the racists. Or they found us or something.

But if you'd like to contribute to the renaming of monkeypox, I think it's fertile ground for humor. So can somebody maybe start a tweet thread? I should have done it myself. On the Locals platform somebody suggested renaming it to crackerpox. I think we can close the competition. I think crackerpox just won. Oh my God, that is funny.

You know, and it's funny because of the actual sound of the letters. One of the reasons that monkey is funny is because of the k sound, right? We put a k sound in anything and it just sounds funnier. But cracker has that same thing going for it: crackerpox. And even pox. Even pox is a funny word. A pox on your house.

All right. Does it seem to you that maybe losing is winning these days or something? There's something going on with the Democrats. It's almost as if they're trying to play for a better draft pick next season, and somebody needs to explain to them it doesn't work that way.

Because you know how if a sports team looks like they can't make the playoffs, well maybe they don't try so hard after that point because it would be better to end the season in a low rank, because then you go to the top of the heap for picking the new talent out of the draft next time. So you could actually leapfrog and turn into a dynasty pretty quickly if you get the right players. But it almost feels as if the Democrats are playing for a draft pick, and somebody needs to tell them it doesn't really work that way.

And listen to what the Democrats are up against in terms of a headwind for the coming elections. Rasmussen poll: 89% of voters are at least somewhat concerned about the economy. 89%. How does any incumbent win reelection when 89% are worried about the economy? It doesn't even matter if it's the fault of the president, because remember the rules are the president gets credit even if they didn't do anything, and the president gets criticized even if there wasn't anything they could do or even if they didn't do anything wrong.

So if you've got 89% of the voters at least somewhat concerned about the economy, including 69% who are very concerned, that's not looking good for the incumbent. And then secondly, crime is the only issue that rivals economic concerns with voters. This is also from Rasmussen: 88% are concerned about violent crime, including 64% who are very concerned.

Now the economy and crime, what are the two things that are most associated with the Republicans that even Democrats would say, well you know we hate these Republicans, but in a quiet moment if nobody is overhearing me and I'm talking to my best friend who won't tell anybody, I might admit that they might do better on economics and crime. At least some people would have that view.

So it's hard to imagine how Democrats could win. And so this predicts that the only strategy that they could have, the Democrats' election strategy, would be coming up with bigger and bigger hoaxes. And unfortunately that's real, isn't it? Because it doesn't seem that the actual facts — even the facts that CNN is willing to report, because remember even CNN has decided to become more even-handed, and apparently to their credit, and I will say this publicly because I criticized them mercilessly, but to their credit they had a fairly prominent primetime question about Biden's competency. Don Lemon grilled him hard on that, and I think the public would appreciate that. That was a pretty meaningful way to approach an important question. So give them credit for that.

But how in the world do the Democrats win unless they come up with the world's biggest hoax? And I think that the January 6th thing is at least how they're going to frame things. And I think the idea is that if they can — so this is sort of Democrat math, but maybe it's just political math. I don't blame Democrats. If you can say that there's one person in a group of ten who did something despicable, you can say that that group is bad. Am I right?

If one person in a larger group of ten does something terrible, it's our normal thing to say, well that's a bad group, because at the very least they allowed somebody in that group who would do that terrible thing. So even if you say it was only one person who did the terrible thing, it's a reasonable argument to say the other nine maybe should have seen that coming or should have stayed away from them, whatever.

But now let's say you successfully make the argument and now you've demonized the ten. But what if the ten are a small group of another larger group? Does it work again? And the answer is yes it does. Once you've said that the group of ten are all bad by extension, then if they're part of yet another larger group you could say that larger group is letting these guys in. So logically by association at least they should have policed themselves better.

And so I look at the January 6th thing. The January 6th thing is a small number of people, probably in the Proud Boys and others, probably did some really bad things. Not probably — there was actual violence and injury, so people did some bad violent things. But probably not most of them. But you still say, but wait, if the Proud Boys had this many people in them who were willing to fight and cause trouble, that does say something about the larger group, even if the larger group, 90% of them, had nothing to do with anything illegal.

So you start with the small troublemakers and you extend that to the Proud Boys. But then you say the Proud Boys were a few hundred, or at least people like them if you include like-minded people, and a number of several thousand. So now you can say if there are a few people in the Proud Boys who were bad, unambiguously bad, now you've demonized the Proud Boys. So you've got that whole group.

But now you say the Proud Boys were a significant chunk of the entire protest — whatever you want to call significant, kind of subjective — and now you can demonize the entire protest. So now you've done two leaps. One is the few protesters to the Proud Boys, and I'll just use the Proud Boys as a proxy for the people who came there with the worst intentions. They were thinking fighting when they went there.

And then you extend that to the people who were, let's just say, enthusiastic Trump supporters, but they were nothing like the Proud Boys. Many of them might not even know they existed. So now you've demonized all the people at the protest. And then you can extend that now to Trump, because you could say maybe it's hard to prove in any legal sense that Trump directly told anybody to do anything illegal or even unwise, but we can certainly show that he didn't do enough to stop it as soon as he could.

So now you've extended the larger crowd to Trump. And now that you've got it to Trump you can extend it to MAGA, the ultra MAGA. So now you've got it all the way to Trump and MAGA. And then MAGA of course makes up much of the Republicans and the right and conservatives. So now you've done — how many leaps was that? Four. Four leaps.

So you started with a small group of violent