Mike Allen of Axios has an interesting piece describing how the crammed clown car of Democratic candidates, all of them seeking to be the president, may be costing them any prospect of winning back the Senate and might even hurt them in the House, too.

Remember when Republicans were known as "the stupid party"? Get a load of what the Democrats are doing to challenge them for the title.

He writes:

Reality check: The Senate looks tough to win back for Democrats, who have suffered a string of recruiting disappointments: Democrats need four seats to win a majority — but very few Republican incumbents look beatable right now. Susan Collins, who sits atop the list, is fairly popular in Maine.

The other two most vulnerable Republicans are Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona, who's being challenged by Mark Kelly, the retired astronaut turned gun-control advocate.

But even if Democrats somehow took out those three, they'll still struggle to hold onto the seat of Sen. Doug Jones in deep-red Alabama. Many Democrats wish these 2020 presidential candidates — and possibilities — would run for Senate instead: Beto O’Rourke in Texas, John Hickenlooper in Colorado and Steve Bullock in Montana. In Georgia, Stacey Abrams has said no to the Senate but is still entertaining a presidential run.

Why is that significant? Well, Allen doesn't mention it, but most of the Senate seats up for grabs in 2020 are held by Republicans. Look at the list he links without comment at the bottom of his piece here. Twenty-two Republicans and a mere 12 Democrats? Wow. That's a disadvantage for Republicans (or whichever party is holding the seats) because they have to spend a lot of money to defend those seats, while the other party can either sit on its hands at the same time, or concentrate resources in fewer places since it doesn't have to defend as many seats.

Meaning? The Senate is one contest the Democrats could actually take.

But with every Democrat and his mother jumping in to run for president instead, Democrats have blown that chance. What's Beto O'Rourke or John Hickenlooper doing running for president? Both would have much better chances (well, Hickenlooper, at least) at winning a Senate seat, but they want the big stuff instead, despite their marginal chances of winning so much as the nomination.

Allen points out that with so many Democrats preoccupied with running for president, they don't have the deep well of talent to find enough people with the money and the name recognition to run for Senate with the political strength to beat Republicans. They're all off to the presidential races instead.

Why do I think this is happening? Well, based on the platforms seen in the clown car, virtually all of them are socialists. And as socialists, they don't want to legislate their way to socialism as socialists; that's too much work. They want to get it faster. They want to be dictator, not lawmaker. Legislation just doesn't cut it compared to executive orders, which don't require any legislature. That may be a function of President Obama's presidency, which put through socialist and other unpopular measures effectively by executive order, something the leftist courts have often been willing to uphold for his successors as in the case of President Trump attempting to revoke DACA. For a socialist, that beats the trouble of crafting bipartisan legislation to transform America to their liking. Governing by executive order is one step short of governing by dictatorship, which is something every socialist dreams about.

So now that's left Democrats in a quandary. We have nearly two dozen Democrats spending all of their time and money to run for that one desirable-to-a-socialist job of president, and all but one are wasting their time, or in Stacey Abrams's case, simply turning up their noses at the idea of running for Senate in favor of something with more power.

Stupid party? Republicans need to cede that title to the Democrats with this kind of strategic genius. Just change their name from the donkey party to the dumbass party.