The Democrats were all ready to don their paper party hats and fling confetti in the air as soon as Jon Ossoff defeated Karen Handel in the special election to replace Tom Price, who had resigned in order to serve as President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Even though Mr. Ossoff probably wasn’t the best possible candidate, inasmuch as he was a 30-year-old sometime documentary filmmaker, which has about as much gravitas to it as being an ex-community organizer, the Democrats were prepared to hang their hopes on him. Moreover, he didn’t even live in the district, although his handlers liked to say he lived just up the road. Actually, he lived nearly four miles up the road from Georgia’s 6th congressional district, which meant he couldn’t even vote for himself.

But none of that was supposed to matter. What the Democrats counted on was that their deep-pocket, brie-noshing, spritzer-sipping, supporters in Beverly Hills, San Francisco, Marin County, Manhattan and Darien, Connecticut, would kick in upwards of $31 million and buy the election for young Mr. Ossoff, in order to promote the narrative that Donald’s coattails were even shorter than those of Batman’s eternal nemesis, the Penguin.

When Karen Handel defeated the snarky squirt by 4%, the Democrats were left to mutter that special elections in predominantly Republican venues don’t matter. The problem was that this was the fourth special election in a row they had lost, and in each case, they had insisted the outcome would prove that it was Trump’s collusion with Russia that led to Hillary Clinton’s defeat.

Even for Democrats, as desperate as they are, insisting that it was that diabolical wizard of duplicity, Vladimir Putin, who cost them elections in Kansas, South Carolina, Montana and now Georgia, was a bridge too far.

Perhaps, the biggest loser of all has been Nancy Pelosi. There are rumblings in the ranks of House Democrats that the time for dumping her is long past due. The mystery is what has taken them so long. Even those dopes must have noticed how long it’s been since the House Minority Leader has been the House Majority Leader.

---

When I asked my readers to let me know the numerical value they would ascribe to President Trump on a scale of 1-100 with 100 being best, I said I was only interested in the number and not an explanation. But in a couple of cases, the number was so low that I wrote back, asking for one. I wanted to know if they had always hated him, even if they voted for him because they hated or feared Mrs. Clinton even more, or if he had done or not done something since taking office that rubbed them the wrong way.

One fellow who had given him a 40 let me know that he resented the fact that Trump had not taken control of the House and Senate, and had Rep. Ryan and Sen. McConnell saying “Yes, sir, right away, sir!” while telling the opposition to go screw themselves. He also felt short-changed because the swamp, even after several months, remained undrained. Because of these failings, he felt obliged to dismiss Trump as “a loser.”

In response, I wrote: “I have my own problems with President Trump, generally involving his excessive tweets and his ego, which strikes me as being simultaneously huge and thin-skinned, much like a balloon that has been inflated to very near its bursting point.

"But I think your expectations were naïve. For one thing, the president, unlike the host of a TV reality show, lacks the power to fire people on a whim, especially when those people happen to be the duly-elected leaders of Congress. What’s more, I always thought ‘Drain the Swamp’ was one of the silliest slogans I had ever heard. What does it even mean? Eliminate Congress and the Supreme Court? Are we really looking to emulate Putin, Kim Jong-un and the Ayatollah?

"Still, I do wish that the Republicans could agree about something. Make that anything. There are times I envy the way that Democrats remain in lockstep even if I despise their positions, but the truth is that the Republicans are always at a political disadvantage in fighting them. How can it be otherwise when being a Republican means such different things in different parts of the country? Does anyone seriously believe that Texas senator Ted Cruz, to take a handy example, could win a Senate race outside, say, Texas, Utah, Georgia, Oklahoma and perhaps South Carolina?”

My correspondent replied: “I gave him 40…half for keeping the big bad witch away, and half for his entertainment value.”

In response, I wrote: “Well, that’s no small deal. I guess I would have given George W. Bush 60, half for keeping Al Gore out of the Oval Office, half for doing the same to John Kerry.”

---

The exchange did spark an idea, though. Instead of depending on tweeting to get his message out, I think Trump should host a weekly TV show. I would have him broadcast from venues like the enormous arena in Iowa where he spoke last week to an enthusiastic crowd that numbered in the thousands.

If it seemed like one of the stops on his campaign, it’s because it was exactly like it, down to the folks behind him on stage waving signs that read “Women for Trump,” “Veterans for Trump” and “Build the Wall.”

Trump loves the energy of crowds, and they in turn respond to his plain, seemingly spontaneous, speech and his undeniable patriotism. It would also serve to remind Republicans in Congress that, no matter the size of his hands, his megaphone dwarfs their own.

If once-a-week proves too much, Trump can scale it back to every other week or even once a month. But we know his TV appearances draw an audience, and sponsors know it, too. So, I wouldn’t break up the event with commercials, but I would sell time, so either one super sponsor could pay for the time slot, or various sponsors could switch off. But their message would consist of an announcement at the opening of the hour that it was being brought to you by Alcoa or GM or Coca Cola, and a similar reminder at the end of the hour.

The funds for each event would go to a non-political charity determined by people voting on the Internet. They could be encouraged to choose between, say, medical research involving Alzheimer’s, cancer and childhood diseases; healthcare for military veterans; the Salvation Army; or perhaps, if animal lovers can muster enough support, even veterinary services.

---

People do enjoy voting, after all, as I discovered when I asked you folks to let me know how you felt about Donald Trump five months into his presidency. The number of voters far exceeded those who had responded to my earlier polls.

I am now able to report on the results, but first I think I should explain where I may have led some of you astray. When I called for you to give Trump a numerical rating with “1” being worst and “100” being best, it hadn’t occurred to me to explain the guidelines.

But until I questioned someone who had given Trump a “60,” it hadn’t occurred to me that I might be the source of some confusion. When I asked him whether he had also felt negatively about the President from the start of the primary campaign or whether he had become disillusioned by Trump only after he was inaugurated, he let me know that he had used “50” as an average, and that he was generally pleased with Trump’s actions since assuming office.

So, while he considered his “60” a definite thumbs-up, a numerical “attaboy!” I saw it the way I would have seen it during the Dark Ages when I was attending school, as a D-minus.

In any case, the poll attracted 134 votes, but I only counted 133. That’s because one wisenheimer gave Trump an 8.5. When I wrote to ask for an explanation, he chose not to respond. That suggested he was either a Democrat who had voted for Mrs. Clinton and was now in the ranks of the resistance movement or was just goofing around. But since the next lowest mark was 40, I felt entitled to discount the outlier.

Of the 133 voters, 98 were men, 35 were women. What rather surprised me, probably because I suspected that women would be more troubled than men by Trump’s occasionally boorish manner, is that the ladies generally gave Trump higher marks. The average among men was 85.7; among women, 88.4. Combined, it was 86.4.

Of the 133 votes, Trump received 20 who gave him a score of 100; 49 scored him in the 90s; 32 in the 80s; 24 in the 70s; six in the 60s; one each in the 50s and 40s.

Although I believe that all 133 of my respondents voted for Trump, I realize that in some, perhaps even many, cases, it was more a case of anti-Clinton than pro-Trump. Still, when other polls suggest that at least 20% of those who voted for Trump are now experiencing buyer’s remorse, I believe it is what he would call fake news.

After all, if we are safe in assuming that a score above 70 suggests some degree of satisfaction and that even one of the guys who gave him a 60 admitted it would have been an 80 if he had been able to read my mind, only a tiny handful of my readers feel even slightly betrayed by the man who appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court; greenlighted two major oil lines; cut EPA regulations down to the bone; fired James Comey; sent the stock market soaring with his promise to reform the tax code; is doing away with Common Core; restoring religious rights; is allowing the border patrol and ICE agents to finally enforce our immigration laws, while doing what he can to cut off federal funds going to sanctuary states and cities that refuse to cooperate; and is reasserting the 2nd Amendment’s rightful place in the Constitution.

In case anyone is interested, I would give Trump a solid 90. As I have stated in earlier articles, I could like him to give the tweets a rest. Also, I believe it behooves him to let his advisors know exactly what’s on his mind before he tells the rest of us, so that we can avoid any further embarrassments, such as when 24 hours after he’s had Mike Pence and Sean Spicer announce that he fired James Comey because Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told him to do it, he’s on TV informing us that Rosenstein’s memo had nothing to do with his decision.

It doesn’t help when several weeks after that, Trump tweeted that he doesn’t understand how anyone could regard his firing of the Director of the FBI as obstruction of justice when he fired him only after being told to do so by the Deputy Attorney General.

Finally, I would love to be able to give President Trump a solid 100 if only because it would mean my head was no longer in danger of exploding every other day, meaning after every fourth or fifth tweet.