Blue Wave Reaches 40 House Seats With Another Dem Win In California

Although predictions that the Democrat blue wave would founder lasted through the early hours of poll results on Election Day, the extent of the wave has been growing in recent weeks as close races have been decided across the country. With the news that Republican David Valadao has been defeated in California’s 21st congressional district, the Republican losses in the House have reached a total of 40 seats.

The win in CA-21 by Democrat TJ Cox brings the total number of California congressional seats flipped by Democrats to seven. This includes four seats in Orange County, which was a Republican stronghold in the past but became a totally Democrat county in 2018.

As with several other California Republicans, Valadao, who has represented his district since 2013, held a lead on Election night and was initially projected to be the winner. However, absentee ballots arriving after Election Day eroded their lead and eventually flipped the seats to the Democrats. On Nov. 6, Valadao led by 5,000 votes but ultimately lost by 862 votes, less than one percent of the total.

Some Republicans have speculated that fraudulent votes have changed the course of races in California, but so far there is no evidence of wrongdoing. California law requires absentee voters to register seven days before the election and mail ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of the election. However, vote counting in California can take longer because California accepts ballots that could be rejected in other states. California law requires counties to notify voters of mistakes, such as missing signatures, that would otherwise invalidate a ballot and gives voters time to correct them. Ballots that were sent to the wrong county are also required to be forwarded to correct location.

Some Republicans also blame a new California law that allows “ballot harvesting.” Effective this year, California allows anyone to return signed and sealed absentee ballots to the local election officials. Previously, only relatives could turn in ballots for absentee voters. The law expressly prohibits paying vote collectors for the number of ballots that they turn in but is silent on whether they can receive an hourly wage for their efforts. While the new law may have led to an increase in the number of absentee votes, the law did not favor Democrats over Republicans except in the ability to find volunteers to collect ballots.

The outgoing chairman of the California Republican Party, former state Sen. Jim Brulte, rejected the notion that voting irregularities led to the Republican rout in the Golden State. Brulte told Politico that Republican candidates were warned about changes to California election laws and failed to take appropriate action.

“We personally briefed the candidates, the congressional delegation, the legislators,” Brulte said, but added, “We’ve not been able to find Republicans having a lot of success anywhere related to ballot harvesting.”

Brulte has other concerns about California as well, warning that, “I believe California is the canary in the coal mine — not an outlier.”

In Brulte’s view, the core problem for California Republicans was that “We have not yet been able to figure out how to effectively communicate and get significant numbers of votes from non-whites.”

Brulte pointed out that demographic trends indicate that “the entire country will be majority minority by 2044” and Republicans have failed to appeal to those new voters. Exit polling shows that the Republican base is becoming increasingly white, male, and rural. These changes mean that Republican candidates must “figure out how we get votes from people who don’t look like you,” Brulte says. The problem is pronounced in California but may soon affect such Republican strongholds as Texas, Florida, and Georgia where Republicans won extremely close races this year.

At this point, there is only one undecided House race left. In North Carolina’s 19th district, Republican activists are accused of illegal ballot harvesting that is similar to what is now legal in California. The allegations of electoral fraud in North Carolina could lead to a new election in that district where Republican Mark Harris eked out a 905 vote win over Democrat Dan McCready.

After Midterms, Republicans Are Endangered Species On West Coast

As midterm election results continue to roll in from California, the extent of the Republican rout on the West Coast is becoming apparent. At this point, it looks as though Democrat gains in the House will be a net increase of 38 seats. Almost 20 percent of these gains come from the West Coast and many are in the one-time Republican stronghold of Orange County, California where Republican congressional districts were wiped out.

Prior to the election, Republicans held four of the six seats in the suburban Los Angeles county. The 46th and 47th districts were previously Democratic districts, but the remainder of the county has traditionally been Republican.

The Democratic gains in Orange County were mixed between picking up Republican open seats and knocking off GOP incumbents. Dana Rohrabacher, the 48th district congressman widely considered to be the most pro-Kremlin Republican, lost to Democrat Harley Rouda and Republican Mimi Walters in the 45th district was defeated by Katie Porter. In the 49th district, Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight committee, famous for his investigations of Benghazi and Fast and Furious, announced his retirement and saw his seat flip to the Democrats as Mike Levin defeated Diane Harkey. In the 39th district, another Republican retirement cleared the way for Democrat Gil Cisneros to defeat Republican Young Kim.

The Orange County Republican rout is similar to the Republican difficulties in the rest of the country. Orange County is heavily suburban and has a declining population of whites, which make up only 42 percent of the population per California Demographics. Hispanics comprise 34 percent of county residents while 19 percent are Asian. Exit polls show that nationally less than 30 percent of those minority groups voted Republican.

Democrats also flipped two other California congressional districts in California. The 10th district in Turlock, north of San Francisco, and the 25th district in Palmdale, on the north side of LA, both voted out Republican incumbents.

A seventh West Coast district, Washington’s 8th, home to Rep. Dave Reichert, another retiring Republican, is being replaced by Democrat Josh Harder. At this point, Democrats control seven of Washington’s 10 congressional districts. The third district, represented by Republican Herrera Beutler, is now the only Republican district on the entire West Coast that borders on the Pacific Ocean.



There were no flipped seats in Oregon, but four of the state’s five districts were already Democrat. Only Gregg Walden’s second district, which covers the inland two-thirds of the state, is represented by a Republican.


If the Republicans want to take back the House, they will have to become more competitive in suburban House districts like those in Orange County. Reversing this year’s losses will also require that the GOP overcome the current trend of declining minority support.

CA Wants to Ban Hunters From Possessing Legally Hunted Animals from Africa

CA’s SB 1487 could pass and spread across the country—ultimately hurting true conservation efforts here and abroad.

Unsurprisingly, the once Golden State wants to ban firearms and now hunting. The latest move in Sacramento is the recent passage of Senate Bill 1487—the Iconic Africa Species Protection Act—in that respective chamber by a 5-2 vote. If passed by the CA Assembly and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, the law would forbid Californians from being in possession of certain legally harvested animals from Africa—many of which are deemed “trophy” animals.

The bill was first introduced on February 16, 2018, to address Section 740.12 of the Public Utilities Code but later evolved into anti=hunting legislation. Here’s more on the proposed legislation stemming from California’s legislature:

Existing law prohibits the importation or possession of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibians unless specified conditions are met, including, among other things, the animals were legally taken and legally possessed outside of this state and the Fish and Game Code and regulations adopted pursuant to that code do not expressly prohibit their possession in this state. Existing law provides that a violation of this code or any regulation adopted under this code is a crime.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body or other part or product of specified animals, including leopards, tigers, and elephants. A violation of this provision is punishable by a fine of not less than $1,000, not to exceed $5,000, or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, for each violation.

Per the bill, this ban would extend protections to “prohibit the possession of specified African species and any part, product, offspring, or the dead body or parts thereof, including, but not limited to, the African elephant or the black rhinoceros, by any individual, firm, corporation, association, or partnership within the State of California, except as specified for, among other things, use for educational or scientific purposes by a bona fide educational or scientific institution, as defined.”

The bill adds that if any Californian is in possession of aforementioned animals, dead body parts, etc., criminal penalties would be imposed—ranging from a fine to imprisonment. If someone is found in violation of this bill, if passed, they would be fined up to $10,000. Other estimations say penalties could range from $5,000 to $50,000.

NRA-ILA, the legislative wing of the National Rifle Association, noted that if passed, this bill would extend to other so-called “big game” species—adding this would violate federal and international laws like CITES:

Not only would SB 1487 violate federal law and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), but the bill has no basis in science, does not recognize the great contribution of hunters to wildlife conservation and cherry picks certain African species based on popularity instead of biological necessity. While this bill deals specifically with African species, make no mistake that this is the first step towards banning hunting domestically. The same animal rights activists that support this bill have also made clear that they intend to ban all hunting in the future.

Sportsmen’s Alliance similarly echoed their disapproval of this proposed legislation, citing its potential deleterious consequences to combat poaching efforts in Africa:

Currently, Americans may hunt Africa’s Big Five, which includes elephants, lions, leopards, rhinos and cape buffalos. These hunters must obtain the proper import permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and must be legally permitted to hunt those species in the range countries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only issues import permits for hunts that occur in countries that maintain sound conservation plans that help improve threatened and endangered wildlife. Dollars spent by American hunters fund anti-poaching operations and provide much needed funds to villages in range countries.

California recently considered a bill that would limit gun raffles to three a year—largely cutting into conservation funds for wildlife and habitat restoration efforts there. To see a bill like SB 1487 shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

Trophy hunting is arguably a controversial matter, but one not too difficult to understand from a conservation angle. If this law were be to enacted, it could create a movement to outright ban possession of legally harvested animals not just from Africa, but elsewhere across the globe. Perhaps it will even extend its reach to ban American “trophy” species like Grizzly bears, mountain lions, proghorn sheep, or Roosevelt elk. That would be dangerous precedent targeting law-abiding hunters and killing off conservation efforts.

This video puts an unlikely positive spin on the conservation methods entailed with so-called trophy hunting:

Let’s hope this bill is killed, but given California’s one-party rule in Sacramento that’s unlikely to be the case. We will monitor these efforts going forward.

More Kalifornia Krazy

The state that has decided you can be HIV positive and not disclose it to your intimate partners and that will shield illegal immigrants who commit crimes from federal immigration authorities has finally surpassed the minutiae of regulating cow farts. Today Governor Moonbeam signed a law regulating pet store owners.

Beginning in January of 2019, pet store owners in Kalifornia, regardless of ethical business practices or relationships with licensed reputable breeders, will only be allowed to sell animals they obtain from an animal shelter or other not-for profit rescue. AB-485 regulates the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits and the requirement is as follows:

122354.5. (a) A pet store operator shall not sell a live dog, cat, or rabbit in a pet store unless the dog, cat, or rabbit was obtained from a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group that is in a cooperative agreement with at least one private or public shelter pursuant to Section 31108, 31752, or 31753 of the Food and Agricultural Code.
Yes, you read that correctly, Kalifornia just regulated the sale of pet rabbits. Last I knew, the only reason socialists gave for even owning a rabbit was to raise them to prevent starvation in Venezuela, but what do I know.
As is so typical in nanny states such as those on the Left coast, the law is implemented with zero regard for consumer choice, the effects on small business or the problems they will create. Of course, we know the only time the word “choice” is applied in these little socialist bubbles is when they are trying to preserve the right to kill your unborn child, but I digress.
People get pets for different reasons. Shelter animals, especially dogs, are very unpredictable. As I wrote elsewhere, my youngest dog was billed as a Lab-Shepherd-Husky mix by the shelter we adopted her from. All very stable and predictable breeds that respond well to click and other forms of training.
After a few months, it became clear the assessment of my pup was completely wrong given the behaviors she displayed. We did a doggie DNA test and it turned out she was mostly Staffordshire Terrier (essentially a pit bull) and Chihuahua with a little bit of Chow thrown in for good measure.
My children are grown and we are still working on some of her more stubborn behaviors. If my children were small, or I was looking for a dog that could be trained for a particular purpose, such as a companion for an elderly relative, she would have been a horrible match. We love her to death, but she is definitely not for everyone.
Kalifornia has said they are trying to reduce the number of “puppy mills”. Have they thought about elevating the number of returns for puppies and dogs? Or will they mandate all dogs get doggie DNA tests next to prevent the return of incompatible dogs? See how one rule breeds another rule? Raising costs to the business owner and the consumer.
Also, I do not hear a lot about a problem with “kitten mills” or “rabbit mills”, so exactly what problem are they trying to fix? I think it might be the problem of pet stores. Kalifornia has just decided they don’t want any.
Of course the regulation comes with increased recordkeeping requirements, rules about who pet owners can partner with in the shelter and animal rescue business and fines if the business owner makes a mistake. All things that hamper a business and add cost for whatever bureaucratic gain the state gets.
To recap, in Kalifornia you can knowingly infect someone with the HIV virus and not tell them. You can also be one of the thousands of criminal aliens Kalifornia releases back into the community every year. But you can’t be a pet store owner that endeavors to be the best in your market by partnering with ethical and responsible breeders to provide pets to consumers after January 1, 2019. Is it just me or are the priorities just a little messed up?

Chant of “USA” Causes a Stir at a California High School

You hear it so many places – sporting events, pep rallies, you name it. A group of people will begin to chant, “USA! USA!” and more join in. It’s an exhilarating show of patriotic pride that’s inspiring to hear.

But not at Vista Del Lago High School in Folsom, California (the same town where one elementary school banned tag earlier this year). School officials there are warning that saying the initials of your home country loudly and repeatedly may appear intolerant and may not be appropriate.

Students don’t understand the fuss over the chant:

“I wasn’t angry, but I was definitely like, ‘Why can’t we chant USA?’” said senior Ryan Bernal, “To say USA, you know, we’re all the same. We’re all American. It doesn’t matter what your skin tone is or where you’re from.”

Parent’s aren’t crazy about the warning either:

Mother Natalie Woodbury said, “I want to chant USA because I want us to pull together and help, not because I want anybody to feel left out or not a part of our country. ”

The interesting thing is that the school admits that there have been no complaints against anyone for shouting USA and maintains that there is no ban against the chant. But that hasn’t stopped the handwringing at the administrative level.

The school’s principal sent out an email to families Wednesday and relayed the same message to students over the school’s P.A. system, clarifying any confusion. She told students and parents that sometimes “We can communicate an unintended message.” She also said USA chanting is welcome, but it may be best to do it at what she says are appropriate times, like following the national anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance.

Of course, what’s missing from the discussion is the obvious: patriotic kids chanting because they love their country doesn’t necessarily or automatically leave citizens of any other country out or direct hatred toward another nation. Chanting “USA” is about love for America, not disdain for, say, Scotland or Djibouti or Paraguay or Sri Lanka. It’s certainly no cause for concern or for issuing needless warnings.

The theme of this weekend’s game at Vista Del Lago is “American Pride,” so there’s no doubt you’ll hear plenty of chanting and expressions of patriotism and unity. I’m sure school administrators won’t be able to enjoy the game for their constant sense of worry. And that’s a shame.

Transgender Day Camp and the Abandonment of Parental Responsibility

When children are 2-to-5 years old, they’re still learning their environment. They’re developing, learning right and wrong, learning about their bodies, who the important role models are in their lives, and everything that shapes their world. They’re like sponges, soaking up what is provided to them, hopefully by loving, involved parents.

In those early years of childhood development, barring any significant issues in cognitive ability, this is the stage of life where children are learning to regulate their emotions. They’re learning what “No” means, as well as the delay of gratification. That is to say, at this stage, their parents or caregivers should be teaching them the very valuable lessons of not getting whatever they want, whenever they want it. They are very open to learning patience and acceptance of how things are. That’s how they should be taught.

So what happens if a very small child, still unsure about things like biology, nature, and a separation of their fantasy-play life and real life is left to make up their minds about those things by parents who either are too weak to use a firm hand of guidance, or who would rather use their children as show pieces to the world to promote their own liberal credentials?

You get a transgender day camp for kids.

Call it indoctrination.

Rainbow Day Camp is a camp in El Cerrito, California that allows parents to abandon their duty to raise their children in a normal, healthy environment. Instead, they turn them over to a subversive environment, that teaches them that biology does not exist.

They take their children, as young as 4-years old, and plunge them into a world of abnormal sexuality, wrapped in a sunny package of crafts, “Crazy hair day,” and games.

Of course, no one talks about the high incidents of suicide or attempted suicide by transgender individuals, as they struggle with deeper psychological issues, not solved by the cosmetic fix of surgery and hormones. All issues that could be dealt with early, rather than covered up by letting 4-year old children do whatever they want and claim a self-reality that has nothing to do with actual reality.

From the Associated Press:

At check-in each day, campers make a nametag with their pronoun of choice. Some opt for “she” or “he.” Or a combination of “she/he.” Or “they,” or no pronoun at all. Some change their name or pronouns daily, to see what feels right.

The camp in the San Francisco Bay Area city of El Cerrito caters to transgender and “gender fluid” children, ages 4 to 12, making it one of the only camps of its kind in the world open to preschoolers, experts say. Enrollment has tripled to about 60 young campers since it opened three summers ago, with kids coming from as far as Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. – even Africa. Plans are underway to open a branch next summer in Colorado, and the camp has been contacted by parents and organizations in Atlanta, Seattle, Louisiana and elsewhere interested in setting up similar programs.

Gender is not “fluid.” It is set. That’s what needs to be taught to these children. And again, if parents are letting children that young decide if they want to be called “he,” “she,” or “they,” then there is a lack of parenting.

Speaking of a lack of parenting, one mother described her experiences with her little boy, now only 6-years old and going by the name, “Gracie,” this way:

“Once she could talk, I don’t remember a time when she didn’t say, ‘I’m a girl,’” said her mother, Molly Maxwell, who still trips over pronouns but tries to stick to “she.”

“Then it grew in intensity: ‘I’m a sister. I’m a daughter. I’m a princess,’” Maxwell said. “We would argue with her. She was confused. We were confused.”

You were confused? Well, there’s the problem. Small children take their cues directly from their parents, so if you didn’t grasp the importance of setting boundaries for your son, then he’s going to lose it and go off on his own, trying to navigate life with no direction.

A day camp that caters to his confusion won’t keep him healthy. Having parents who care about his well-being in the long term will, and that’s not what’s happening, here.

By the way, where is the little boy’s father in all this?

Gender specialists say the camp’s growth reflects what they are seeing in gender clinics nationwide: increasing numbers of children coming out as transgender at young ages. They credit the rise to greater openness and awareness of LGBT issues and parents tuning in earlier when a child shows signs of gender dysphoria, or distress about their gender.

Correction. This is a case of parents “tuning out.” We don’t let our children in their early developmental stages make these kinds of decisions. They’re not emotionally ready. What do you think you’re doing? You brought this child into the world and then took your hands off?

There is little comprehensive data on young children who identify as transgender, but experts say as the number of young people coming to their clinics increases, the prevailing medical guidance has shifted.

The favored protocol today is known as the “gender affirmative” approach, which focuses on identifying and helping transgender children to “socially transition” – to live as the gender they identify with rather than the one they were born with until they’re old enough to decide on medical options like puberty blockers and later, hormone treatments.

The Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles, started a decade ago with about 40 patients, now has over 900 people, ages 3 to 25, enrolled in its program, with 150 on its waiting list, said Johanna Olson-Kennedy, the clinic’s medical director.

In other words, start feeding into their dysphoria very young, condition their minds while they’re developing, and then, once they’ve grown in that confusion, say, “See? Here’s proof. This person has been transgender their whole life!”

Another by the way – How much revenue are Olson-Kennedy and medical “professionals” like her raking in by capitalizing on the emotional confusion of these children and their complicit parents, rather than directing them to seek counseling and parenting classes?

If any parent brings a 3-year old child in to begin twisting their minds to believe they’re anything other than what they were born as, then that is child abuse, and they have no business being allowed to harm that child any further. Child Protective Services should be immediately involved.

Alas, that is not the world we live in, at least, not in some parts of the world, or the country. In the liberal strongholds of California, where most of this abuse is being forced on the very young, there is a concerted effort to create an active society of subversives – and by doing so, they assure these children will never quite fit in with the world outside their bubble.

Studies show transgender adults have higher rates of suicide and depression than the general population. A 2016 study by the University of Washington’s TransYouth Project, published in the journal Pediatrics, found trans children who live as their preferred gender and are supported by their parents have the same mental health outcomes as other kids their age.

Since this is a relatively new and grotesque chapter to the liberal playbook, where they now use the very young, their own offspring, as the lab rats in their social justice experimentation, what are the figures on the emotional well-being of these rudderless youth, once they’ve matured?

We won’t know for many years just what damage has been done to these children, and our society because of this sick need to indoctrinate the very young into subversive lifestyles. We can only pray that somewhere along the way, somebody steps up and says, “ENOUGH.”

James 1:14-15 NLT “14 Temptation comes from our own desires, which entice us and drag us away. 15 These desires give birth to sinful actions. And when sin is allowed to grow, it gives birth to death.”

Pray for the little children.

Confusing: Does Elon Musk Need a Bailout, or is He Worth $21 Billion?

It’s rare that two conflicting stories hit the media at the same time about one person. But Elon Musk is a rare bird. If I had to classify him, I’d call him a Government Dodo. Don’t get me wrong: Musk is smart. It’s the government that’s the dodo.

California is considering a bailout for Tesla once federal $7,500 tax credits for each vehicle run out in 2018.

Federal tax credits for Tesla vehicles are slated to phase out once the Silicon Valley company produces and sells 200,000 electric cars. California’s proposal is a $3 billion incentive program and would reduce the price of an electric vehicle by as much as $10,000.

Tesla is nearly 80,000 cars away from hitting the cutoff point, so customers that are counting on a $7,500 rebate to lower the sticker price might be forced to fork over more money for the Model 3 than they initially thought.

Let’s unpack that. For the $35,000 Model 3 (fully loaded, around $53,000), somewhere between 14 and 21 percent is being financed by yours truly, Mr. Taxpayer. Nearly 50 percent of Tesla’s sales of the Model S have been in California (because rich Silicon Valley entrepreneurs can afford the price tag and enjoy the “cool factor”).

Here’s the stinger:

Data shows that the elimination of the tax credit could be a death knell for Tesla, especially considering the company’s inability to mass produce vehicles at the scale of its larger competitors.

Without government assistance, it seems Tesla can’t make money, because they can’t sell cars at the price they actually have to collect to stay in business. So California is going to tax the working class to pay for Elon Musk to add to his fortune.

And add to his fortune he has.

Space News reported Friday that Musk is now worth $5 billion more after SpaceX (his other company) raised $351 million in a funding round, bringing that company’s value to over $21 billion (coincidentally, about the same as Musk’s personal net worth).

SpaceX gets its money from–you guessed it–taxpayers. A $4.2 billion contract with NASA in 2014 drives revenue. SpaceX essentially gets nothing from private companies, other than investment dollars. They are all betting on more money from Uncle Sugar.

Musk himself has gotten rich off the Government Dodo.

Listen, I have an idea–one worthy of Barack Obama. Let’s let Tesla fail. Let the tax credits expire. Then when it’s just about cold in the morgue, we bail it out, in exchange for equity. If taxpayers are going to pay for Musk to get rich making electric cars (a worthy endeavor, by the way), then we might as well own the company.

If GM was any indication of how this works out (of course, the union pensions won, and existing shareholders lost in that mob-inspired deal), taxpayers ought to get a nice return. But we know that won’t happen, because dodoes aren’t prized for being smart. In fact, they’re extinct precisely because they’re not.

Caitlyn Jenner Considering Senate Run

It seems Donald Trump’s ascendancy to the White House has opened the floodgates of media stars who believe they have a serious shot at statesmanship. On the heels of Kid Rock’s announcement that he wants to run for office in Michigan, Caitlyn Jenner has publicly stated she is seriously mulling a Senate bid in California.

Jenner spoke to John Catsimatidis, who hosts a New York-based radio show, about her future roles in politics and transgender activism.

“I have considered it. I like the political side of it,” Jenner stated to Catsimatidis regarding a Senate run. “The political side of it has always been very intriguing to me. Over the next six months or so, I gotta find out where I can do a better job. Can I do a better job from the outside? Kind of working the perimeter of the political scene, being open to talking to anybody? Or are you better from the inside, and we are in the process of determining that,” she stated.

This isn’t the first time the former Olympic athlete has entertained the idea of getting into politics. She told Don Lemon back in April she would seriously look into it.

If she were to really run (and run in the upcoming election cycle), Jenner would likely face off against Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The incumbent Democrat’s term ends in 2018. However, the 84-year-old senator has not yet decided if she will run for re-election.

While both lifelong Republican stars in their own right, Kid Rock’s possible entrance into Michigan politics would be nothing like Jenner’s. Kid Rock, aka Robert Ritchie, continually praised Trump during the election. He would be running in a state that voted for the president in 2016 – possibly giving him a base of support. Rock’s boisterous, yet unapologetic, lifestyle makes him a bit of a mini-Trump himself and could appeal to Trump voters.

Jenner’s presence in conservative circles is a bit of a paradox. While Democrats have embraced extreme transgender ideology (public funding for sex transitions and belief in unlimited number of genders), most GOP members have been reluctant to do so. Jenner, despite her public adoration for the Second Amendment and the Constitution, would likely struggle to appeal to Republican constituents because of her stature as a trans woman. She voted for Trump and has mostly been supportive of him, but strays on the topic of LGBT rights. Jenner was very critical of the president’s decision to end an Obama-era rule that allowed trans students to use restrooms of their chosen gender.

Adding to all of this – California is toxic territory for GOP candidates.

This may seem like a joke, but Democratic leadership is taking this all very seriously. In an email blast to supporters, Sen. Elizabeth Warren cautioned that Trump was originally thought to be kidding about his presidential ambitions. The Massachusetts liberal implored her followers to take Kid Rock’s announcement with earnestness, and she even linked to a fundraising page for Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow – Rock’s would-be Democrat opponent.

Side note: has anyone been keeping track of the newly created campaign committee to elect Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson? “Run The Rock 2020” was registered by a political consultant in West Virginia who reportedly wants to “Make America Rock Again.”