This week CNN’s Don Lemon and the odious Rick Wilson laughed about how stupid Trump supporters are to believe that the president is smarter than the elitists, in which apparently they include themselves.

Reason’s Jim Lundgren responded with an analysis that shows Trump supporters are actually smarter than their opponents. We didn’t need this analysis, actually, since the House Democrats this week nailed this point.

Ace of Spades Headquarters accurately sums up some of the Reason essay:

On the verbal ability test (WORSDUM) not surprisingly the median number of vocabulary questions correct was the same for both Clinton and Trump supporters [snip] The mean verbal ability score for Trump supporters was 6.15 words correct, while the mean verbal ability score for Clinton supporters was 5.69 correct, a difference of nearly half a question on a 10-question test. This moderate difference is statistically significant at p<0005. Further, Trump supporters score significantly higher on verbal ability (6.15 correct) than the rest of the public combined (5.70 correct) whereas Clinton supporters score significantly lower on verbal ability (5.69 correct) than the rest of the public combined (5.98 correct). This should not be too surprising. On the 22 General Surveys using the verbal ability scale since 1974, for every single one, conservative Republicans score significantly higher than the rest of the public combined. As for Republicans overall, they score significantly higher in verbal ability than democrats in all five decades, including the 2010’s combined. In 1996, the GSS employed another module lifted from a standard 1Q test, one testing analogical reasoning. Again Republicans and conservative Republicans in 1996 performed significantly better on analogical reasoning than the rest of the public and significantly better than Democrats.

Lundgren also reported that “Clinton supporters perform significantly worse than the rest of the public on the same six science questions on which Trump supporters perform better than Clinton supporters.” (This may explain the Democrats’ greater propensity to fall for gloom and doom predictions.) Lundgren concludes:

Don Lemon laughed uncontrollably at his guests insulting the intelligence and knowledge of Trump supporters. The best evidence we have suggests that, compared to the general public, Trump supporters score significantly better than the rest of the public -- and Clinton supporters score significantly worse -- on a standard verbal ability test. Likewise, Trump supporters score significantly better on most science knowledge questions than Clinton supporters or the general public. In this essay, I analyzed the results of over 30 questions from 22 different representative national surveys, involving over 20,000 respondents. Not one of the questions I examined here supports the idea that Trump supporters are significantly less knowledgeable than Clinton supporters, and some of them point to small or moderate differences in the opposite direction. The idea that there are very large differences in intelligence or knowledge here is implausible without strong evidence. In short, Don Lemon is a bigot -- and like most bigots, he's an ignorant one as well.

At least as far back as the Eisenhower/Stevenson race, media twits have framed Democrats as the smart ones. Remember, Adlai Stevenson, who flunked out of law school in his first year, was the genius “egghead “ while Dwight David Eisenhower, who headed the European Theater of Command in WWII, was a dummy in their eyes.

But if you still doubted the comparison of intellect in which the Republicans came out ahead, you had only to watch this week’s impeachment follies.

Here are some things about the tiresome, pointless, fact- and law-free presentation by the Democrats in the impeachment trial this week.

Democratic Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, one of the House impeachment managers, was asked to explain why their contention that asking for an investigation into Ukrainian corruption in the 2016 election is “foreign interference” but Hillary Clinton’s paying a Brit to investigate Trump and produce and promote the now-debunked Steele Dossier was not. He responded, “The analogy is not applicable to the present situation because first, to the extent that opposition research was obtained, it was opposition research that was purchased.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, clearly vexed by the dud of her party’s impeachment effort, took the podium at her news conference and squealed, “He will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that. Does the president know right from wrong? I don’t think so.”

“I don’t know how [the Trump lawyers] can retain their lawyer status, in the comments that they’re making,” Pelosi told reporters, according to The Hill. “I don’t think they made the case. I think they disgraced themselves terribly in terms of their violation of what our Constitution is about and what a president’s behavior should be.”

Democratic Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia topped that:

“If the president is telling the truth and he did nothing wrong, and the evidence would prove that, then we all know he would be an enthusiastic supporter for subpoenas. He would be here probably himself if he could, urging you to do subpoenas if he had information he was totally not in the wrong. If he is innocent, he should have nothing to hide.”

(In other words, Congress does not have to prove guilt, just as they claim, they needn’t establish a crime. The burden is on Trump to prove he did not commit a non-crime. A unique and scary version of the law.)

In any event, the Democrats lost the battle this week. The game ended when they could not persuade enough Republican senators to go along with a full-fledged trial of something admittedly a non-crime, following on their speedy, witch-hunt trial in the House. The vote on impeachment itself will not take place until Wednesday, which means that three Democratic senators -- Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar will be stuck in D.C. during the Iowa caucuses. If you suspect that was the geniuses’ plan to boost the failing prospects of their favorite, Joe Biden, I don’t think you’d be wrong.

Of course, a candidate like Biden, who praises Vermont thinking he’s there when he’s really in New Hampshire campaigning in that state’s primary, shows a disturbing disconnect from reality. But Biden’s come up with a really winning sales pitch for his candidacy:

“[I]t has to be demonstrated that whoever I pick[as my running mate] is two things: One is capable of [being] president because I’m an old guy. No, I’m serious. Look, I thank God I’m in great health, I work out, [snip]I released all my medical records, but you never know. You never know what’s going on. And I’m sure what would happen is I have -- some people looking would say. ’Is the person Biden picked capable of, God forbid something happened to Biden, that they would be able to take over immediately?’”

Dennis Miller wryly tweets: ”I don’t think the Democrats have handled Hillary’s loss as well as they could have.” Indeed. Instead of this ridiculous show, costing an estimated $25 million dollars and tying up Congress but not the White House (which is moving along with trade deals, peace plans, administrative state cutbacks, and drawing millions in funds and tens of thousands of people to every rally) the Democrats would have put better use of their efforts to finding a candidate who is not as brain addled as Biden.

Worse, this stunt has seriously undermined Biden’s chances, bringing to public attention his and his family’s widespread political corruption. Now the DNC is backstroking hard against an apparent Sanders tidal wave. The DNC just changed the threshold rules for participation in debates, allowing in billionaire nanny Mike Bloomberg, when, as Democrat Julian Castro complains, they refused to make concessions on the rules for Cory Booker.

Politico reports there’s also a move afoot to quickly change the convention rules to give the super delegates the first vote, instead of making them wait in the event of a needed second ballot -- a move clearly designed, as was this in 2016 under the old rules, to block Sanders.

Looks to me like a lose-lose. If they fiddle with the game to block Sanders again, they’ll lose the votes of his supporters. If they don’t, and he gets the nomination, Trump will handily defeat him.

My online friend “The Infamous Iggy” seems to have read my mind although in more colorful language than I’d normally use:

The Infamous Iggy: You know we spend all this time thanking our lucky stars for Trump but how often do we thank them for the Dems? Had they been sane and went back to stealth bolshevism instead of the open variety things would be much more difficult. Now, because the lunatics are running the asylum, they're faced with this apocalyptic scenario; Bernie gets the nomination and they try to win with an actual Bolshevik; they trip him up and have an intraparty Bolshevik revolution; they end up with a man who probably really does eat paste or the impossibly revolting harridan from last time who will never be president. We should thank providence for our present pack of hair brained, maggot gagging enemies every chance we get.

Making the week even more fun was Brexit, as the Brits finally leave that overbearing, overreaching, overpaid monstrosity called the European Union. Nigel Farage’s last day as a member of the European Parliament was wonderful. It reminded me of the fraternity walkout from the disciplinary hearing in Animal House.

Tuesday will be just as much fun. The President will give his State of the Union address in front of the now thoroughly humiliated Democrats. Of course, between now and then the Democrats will be beating the brambles for more “bombshell” surprise witnesses. Unfortunately for them, Michael Avenatti, designated procurer of eleventh-hour Democrats’ bombshell witnesses, now sits in jail charged with an armload of federal, state, and civil offenses. The next Julie Swetnick will have to make it to the microphones without his assistance.