If early rhetoric is any indicator, Democrats have decided that if they have to follow the rules, they can’t win. Their 2020 presidential candidates are ready to play dirty.

Ever since former Vice President Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000, Democrats have demanded that there is only one acceptable outcome to any contest. They are supposed to win. If they don’t, it’s proof that the rules are wrong. So, the rules need to be changed until their right to victory is confirmed in the results.

Fast forward to the 2016 election. The electoral map proved Democrats have fallen out of favor with voters in America’s heartland. Look no further than Michigan. The Democratic presidential nominee won Michigan in 1992,1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. Then Hillary Clinton comes along and loses the state in 2016.

SEAN HANNITY: RADICAL, SOCIALIST 2020 DEMS WANT TO CENTRALIZE POWER AND CONTROL OUR LIVES

Now Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is pushing to replace the Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote. As Sen. Warren sees it, running up the score in progressive havens such as New York and California gives her party an advantage over President Trump, whose success creating jobs and raising wages, along with his tough stance on China, has won him support from Midwest factory workers.

Once Secretary Clinton became another losing Democratic candidate for president despite winning the popular vote, the outcries to end to the Electoral College were predictable. Any defense of the Constitutionally prescribed Electoral College as being a safeguard of smaller states and their citizens was quickly dismissed as a desire to give more weight to the votes of white rural voters. No meaningful discussion. Just change the rules so that Democrats can win.

We’ve seen this before. When former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn’t corral enough votes to approve President Obama’s judicial appointments, he changed the rules. Then, after Republicans regained Senate control, Sen. Reid complained that his changes were unfair. Today, several Democratic presidential contenders are floating the idea of killing the filibuster altogether.

More recently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was embarrassed by defections in her caucus when a group of House Democrats sided with Republicans on an important vote. The media reported that Pelosi was swift to reprimand her caucus for not toeing the line, saying, “We are either a team or we are not.” Pelosi then said to avoid a repeat embarrassment, Democrats would consider changing the rules.

Once Secretary Clinton became another losing Democratic candidate for president despite winning the popular vote, the outcries to end to the Electoral College were predictable. Any defense of the Constitutionally prescribed Electoral College as being a safeguard of smaller states and their citizens was quickly dismissed as a desire to give more weight to the votes of white rural voters. No meaningful discussion. Just change the rules so that Democrats can win.

More than any other form of power, Democrats love litigation. Going to court to bend the rules and impose their views is an age-old liberal-tradition. However, with a majority on the Supreme Court being nominated by a Republican president, progressives find themselves flummoxed.

Following the example set by former President Franklin Roosevelt, several Democratic presidential prospects have called for packing the court – increasing the number of judges until there's enough room for a progressive majority. The fact is, Democrats would fight tooth and nail against adding justices if President Trump and the Republican Senate majority were making the selections, so this scheme is simply a blatant power grab.

Democrats are bitter about losing in 2016 and they are determined not to be bitter again, even if that means circumventing the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the American people.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Not surprisingly, the Democrats’ attempt to rewrite the rulebook is happening without so much as a whimper from the pundits and commentators that have been gasping to the point of exhaustion about President Trump rolling back President Obama’s administrative state.

American statesmen have long admitted that our system of government is imperfect, but there is little argument that it is preferred above any alternative. Democrats should be held accountable for their attempts to manipulate our system of checks and balances to their advantage.