their own. However, once their life starts to fall apart, it is their responsibility, correct?

PAT: Yeah, there's personal responsibility at every step, right?

GLENN: Every step. But when you're a kid and everything in society is training you to go one way, you generally don't say --

PAT: It's difficult.

GLENN: -- well, that doesn't make sense to me.

STU: Over your life you should reexamine those things, of course.

GLENN: But what does it take for you to reexamine your life?

PAT: It takes a crash. You have to hit a bottom.

GLENN: Something has to go wrong.

STU: The most common.

GLENN: Something has to go wrong. And it could be just as much, I keep getting these trophies, and I feel like crap. I keep getting -- I keep getting everything I want, and I'm not happy at all.

That's the most likely crash. But that crash will lead to suicide.

JEFFY: And that crash is coming.

GLENN: Yes.

JEFFY: He cites some numbers.

GLENN: Suicide. So that crash is a crash of no self-esteem. Because nothing has ever given you self-esteem because you've never been taught what self-esteem comes from. And that is accomplishment. Okay?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Doing something. Even if it is -- it's like -- when you go clean your house or when you were a kid and you cleaned your room, you felt good after cleaning your room.

PAT: Yeah. Even though you didn't want to, to begin with.

GLENN: Correct. There's something to be said for accomplishment.

So now, let me show you what he just said, I think, about, it's the corporation's responsibility. No, it's not.

Well, yes. Kind of, it is. We'll go there next.

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.