The Democrats really aren’t the party of any ideology. Sure, they are leftist, socialist, and communist, but if you look at who they’re running in 2026, the common denominator is far more psychological than ideological. These aren’t simply people lacking common sense. These are deeply broken people — broken people with a grudge who, if given power, will want to take you down with them. You don’t have to be a psychologist to know a psycho when you see one.

One way to frame it is to see it as the “Lindsay Clancy Effect,” which caught normies across the nation by surprise when a jury of her peers in Massachusetts couldn’t bring themselves to convict Lindsay Clancy, who admitted that she strangled her three young children to death. Not only was it the jury, but a movement of psychologically unstable women and some men across the country stood behind the alleged cold-blooded murderer.

While it may be a stretch to see the field of psychology as one of the sciences, since so many of its practitioners were drawn to the field in the first place because they have their own issues, that’s where we must turn to start to understand the dynamics behind why psychos came out in force in support of Clancy.

Case in point: Kaytee Gillis is a psychotherapist, a psychological professional, who actually wrote this for the field’s leading publication, Psychology Today:

Like many mental health clinicians, I have many clients and colleagues who are following the Lindsay Clancy case closely. But I have also found that many of us are reacting to the case in a more personal way.

Like many women, I recognize the painful experience of feeling dismissed when you know something isn't right, and the fear that comes with wondering whether anyone is truly listening. I understand the experience of telling a healthcare professional that something is wrong, not feeling heard, and wondering whether anyone will take you seriously.

I’ll spare you the rest, other than to say Gillis didn’t come close to advocating for a conviction of a woman who allegedly killed her three children in cold blood. Instead, she put the onus on the system to better meet the needs of the Lindsay Clancys of the world before they kill their own kids.

Recommended
The Real Target of the Paris Riots Comes Into Focus — and It's Not 'School Funding' Victoria Taft Ian Brinksman Arrested: Caught in a Honeypot? Charlie Martin

If the psychology profession can’t call premeditated murder what it is, we must. America has a sizable number of damaged people who, when confronted with facts and the truth, are fully capable of ignoring all of it. They are driven by emotion and a certain self-centeredness that refuses to allow them to see what’s good for society and, all too often, what’s good for themselves. They are self-destructive, and they don’t want you getting in their way. What they want is for you to listen to them, and by "listen" I mean "affirm." And if you have the authority, in many cases they want you to prescribe SSRIs to them.

Whatever you do, do not think for a moment that coming at them as the voice of reason will get you anywhere. Trying to get through to them that sometimes right is right and wrong is wrong is a waste of time. Life is much more nuanced than that, they’ll tell you, right before launching into a rant about how they can relate to someone like Clancy, who allegedly murdered her own three children.

And guess what. These people vote. They don’t vote for Republicans, mind you. They vote for Democrats. During the primaries they voted for the most fringe Democrats the party could find for them, and now we’re days away from Election Day, and the same psychos who supported Clancy are coming out in droves for gubernatorial candidates Amy Acton (D) in Ohio and Jocelyn Benson (D) in Michigan, and Senate candidate Peggy Flanagan (D) in Minnesota.

Of course, the psychos aren’t limiting their support to just these three Democrat candidates, and these three candidates aren’t the most unstable ones the Democrats are running this year. But in these three cases, the "Clancy cult" sees something of themselves in the candidates. 

In Minnesota, Flanagan enjoys a slim lead in the polls over Republican normie Michelle Tafoya, but as we’ve covered, expect the polls to tighten up even more this week. That said, her appeal to the psychos is readily understandable. She’s for men in women’s sports; she can’t define a woman; she’s for destroying ICE and opening our borders; and she will sell out to anyone who will help her get elected, such as the Somali community in her state.

This is Flanagan giving psycho parenting advice.

If you’re the type who would give Lindsay Clancy the benefit of the doubt, Flanagan is the candidate for you.

Moving over to Michigan, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has a healthier seven-point lead over John James, a black Republican, in the race for governor. She has particular appeal to psychos who like her position on the issues and her style, as it were. Judge for yourself. Feel free to watch with the sound off.

This is Benson evading the question of how many non-citizen voters are on the rolls in her state.

It’s Benson’s job to ensure that only Americans vote in American elections, and, clearly, she’s failing without penalty. Reminder: It’s against the law for noncitizens to vote in our elections. Still, what’s good for her does not apply to you if you don’t obey her and her party and certify elections when it works for her.

Major psycho vibes there, right? When you watch these videos, you can see the difference between when she’s painfully trying to appear to be a nice person while campaigning for votes and the real tyrant she becomes when in power.

And then bringing up the rear in Ohio is former Ohio health director Amy Acton, who has actually campaigned on a platform of sorts that includes her mental health challenges from her past.

She’s running against Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, who’s been getting a lot of heat for a recent campaign ad that drew attention to Acton’s troubled past and her relationship with her mother. Given Acton’s atrocious performance as her state’s health czar during the COVID-19 pandemic, all Ramaswamy needed to do was focus on that and not Acton’s mother, but he did not. None of it changes the fact that it's been reported that Acton has acted erratically while in office before. And her playing the victim does not make her more qualified to lead the state.

In September, the Washington Examiner reported that Acton cried on the job and was once found “curled up” on the floor before a pandemic meeting while she was Ohio’s health czar.

In interviews with the Washington Examiner, five current and former state government workers, including staffers from the Ohio Health Department, governor’s office, and a career civil servant, described Acton’s conduct in the workplace as erratic and said she was prone to emotional episodes, to the point that she was once allegedly found ‘curled up’ into a ball on the floor before one of the emergency response meetings and seen crying in the bathroom in another incident described by someone who worked with her.

Taken together, their COVID-era recollections paint a picture of an emotionally reactive leader who struggled to handle the demands of the job, even in the time preceding the pandemic, the Examiner reported.

But you don’t need to take the Examiner’s word for it. Acton herself has admitted her struggles with mental health. In her own words, she talks about being the victim of childhood sexual abuse. This is serious stuff and no doubt would leave lasting mental scars on anyone. We have no reason to doubt the veracity of Acton’s claims, and we have every reason to sympathize with her on that score.

Still, none of it makes her any more qualified to run the state of Ohio as governor. The job is tough enough, tougher than the one she had to resign from when she was health director. If she becomes governor, the stress, the political attacks, and other factors will not get any easier. Ohio voters need someone they can count on, and, clearly, it’s not Acton.

Gad Saad, the Canadian evolutionary psychologist and former professor at Concordia University, has coined the term “suicidal empathy,” which only partly applies here, but it does apply in a big way. The reason I say “partly” is that I’m not so sure that the self-destructive nature of so many leftists is empathetic at all. Yes, it’s framed that way, but I’m not so sure.

I go back to the point I made up front. I think there are a good number of self-destructive leftists who vote, and a good number who want to lead, who are self-destructive by nature and just want to take the rest of us down with them. It’s intrinsic to them. It’s a compulsion that they must obey, almost without any thought given. It’s so visceral and involuntary that to question it is to question their very existence, and they won’t have that.

These are the people who want to choose your leaders. Some want to be your leaders. 

That’s why it’s incumbent on you and everyone you know, especially if you live in Michigan, Minnesota, or Ohio, to counter this wave of psycho-driven politics. If we don’t win in these races, and quite a few others, we’re going to have to live with this phenomenon for years to come.