Let's start with the disastrous excursion into violence porn directed at Republicans. You remember: the campaign to offer images of a beheaded Trump and other violent fantasies. There has already been one near mass assassination by a member of the Democrat tribe. Andrew Malcolm reveals at McClatchy that the public has had enough:

In the words of a smart Investor's Business Daily editorial , "The worm is starting to turn." The evidence is all over, though obsessives (a group that seems to include a plurality, if not a majority of Democrats) are known to ignore evidence that contradicts their compulsive habits.

A CBS News Poll the other day revealed that a whopping three out of four Americans believe the current tone and lack of civility in U.S. politics and public discussions actually encourages violence among some people. Sixty-eight percent in that poll also said the tone and civility of American politics have deteriorated in recent years, an opinion that conservatives, liberals and independents were united in holding.

While it is true that not all Republicans, including President Trump, are models of civility, there are no images as disturbing as this:

And no GOP Nebraska state officials wishing death upon the leaders of the Democrat House caucus.

The Russia collusion story is now in full blowback mode, with obvious questions being asked about the Obama administration, which failed to take action against what the Democrats now hype as a veritable Pearl Harbor, an "act of war." Watching Dems talk their way out this one will be fun.

Coming attractions: the multimillion-dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation after Hillary approved sale of 20% of our uranium reserves to Russia, and then-president Obama's open mic comment telling Russia's then-president that he would have "more flexibility" after the election, which looks a lot like outright collusion.

Then there is utter scandal of the "Russia dossier" and its subsidy and use by James Comey's FBI. IBD: It has been publicly known since at least early January that Fusion GPS was behind the discredited dossier, which claimed that Russia had backmailable information on Trump, and that it was a notorious opposition research firm that was often enlisted to dig up dirt on Republicans, including a 2012 smear campaign against a donor to Mitt Romney's campaign As the Post notes, one of the Fusion's founders, Peter Fritsch, contributed "at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary for America campaign." ... That was strike one against the anti-Trump conspiracy mongers. Strike two happened Sunday when an internal memo from CNN Money's executive editor Rich Barbieri leaked. The memo told reporters that "no one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me or (VP of Premium Content Video) Jason (Farkas) first. ... No exception." That memo came after CNN was forced to retract a story it had posted on its website claiming that Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation for ties to Russia. Turns out the story – based on a single anonymous source – was false. CNN pulled the story and apologized to Scaramucci. This wasn't the first Russia-related story pushed by the mainstream press that turned out to be exaggerated or false[.]

So the media Russia narrative has collapsed, and there is almost certain to be blowback damaging the credibility not just of CNN, but of the entire MSM.

The real question is whether or not Democrats will be able to regroup and drop their dead-ender resistance strategy. My belief is that this will be impossible. Too much of their base is enveloped in the fantasy narrative of Russia installing Trump, whom they hate with an unnatural passion.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi struggles against her rivals, a leader so ineffective that Republicans endorse her. She will not go quietly, and she controls a lot of donations.

Unless something changes dramatically, the Democrats are positioning themselves for a midterm election defeat that will be as surprising as Trump's 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton. Normally, a president's party loses substantially in the first midterm. That norm could be shattered.

Speaking of Hillary, here is one more sign of impending disaster, that the current era is not subject to the seeming rules of the past. Gallup:

Hillary Clinton Unique With No Post-Election Image Gain Over the past quarter century, the favorable ratings of losing presidential candidates generally have increased after the election – some in the immediate aftermath and others in the months that followed. With the exception of John Kerry, for whom there are no comparable data, losing presidential candidates since 1992 have experienced a boost of at least four percentage points in favorability when averaging their ratings from the day after the election through the following June. ... But for Clinton, this has not been the case. Seven months after her failed bid for the presidency, she remains as unpopular now as she was then.

Yet she will not renounce a future race.

All is unfolding as it should.



Hat tip: Dave Graves