Harry Dent: We're Poised for a Cultural and Social Civil War

February 15, 2017

WRITER

Harry Dent, author of The Sale of a Lifetime: How the Great Bubble Burst of 2017-2019 Can Make You Rich, joined Glenn on radio today to talk about the economic bubble we're in --- and how the government is only prolonging and worsening the inevitable.

"Governments are trying to prevent the obvious: A natural generational down cycle, like we saw from 1969 to '82 and from 1930 to '42. This happens every 40 years, and we shouldn't prevent these cycles. We should let them happen and clear the decks of debt and excess capacity and bad companies to get efficient and prepare for the next generational boom. And we're not doing that," Dent said.

The government's answer has been to interfere with endless quantitative easing, infrastructure spending and globalization --- but it's all starting to fail.

"Globalization has peaked. The second big surge from World War II into recently has peaked. Globalization has been a great productivity tool --- better trade, all this stuff --- but it has gone too far," Dent said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Harry Dent is a friend of the program. Glad to have you back on, Harry. He's got a book out, The Sale of a Lifetime: How the Great Bubble Burst of 2017 Can Make You Rich.

Harry, you and I kind of look at the world in similar ways: I don't buy into -- let me say it this way: I believe in seasons. I believe in the Kondratiev way. I believe in expansion and contraction and that patterns repeat. But everyone wants to deny those patterns even though you can go back, you know, 100 years plus and see that those patterns are there. Can you explain the -- the cycles and principles of bubbles?

HARRY: Yeah. You know, this is a part of the entire creation. There's just no question about it. Everything goes up and down. It's even Newton's third law of physics. And that's what I do, is I study cycles.

And in the '80s, I discovered demographic cycles, which economists and nobody else I know of, have much of a clue on.

The Baby Boom drove us up with their spending from 1983 to 2007, just a 46-year lag on the birth index. That's how complex that was.

In 2008 into 2023, they drive us down. And, of course, governments have been fighting that with quantitative easing, and now Trump is going to come in and do fiscal stimulus and cut taxes and build infrastructure. It's not going to happen.

So that's --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. You're saying it's not going to happen. This is so important.

HARRY: Not going to happen, period.

GLENN: If you can explain a little bit. Because when you said this to me a while back and we were talking about real estate and you explained, "Glenn, the day of the big house is over for quite some time," and you explained it because of the demographic bubble, I got it for the first time. Can you explain that?

HARRY: Yeah, two things: People buy their house a little earlier. The biggest house, the McMansion, if you can afford one, before their peak in spending at 46, at age 41. That's why the housing bubble peaked ahead of the overall economy that started going down in 2008.

The housing started going down a few years earlier. And in addition to that, for the first time in history, we have a small -- or slightly, in this case, slightly smaller generation. In many countries, a lot smaller, like Germany in most of Europe and Japan and east Asia, a smaller generation to follow. Houses last forever.

We don't ever need to build another house in this country. And you've got 8 million empty homes in Japan and also a bunch in Germany and more to come because as people die, they become sellers. When there's more Baby Boomers dying than millennials buying houses, then you actually have net contraction in the need for homes, as we're already seeing in many countries.

So demographics is very predictive. It's scientific. You can project it decades into the future, including inflation. Including overall growth and contraction, housing, potato chips, car buying. They all happen at different times in the consumer lifestyle, but I know when. You know, life insurance actuaries can tell you when the average person is going to die. It's 79.6 in the US. I can tell you when they're going to buy everything from cradle to grave. You know, from baby cribs to nursing home.

GLENN: So what is the -- what do those demographics now say about 2017?

HARRY: Well, they say, first of all, we've been in a desk graphic down trend. Biggest boom in history from Baby Boomers now turns into the biggest bust. And if it weren't for quantitative easing, we'd all be in a depression because we also have an 80-year four-season cycle as you know. The winter season, I said decades ago, would be 2008 to 2023.

We're in that season. It's just they're turning up the heat with endless quantitative easing.

The problem is, it's not working anymore. Negative interest rates started to backfire in Europe and Japan.

And so now, everybody is backing off of that. We were first. And now Trump is saying, "Well, then I'll just cut taxes, and I'll build endless infrastructures."

You can't -- we don't need more infrastructures. Aging people don't buy more of anything. They pay down debt. They don't drive more. They buy almost no real estate, except nursing homes that somebody provides for them.

We don't need more infrastructure. So this is all going to be wasteful spending. Governments are trying to prevent the obvious: A natural generational down cycle, like we saw from 1969 to '82 and from 1930 to '42. This happens every 40 years, and we shouldn't prevent these cycles. We should let them happen and clear the decks of debt and excess capacity and bad companies to get efficient and prepare for the next generational boom. And we're not doing that.

Japan is stimulated, ever since 1997, and guess what, they're in a coma economy. Never entered the next spring season. They're 15, 20 years ahead of us. And they've killed their economy. They've killed innovation. They've been growing at zero -- with zero productivity and zero inflation. And that's where we're heading. When Trump says he's going to create 4 percent growth, it's not going to happen. I would stake my life on that. More than a quarter or two and people get excited because our workforce is no longer growing.

It's actually shrinking a bit in the next several years. Productivity is back from 3 to 4 percent, down to zero, because old people don't get more productive, they get less.

And Baby Boomers continue to retire from 2000, all the way to 2024, '25. So that's going to take more people out of the workforce and make us less productive. So we're going to go from zero to negative. We're going to be lucky to grow above zero for the next two terms of his administration. And I hate to say this, Glenn. It's nothing against Donald.

I predicted today, got elected, he wouldn't last the first year. Will not last the first year is my likely prediction.

GLENN: Wow.

HARRY: Because he's promised something he cannot deliver. He's pissed everybody off in every realm. Countries, immigrants, you know, ethnic groups, women. All this sort of stuff. He has the impulse control of a grease fire.

GLENN: Let me tell you -- let me tell you -- give you a counter to that.

When there is financial trouble and strife, a country can go one of two ways: It can go into riots in the streets, or it can go into nationalism and we all pull together. And we seem to be going the national way, without the economic strife yet.

If you're saying the bubble burst is happening this year, I see a rise of nationalism. And that would make him stronger.

HARRY: Yeah, no, actually I predicted this before the election, that this thing, you know, Brexit and then the Italian vote and then Trump winning against the odds and we're going to see much more -- this is a global phenomenon.

GLENN: It is.

HARRY: Globalization has peaked. The second big surge from World War II into recently has peaked. Globalization has been a great productivity tool. Better trade. All this stuff. But it has gone too far. Too many people feel like their jobs have been lost. We've been put face-to-face in an internet globalized world. And now we've got a huge inflict in values.

GLENN: So what does this mean? What does this mean to the average person, Harry?

HARRY: It means we've got a cultural social civil war. In other words, the blue states and the red states, the blue cities, red cities, whatever you want to call it, are so polarized. And I've got measurements of this.

I mean, this is life just before the Civil War. That there's no way to have compromise. There's no way to have a government.

If Trump succeeds -- and he is. He's doing exactly what his voters told him to do. But what's happening is now the blue states are reacting. If Hillary had come in, she would have the blue way, and the red states would have reacted.

Before the election, I said, if Hillary gets elected, somewhere pretty soon, states like Texas are going to talk about leaving the union. Well, guess who's got a petition to put on ballot in 2018 --

GLENN: California.

HARRY: -- for California to start to leave the union. And California is the largest state. Controls the two most productive dominant US industries in the world. Entertainment and Silicon Valley. And if they threaten to leave, that makes Italy and Greece threatening to leave the euro like nothing. So I think we have a civil -- I don't know how it works out. But I know the red states and the blue states cannot come to compromise. Trump is rolling forward as if he has a mandate from the red states. And he does. But does that say the blue states have to say, "Well, we'll just roll over and do everything you say?" California is already saying no. There's ten or 15 states that they could follow them. Now, what happens then? The South succeeded in the Civil War. We'll see what happens. But I think the only way we may come together as a country, is when we realize, oh, my God, if we don't find some way to work this out together, we're going to split in two, and we're not going to have the power we had.

GLENN: So let me ask you this: We just saw that Jim Rodgers said, the death of cash is coming. Total government control of spending. We've seen this in India. We're seeing the beginnings of it in Australia.

You know, I read a -- I read a book recently called Defying Hitler, that really, when I read how Weimar Republic got out of their problems, I thought, oh, my gosh, they actually thought that worked. They thought that was a good thing.

And I think the central banks have looked at that lesson and said, "Well, we could always do that." And, you know, you look at this with the inflating of the money. Because we were worried about deflation. The inflating of the money. The growing government control. Now they're starting to digitize currency and saying, "Hey, you got a cap on this." They're allowing the banks to say, "We could have a bail-in." I think we are headed for a firestorm in the financial sector with the people picking up pitchforks as they trap their money in banks and won't allow them to have cash or at least large sums of cash.

HARRY: Yeah. This is one of many issues. And I do see civil unrest. I am -- I am in Puerto Rico now. It's a bankrupt country, but at least they know it. And they're dealing with it like Iceland did. And, by the way, Iceland devalued. Did everything Greece should have done: Defaulted on their foreign debts. Went through three years of inflation. They crippled their consumers and came out the other side and are growing at 4 percent again.

They took their medicine, instead of endless bailouts, endless denial. Bail-ins -- you go and take the best small businesses and large businesses and high net worth deposits over 100,000 and have those people bail out a bank and you think they'll ever put money in a bank again and people won't have pitchforks? So all of this reaction is coming from the fact that governments are not facing the problem. Politicians are not telling people, like in Puerto Rico, which they've been foreseeing that we are bankrupt. We are way more bankrupt than Puerto Rico.

GLENN: But we can't declare -- but we can't declare bankruptcy. The United States can't default on their debt.

HARRY: No, no, no, but you can restructure, especially private debt. What businesses do when businesses get in trouble in the economy, it used to be Chapter 7. Fire sale. And you get 10 cents on the dollar. The vulture creditors come in.

The US was the one that innovated Chapter 11. Let the courts protect the business for a short period of time so they can sell off their assets in an orderly manner instead of fire sale. Have time to renegotiate with creditors and say, "Hey, what if we pay you 50 cents instead of you getting 10 percent in a fire sale?" And then they come to an agreement and everything moves forward.

We need that. We have to write off debt. You can't keep bailing out banks and things in countries like Greece. You have to restructure the debt and let the banks and the bondholders and the equity investors who took the risk from those things take losses. And then if governments do provide some financial assistance, it's only in direction correlation to the amount that banks wrote down. Because when they write down debt, guess what, businesses and consumers get relief, it freeze up cash flow, and we can grow again. We will never come out of this with these denial policies. And every policy from QE to building infrastructures for nobody, you know, cutting taxes, all you're doing is changing the fixed pie. You're saying, "Okay. We're going to take money that would have gone to government and give it to businesses."

Well, why not just send everybody a 20,000 check like we gave the banks all this QE money. This is denial. It doesn't solve the problem. It's like taking a drug to feel better and keep from coming down, rather than going to detox.

We need a giant detox. Detox does not come without banks and some businesses going under that are zombies. And it doesn't come without writing down debts. And we did that in spades in the Great Depression. The Great Depression only took three years to bottom. And we did nothing but grow after that.

Because like Iceland, we took our medicine and went on, instead of doing this denial. Oh -- you know, even Trump came in and said, "We're in a big, fat ugly bubble." Well, he hasn't studied bubbles. You can't just walk out of a bubble. Bubbles are extremes, and you have to rebalance, and that is painful. Just like detox. It's exactly like detox for a drug addict. There's no other choice.

GLENN: Harry, I appreciate it. Thank you so much for being on with us. The name of the book is The Sale Of a Lifetime: How the Great Bubble Burst of 2017 Through 2019 Can Make You Rich.

Harry Dent. I highly recommend that you pay attention to him and that you pick up his book and read it. Harry, I can't thank you enough. Thank you for being on.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Harry Dent: We're Poised for a Cultural and Social Civil War

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?