'Ladies and gentlemen, please direct your attention to the lights in front of the octagon'

Movies & TV Holiday Cheer Five Lesser-Known Horror Movies Set at Christmas ‘Tis the season for jolly jump scares, demonic Santas, and general mayhem! By Lorna Wallace | Published on December 9, 2025 Comment 0 Share New Share I never seem to tire of rewatching classic or nostalgia-inducing Christmas movies in December—I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen the first two Home Alone movies—but as a horror lover, I’m also always on the lookout for films that add some frights into my festive viewing. Black Christmas (1974) and Gremlins (1984) are, of course, staples of the Christmas horror subgenre, but those aren’t the only films that add a little darkness to the bright holiday. Below are five lesser-known horror gems set at the most wonderful time of the year. Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 (1987) There are two ways to tackle the first two Silent Night, Deadly Night movies. Either watch the first one and then skip the first 40 minutes of the second, or skip the first movie entirely and just jump right into the second. This is because most of the first section of Part 2 is a highlight reel of scenes from the first movie. I started with Part 2, which kicks off on Christmas Eve with main character Ricky (Eric Freeman) being interviewed in a psychiatric hospital after going on a killing spree. Through flashbacks to the first film, we learn that Ricky’s parents were murdered when he was a baby by a man dressed as Santa. This traumatic event, paired with an equally traumatic upbringing in an orphanage, led to his older brother, Billy (Robert Brian Wilson), also becoming a Santa-clad killer. And now, it’s Ricky’s turn to don the red suit. Don’t go into this film expecting a serious slasher; it falls firmly into the goofy so-bad-it’s-good category. While this style of movie isn’t for everyone, I think that Eric Freeman’s over-the-top performance—complete with some of the funniest eyebrow acting I’ve ever seen—is a joy to watch. Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale (2010) Although set at Christmas, Rare Exports is basically devoid of Yuletide cheer, giving viewers a version of Santa that is nothing like the traditional jolly old Saint Nick. But while the halls might not be decked, this Finnish movie features plenty of wintery atmosphere in addition to its unique take on the iconic Christmas figure. Rauno (Jorma Tommila) and his son Pietari (Onni Tommila) are struggling to connect after the loss of their wife and mother. Rauno is a reindeer herder and after many of his animals are killed, he sets up a pit in attempt to capture the wolves that he thinks were responsible. But on Christmas Eve the trap turns up another prize: Santa Claus. This Santa is essentially a feral animal and Rauno, Pietari, and their crew aren’t exactly sure what to do with him. Rare Exports is a creative take on Finnish folklore and mixes a dash of dry humor into its fantasy horror concept. The resulting film is certainly strange, but it’s also a refreshing change of pace from the sometimes overwhelmingly capitalistic and saccharine parts of Christmas. Better Watch Out (2016) Have you ever wondered what the injuries that Kevin McCallister (Macaulay Culkin) inflicts upon Marv (Daniel Stern) and Harry (Joe Pesci) in Home Alone would look like if they weren’t being played for laughs? It’s only a small part of the film, but Better Watch Out goes some of the way to exploring that idea. The movie starts with Luke’s (Levi Millier) parents going out for a December date night and 17-year-old Ashley (Olivia DeJonge) coming over to babysit. Despite being five years her junior, Luke decides he’s now old enough to have a shot with her romantically—something that she obviously doesn’t go along with. The night is already off to a weird start, but things get even worse when a gun-wielding intruder breaks in. The rest of the movie’s runtime is filled with twists aplenty, intentionally infuriating characters, and a fair bit of blood splattered onto the Christmas decor. Anna and the Apocalypse (2017) Anna and the Apocalypse is a zombie movie that’s also a Christmas movie that’s also a musical that’s also a comedy. That’s a lot of different elements to balance, but I’d say the film mostly pulls off the eclectic mix of genres. The titular Anna (Ella Hunt) is a teenager who lives in the fictional Scottish town of Little Haven. It’s the last day of school before Christmas break, but rather than being a day of festive fun, everything turns to chaos when a zombie virus spreads through the town. Armed with an oversized decorative candy cane filed to a sharp point, Anna bands together with her classmates in an attempt to survive—all while occasionally breaking out into song. I do wish there were a few more Scottish accents peppered throughout the cast (I’m Scottish, so this is probably just a me problem), but the film more than makes up for that with its zombie gags, creative kills, and catchy tunes. The Lodge (2019) If it’s a cold, snowy atmosphere you’re after in your Christmas horror, then look no further than The Lodge. Riley Keough plays Grace, who as a child survived the mass suicide of an extremist cult. She’s now engaged to Richard (Richard Armitage), who she met while he was researching the cult, but his two kids (Jaeden Martell and Lia McHugh) give her a frosty reception. Richard decides that forced proximity and holiday cheer is just what everyone needs in order to bond, so they all spend Christmas at his snow-blanketed lodge in Massachusetts. But not long after arriving, Richard is unexpectedly called away by work, leaving Grace with two kids who seem intent on hating her. It’s already a nightmare scenario for everyone involved, but it doesn’t take long for their Christmas getaway to take a truly sinister turn. I’ll not reveal the exact horror elements of this film because I think it’s best to just let yourself be taken on the ride. Just know that while my other picks for this list have leaned into the fun side of horror, The Lodge is a bit more serious and psychologically disturbing. Although not an over-populated genre, there are definitely other examples of Christmas horror out there, so please leave your own festively frightful suggestions in the comments below![end-mark] The post Five Lesser-Known Horror Movies Set at Christmas appeared first on Reactor.

Today, Dec. 9, 2025, marks an important anniversary in the lead-up to our country’s upcoming Semiquincentennial: The Battle of Great Bridge. Though less well known than either Lexington and Concord, the Battle of Great Bridge was nonetheless a critical victory—both strategically and in boosting Patriot morale at a time when the struggle for American independence was still in its infancy. The Battle of Great Bridge opened the war for Virginia in what is now the city of Chesapeake, just miles away from where the war would eventually end in Yorktown. Events began to unfold shortly after the “Shots Heard Round the World” in April 1775, when the Virginia House of Burgesses voted to authorize new and existing militias to arm themselves as a means of self-defense. Responding to this perceived act of rebellion, Lord Dunmore, who would consequently be the Old Dominion’s last Royal Governor, resolved to dissolve the legislature, thereby lighting a powder keg over who would control the colony’s military supplies. After a series of skirmishes between Loyalists and Patriots following his orders to seize the gunpowder supply in the colonial capital of Williamsburg, Lord Dunmore, fearing for his safety, fled to the port city of Norfolk and its sizable Royal Navy presence. By October, Lord Dunmore had acquired enough supplies to begin a campaign of suppression aimed at muzzling the colonists’ cries for freedom. Calling up reinforcement under General Thomas Gage, the British commander-in-chief in North America, infantry from the 14th Regiment of Foot began raiding nearby towns for provisions. Later, the memory of such abuses would go on to inform the Framers of the Constitution when drafting the Third Amendment. At the time, anger was an understatement on the part of the colonists, who had responded to the injustices committed by the British by capturing a ship near Hampton on October 12th, resulting in the casualties of several sailors. In response, Lord Dunmore decreed on November 7th the imposition of martial law and the offer of emancipation to any slave willing to fight for the Crown, and Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment eventually grew to 300 men. Along with the Queen’s Rangers, a homegrown regiment of Virginian Loyalists, the Ethiopian Regiment worked to reinforce the defensive maneuverings of the 14th Regiment, a formation based out of Yorkshire, England with limited knowledge of the terrain. The House of Burgesses, now operating as the Virginia Convention, ordered Col. William Woodford of the 2nd Virginia Regiment to lead his 400-strong militia alongside 100 volunteers of the Culpeper Minutemen to march on Norfolk shortly after Lord Dunmore’s proclamation. For both sides, the stakes were high. Upon his arrival in Norfolk, Lord Dunmore ordered the fortification of the overpass alongside the Elizabeth River in the village of Great Bridge. At the time, this was the only route to and from North Carolina. The British hoped to suppress the colonists’ rebellion through a strategy of divide and conquer by isolating Southern port cities such as Charleston and Savannah, creating an insurmountable bottleneck that would fatally fracture any sort of solidarity among the thirteen colonies. Col. Woodford and his men, however, saw opportunity. Virginia’s population distribution at the time was radically different from today. Instead of a sprawling metropolis, Northern Virginia along the Potomac then boasted only the small village of Georgetown. In the 18th century, Virginia’s population was most densely concentrated in the Tidewater region. The only British military presence in the colony were the three aforementioned infantry units and the naval presence in Norfolk. Simply put, if the Patriots could drive the British out of Norfolk, they could consolidate control in Virginia. At Great Bridge, the three British infantry units established Fort Murray, their only land-based force in the colony. On December 2nd, Col. Woodford and his forces arrived at the bridge, preparing for battle. Both sides had to contend with faulty intelligence, though ultimately it worked immensely in favor of the Patriots. British intelligence also failed to anticipate reinforcements from the North Carolina militia that swelled Col. Woodford’s command to 700 men fit for service. Despite this, Col. Woodford prepared for the worst, owing to rumors that the British would be reinforced by Scottish Highlanders, which turned out to be partially true owing to the Highlanders’ limited arms training. As the battle commenced, Col. Woodford focused on entrenchment rather than an all-out assault. Expecting an attack that never came, British Captain Charles Fordyce prematurely exclaimed, “The day is ours!” The emboldened British, lulled by a false sense of impending victory, began to gradually approach the Patriot defensive line, but this turned out to be a trap. After a gut-wrenching moment of silence, the Patriots opened fire, cutting down Captain Fordyce and twelve privates. On the side of the Virginia Patriots, black freeman William Flora distinguished himself, engaging a whole platoon of British soldiers to slow their advance and by the Patriots enough time to man their defenses. The British quickly retreated to Fort Murray and then onward to Norfolk. Following the Battle of Great Bridge, the British presence in Virginia would be reduced to a shadow of what it once was, and the British fled the burning city of Norfolk in January 1776. Although briefly using the nearby city of Portsmouth as a landing point for raids, Lord Dunmore soon sailed north to New York City in August 1776, never to return to Virginia. In remembering Great Bridge 250 years later, we honor more than a tactical victory—we honor the character of the people who secured it. Col. William Woodford and the men who followed him were not fighting for glory, nor from certainty of success, but from the conviction that free people can chart their own destiny. Their courage in the swamps of Tidewater set a precedent that would echo all the way to Yorktown. America was not born in comfort or inevitability; it was built plank by plank, sacrifice by sacrifice, by ordinary men and women who refused to accept that tyranny was their inheritance. The post Commemorating the 250th Anniversary of the Battle of Great Bridge, Virginia appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Few Americans are aware of the extent to which Chinese Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) have infiltrated the cannabis (more colloquially known as marijuana or pot) market in the United States. By purchasing and leasing property in the U.S., Chinese TCOs have exploited the state-lawful, domestic U.S. cannabis industry in ways that legalization advocates never foresaw and have not yet admitted.  The Expanding Illicit Market  According to the Whitney Economics Organization, “of the $105 billion in Total Market Demand only $28.8 billion of demand was satisfied through legal state regulated channels.” That means nearly three-quarters of all cannabis activity in the U.S. is illegal. This enormous market has created an ideal operating environment for organized crime. Although cannabis remains illegal under federal law, different state policies have produced a maze of inconsistent rules and enforcement gaps. Chinese TCOs have exploited these gaps by setting up state-lawful grow operations that avoid regulations or operate entirely outside of them. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment, Chinese and other Asian criminal groups “pretend to operate under business registrations granted by state licensing authorities in jurisdictions where marijuana cultivation and sales are ‘legal’ at the state level.” In other words, legalization has created a defense for the very criminal networks it sought to eliminate.  Another factor contributing to this black-market expansion is access to cheap land. States with low property costs and weak oversight have become prime targets for Chinese infiltration. Criminal networks acquire land through intermediaries and shell buyers, transforming rural properties into massive grow sites. This ability to physically root operations in American soil gives the criminal organizations cover and control over the production and distribution chain. Land and Property: The New Frontier of Infiltration  Oklahoma became an attractive state for illicit “grow houses” due to the cheap land and loose regulations. These factors resulted in Oklahoma accounting for   66% of the total amount of cannabis seized by the DEA in 2024, proving how TCOs have been able to use property to grow illicit drugs, process them, then use the site as a distribution point.  Chinese organized crime’s ability to secure these large-scale land acquisitions stems from personal networks built around transferring Chinese capital out of domestic banks and into the United States. Sometimes, undocumented Chinese immigrants are the TCOs most useful tool, as the organizations lure them into the U.S. using false promises such as legal employment.  TCOs have been able to take advantage of the fact that the federal law doesn’t require, in detail, the identification of all the different entities that have an interest in particular property. This lack of transparency allows criminal groups to conceal their involvement in land purchases through layers of intermediaries in states with lax regulatory schemes. Congress should consider adopting a uniform federal standard that mandates full disclosure of beneficial ownership. The absence of such a mandate allows criminal organizations to exploit the inconsistencies of state laws thereby gaining power to launder money and acquire assets from selling cannabis while obscuring the true source of their funds. Legalization of Cannabis  Those who advocate for the legalization of cannabis believe that it would eliminate the black market of illicit drugs. Yet, history has consistently debunked this argument. In 1996, Californians voted to permit the use of cannabis for medical purposes under state law. After that development, many states followed California’s lead. The National Conference of State Legislatures has stated that 40 states allow the medical use of cannabis as of June 26, 2025. Additionally, 24 states allow or regulate cannabis for non-medical use. Once again Oklahoma became a hot spot following the passage of State Question 788 in 2018, which legalized the use of medical cannabis. This fall, the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics stated that it seized 18,585 cannabis plants during a raid on an unlicensed grow operation identified as “Wyatt’s Green LLC.” Additionally, they confiscated 1,785 pounds of processed cannabis, proving that what may look like a local farm is, in many cases, a node in a global criminal network. This example illustrates the survival of the black market. Unlicensed growers are not required to pay the taxes levied on licensed businesses. Unlicensed cannabis businesses also do not comply with environmental and labor regulations that increase operating costs for regulated firms. These illicit operations exploit labor, land, and legal loopholes simultaneously, allowing them to undercut prices and dominate regional supply chains. By operating through these gaps, TCOs have the power and luxury to sell cannabis at a lower price than state-regulated businesses, making their products more attractive to consumers and undermining legitimate markets.   States must acknowledge the unsettling truth that legalization will not eliminate a black market. State legislators also should not encourage the legalization of cannabis under their own laws. Conclusion  Chinese organized crime has made a direct assault on U.S sovereignty, security, and the integrity of its laws. Every loophole in state regulation, every unverified land purchase, and every “legal” grow operation that escapes scrutiny strengthens the financial networks of dangerous adversaries operating within our border. Combating this crisis means more than eradicating these gray areas; it means refusing to let greed and complacency decide who controls American soil. The question is no longer whether the legalization of cannabis works; it’s whether we are willing to protect our nation from those who use our laws as opportunities for profit that harms the nation. The post Chinese Organized Crime and the US Cannabis Market appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. If you had to guess a scenario that got a man kicked off the sidelines at a girls’ football match in Wales, you’d probably think of something involving a drink too many, a punch-up with the referee, or possibly an impromptu lecture on the offside rule that turned violent. What you probably wouldn’t guess is posting a Facebook video expressing anger after a triple child murder, followed by being found unanimously not guilty of inciting racial hatred. But that is precisely what happened to Jamie Michael, a 47-year-old Royal Marine veteran from Penygraig, Rhondda Valley. Until very recently, he coached his daughter’s football team, ran the local boys and girls club, and passed all the enhanced DBS checks required to be around children. Then one day, he made the mistake of saying something the government didn’t like. It started with the Southport stabbings. Three children murdered. Blood on the floor of a dance class. A country in shock. Jamie did what many people do in moments of horror: he went on Facebook and ranted. Criminal? According to the Crown, yes. According to twelve actual human beings with common sense on a jury, absolutely not. They took just 17 minutes to clear him. So, job done, right? Cleared by the courts. Innocent in the eyes of the law. Time to get back to normal life, coach some football, and cheer on his daughter. Wrong. Because while the court may have delivered a verdict, the Labour-run safeguarding board in his area had other ideas. And in true Kafkaesque style, they didn’t need a trial. Or evidence. Or, inconveniently, to have even watched the video that got him arrested in the first place. Instead, they met in secret, waved a wand, and poof: Jamie Michael, father of two, Iraq War veteran, community volunteer, is now “unsuitable” to be around children. Not because he harmed one. Not because he shouted at one. Not because he so much as looked at one sideways. But because someone said his political views were “radical.” Even though Jamie was officially banned from coaching, he was told he could still watch his daughter play. But his “behavior would be monitored.” “It’s a horrible feeling to have to tell people I am banned from coaching a girls’ football team,” Jamie said to the Telegraph. “What comes to people’s minds is that I must be a pervert or I’ve done something violent to children.” Now, let’s take a moment to appreciate the genius of the modern British bureaucracy. The Free Speech Union, which is now helping Jamie sue for £25,000 ($33K), says they’ve seen over a dozen similar cases: teachers, charity workers, volunteers. All are accused of having “extreme” or “patriotic” views. It’s as if patriotism itself has been shoved into the same filing cabinet as hate speech, next to “things that make Guardian columnists uncomfortable.” Lord Young of Acton, the FSU’s founder, calls it what it is: “a scandalous abuse of the system.” He’s right. Safeguarding protocols were meant to stop kids being abused, not to stage a political cleansing of the touchlines. The spectrum of acceptable opinion in Britain is getting narrower. And in Jamie’s case, the hammer dropped hard. Arrested at work, denied bail, thrown in jail for 17 days, and now effectively labeled a child risk. All this for a video that wasn’t even shown to the board that banned him. Oh, and let’s not forget. All of this was triggered by a Labour Party staffer who wrote in to complain that Jamie was a “disgrace.” The current Labour government is no fan of free speech. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Welsh Football Coach Still Banned from Sidelines After Acquittal in Free Speech Case Over Facebook Post appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

ICE Bangin' on Yer Door, Mon? Don't Be a Moron - Listen to the Zohran

Centuries of history are in your cinnamon spice jar.

One mission would involve a full 300 sols on the Red Planet, with the goal of finding extinct or current life on Mars. But there's one small problem; it may go against planetary protection guidelines.

They call their newsletter "Politico Pro," but it can sound more like "Politico Promo." Take reporter Andrew Howard with his embarrassingly unskeptical pitch for funds on Monday, "Anti-Trump former Republicans have a multimillion-dollar plan to save House Democrats." When you hear  the name "Lincoln Project" you should check your pocket to make sure the contents of your wallet are still intact. A co-founder of the Lincoln Project, Steve Schmidt, is back at the political money trough searching for funds using the name of the Save America Movement (SAM). And all they say they need is about $100 million. Anti-Trump former Republicans think Democrats are squandering their chance to flip the House — and they have a $100 million plan to save them. On the heels of overperformances up and down the ballot this year, the Save America Movement, co-founded by former Lincoln Project founder Steve Schmidt, wants to pour up to $100 million into as many as 60 GOP-controlled House seats ahead of the midterms. The ambitious strategy for the Democrat-aligned group, shared first with POLITICO, is the group’s first foray into electoral politics after it has spent significant capital protesting President Donald Trump’s return to office, which it deems a fundamental threat to American freedoms. “The Save America Movement was started with the express mission of defeating MAGA, but the electoral side, particularly the 2026 elections, are absolutely critical to that mission,” said Mary Corcoran, co-founder and executive director of SAM. All they need is $100 million? Such a deal! But it would have been helpful if Howard had provided some important background about Steve Schmidt, the old McCain campaign aide. Here are some of the allegations as reported in February 2021 by the liberal Associated Press in "How a leading anti-Trump group ignored a crisis in its ranks."  Although much of the article covers the Lincoln Project pedophile scandal which was the reason Schmidt gave for leaving that organization, serious allegations of financial shenanigans were also made: Since its creation, the Lincoln Project has raised $90 million. But only about a third of the money, roughly $27 million, directly paid for advertisements that aired on broadcast and cable, or appeared online, during the 2020 campaign, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosures and data from the ad tracking firm Kantar/CMAG. That leaves tens of millions of dollars that went toward expenses like production costs, overhead — and exorbitant consulting fees collected by members of the group. “It raises questions about where the rest of the money ultimately went,” said Brendan Fischer, an attorney with the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington. “Generally speaking, you’d expect to see a major super PAC spend a majority or more of their money on advertisements and that’s not what happened here.” The vast majority of the cash was split among consulting firms controlled by its founders, including about $27 million paid to a small firm controlled by Galen and another $21 million paid to a boutique firm run by former Lincoln Project member Ron Steslow, campaign finance disclosures show. ...Others used the money earned during their time with Lincoln Project to refinance homes, or purchase a new one. Schmidt purchased a $1.4 million “Mountain Modern” custom home in Kamas, Utah, with five bedrooms, seven baths and a “stunning” view of the Uinta Mountains, according to property records and real estate listings. He is currently trying to resell the home for $2.9 million. With that background information about Steve Schmidt in mind, it puts into a much more proper (and amusing) perspective this one paragraph quote from Politico's Howard: The high-dollar goal of $50 to $100 million is no easy fundraising task. Asked whether the group would have trouble meeting the figure, Corcoran said “what I can tell you is that the response from donors has been very positive.” Was that positive response from donors from those who were uninformed or informed about the financial adventures of the Lincoln Project co-founders? PS: For those of you who still consider Steve Schmidt to have been one of the "reasonable" co-founders of the Lincoln Project in stark contrast to the deranged Rick Wilson, this recent X post by Schmidt proves that he is every bit as vile as Wilson, accusing someone else of selling out principles: Scott Jennings is a Nazi who shills for a fascist. pic.twitter.com/ms53d5TSrM — Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES) December 7, 2025

If Democrats seem extreme now, wait until they adopt ranked-choice voting. Some activists inside the party want exactly that — a reform that would push presidential nominations even further left and force establishment figures to navigate an ideological gauntlet to win.Multiple reports indicate that Democratic Party activists and elected officials are pressuring the party to adopt ranked-choice voting for its 2028 presidential primaries. Axios notes that the push has grown serious enough that top party officials met in late October with advocates including Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), pollster Celinda Lake, and representatives from FairVote Action.Ranked-choice voting would pour accelerant on a process already pulling Democrats further left.Such an effort fits a long pattern: For decades, Democrats have shifted presidential nominations away from party leadership. On ranked-choice voting specifically, several states already use it — Maine and Alaska among them — along with deep-blue cities such as New York, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Seattle.Ranked-choice voting takes multiple forms, but New York City’s model illustrates the dynamic. Voters rank up to five candidates. If no candidate wins an initial majority, the last-place candidate drops out, and those voters’ second-choice votes are redistributed. This “loser leaves” process continues until a candidate secures a majority.Assuming rational behavior, Democratic voters would likely rank candidates from more extreme to less extreme. That pattern would advantage the leftmost candidates again and again as lower-preference votes transfer upward.This structural boost would encourage both supply and demand for extreme candidacies. Candidates on the ideological edge would have more incentive to run. Voters who prefer them would have more influence. Ranked-choice voting’s supporters tout this expanded participation as a virtue.Offering voters multiple choices would foster coalition-building. Knowing the race may go to multiple rounds, candidates would angle for second- and third-choice votes. The horse-trading once done in old convention “smoke-filled rooms” would unfold publicly through a series of ranked ballots.But the key question is simple: Why would ranked-choice voting necessarily supercharge extremism inside the Democratic Party? Because the system rewards voters for casting marginal votes — and among today’s Democrats, “marginal” means “further left.”The party’s ideological shift is measurable. In Gallup’s 2023 polling, 54% of Democrats identified as liberal — an all-time high. Support for democratic socialists in major-city mayoral primaries shows how rapidly the party’s activist base has moved left. In 1995, the liberal share of the party was 25%, roughly equal to conservatives. Three decades later, conservatives make up just 10% of Democrats.Exit polling confirms the trend: In 2024, 91% of self-identified liberals voted for Kamala Harris; only 9% of conservatives did.Extrapolate from this trajectory, and the danger becomes even clearer. Extreme candidates increasingly win Democratic primaries in major cities. Those cities dominate statewide Democratic politics. And in closed primaries, only Democrats vote — meaning the hyper-engaged activist left already sets the terms of competition. Ranked-choice voting would amplify that influence. The same voters who nominated democratic socialists in New York and Seattle would wield disproportionate power in a presidential contest.RELATED: Democrats are just noticing a long, deep-running problem Photo by RYAN MCBRIDEDON EMMERTDON EMMERTKENA BETANCURROBYN BECKANGELA WEISSROBYN BECKROBYN BECKROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty ImagesConsider how the 2020 Democratic primary might have played out under ranked-choice voting. Joe Biden — an establishment candidate favored by moderates — would have faced a field dominated by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Tom Steyer, and others to his left. Ranked-choice voting would have forced him through a gauntlet designed by the party’s most ideological voters.This trend is not new. In 1972, George McGovern reshaped Democratic nominating rules and then benefited from the changes. Since then, the party has repeatedly weakened its establishment’s role (with key exceptions). Ranked-choice voting would accelerate that shift dramatically.With moderates now only 36% of the party, according to Gallup, how could they resist a move toward ranked-choice voting? More importantly, which remaining moderate or establishment Democrat could survive a ranked-choice system dominated by the party’s left wing?Ranked-choice voting would pour accelerant on a process already pulling Democrats further left. The only question is how long it takes for the party to adopt it — and how long the party can remain viable nationally if it does.