California’s Pyrrhic Victory: Why Spencer Pratt Had to Go Down NOW

California’s nationally televised debacle will accelerate the Supreme Court’s remedies

There are 435 U.S. House races up this year, as there are every two years, in addition to 71 Gubernatorial and Senate races. More than 500 opportunities to get a call wrong, if in fact I make individual predictions on every race instead of predicting X party will win Y range of seats. I haven’t decided how I want to make my predictions, but one thing is for certain - I won’t get them all right forever. But…yesterday another one of my predictions (sadly) came true when I wish it had been wrong:

I read the ballot drops for Nithya Raman, the no-name progressive candidate no one had ever heard of until last week, starting Thursday and realized what the game was even when markets still had reality star Spencer Pratt likely to advance from the jungle primarily to the November two-person election against incumbent mayor Karen Bass. I received the standard assorted comments of “you have no proof” and “you’re destroying the fabric of our elections” as I torched California’s corrupt elections all week on social media before my dour prediction came true:

Raman, associated with the Democratic Socialists of America and born in India, will face Bass instead of the guy who ran a platform based on the shocking, white supremacy-linked policy positions of:

• Rehabilitating the homeless population

• Clamping down on crime

• Cleaning the streets

• Ending government grift and corruption

You wouldn’t exactly mistake Pratt for the latest generic Republican presidential contender showing up in Iowa in his plaid shirt and blue jeans and appealing to the heartland on the strength of his conservation efforts to conserve conservatism and “stand for our principles.” The guy is a pragmatist tapping into the vein of support for outsiders who want to fix real, tangible problems. The purpose of today’s article isn’t to break down the math and mechanics of why this election is a fraud; it is to show why it had to be this way, and why this overreach will most likely be the watershed moment we’ve been looking for as the Supreme Court prepares to release its opinion on Watson v. Republican National Committee:

Poke around on X, and you’ll see plenty of proof about why the mail-in drops make no sense. Somehow Raman is now outperforming not only Pratt, but Bass herself, even though she all but conceded the race in socialist tears Tuesday night when Pratt was roughly ten points ahead of her and only about four behind Bass. Sometime in the immediate aftermath of that conference, the criminals in charge of California and its largest county decided Pratt couldn’t be permitted to take second place. You see, Pratt wouldn’t have won the General Election in November. Remember, California runs the unholy trifecta of Automatic Voter Registration, Universal Mail-In Voting, and legalized ballot harvesting. Then you have to deal with the party registration in Los Angeles County, which is even more favorable than the figures Pratt would have to deal with running for the top position in the city:

Los Angeles County

Democrat 3,008,653

Republican 1,100,408

Advantage D+1,908,245 (D+32.4%)

I would imagine the Democrat advantage must be D+40% or greater within the confines of the City of Los Angeles itself. Yes, there are millions of zombies in the Golden State that are unwilling to associate its tremendous decline with Democrat “leadership” or change their voting patterns to replicate those found in successful large states, such as Texas or Florida; and then there is the massive cheating, which keeps California blue against insurgents or in red wave years.

All of those things made it unlikely Pratt could prevail against Bass in November; however, the risk was too great and stood to disrupt the future California’s elite planners have envisioned. He had to go down now:

---

Reasons Why Pratt Couldn’t Be Allowed in the General Election

I. The New Wave of Marketing

Pratt has garnered a lot of attention in recent weeks with masterfully produced, Artificial Intelligence-driven advertisements showing him mocking the elites, solving problems, and enjoying a healthy Los Angeles with a diverse coalition of voters. When you think about it, it’s a brilliant idea. Even the most skilled professionals and busy people in the world readily admit screen addiction is a problem as they are unable to estimate how often they unlock their phones to take a peek at the latest notifications, updates, and news stories. I’ve tried to convince Rachel that putting signs out at every intersection is a colossal waste of time that moves precisely zero votes, and a large reason I believe that is because people are now addicted to devices and more likely to click a viral advertisement than they are to scan the signs at the intersection or dig through the pile of mail on the countertop to review candidate policy positions.

Pratt knows the statistics are against him, but they were against Arnold Schwarzenegger too, and 17 years before California truly figured out how to rig elections. Arnold won L.A. County and didn’t win it with any sort of GOP registration advantage or party infrastructure. In fact, today’s LAGOP is still run by people who are too afraid to offend their captors by calling the uncontrolled mail-in voting system the fraudulent system that it is. In order to capture the attention of hundreds of thousands of non-Republicans he needs to win, something different has to occur.

Pratt’s marketing campaign must be replicated by urban Republicans who are crashing against the rocks trying to focus on social issues and boardroom conservatism when they could attract voters in great numbers by solving issues of crime, homelessness, and urban malaise. Those ideas are brought to life in the minds of younger voters by using technology to our advantage rather than doing things “the way we’ve always done it.” The California Democrat machine knew it couldn’t deal with another five months of relentless mockery (Alinsky’s fifth rule for radicals) by Pratt and keep its fragile coalition in one piece, because…

---